by Stephen Morgan
When the threat of military air strikes by the US emerged, many on the left took the correct position of seeing this as an act of naked Imperialist aggression, warning that it could be a prelude to full-scale military intervention on a scale similar to Iraq. They also voiced legitimate doubts about the reliability of the information which was being used, the credibility of the allegations that it was Assad's troops and not the Opposition, which carried out the atrocity and that the whole issue of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal could be little more than a cynical repeat of Bush's lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
However, while this analysis is in broad terms correct,
clearly the Syrian civil war is a more complex question than previous
situations which can only provide very generalized analogies to help guide us.
Hopefully this article will contribute to a debate on the left on what
positions socialists should take.
The complex situation in Syria has thrown up some thorny
issues for the left. Understandably, there is some confusion on what positions
to adopt vis-a-vis the alleged chemical attack, military intervention, the
nature of the Assad regime and the role of Russia. The civil wars which have
raged in Libya and in Syria aren't clear cut situations where sides can be
quickly taken, such as was the case in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's,
when the opposition to Franco was overwhelmingly made up of workers committed
to socialist aims.
Similarly, it isn't possible to draw comparisons between
Assad and the Bolsheviks during the civil war in Russia, when the Bolsheviks
were fighting to defend the first workers' state from a royalist-led
counter-revolution, backed by some 17 armies of foreign intervention. Unlike
the Soviet state, there is nothing progressive in the Assad regime. The only
analogy is that Assad rules like Stalin.
Added to this there are emotional issues, which can sway
judgement when there aren't clear cut responses or practical alternatives from
a socialist point of view. When Benghazi was surrounded by Gadaffi's troops and
the threat of a horrendous massacre caused panic among its population, offering
up some theoretical formulas on Imperialist wars in the modern epoch seemed
rather hollow and abstract when considered from the standpoint of tens of
thousands of men, women and children facing eminent death at the hands of a
brutal and vengeful dictator. As a consequence, some on the left for honest
humanitarian motives, lapsed into a false position of supporting a NATO
intervention and ended up helping Imperialism's attempts to establish a client
state with the aim of securing important oil and gas resources for Europe.
Now with regards to Syria, many on the left find themselves
in opposition to one another for similar reasons. Understandably, the horrible
pictures the alleged gas attack by Assad's forces provoked feelings of outrage
and anger and, in the absence of alternatives, feelings of impotence led some
on the left into supporting a US strike as a deterrent and a retribution.
Moreover, the character of the Assad dictatorship and the
fact that most on the left see themselves as champions of democracy and
supporters of people's revolution, has meant that many support the opposition,
despite the fact that its character has changed since its beginnings as an
authentic popular uprising for justice and democracy. Many on the left continue
to support the Syrian opposition, critically or uncritically, regardless of the
fact that it has degenerated into military groups, which are either the
Imperialist-backed, pro-capitalist, secular forces of the Syrian National
Coalition and FSA, or jihadists around Al Qaeda aiming for the establishment of
an ultra-reactionary form of fundamentalist, Islamic state based on sectarian
violence and ethnic cleansing.
Perhaps some on the left are also confused because the issue
of war for oil is not so obvious with regards to Syria as it was in Iraq or
Libya. Syrian oil production is small and of no strategic or commercial
interest to Imperialism. But that doesn't mean that oil isn't the underlying
motivation. The civil war in Syria was originally confined within its
borders, but it has now begun to spread into the Lebanon and Iraq. These two
countries could quite easily disintegrate. As the war takes on an increasingly
sectarian character across the region it can quite easily spill over into the
Gulf states too. The revolution in Bahrain is an example of the inherent
instability in the area.
This war, or coming war, is indeed about oil. It is about
maintaining the stability of a whole region, under the domination of American
Imperialism. Furthermore, the disruption of oil supplies would plunge the world
into an economic crisis far deeper and wider than the current one or even the
last Great Depression, creating social unrest which could threaten the very
basis of world capitalism. Obama made his motives quite clear in an interview
with PBS on August 28, when he said that the military attack on Syria is about
the United States “core interests,” which included stopping terrorist attacks,
defending Israel and most importantly, “the free flow of energy throughout the
region that affects the entire global economy.”
However, there are those on the left who have sided with
Assad. Often this is because he has always paraded himself as the leader of
Arab nationalism against Israeli and US Imperialism and has verbally espoused
support for “socialism” in the past, much like Gadaffi did. But, unfortunately,
in doing so, they have sided with a reactionary, sectarian dictator, whose
adherence to the cause of the Arab masses is little more than cynical demagogy
for political gain. Assad has never pursued a single policy which has seriously
threatened Israeli security or US interests in the region. His help to
terrorist groups hasn't changed the balance of forces one little bit and,
despite animosities, the Imperialist powers preferred to keep him in power
before now, on the policy of “better the devil you know than the devil you don't.”
Originally, even Israel didn't support the movement to unseat him, because as
they said, they could at least do business with him through secret diplomatic
channels.
As another reason to support the tyrant, others on the left
have pointed to the fact that the war has descended into sectarian and ethnic
warfare and they claim that minorities were at least protected under Assad's
old regime. The same argument is, of course, used by supporters of Mubarak in
Egypt, who point out that Christian Copts were better protected before the
revolution. But the fundamental reason why ethnic and religious attacks has
reared its head is because the Assad regime itself was based on sectarianism
and Assad is pursuing a sectarian, Alawite war against the Sunni majority.
Under Assad, Syria was run for the benefit of the minority
Alawites, who constitute 10% of the population and who governed and exploited a
Sunni population, which make up 70% of its people. Like Mubarak, Assad's
dictatorship suppressed sectarian and ethnic divisions, because he feared any
disorder could threaten his regime, not because of any progressive tendencies.
He leaned on other ethnic and religious groups as a political counterweight to
the Sunni majority. Assad's real attitude to minorities in Syria was
graphically illustrated by his treatment of the Kurds, who were forcefully
“Arabized”. All aspects of their culture were suppressed, their language was
banned and teaching of their history was forbidden in schools, while Kurdish
farmers were dispossessed by the state and their lands distributed to Bedouins.
Furthermore, by aligning themselves with Assad, some on the
left have also unfortunately found themselves on the side of Russian
Imperialism, which is cynically supporting Assad for its own interests in the
Great Powers game in the region. Unfortunately, some on the left think that the
Russian regime is still in some way progressive and anti-Imperialist, because
it comes into conflict with the US. But Russia is a right-wing capitalist
regime ruled by oligarchs and bureaucrats, which has crushed underfoot the
legitimate demands of national minorities in the Caucasus and manoeuvres in the
Middle East, much like US Imperialism does in Central America. Modern Russia is
not just a super power, but the world's second-largest Imperialist nation,
whose aims are the defence of the interests of its ruling elite in the global
arena.
Russia has long supported the Assad regime, not only because
it provides Russia's fleet with its only Mediterranean seaport, but, together
with Iran, Syria constitutes a Shiite buffer zone, which stops Al Qaeda-linked,
Chechen rebels and other Muslim jihadists in Russia's North Caucasus from
having an easy supply route from Iraq. Its alliances with Syria and Iran also
protect its domination of the Black Sea and acts as a counterweight to NATO
member, Turkey and Western Imperialist expansionist ambitions in Georgia and
other countries bordering southern Russia.
What are the perspectives and Imperialism's aims?
Perhaps the first thing to say is that its not just a
confusing picture for us on the left, but also for the capitalist class and the
main Imperialist powers. The bourgeoisie and its strategists, both
internationally and domestically in the US, is divided and unclear about what
position to take and what to do with regard to the crisis in Syria. It is a
complex and dangerous situation for Imperialism. War is the most unpredictable
of all phenomenon and it is particularly so if you have no clear aims and
objectives, upon which to base the limits or extent of your involvement. Once
war has begun it has to be finished and that may entail taking actions which
were never originally envisaged or intended. So they move ahead empirically,
attempting to maximize the returns on the least investment in war, just as in
business.
The civil war is quite rightly viewed as a Pandora’s' box
and the consequences of blowing the lid off
with cruise missiles is something the majority of the capitalist class
would prefer to avoid at this moment. Indeed, many nations are unhappy at
America's attempts to continue to play the role of world policeman, when it
isn't seen to be representing or protecting the interests of the rest of the
international bourgeoisie. The US is looked on as something of a crooked cop,
contemptuous of international laws and unaccountable for its actions, which
could threaten the well-being of them all.
A section of the ruling class fears that deeper chaos in the
Middle East provoked by US intervention will destabilize the region and also
the world economy. Some of the capitalists fear for their profits should the US
intervention lead to a new oil crisis. Moreover, a large part of the ruling
class, including some in the military, are clearly wary of getting bogged down
in another expensive, political and military quagmire, like Iraq and
Afghanistan.
At the same time, the divisions in the ruling class reflect
the massive opposition among the world's population, as well as the people of
the US itself, towards a new war. This is a dangerous phenomenon for the
bourgeoisie. In reality, the majority of people have learned to distrust their
rulers and to question their motives. If, at a time of economic crisis, such
anti-war sentiments coalesce with the anger felt at the capitalists and
bankers, there is the possibility of serious social unrest in the West - “Don't
Occupy Syria, Occupy Wall Street and Washington!”
Thus sections of the bourgeoisie, both internationally and
in the US, fear that the cure proposed by Obama could be worse than the
disease. They are cognisant of the fact that even a limited military strike
could also further radicalize and destabilize the whole Middle East with
unforeseeable consequences. That is not to say that one wing of the bourgeoisie
is more progressive than the other, only that the criminals are divided over
how best to rob the bank and whether explosives need to be used.
The hawkish wing around Obama and the military-industrial
complex, however, believe that action now would be a better way to avoid the
risk of further Middle East instability. The question of whether or not Assad
used chemical weapons is a red herring. If it had not been this, they would
have found another excuse to intervene. As far the Obamaites are concerned, the
situation in Syria is getting out of control. Assad's forces have made major
advances recently and given the weaknesses of the FSA, there was a danger that
he might even defeat them.
The US cannot afford to let Assad to win. The civil war has
transformed the Alawite ruling clique into a radical and unpredictable force
dependent more than ever on Iran and Hezbollah. Victory for Assad would give
both Iran and Hezbollah a huge boost and consolidate an anti-US, “Shiite arc”
which sweeping across the Middle East from the Levant to the Persian Gulf under
the central clasp of Tehran.
But on the other hand, a victory by the opposition in Syria
is also fraught with dangers. There is no knowing what the balance of forces
would be in the opposition between moderates and extremist jihadists in the
event that Assad's regime fell. There is already a danger that the FSA could
crumble and the main opposition to Assad will become entirely dominated by Al
Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups, which have already become the most
effective military units. Even if the secular FSA forces were finally
victorious, the outcome would be a weak state which could easily fall into the
hands of the jihadist rebels. Units of the FSA have already fought battles with
the fundamentalists and there is no doubt on both sides that in the event of
victory a showdown between them would be inevitable.
Moreover, the jihadists are far better equipped and more
highly motivated by their fanatical beliefs. In these circumstances, Al Qaeda
and affiliates could carve out a significant “caliphate” traversing Syria and
Western Iraqi. It would be a new launching pad for attacks on the West and
would destabilize the whole region.
For this reason, the CIA has already begun training and
arming FSA units in Jordan with the help of the Gulf states in an attempt to
build up a counter-power to Al Qaeda. But US Imperialism is hesitating about
supplying the FSA with substantial weaponry for fear that it will fall into the
hands of the jihadists. Supplies from the Gulf states to conservative Muslim
militias appear to have found their way into the hands of more radical groups.
Moreover, many FSA groups cooperate with the jihadists and many of their
fighters have joined them simply because they have more weaponry to fight
Assad. Therefore, there is considerable hesitation about beefing up the FSA.
Ironically, this in turn pushes more of the secular forces into the arms of the
well-equipped jihadists and Obama's backtracking on the recent military strike
has also angered some FSA fighters, who have turned to the fundamentalists out
of disillusionment.
There has been some talk about trying to cultivate a “Sunni
Awakening” in Syria such as in Iraq, which drove Al Qaeda out of its
geographical power base and debilitated it for a number of years in the
country. However, it looks unlikely that this would work in Syria. It is true
that Syrian people have a secular tradition and have driven out the jihadists
in certain areas, but the Sunni Awakening in Iraq was based on the authority of
local tribal leaders and it was executed with substantial help from the US
occupying forces on the ground. Neither
of these two factors exist in Syria. To attempt it would mean that the US would
have to put “boots on the ground”, at least in the form of large numbers of
special forces.
And there is also the Kurdish question. The Kurds in
northern Syria have declared a virtually independent entity called Western
Kurdistan, with plans for elections to a constituent assembly. They are
fiercely secular in tradition, although being Sunni Muslims. While Assad is
attempting to manipulate the situation, battles have begun between Al Qaeda and
the Kurds, as well as FSA forces, which aim to ethnically cleanse the area and
take control of its oil and gas resources and its lucrative border routes.
If Al Qaeda was to carve out a caliphate stretching from
eastern Iraq into Syria, Iraq itself could collapse and its own Kurdistan
northern region could declare independence and amalgamate itself with Syrian
Kurdistan. The government in the autonomous region of Kurdistan in Iraq has
already proposed sending its Peshmerga guerrillas to Syria to defend its
brethren. The idea of a Greater Kurdistan is something the US opposes, fearing
again that it could destabilize the region, with Kurdish peoples occupying
areas from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Turkey. In particular, it doesn't want
to offend its key NATO ally in the region, Turkey with its massive and
resistive Kurdish population, whose battles for independence could overlap with
the developments in Syria/Iraq.
Furthermore, the issue of terrorism isn't entirely a red
herring. The US and the West fears that the chemical weapons could fall into
the hands of Al Qaeda and be used against civilian targets at home. Such a type
of civilian gas attack already happened in Japan in 1995, when the Aum
Shinrikyo cult unleashed a sarin on the Tokyo metro killing 12 people and
injuring 5,000, and this was despite the fact that only a small amount of the
gas was used and that it was delivered in an amateurish way. The effect of a
major terrorist attack on the metro in New York or London, or at some major
public event, killing hundreds or thousands, would have a traumatic effect on
the population, probably greater than that of 9/11. In a more socially volatile
period like now, another massive atrocity could undermine people's confidence
in the ruling class even further and be another factor adding to the
destabilization of society in general.
Secondly, there are geopolitical factors linked to economic
ones, which, in this case, is the aim of isolating and encircling Iran, which
appears on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, a development which could
further destabilize the region, especially if conflicts between Israel and Iran
got out of hand. Undoubtedly, the fall of Assad would seriously weaken Iran as
a major Imperialist power in the region. That is why the other regional
Imperialist powers such as Saudi Arabia and Israel are in favour of
overthrowing Assad's regime entirely. Secretary of State, John Kerry recently
admitted that the Gulf States had offered to foot the entire bill for an
all-out military assault by the US.
The FSA also hoped that Obama's plan to launch a strike
against Assad would open the possibility of taking Damascus in a similar way
the rebels did in Libya. But such a move would necessitate a huge military
commitment in Syria, especially given Assad's sophisticated air defence systems
given to him by Russia. However, Syria is not Libya. While a stalemate also
existed in Libya, the opposition forces were far more united than in Syria and
Al Qaeda or other jihadists had minimal influence. Therefore, the Imperialists
faced far less complications and the NATO bombardment was able to tip the
balance in favour of the opposition, once a co-ordinated attack on Tripoli had
began. Even if the US were to back the secular forces in Syria to the hilt it
is unlikely they could carry out an overthrow of Assad. The only way they might
be able to do that would be if they were backed up by massive numbers of US
troops, eventually necessitating a full-scale ground invasion.
But, both hawks and doves in Washington realize that another
Iraq/Afghanistan-style invasions isn't desirable and a similar Syrian adventure
would end in another costly disaster. However, that doesn't rule out that once
war has started, even in a limited form suggested by Obama at the moment, it
could snowball into an ever-increasing commitment in the future. Head of the US
Defence Staff, General Martin Dempsey stated recently that eliminating Syria’s
chemical weapons would require “a no-fly zone with air and missile attacks with
hundreds of aviation, submarines and other tools.” He added that “thousands of
Special Forces and other ground troops would be needed to attack and secure key
sites.” At a certain point, like NATO in Libya, the US would have no choice but
to ramp up its action and commit itself to regime change.
This is something the US wants to avoid. They know that a US
occupation of Syria would provoke a huge wave of anti-Imperialist sentiment
across the Arab world among both Sunnis and Shiites. It would play into the
hands of Al Qaeda and Shiite groups like Hezbollah. Not only would terrorism
increase in the West, but support would grow for fundamentalist movements
aiming to topple secular regimes, which co-operate openly with the USA, like
Egypt, Yemen and Jordan and quite possibly destabilize other countries in North
Africa like Morocco.
It is entirely possible that countries could implode and new
regional wars would break out, especially as tensions between the Shiite and
Sunni wings of Islam intensify. Large numbers of Iraqi Sunnis could gravitate
towards the jihadists if sectarian warfare with Shiites intensifies and Iraq
could break up, with a radical Shiite cleric, like Muqtada al-Sadr taking over
in Baghdad, who has close links to Iran, giving Tehran a new ally on its
southern flank.
Uprisings could also break out among the Shiite minorities
in the Gulf states like the
revolution in Bahrain in 2011. All the world's key oil producing areas in the Sunni-ruled Gulf states are populated by Shiite minorities. Were the Saudis and others to carry out atrocities or attempt the ethnic cleansing of these areas, that could provoke Iran to intervene. In these circumstances the world's oil supply could be threatened and the US would be forced to act. It would probably mobilize its 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf and threaten Iran with attack by cruise missiles. Israel too might threaten to bomb Iran. In these circumstances, Russia could not stand aside and a stand-off could occur between the superpowers, of a type not seen since the Cuban missile crisis.
revolution in Bahrain in 2011. All the world's key oil producing areas in the Sunni-ruled Gulf states are populated by Shiite minorities. Were the Saudis and others to carry out atrocities or attempt the ethnic cleansing of these areas, that could provoke Iran to intervene. In these circumstances the world's oil supply could be threatened and the US would be forced to act. It would probably mobilize its 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf and threaten Iran with attack by cruise missiles. Israel too might threaten to bomb Iran. In these circumstances, Russia could not stand aside and a stand-off could occur between the superpowers, of a type not seen since the Cuban missile crisis.
It is a lose-lose situation for Imperialism. Therefore,
the basic policy of the US in the Middle East at the moment is containment and
the continuation of the fragile status quo, in fear of unforeseeable
eventualities, which it could not control. That is why they have also floated
the idea of a “peace conference”, in order to reinforce the current impasse, in
the absence of a viable alternative.
However, it will be extremely difficult to bring together
the various sides in the conflict and their different Imperialist backers.
There are some 1,500 different militia units operating in Syria, most of whom
follow no central command and which are unlikely to see the SNC/FSA as a
representative body. Furthermore, such a peace conference would not include
representatives of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, which are the most
effective forces. Getting the belligerents to agree to a ceasefire will be
extremely difficult and enforcing a ceasefire virtually impossible. Al Qaeda
wouldn't be involved and, even so, their aim is not essentially the overthrow
of Assad, but the creation of a Caliphate of which his removal is just a part.
The US hopes that in a continuing stalemate, the war will
exhaust all sides rendering the situation relatively harmless or contained
within the boundaries of the old Syrian state. But with the growing strength of
Al Qaeda the war is likely to continue regardless of any conferences. Given
this “dammed if I do, dammed if I don't dilemma” Imperialism may turn to a
solution based on a balkanization of Syria, rendering the splintered parts of
the country more “manageable.” The undeclared plans of the US could include
splitting Syria into mini-states based on the current share of territories. At
present, Assad controls an area roughly stretching from the south up to
Damascus and the north western Mediterranean coast. The Kurds control northern
Syria, the FSA-aligned forces and the jihadists control a large part of eastern
Syria, including parts of Aleppo and Al Qaeda controls most of the area
bordering on Iraq.
Since Assad lacks the troops to win outright (and it is why
he has turned to Hezbollah for reinforcements) the US may be hoping that he
would settle for a mini-Syrian state under his power. If they can get the FSA
to accept a similar arrangement, the US and the Gulf states could then pour in
resources to a secular, mini-opposition regime, in order to create a buffer
against the further expansion of Al Qaeda and to give the US a base to attack
the jihadists. The Imperialists may be contemplating an agreement whereby the
rebels of the FSA relinquish control of Damascus, in return for Assad handing
over Aleppo as a capital for a new “FSA” state. However, getting both sides to
agree to that is very unlikely. In fact, any peace conference would be little
more than a war conference; a conference on how the war should continue at a
comfortable level for Imperialism, both American and Russian without causing a
conflagration.
From the standpoint of socialists the situation is grim.
Despite being a horrible caricature of socialism, the collapse of the Soviet
model has left a political vacuum, which has been filled by Islamic
fundamentalism in its various forms. Anti-Imperialist struggle, which was
left-wing in nature in the past, is now shrouded in a black cloak of medieval,
reactionary ideas. Instead of class struggle, sectarian and ethnic warfare
dominates.
At the beginning of the revolution in Syria women played a key role alongside the men, but as the uprising degenerated into a male dominated war, the position and role of women was one of its first casualties. It is always women who suffer most when reaction takes an upper hand in society in whatever form.
The consequences of the civil war, with hundreds of thousands of men joining up to fight, means that the burden of caring for the family and children in conditions of chaos and destruction largely falls onto the shoulders of the women, who end up playing the role of mothers, providers, defenders and nurses. Moreover, as in all wars, women become the easy victims of atrocities, rape and murder.
Socialists must demand that all women are also given guns to defend themselves and their children and those women who wish to fight in the civil war should be given the equal right to take up arms. We should also demand that in the areas and refugee camps, the militias and the charities and government agencies which provide food and shelter should also set up crèches, schools, clinics and staffed canteens and laundrettes to relieve women of their burdens and to allow them to play an active role in the politics of current events. Ultimately, the liberation of women is linked to the task of turning this civil war into a class war against the bourgeoisie and Imperialism and establishing a socialist society, where people of different sexes, sexual orientation, race, ethnic background or religion are guaranteed equality of rights.
The working class in these conditions has been driven underground or virtually dissolved into the mayhem. But the smoke of war has hidden important changes in the objective situation in North Africa and the Middle East, which have taken place in the last period and which should give us some optimism for the future.
At the beginning of the revolution in Syria women played a key role alongside the men, but as the uprising degenerated into a male dominated war, the position and role of women was one of its first casualties. It is always women who suffer most when reaction takes an upper hand in society in whatever form.
The consequences of the civil war, with hundreds of thousands of men joining up to fight, means that the burden of caring for the family and children in conditions of chaos and destruction largely falls onto the shoulders of the women, who end up playing the role of mothers, providers, defenders and nurses. Moreover, as in all wars, women become the easy victims of atrocities, rape and murder.
Socialists must demand that all women are also given guns to defend themselves and their children and those women who wish to fight in the civil war should be given the equal right to take up arms. We should also demand that in the areas and refugee camps, the militias and the charities and government agencies which provide food and shelter should also set up crèches, schools, clinics and staffed canteens and laundrettes to relieve women of their burdens and to allow them to play an active role in the politics of current events. Ultimately, the liberation of women is linked to the task of turning this civil war into a class war against the bourgeoisie and Imperialism and establishing a socialist society, where people of different sexes, sexual orientation, race, ethnic background or religion are guaranteed equality of rights.
The working class in these conditions has been driven underground or virtually dissolved into the mayhem. But the smoke of war has hidden important changes in the objective situation in North Africa and the Middle East, which have taken place in the last period and which should give us some optimism for the future.
The working class has always been small in the Arab world
compared to other regions, but an offshoot of the recent boom has been an
enormous growth in its numbers and potential power. If we just take a cross
section of countries in the region we can see how predominantly peasant
economies have now become newly industrialized societies. The share of
industrial workers in the overall workforce is 32% in Tunisia, 31% in Iran, 26%
in Turkey, 23% in Libya, 22% in Palestine, 20% in Jordan, 19% in Morocco and
16% in Syria. Let's remember that when the socialist revolution took place in
Russia in 1917, only some 13% of the workforce were industrial workers.
Furthermore, despite the complications, which have unfolded
in the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, they remain proof of the power of the
masses and the possibility for peaceful revolution. The working class played a
key role in the revolution in Tunisia and in Egypt, it was the massive strike
movement of 2006, which broke the fear barrier and paved the way for the
revolution. In Egypt, the working class is still only at the beginning of
discovering its identity and power, much like workers in the early years of the
Industrial Revolution in Europe. This is truer in the rest of the region, where
the working class doesn't yet see itself as a class separate from the rest with
its own interests and aims. That will inevitably change as Egypt and Tunisia is
showing.
In all revolutions and civil wars, reaction and revolution
are interwoven in the processes. It will most likely need the exhaustion or
resolution of the conflict in Syria, in one way or another, before class issues
can come to the fore and the need for workers' unity will start to overcome
ethnic and sectarian barriers.
We shouldn't be overwhelmed by the virulence of reactionary
elements in the situation. There is a silenced majority among the Syrians, both
in the country and in the refugee camps, many of whom have lost faith in both
Assad and the current Opposition. Some support certain factions because of the
lack of any alternative and some because they provide them with food,
electricity and shelter. The foreign fighters of Al Qaeda and similar groups
have little roots in the local population either of a cultural or religious
nature. Syrians have a tradition of secularity and tolerance. When the
revolution first broke out it spread to other communities and elicited sympathy
from the Kurds, Druze, Christians and even from Alawite students in Aleppo and
Damascus.
Socialists have no sides to take in this war than that of
the people. The role of socialists is to speak for the silenced and to offer a
perspective of what can replace war and what can rebuild Syria. When the war
ends, those who have suffered and those who have fought will be demanding
recompense for all they lost or sacrificed. Capitalism cannot give them that.
Once the dust settles people will look for political solutions and will begin
to act in their own interests. In Libya, the working class has begun to awaken
with strikes in the oil industry and other sectors. This will happen in Syria
too. Syria has a rich tradition of class struggle, which has been hidden from
view. In 1936, the working class in Syria brought the country to standstill
with a general strike against French rule which lasted two months and involved
all ethnic and religious groups in Syrian society across the length and breadth
of the country, eventually leading to independence.
Once the war ends, people will expect a new society changed
from top to bottom. They will demand the entire reconstruction of the country
and a share in its wealth. But under capitalism, the rebuilding of the country
will be based on what is profitable and not what is needed, leaving millions without
homes, jobs or infrastructure. Only a socialist plan of production under
democratic management by working people could harness the total wealth of the
country for the good of all and offer a just and equitable transformation of
society.
A Socialist Syria, leading to Socialist Federation of the
Middle East and North Africa could transform society both in Syria and
throughout the region. One can only imagine how society would look if Sheiks,
Generals and mullahs were overthrown and Imperialism was chased out of the
region, its business interests nationalized and the rich resources of the Arab
world put to work for the masses and not the profits of a few. 5,000 years ago,
there were civilizations of plenty stretching from the Pyramids to the Hanging
Gardens of Babylon. Surely with modern science and technology, it would be
possible to create a new golden age in the cradle of civilization.
* No to Imperialist intervention!
* No to Assad - down with the dictator!
* No to Al Qaeda - drive out the jihadists!
* No to sectarianism – equal rights for all ethnic,
religious and linguistic groups!
* No to the pro-capitalist, pro-Western, Syrian National
Coalition and FSA leaders!
* Disarm all army and militias units – for a genuine
People's Army under democratic control!
* End liberalization, – re-nationalize privatized industries
and put nationalized industries under under democratic workers' control and
management!
* A national plan of production to rebuild the economy,
including a massive programme of public works to provide jobs and to build and
repair homes, schools, hospitals and the country's infrastructure on the basis
of need, not profit!
* For a Democratic Socialist Syria and Socialist Federation
of the Middle East and North Africa!
1 comment:
The following comment was sent to us from Denis Drew in Chicago.
Census on Obama’s 1st Term: Real Median Income Down $2,627; People in Poverty Up 6,667,000; Record 46,496,000 Now Poor
The poverty line quoted in the article was $18,284 for a family of three. As we all know — and the press might wake up and report — said official federal poverty line is based solely on a 1955 formula (adopted in 1968 when it was already slipping out of relevance) of three time the price of an emergency diet (dried beans only please, no expensive canned) the true number in poverty must be at least double …
… the official line being off by about two and a half.
A realistic poverty line for a family of three would be more like $45,476 in 2012 dollars going by the 2001 Ms. Foundation book Raise the Floor (table 3-2 on p.44 — counts only $8,786 for medical insurance since it is a decade old book).
Raise totals up from a comprehensive list of expenses, including taxes to get its figure. (Raise provides extensive explanations for its minimum needs parameters in Appendix B, citing Solutions for Progress — allots $3,000 to yearly medical expenses even if the family has insurance paid.)
Denis Drew
Chicago
ddrew2u@sbcglobal.net
www.ontodayspage.blogspot.com
Post a Comment