From the Revolutionary Socialist in Syria.....

[socialist_n_TN]

http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/self-organization-of-the-popular-struggles-in-syria-against-the-regime-and-islamist-groups-yes-it-exists/

There are more groups involved in this fight than Assad and the Islamists.

[David__77]

1. I think that it's terrible.

The article not only claims that there is a "revolution" that "liberates" areas where state power has been taken, but also disingenuously claims that the Islamists are not the guiding force of the insurgency. I'm not familiar with this Syrian group mentioned, but it sounds like the International Socialist Organization current, which calls for seizure of power by insurgents.

I think that self-described socialists should certainly debate the subject of Syria, deeply and sharply. I would argue that the allegedly progressive "self-organizing" elements are really manifestations of spontaneity. There is no progressive, conscious organization, nor could there be except in opposition to the power exercised by the insurgents. YPG is another case entirely, in which progressive Kurds have taken arms to fight the jihadists. Other elements of the NCB/NCC are also working under very difficult conditions. They will be forced to make a decision that boils down to: Assad or Al Qaeda? They may not overtly make their choice, but they have or will assuredly objectively do so.

The rest of the nominal Syrian left has of course made its decision, and even sit in parliament.

[socialist_n_TN]

4. The way I read it (admittedly just a scan and quickly done).....

the revolutionary socialists are claiming that they were the initiators of the revolution against Assad and now the Islamists (with big money backing by the Gulf nations, Shia and Sunni) have taken over. And of course, the socialists aren't happy about it.

Who's organizing the councils in the freed areas of Syria I really have no idea, ALTHOUGH workplace and neighborhood councils are a traditional Bolshevik and Trotskyist idea. Of course, they're also an anarchist idea. Whether they're spontaneous or organized I really haven't a clue.

I'm pushing our rep on the IS or the League to get a analysis piece out on the various parties involved in the Syrian revolution. I don't know if they will or not, but our rep seems to think that it would be a good idea.

I mostly posted this because I get extremely tired of there being only two sides featured by the MSM in all of these ME revolutions and wars. There ARE more than the dictators and the Islamists.

[ctsnowman]

2. One thing

is for sure. If Socialists ever take control of Syria we will never let them rest. Surgical strikes will be just part of it. Capitalism will not allow competing systems to succeed.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Well that's pretty well SOP.......

Hell, capitalism can't even allow a Public Option in a health insurance reform bill. Capitalists can't compete with a well run socialist system, so they have to undermine all of them that rear their heads.

[BOG PERSON]

5. "What a Revolution is Not"

First, some semantics: The very ambiguity of the word “revolution” confuses many arguments. If we understand revolutions as simply any attempts to overthrow the status quo, and preventing a government from ruling in the old way, then the events in Syria are indeed a revolution. But defenders of the Syrian Revolution are not only asking their audience to recognize the social strife as real in this trivial sense. They are claiming that such violence is a revolution in the normative sense of the word: that it is part of a movement advancing the cause of human emancipation. Otherwise, there would be nothing of value to defend in the first place from either the liberal imperialists or Assad. To support their case, we hear these clichés:

“It has broad majority support”: If this is the condition, then the Syrian Revolution fails automatically (but then it’s in good company, given that almost all recognised historical revolutions lacked clear support from the majority of the population). Estimates of the size of the armed opposition at present range from 14,000 to 30,000 (including foreign fighters): at best, this is one in 1300 of Syria’s 22.5 million inhabitants, or .0062% of the population.This presumes, as we must, given the argument being made by the anti-anti-imperialists, that these fighters are at all representative of the 2011 demonstrators. It is a doubtful presumption, considering that the protesters had many different aims, some of which were only reformist in nature, and that many now at least grudgingly accept the regime. One could say: “But in the silence of their hearts, the majority want revolution; and not just any revolution but this revolution.” But if so, we must wait for someone to find a method to register this invisible consensus. Until then, this claim is a non-winner for the advocates of the Syrian opposition.

“It is a response to exploitation and tyranny”: This sounds very pleasant and progressive, until one considers simply that not all responses are equal. After all, the Gordon Riots, for example, were both plebeian and anti-elitist in character, yet do not deserve our support as they were an anti-Catholic pogrom. The broader phenomenon of fascism both draws its political support from the depredations of, and massively expands, the inequalities and crises of capitalism and the bourgeois state. And one should be leery, in the first place, of rushing to judgment about who is the “tyrant” in a specific context just because the apparent underdogs identify one for us. Crude calls for support of rebellion against a “dictatorship” have a dark history: if those who died at the hands of UNITA, the Contras, and the Afghan Mujahedeen are to be accorded any respect at all, then we must not repeat this blunder yet again. We must recognize that using the discourse of liberty to mobilize against nationalist and progressive governments is a historically familiar tactic of imperialism’s proxy groups, and it is one that rises in importance whenever direct intervention has been (temporarily) discredited.

“It advances Democracy”: As it was throughout the Cold War, the response here should be “Democracy for whom?” “Democracy” has never been a univocal concept; and as a word, it has surely by now been degraded by so many reactionary projects, such as U.S. imperialism itself and the various middle class comprador movements that have furthered its purposes through coups and color revolutions. It is not the nominal political form aspired to, but the social goods that are being sought, that should weigh our evaluations of those who use such rhetoric.

www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10229