A letter from the Syrian Left Coalition to the Leftists in the Arab Countries and around the world

A Marxist Perspective for the Syrian Revolution
(A letter from the Syrian Left Coalition to the Leftists in the Arab Countries)
There is a lot of confusion among Marxist forces regarding the Syrian revolution. While many of these support the revolution, others refuse even to consider it a revolution, and some of the latter tend to support the regime of the ruling class. It appears that this confusion is primarily due to a problematic understanding of Marxism itself, and due to the weakening and breaking down of these forces, and due to superficial formal logic that understands politics as a series of events. This logic holds on to expired ideas of the past and not related to the current reality, and on clichés that were never right. Thus, Marxism itself seems to be absent here, and the shallowness of the “Soviet Marxism” appeared clearly to abolish the essence of Marxism by distorting it into “theological dogmas”.
Now it is necessary to define the correct Marxist position about the Syrian Revolution. This position should be built on the basis of Marxism as a methodology and not as slogans and clichés. This position should be based on the materialistic dialectic as a mechanism of thinking, understanding and knowledge of the changing process of the reality. Marxism is a materialistic understanding, and is neither a “dogma” nor political slogans, and on the basis of dialectical materialism it understands the reality in order to define the necessary position of Marxists in the struggle to achieve development and socialism.

From this perspective we will define the following issues:

1- The principle we should use to define our Marxist position is studying the configuration of the society. Contradictions that the Marxism studies are the contradictions of the present class structure of the society, and this is the basis of any Marxist analysis and understanding, and thus the basis of the correct Marxist position that should be taken. Disregarding this principle will deprive any analysis and any understanding from its Marxist and scientific nature, because it would not be built on the basis of the concrete reality. Therefore, Marxism bases its analysis first on the economic conditions (and not the political situation) without remaining at this level, but ascending in its analysis into the class-level, then to the ideological and political level. The latter is what Lenin described to be the “concentrated expression of economics”, and thus understanding economics first is essential for the correct understanding of politics.
Starting from the concrete reality in Syria, studying the Syrian revolution means to start from analyzing the economic class structure before approaching the political situation, the political debates and struggles. We should discover the conflicts and contradictions at the economic class level in order for our analysis to be materialistic. We will see that all those who stand against the revolution are based on the superficial political conflicts without touching the economic class basis, or by trying to understand this economic and class situation by starting from the political analysis. This is actually an idealistic logic that inverts Marxism upside down, and thus it is not a Marxist analysis.
Thus the question we should answer is: What was the economic-class situation in Syria before the Revolution? What was the situation of the working class, peasants and middle layers? What is the nature of the ruling class? Our positions should be exactly based on this and not on any other factor unless there was a direct occupation of the Land. And Syria is not an occupied country (except for the Golan, where the strategy of the regime was based on peace)
Economic liberalism dominated in the era of Bashar Al-Assad, where the market was opened and the “public sector” was marginalized, and many of its companies were sold. Importing became the essential factor of the economy; industry and agriculture collapsed. As a result, the economy was changed into a rentier commercial economy that is controlled by a minority from the ruling family and relatives. Thus, the majority of the working people, peasants and middle layers, were to live in miserable situation. Unemployment increased to (30%-33%), wages cannot provide the essentials for living (the minimum wage was one fifth of the necessary needed for providing the essentials for living). Thus, the power was under the control of the “new businessmen” who dominated the old classic bourgeoisie. The dominance was shifted from the president as it was in Hafiz Al-Assad period, into this group that formed an alliance with financial and intelligence wings. The working people, poor and middle peasants and most middle layers became incapable of providing the basics of living, whereas less than 2% of the population dominated 70% to 80% of the national economy.

In this situation where should any Marxist stand? This is a primary definition, not related to the revolution. Every Marxist should be on the side of the working class and poor peasants and the alliance that includes all the popular classes. This is the natural primary position for a Marxist. Therefore, any Marxist should be necessarily against the mafia-police system of the ruling capitalist class. Any Marxist should see all other issues from this perspective and not from a subjective “elite” perspective that is isolated from the interests of these classes.

Thus, any Marxist should stand with the people, and should seek to activate the struggle of people against the ruling capitalist mafia.
Is this situation able to be transformed into a revolution? Of course, it is the ideal situation for a revolution to happen. It is a situation similar to many countries where a police-familial-mafia regime was formed, and it is the revolutionary situation that we are living in all the Arab countries, and we will see that it will reach many other countries in the world.
Then what should be the position of any Marxist in the revolution?

2- Unfortunately, and as in most Arab countries (with only few exceptions), almost all Marxists were far from examining and analyzing the conditions of the classes. They did not sense the accumulation of tension and turmoil
that were increasing among the impoverished classes, especially the working class and the poor peasants. The general tendency of these Marxists was based on achieving democracy and resisting tyranny, without understanding the class basis of tyranny, and without understanding democracy in the context of a radical change of class structure of society. This caused the isolation of these “Marxists” from the people, which was very clear during the progress of this revolution.
When the tension accumulates, there would be no escape from an inevitable explosion. This is exactly what happened and was actually spontaneous to a large extent, especially that in Syria there were neither real political parties, nor trade unions that would influence it.
What should be the position of Marxists in this situation?

Let us see the uprisings of 1848 in Europe, and the way that Marx dealt with them. Let us study how Marx dealt with the Commune of Paris, where at first Marx warned that a revolution may result in a bloodbath of the working class, but when the revolution occurred he supported it and he actually participated in it. He wanted the masses to learn how to make a victorious revolution, and he did not weep tears. Let us remember the 1905 revolution in Russia and how did the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party participate in it.

Actually all these revolutions were spontaneous, with unclear goals, and had “bourgeois-democratic” tasks. But the position of Marxism was to interfere engage with the workers in these revolutions. Although these were democratic revolution, and although the working class was weak, and could not lead the masses, still, working class activists participated and put forward a workers program for victory. Despite that it was clear for Marx and Lenin that these revolutions would be unsuccessful, they participated with the aim to develop the revolutionary experience of people so that they could achieve victory in another revolution. Marxism assures that practical experiences, in addition to Marxist proposed slogans and tactics teach the masses.
Thus, the genuine Marxist position is to be on the side of the revolution, participate in it, and to work for developing it. There is no other choice that Marxists can take when the struggle between the impoverished people and the dominant capitalism explodes, except being on the side of people. Any equivocation and confusion would be a distortion of Marxism and a deviation towards the ruling capitalist class.
In Syria, the impoverished people arose for a better life, calling for the essential standards of living anc achieving freedom. People want to work, in a country where unemployment was 30-33% of the work force, and where the wages are extremely low. They want a radical change that establishes a new economic pattern that makes a solution for their concrete life problems. It is clear that the elites of the educated middle layers participated for the achievement of the “civil state”, freedom, and abolishing tyranny. But this does not change the social trait of the revolution, neither does this allow for this demand to be the essential one. Actually the situation of impoverished people will push towards the continuation of revolution until achieving the radical change (as we see now in Tunisia and Egypt). The moving force of this revolution is unemployment, and impoverishment, and marginalization, and these were linked to democracy when plunder and impoverishment were linked with tyranny.

No doubt that an increased Marxist role in the revolution will make the class nature of the revolution clearer, and will radicalize this process. From this basis, it is necessary to reject the perspective that wants a ”pure” revolution, like the pureness of snow in the uttermost regions of Russia, on the other hand. The latter is the perspective of the aristocrat spectator that does not want to pollute his shoes in the soil of the ground. It reflects the “elitism” that is still controlling many “Marxists”. The spontaneous revolution is the movement of people with all its stored education, behavior, religion and rebellion, but what drives it is the common sense of disability to live under the current conditions, and their struggle to change these conditions. Revolution, as Marxism indicates, is the moments of escalation of “class instinct”, which allows it to sense the collapsing party and the rising alternative, when feeling that it is coming out from the status of approaching “death” due to unemployment, impoverishment and marginalization. This is the basis that any genuine Marxist, who seeks for the radical change, should build on.

3- In this situation, where the left is absent, and there is actually absence of all political parties, spontaneity will characterize the revolution, and the consciousness of the impoverished classes will define its slogans and will define the limits of its demands. Although all the participants in the revolution have a common goal of bringing down the regime, each class and layer has specific demands that were expressed in a spontaneous way, only when it was asked about. The general demand was expressed by the youth of middle sects that was inspired by transferring the society from tyranny to democracy. This youth replied on the slogan of the regime (God, Syria, Bashar only) by the slogan: (God, Syria, Freedom only). The impoverished people could not pose their demands clearly by thought and politics or by clear expressions of their needs. Unfortunately, the “left” did not represent their demands, nor did it express them in its program, slogans, and politics. This is exactly because this “left” was far from the revolution.
In this context, each of the opposition forces is trying to impose its logic, and push the revolution to fulfill its aims. It is natural that each layer and class tries to impose its control to come into power.
Marxists must know the interests and ambitions of these forces, and the class they represent, and the efficacy of their role in the struggle. Do the liberal, leftist, nationalist, or Islamist forces have active and important roles in the revolution? Do they represent actually the classes that they suppose to express?

The media is trying to represent the people’s revolution by the forces of current political “opposition”. This media does not focus on the fighting people, but it considers an “opposition” is combating the regime. This shallow logic reflects a shallow “Marxism” that considers this opposition to represent the people, and thus approaches the revolution through the opposition. It is clear that this logic neglects the “spontaneity” of this revolution, falls in a theoretical error and does not discriminate between the people and the opposition, and considers any political activity as an activity of a political party. Thus, this logic does not recognize except the “political level” in a superficial way, and does not touch the economic class basis. This is exactly what Marx struggled against to build a materialistic understanding that starts from the economical level and understands the social relationships on this basis.
Therefore, this logic cannot understand the Syrian revolution, where there are people fighting without political consciousness and without a clear strategy, and thus without parties. The opposition parties actually have neither social bases nor a significant existence among the masses. These parties are actually marginalized, elite, senile parties that are active just at the superficial “political” level, and not related to the reality and its problems, and do not express the people (they used to consider people as mob).
We must recognize the reality of the oppressed people who have no political expressions, and that these “opposition” political parties do not actually represent them, but only represent the ambitions of elites to be the alternative of the current regime. Most of these are liberal, and although they claim to be democratic, they are actually not.

No doubt these “opposition” parties should be criticized. Parties that called for an imperialist military intervention, and published an ethnic, fundamentalist speech, in alliance with imperialists and reactionary Arab regimes, should be condemned. These parties are very harmful for the revolution as much as they delay the growth of this mass movement by posing the a speech that frightens the minorities, and also frightens the wide spectrum of people that supports resistance and defiance against imperialism and Zionism. This wide spectrum actually rejects fundamentalism that exhausted people during its struggle against the regime at the end of the seventies and the beginning of eighties of the twentieth century.
Can we distinguish between the people and this opposition? Can we influence the simple and spontaneous people that are participating in a courageous and heroic struggle while the opposition is using the situation to pursue its interests?
In addition, when the armed struggle dominated, chaos became prominent especially due to the lack of experience of the fighting youth. This youth is actually the same youth that was participating in peaceful demonstrations, but was pushed to the armed struggle mainly by the extreme violence of the regime. But also it appears that the fundamentalists are trying to dominate this armed struggle mainly through money. Many fighting troops were obliged to have certain Islamic names to get money and weapons, yet they did not get enough. The fundamentalist role was marginal until Saudi Arabia pushed towards sending “Jihadists”, who are included sectarian Salafists (who believe that their struggle is religious, neither political nor class based). With a mediaeval perspective, these “Jihadist” troops are seeking control of areas from which the popular revolution had previously forced the regime to withdraw.
This posed another new conflict. In contrast with the other fundamentalist forces (especially the Muslim Brotherhood) where the struggle against it had an “ideological” character, the struggle against those “Jihadists” (like Jabhat An-Nussra) is much deeper because of their practices (kidnapping persons especially from the minorities, imposing on people the religious law in its Wahhabist “version”…). This pushed the people to fight their practices and express their rejection through demonstrations, and many times through armed battles. Therefore, the popular revolution now is not just facing the regime, but also all the forces in the revolutionary camp that are trying to hijack or derail it.
In this situation, a Marxist should be with the people against the regime. At the same time, a Marxist should also fight against this liberal elite “opposition” and against all these fundamentalist forces that threaten a derailing of the revolution into an inter-ethnic and inter-religious struggle, and this is the exact aim the regime was trying to achieve since the beginning of the popular uprising. This can only be achieved first by improving the role of the oppressed masses in this struggle, expressing their demands in a clear program, organize the revolution, and stating a strategy for this revolution in order to overpass its spontaneity into an organized conscious movement.
Although Marxists in other Arab countries are busy in their struggle against their regimes and against similar “oppositions”, they should support the revolutionary Marxist comrades in Syria. Syrian Marxists are fighting on multiple fronts at the same time for the development and the victory of revolution, on the basis of the careful discrimination between the people who made the revolution, and the “opposition” that wants to hijack and derail it according to its interests.
No doubt that this mission will face great difficulties, due to the “lack of political experience” of the brave fighters. But we will see that the revolutionary youth are developing their knowledge and expertise with practice, and this is the situation in most other Arab countries.
4- It is obvious that the spontaneity of the revolution and the absence of the Left is the basis of many problems that the revolution suffers from, or fall in, especially that the people is acting empirically with no guide. People participated in peaceful demonstrations for months, but were obliged to shift into the armed struggle later due to the extreme violence and criminal practices of the regime. All this does not deprive this mass movement from its nature as a revolution, and should not hinder the Marxists from supporting and participating in it.
We have warned of the dangers of pushing towards arming, but we could not control the track of this spontaneous revolution, since it was not written in a “script” that should be obeyed, but it is rather a mass activity that progresses according to present situation and to the type of oppression by the regime. From this perspective, we did not say that it was derailed from its peaceful track, rather we considered that it was shifted into another level that should be organized to avoid chaos as much as possible, and that the armed struggle should be linked with the popular movement and complement it instead of replacing it.
No doubt that the armed struggle appears to be “everything”, but this does not invalidate the truth that it came as a reaction of the people against the brutal violence of the regime that was practiced since the beginning of the popular uprising. It is worth to note that in the beginning of the revolution, people reacted peacefully (this is what Bashar Al-Assad and Farouk Al-Sharaa’ admitted lately) against the violent and criminal oppression of the regime.
Thus, the exact problem was not this shift into the armed struggle (which was a reaction against the brutal violence of the regime), since revolutions may shift into many forms as Marxism illustrates. The exact problem is that the spontaneity of the revolution led to chaos, which indicates the dereliction of the left, and not a fault in the people’s revolution itself.
All the theoretical speech about “non-violence” and peaceful “velvet revolution” appeared as an illusion, representing a liberal logic, or a way to abort revolutions. Violence accompanies any revolution, as Marxism states. Those who think that the era of revolutions had finished, also those who say that the era of armed struggle has finished will be shocked by the present reality proving the opposite. There is no social revolution that does not pass a phase of violence at a certain stage.
Therefore, what should be criticized is not the armed struggle, but the tactics and the way it is used, and the strategy that it is linked to, and whether it serves the popular movement or have an opposite effect. We are concerned in this criticism because we analyze the problems of the armed struggle, and how it was a window for “purchasing” the armed militias due to its need for money and weapons. In this context we saw many cases where armed militias were obliged to take “Islamic” names due to their need to be funded. We may note other important problems like the lack of a military strategy, and the way the military conflicts resulted in liberating cities.

Genuine Marxism (and not the soviet distorted version of Marxism) recognizes that the battle cannot be on one side, rather is it on many sides since the reality is diverse, and thus its contradictions are numerous. Although the class conflict is against the dominant class and its state, and although that the people want to overthrow its regime, there are other contradictions inside the revolution itself, and these latter contradictions should also be faced. We face the liberals who want to limit the revolution by changing the form of the regime (or even changing persons inside this regime). We also face the Muslim Brotherhood who want to impose their fundamentalist authority and their liberal-capitalist economy, although they try to show that it is an “Islamic Revolution” to achieve this. And last, the conflict with ” Jabhat An-Nusra” as a sectarian force that came to impose a religious authority on the land that was liberated from the regime by its own people, and to make sectarian conflicts as its doctrine necessitates. The victory of the revolution is now linked to ending its harmful impact [?], and to organizing the revolution according to a strategy based on the essential demands of the people, and to defining the policy that will lead to overthrowing the regime.

We should concentrate on linking the armed struggle with the mass movement. We consider the latter as the critical factor that aggravates the force of the revolution, especially that there will be no military determination aside from the act of the people. We consider that the mission of the armed struggle is striking the centers of power [What does this mean?]of the regime to facilitate the victory of the revolution, and not opening a “generalized war”.

In this context, we are entering a struggle against the strategies of the fundamentalist forces that seek to consolidate the armed struggle as a principle that will lead alone to “liberate” Syria from the “Occupation of Al-Assad family”. It is surely an infantile strategy that will only push the regime to escalate its destruction and its brutal violence. What concerns us is how to paralyze the capability of the regime to destroy, kill, and confront the people’s movement.
5- Is the Regime “Anti-Imperialist”?
First, despite international relationships of the regime, Marxism should naturally be with the people when they revolt. Any Marxist should be with the people since their revolution are not and could not be a result of a conspiracy (people could not participate in any conspiracy, whether in a consciously or unconscious way), but was actually a result of their critical miserable situation, especially that the regime is actually a familial-police-capitalist mafia.

Our aforementioned analysis identifies the nature of the dominant class, which is a rentier capitalist mafia. On this basis, we must specify whether this dominant class is actually against Imperialism, and specify its monetary and economic relationships, and how do these relationships affect its political position.
This class consolidated a rentier economy based on services, tourism, real estate, trade (mainly importing). It built intertwined relationships with Arabian Gulf and European capitals, and worked as agents of American Petroleum corporations (like Mohammed Makhlouf), and agents for various car companies, and all other imperialist corporations. It was interrelated also with Turkish capital, and the mafias of Eastern Europe and Russia. This ruling class tried also to arrange its relationship with the American Imperialism, but the political situation after the Occupation of Iraq did not allow this, especially because of the “short sight” of the U.S administration that was pushing to overthrow the Syrian regime. This American policy imposed another alliance of the Syrian regime with Iran (the strategic alliance in 2006) and with Turkey (especially after the conflict with Saudi Arabia).
So we are talking here about contradicted interests between capital, and neither a class contradiction nor a national conflict. On the other hand, the current regime is not a continuation of the “national liberation movement” nor the system was a continuation of the “national” systems. It is actually a capitalist mafia system, conflicting with America, and because of this it tried to build relationships with other imperial powers (France and Germany, and now Russia and China). The ruling class is a rentier capitalist class as proved by studying the structure of the Syrian economy where the productive sectors (agriculture and industry) were destroyed. This rentier capitalist pattern is necessarily dependent, due to the nature of its economic activity (importing, monetary activity, services). The liberation of the national market led the productive sects to collapse and importing became a necessity.
How can this capitalist class be in conflict with imperialism?
The conflict here was actually about the best political form of control. American Imperialism was pushing towards changing this regime while the same regime was looking forward to deal with it. The Liberalization process supposed the consolidation of relationship with the imperialist center which was America. This was precisely the orientation of elites that came to power in the era of Bashar Al-Assad, and that on this basis excluded the elites that dominated in the era of Hafiz Al-Assad (which were related to the USSR).

So, the conflict with the USA was due to a wrong assessment by the US administration, and was not due to the conflicting interests with this capitalist mafia that is controlling the regime.
The regime is not anymore a regime of “national liberation” nor is the economy realizing any development of the country. It is actually expressing the power of the capitalist mafia that is interrelated with imperial capital, and not necessarily the American Imperialism.
This is the Marxist analysis of the nature of the regime and its global interrelationships. This makes it similar to other Arab regimes despite its conflict with the USA. It is a rentier mafia, plundering the country in relationship with imperialist Capital. This position explains why the “theorists” of the regime give it the character of “resistance” and not “anti-imperialist”, where it rejects some of the conditions of US administration, and do not reject it as a whole. On this basis, the regime did not cut with the US administration, and it tried to arrange this relationship. Later on, the international changes and the Arab uprisings imposed new necessary alliances, but with another imperialist power, which is Russia. This appears clearly when studying the economic deals with Russia which appears to be similar to all deals with any imperialist country.

6- “The Imperialist Conspiracy”
Of course, many “Marxists” repeated this phrase “Imperialist conspiracy”, and considered that it is not a revolution, rather an American imperialist conspiracy (and some of these Marxists considered all the Arab revolutions as a part of the American plan of “creative chaos”). We have just mentioned the futile American Imperialist “conspiracy” to overthrow the Syrian regime and divide the region on a sectarian basis, but is this “conspiracy” still present as a current plan for the American Imperialism?
This perspective indicates a deficit in knowledge, and not only in understanding. It does not analyze all the changes of the last five years, especially after the monetary crisis of Imperialism in 2008, which opened widely on the weakening of the whole Capitalist system on the one hand and on a change in the balance of forces on the other hand. The American Imperialism strategy in dominating the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union and especially after the events of September 11, 2001, failed. The American Imperialism is not able anymore to be the sole global power with its growing crisis since the beginning of the seventies of the twentieth century. This was the cause of “covert” conflicts to arrange a new sharing of the world, where Russia is becoming an equivalent power to the USA, and where China started to threaten the USA. At the same time, all the capitalist countries came into a critical situation of collapsing due to the economic crisis, as a result of the global structuring of Capitalism, and the dominance of monetary form of Capitalism that is controlling the economic activity.
Therefore, we are not living the era of the sole dominance of the American Imperialism, although its “shadows” are still present. On the other hand, we are living a growth of the Russian Imperialist role in dominating the markets.

This is the current international situation that goes with the interest of the Syrian regime, and that faces the revolution. The error in the perspective of those “Marxists” is that they are repeating an expired speech of the past, indoctrinated by the Soviet, and they are not finding another party now to teach them it again. The principal contradiction should always be the class contradiction, and should not be the contradiction with imperialism except from the class perspective. Although America is still an imperialist power and we should face it, it is not anymore the sole imperialist power dominating the world. Actually the international situation of the American Imperialism was weakened due to its profound crisis, which is unsolvable. Global markets opened on a new sharing that should be carefully noted. We should also note that the whole Capitalist system is now in the “intensive care unit” due to its current configuration controlled by speculation economy that is marginalizing the forces of production, which is already suffering a crisis of “overproduction”.
This makes the Syrian revolution a struggle that has many forms and faces many local, regional, and global forces, and not just Russia, China and Iran, but also Saudi Arabia, America and all imperialist countries.
Marxists should see all this, and should not keep holding expired “clichés” of the past. Marxists should study the reality and strategies of the current Imperialism and not as they memorized decades ago.
Marxists should recognize that any important event would naturally lead to the intervention of many imperialist forces according to their interests, and should also know the aims and nature of these interventions. The interests of these imperialist forces should be defined according to the present situation and not according to the past.
From this perspective, the theory of “conspiracy” proves to be wrong, despite the imperialist interventions. Actually, the “conspiracy” becomes a conspiracy against the revolution and the people of Syria. On this basis also, the regime becomes an instrument that performs a role similar to the American role in Iraq, destroying, killing, violent repression and arresting people, only to defend the interests of the ruling mafia.

7- Therefore, Marxists should configure a clear position about the Syrian Revolution

First of all, we should define this mass movement as a revolution resulting from the economic collapse that occurred during the last decade, and imposed the impoverishment and marginalization of wide sectors of the Syrian people on the one hand, and the centralization of wealth in the hands of a minority familial mafia.
Second, the revolution should be supported. The victory of this revolution will open the horizon to realize important socio-political changes, and to expand the revolution into other countries, from Morocco to Saudi Arabia.

Third, we should reject any calls for imperialist military intervention, and on this basis also we should reject the intervention of Russia and Iran. We should also reject and confront any sectarian or religious speech that wants to impose this trait on the revolution. We should expose the current political opposition that is trying to summarize limit the revolution in its demands, which is a liberal demand of persons asking to share power, and does not solve the problems of the people.

Fourth, we should expose the brutal violence of the regime against people, which reached the level of crimes against humanity. We should also expose the devastating role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar that aim to defeat the revolution (the case of Saudi Arabia), and imposing the control of Muslim Brotherhood (the case of Qatar). We should also unmask the process of exporting “Jihadists” to Syria as a part of their strategy to ruin the revolution.
Fifth, Marxists should completely support the Syrian left. This should be a part of the strategy to coordinate the activity of all Marxists participating and developing the revolution in the Arab countries.
Sixth, there should be certain coordination on the press and the media in general to break the predominance of the Gulf imperialist media that is distorting the picture about the nature of this revolution. The writings of the Syrian Marxists about the revolution should be published.
Seventh, there should be a plan of work at the level of all international Marxists to clarify the class nature of the revolution. Marxists should seek to change the position of the left forces that are supporting the criminal mafia regime with the excuse of “opposing imperialism”, so that these forces take the revolutionary position that supports the popular revolution and consider it a part of the Arab revolution. It is a part of a new revolutionary Arab uprising, which is the initial spark of an enormous international uprising in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and maybe the whole world, for which the crisis of imperialism is pushing.
Perhaps this necessitates arranging a general conference that involves all Marxists concerned in revolution and change and developing these revolutions to achieve the real victory by overthrowing the rentier capitalist class that is dominating all the Arab countries. The revolution more than any other time needs organized radical forces, with clear strategy and aims, to realize the demands of the people. And since the solution could not ever be a capitalist solution (as proved by the fact that liberalization by Anouar Al-Sadat- as an example- in the mid-seventies of the last century led to the occurrence of revolution), so the solution is actually overthrowing capitalism. This pre-supposes that the Marxists should play the most important role, since they are the only party that can pose a project that transcends capitalism, and solves the problems of the society.

We hope we can interact and communicate to realize this mission with the goal to achieve Socialism.

Salameh Kaileh
The Syrian Left Coalition

Cet article a été publié dans Opinions et Débats, Syrie. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s