By Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 29 November 2024, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

Contents

 

The Syrian Revolution is not dead

 

The problem of leadership

 

The problem of sectarianism

 

Towards the revival of the Arab Revolution?

 

The program of the Arab Revolution

 

Side with the oppressed, not with a geo-political camp!

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

 

The spectacular revival of the Syrian Revolution is without doubt a great event which every socialist can not but cheer! The rebel fighters advanced about 20 kilometres within 48 hours in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib. As I am writing these lines, they are already fighting in the Western districts of Aleppo City – the second largest city of Syria. The regime has fallen in panic, the Russian advisors and special forces are already leaving the embattled areas and Brigadier General Kiomars Pourhashemi, the commander of the Iranian advisory forces affiliated with the IRGC, was killed in Aleppo City.

 

We are not in a position to predict the future course of events and, as supporters of the Syrian Revolution since the very beginning, we hope that the rebels succeed in pushing back the Assadist forces as much as possible. [1] At this point, we would like to draw some first lessons of this remarkable event. ^[2]

 

 

 

The Syrian Revolution is not dead

 

 

 

Since a number of years, most self-proclaimed leftists – including those who oppose the Assad regime – have argued that the Syrian Revolution is dead. They said that a) that the masses would have become demoralized and b) that the uprising had been hijacked by “jihadist forces”.

 

The Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) has always rejected such claims. Of course, there has been a massive process of retreat, yes, there has been a process of demoralization and, yes, so-called “jihadists” – a reactionary term stemming from the Islamophobic ideological arsenal of Western and Russian imperialism – are leading the rebel forces. But such an “analysis” is purely superficial and empiricist as it lacks any dialectic approach oriented to understand the essence of the totality of the process.

 

In contrast to the demoralized petty-bourgeois left, authentic Marxists insist on the following assessments: [3]

 

While the revolutionary process halted and regressed, it was not dead. This has been evident by the fact that Idlib remained as a liberated region in the northwest of the country. And this had also become clear with the new wave of mass protests in the southern provinces Suwayda and Daraa in autumn last year.  ^[4] Hence, despite all the setbacks, the revolutionary fire was not extinct. It is because of this ongoing, albeit deformed and limited, revolutionary process that the rebel fighters have been able to begin now a new offensive which is spectacularly pushing back the reactionary forces of tyranny. As we wrote last year: “We repeat that this event confirms the RCIT’s analysis that the Syrian Revolution (…) has not been defeated but is rather continuing despite all the setbacks which the masses had to suffer in the past years. The same slogans, the same flags – all this confirms that the current mass protests are part of the same process which started in March 2011.” [5]

 

 

 

The problem of leadership

 

 

 

Concerning the leadership of the rebel forces, it is certainly true that these are petty-bourgeois Islamist-nationalists like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. As revolutionary socialists we reject their program and their strategy and advocate their replacement by an authentic revolutionary leadership. But our political opposition to such forces does not mean that we would consider the struggle which they are leading as reactionary. No, they are leading a popular uprising which has a profound progressive content: the overthrow of the Assad tyranny and the expulsion its Russian and Iranian masters. This is why the struggle led by such forces has a lot of support among the popular masses. [6]

 

We should note, as an aside, that the whole history of liberation struggles is full of examples where liberation struggles were led by forces which combined their struggle with a religious agenda. By this we don’t mean only rebellions in the Antique and the Middle Ages (e.g. the Circumcellions or Agonistici in North Africa, the Paulicians in the Byzantinian Empire, the Hussites and Taborites in Bohemia, Thomas Müntzer and the Anabaptists) but also important popular uprisings since the 19^th century – from the Taiping Rebellion in China, the Rif uprising of the Kabyles against Spanish and French colonial rule in Morocco, to various national liberation struggles in Palestine, Chechnya,, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc.

 

The question how to analyse the revolutionary process in Syria is related with an even more issue: which side are you on? Usually, those leftists who claim that the Syrian Revolution is dead use such an assessment as excuse for stopping their support for the liberation struggle of the Syrian rebels. Naturally, authentic socialists consider such a shameful position as desertion of the class struggle.

 

 

 

The problem of sectarianism

 

 

 

Another important criticism against the Syrian Revolution has been that its leading forces advocate a sectarian agenda. This has been correct to a certain degree, but it left out two important points. First, such sectarianism was a result of the ultra-sectarian character of the Assad regime which has its loyal basis mostly among the small Alawite sect and which discriminates the overwhelming majority of Sunnis.

 

Of course, this does not alter the fact that sectarianism is wrong and that socialists have to advocate a non-sectarian program for the revolution, i.e. that it strives to include all groups – Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Sunni, Shia, Druze, Alawites, Christians, etc. But it is important to understand that there exists an objective basis for sectarian tendencies among rebels.

 

Second, it is wrong to overblow the problem of sectarianism and to deny the objective popular character of the liberation struggle since 2011. This is evident by the fact that on many occasions, the struggle against Assad has included not only Sunni Muslims (who constitute about ¾ of the total population) but also other sects. The above-mentioned mass protests in the southern provinces Suwayda have been mostly supported by Druzes. And just two days ago, immediately after the beginning of the rebel offensive on 27 November, the Syrian Brigade Party, an anti-Assad Druze militia, came out with a statement in which it called on Druze soldiers fighting for the government to defect and return home to Suwayda. It also called on the rebels to show mercy to captured government soldiers who are Druze, as most Druze have been forcibly conscripted and do not support the government.

 

 

 

Towards the revival of the Arab Revolution?

 

 

 

It seems to us that the upsurge offensive of the Syrian Revolution is basically the product of four developments. First, as mentioned above, the revolutionary process was never dead and hence, there existed a point of departure for the current offensive with tens of thousands of fighters and a dedicated population.

 

Second, despite the lull in the civil war since 2020, the Assad regime totally failed to improve the living conditions of the masses. This is important because in the last years it could not point to the burden of the war as an excuse for their failure to deliver the most elementary goods to the population.

 

Third, the liberation struggle in Syria has been inspired by the heroic liberation struggle of the Palestinian people – a struggle which was supported and cheered by the rebels and the masses in Idlib.

 

Fourth, the Israeli aggression against Lebanon forced Hezbollah and Iran to focus their resources on their war of national defence against the Zionist enemy. This in turn depleted their military forces in the north and allowed the rebels to push them back in the past two days.

 

Since the 7^th October, the beginning of the latest cycle of the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people, the RCIT has pointed to the possibility and the necessity of linking the Palestinian liberation struggle with the Arab Revolution.

 

“[T]here exists an objective basis to combine these two processes – the Palestinian liberation struggle and the Arab Revolution. The Palestinian people need the support of their Arab (and Iranian) brothers and sisters. They can not count on the selfish and greedy rulers but only on the popular masses. And the Arab masses have an existential interest in destroying the Zionist state since this entity will always be a key force of imperialist counterrevolution if the Arab masses achieve a victory in this or that country. (…)

 

As we already said, it is crucial that revolutionary activists combine the Palestinian struggle with the issue of solidarity with the Syrian Revolution, the necessity to bring down the Sisi regime in Egypt, etc. And likewise, the Palestine issue has to be introduced into the liberation struggle in Arab countries. (…)

 

[W]e consider it as a grave mistake of the Hamas leadership that – after it supported the Syrian Revolution for some years – it has reconciled with the Assad regime.” [7]

 

As everyone could see in the past year, Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza has provoked a region-wide conflict with forces in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and (to a very limited degree) Iran fighting against the occupiers. It is very likely that, in one way or another, this process will continue for a longer period (including phases of calm as well as sharp escalation – e.g. a full-blown war between Israel/U.S. and Iran).

 

The renewal of the Syrian Revolution opens the concrete possibility to expand the revolutionary process to another country and the whole region – something which socialists fully support.

 

 

 

The program of the Arab Revolution

 

 

 

The program of such a revolution by the workers and oppressed should be the overthrow of Assad and all tyrants in the Arab countries as well as Iran. They should be replaced by workers and fellahin governments based on popular councils and militias and which expropriate the super-rich elite, nationalize the key sectors of the economy and open the road to a democratic and socialist future.

 

Part of such a program is also the struggle for the revolutionary destruction of the Zionist state and its replacement by a single secular and democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea which would allow the Palestinian refugees to return. Such a state should be a workers and fellahin republic within a socialist federation of the Middle East.

 

Likewise, such a revolutionary struggle should be directed against all imperialist Great Powers (U.S., China, Russia, Western Europe, Japan) and for the expulsion of all their troops and military bases.

 

 

 

Side with the oppressed, not with a geo-political camp!

 

 

 

By its very nature, the pro-Palestine solidarity movement has been directed against the Zionist Apartheid state and its most important backer, U.S. imperialism. On the other hand, the Syrian Revolution and its international supporters have been primarily directed against the Assad tyranny and its most important backer, Russian imperialism.

 

This has provoked erroneous tendencies in both movements which consider the other camp as a “lesser evil”. Such, several forces which are active in the pro-Palestine solidarity movement consider Moscow as “not as bad” as Washington or, worse, even as a “progressive force”. It is the same the other way round among some supporters of the Syrian Revolution.

 

The RCIT has always criticised such tendencies. We emphasise that solidarity activists must oppose all imperialist Great Powers in East and West. The liberation struggle must aim for uniting the hundreds of millions of workers and oppressed of different countries against common enemies – the tyrants, Israel and imperialism. [8]

 

Hence, solidarity activists must side with the masses irrespective if they fight against “pro-Western” or “pro-Eastern” oppressors. They should refuse subordination to any geo-political camp. For example, it is an unforgiveable mistake for pro-Palestine activists to sympathise with Assad because he is part of the so-called “Axis of Resistance”.

 

Of course, in those case where forces of the “Axis of Resistance” fight Israel (or the U.S.), we support such activities. However, we do so without lending political support to these. As we said repeatedly in our statements, “we condemn the reactionary support of Hezbollah’s leadership for the Assad tyranny in Syria and the capitalist Mullah dictatorship in Iran.“ [9]

 

But where forces of the “Axis of Resistance” do not fight the Zionist enemy but their own people, we oppose them intransigently and side with the oppressed fighting them.

 

The case of Assad is a particularly revealing example because it shows how empty the “anti-Zionist” and “anti-imperialist” rhetoric of such forces is! In words, the notorious butcher of the Syrian people is an opponent of Zionism and imperialism. But compare this to the real world! His father had joined the U.S.-led coalition which waged war against Iraq in 1991. And Assad the son is a coward in face of Israel who never fired a single shot against the Zionist enemy – not even during the genocidal war in Gaza! He is only “strong” against his own people of whom he has slaughtered – with the aid of Russian imperialism – hundreds of thousands since the beginning of the Syrian Revolution in 2011.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

Let us conclude that the last 48 hours seem to mark a turning point in the process of the Syrian Revolution. After years of retreat and setback, the rebels are once again marching forward. Socialists, democrats and righteous people must fully support this struggle – of course, without ignoring the political weaknesses and the crisis of revolutionary leadership.

 

As we noted in the past, “the main problem with petty-bourgeois nationalism and Islamism in the Middle East, despite their unaccountable sacrifices and their heroic struggles against the Zionist state, against the Assad tyranny in Syria or against the Sisi regime in Egypt, is that they do not orient to the working class and don’t focus on building workers and popular councils and militias. Instead, they hope to gain support from foreign states (Türkiye in the case of the Syrian Revolution, Iran and the “Axis of Resistance” in case of Hamas today) which means that they prefer tactical alliances with some reactionary regimes instead of building international alliances with other oppressed peoples.“ [10]

 

Hence, it is crucial that workers and poor peasants don’t leave the leadership to unaccountable forces. They need to organise themselves in popular assemblies where they discuss and decide about the crucial issues of the struggle. It is such assemblies where leaders should be elected who are accountable to the masses and who can, if necessary, be replaced by alternative representatives. Such forms of direct democracy can help to avoid the emergence of authoritarian leaders who later become corrupted or ally themselves with foreign powers.

 

Finally, it is essential that the most advanced, politically conscious elements of the activists join forces in order to build a revolutionary leadership. Those who share the program of revolutionary overthrow of the Assad tyranny and of its replacement by a free and socialist Syria, should unite in a single organisation. The RCIT looks forward to collaborate with all activists dedicated to such a program!