Imperialist war on Syria
Sunny
The proxy war in Syria among Imperialist powers is offering some important lessons for future. The hegemony of the US is being challenged and its power as, what appeared a decade ago as, unipolar authority has deteriorated. After Ukraine, the imperialist aggression by the US and its allies has been countered by Russian presence in Syria too. The oppression of Syrian people by the Syrian President Bashar al Assad lent the US the justification for its intervention in Syria. In this process the US attempted to fashion itself as the savior of democracy, taking the onus of saving the people of Syria on its own shoulders. However, there is more to it than meets the eye. The US assuming the role of an upholder of democracy is a blatant lie and now this lie is completely exposed. The US intervention has actually turned a civil war into an imperialist war, thus causing a setback to the revolutionary process. Neither should Russia be mistaken as an altruistic ally of the common people. The Russian intervention is solely because of Russia’s imperialist ambitions. It is a different matter altogether that the retreat of the US imperialism even in the inter-imperialist rivalry anywhere in the world is, historically and objectively, a positive development. History has shown us that one imperialist hegemon replaces the other, only through a tumultuous process, which creates space for revolutionary intervention. In that sense, if the US is forced to back down in Syria by the coalition of Assad and Russia, it is objectively a positive thing.
War has brought only death and destruction for the people of Syria. In past 7 years 500,000 people have died. 11 million people have been displaced from their homes which accounts for half the population of Syria. Innocent civilians and children are being killed. The entire Syrian economy has collapsed and faces rising unemployment. Syrian cities have become graveyards and have come to look like junkyards with concrete debris everywhere. But the war is still far from being over. It is continuing on a lesser intensity but is still going on nevertheless. The war has now concentrated to a number of pockets which have become the theatre of war between the Syrian-Russian axis and US-backed forces, often forces like the ISIS and al-Nusra. The outcome of the war cannot be dictated solely by the arm-twisting between the two imperialist axes, the result of the war will depend considerably on the kind of state and class structure of Syria. As Lenin put it:
“It seems to me that the most important thing that is usually overlooked in the question of the war, a key issue to which insufficient attention is paid and over which there is so much dispute, useless, hopeless, idle dispute, I should say is the question of the class character of the war: what caused that war, what classes are waging it, and what historical and historico-economic conditions gave rise to it.” (Lenin, Tasks of the proletariat in our Revolution)
Therefore we think there are three points which are indispensable in understanding this war.
- It is the invasion of Syria by US for its strategic gains and hydrocarbons. The US wants to portray this war, just like all the wars that it has imposed on various countries, as war to get rid of a dictator and bring democracy. First of all, it must be understood that it is shameless lie of the American imperialism. Moreover, it is true that the US imperialism has funded religious fundamentalist terrorists in Syria to fulfill its own imperialist ambitions there. Every war is a class war. The Syrian war is no exception. We must understand which classes are waging this war. The US and its allies, i.e. the imperialist powers wanted to establish a pro-US government after collapse of the Assad government. Syria is one of the few countries which has maintained an anti-US stance since the 1970s. An opportunity to topple the government was long sought by the ruling class of US. The uprising in March 2011, its brutal repression and spontaneous armed struggle presented itself as an opportune moment for US to start its covert operations in Syria.
- A class war was already going on in Syria when the US imperialists intervened there. Syria was in the midst of an intense class struggle however due to imperialist intervention an uprising that could have turned into the overthrow of Assad was not able to materialize its potential. Instead, the initiation of the US-backed insurgency led to the growth of ISIS and other fundamentalist Islamic organizations. An imperialist intervention started a full-blown war. This, in fact, has made Assad popular in many pockets of Syria which saw the horrendous massacres and oppression unleashed by forces like the ISIS.
- The war in Syria also provides an opportunity to identify the class character of Syrian bourgeoisie. By analyzing its role in the war it can be ascertained whether it is national bourgeoisie, comprador bourgeoisie or junior partner of Imperialist powers. And with it, the stage of revolution in Syria can also be understood. Most communist parties claim the stage of revolution in Syria to be New Democratic Revolution and then they devote their energies to a rather futile task of finding Comprador and National bourgeoisie characteristics in the Syrian bourgeoisie. Syrian Communist party, which essentially is a revisionist party, had supported the national war against the imperialist oppressors. They called Assad the representative of national bourgeoisie. Some others communist groups identify Assad as the representative of comprador bourgeoisie and rebel groups as the revolutionary groups supported by national bourgeoisie! Syrian government enjoys the support of majority of Syrian bourgeoisie which is resisting the imperialist onslaught spearheaded by US. Workers, poor peasants and common people have been bearing the brunt of this war and are being crushed from both sides i.e., the Syrian government and imperialist powers. Also, an important fact which needs to be born in mind is that the Syrian bourgeoisie and the poor masses in Syria do not have any common interest. If not for the intervention of the imperialist powers on behalf of their vested interest, this war would have turned into a revolutionary movement against the Assad government. Victory or defeat in this process both would have been a great step ahead for Syria. But it could not be achieved due to the absence of a revolutionary party and weakness of revolutionary forces.
We will expand on the above mentioned three points further in our article. These are the three main co-ordinates through which the Syrian war can be understood. However, we will first have to trace the major milestones of the war and the path that it followed only then will we be able to understand the above-mentioned three points regarding the war, that is, first, it is an imperialist war imposed on Syria by US; second, Syria was already in middle of an intense class struggle which due to imperialist intervention was turned into an imperialist war; third, the characterization of the behavior of bourgeoisie in the war which acts a decisive factor in determining the stage of revolution.
The Unfolding of Syrian war: the Major Milestones and Forces Involved
The war was sparked after the 2011 protests in Syria were bulldozed by the government. The protests of 2011 in Syria were in continuation of the wave of Arab spring. The revolt had been brewing since the crisis of 2008 which led to an unprecedented unemployment. The protests were coordinated by local co-ordination committees. Local co-ordination committees formed by urban youth and students started to mobilize the masses. These local co-ordination committees comprised of urban youth, who shared news of organization of protests. Initially centered around Homs and Damascus, the group soon spread to many other parts of the country. This group was not formed on the basis of any ideology which left it vulnerable to penetration by the US and Israeli agents. It even sought help from a forum made by USA called the ‘Friends of People’. Protests began in Deraa and Damascus in early-March 2011 and quickly spread to other parts of Syria by April. Syrian masses were out on the street demanding political reforms. They bravely faced the Syrian Arab Army which fired tear gas shells at them, unleashed machine guns and sniper fire, making mass arrests. Many people “disappeared,” including children, like 13-year old Hamza al-Khateeb, whose grotesquely brutalized corpse was handed over to his parents a month after his April 29 arrest by officers from the Air Force Intelligence. This caused a new wave of more intense protests against the Assad government which were brutally repressed. These spontaneous protests had the potential to be galvanized into a constructive movement of the masses but due to the absence of a strong working class movement and a revolutionary party leading from the front, this could not be achieved. To counter such protests the Syrian bourgeoisie funded pro-government protests which were orchestrated with thousands of paid “protesters” in a show of strength. But the anger of people did not ebb. People were again on streets. This time the army resorted to an even more brutal use of force massacring thousands of innocent civilians in pro-protesters regions.
The first major military operation was in Deraa and second one followed in Homs which were the strongholds of protesters. The repression followed in Hama. In the crackdown Assad government killed more than 9000 people protesting against government. This instigated the people to take up arms against the government. Starting sporadically as armed conflicts with army. In Idlib, around 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed by army defectors with the support of common people.
The army elites emerged as leaders of the armed struggle and Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed. At the time of its formation in late-July 2011, FSA’s founding leader Colonel Riyad al-Asad described the establishment of FSA as a force with dual purpose: to protect peaceful protesters demonstrating against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and to initiate resistance operations against his security forces. It was formed in Turkey and had the backing of Turkish government, an ally of the USA. The imperialists saw this as an opportune moment to intervene and they did it by imposing a proxy war through these groups. Although CIA claims that it started to help FSA in 2012 it is clear that it was already helping the FSA covertly. Later USA tried to organize an opposition under the name of ‘Syrian National Council’ and a group called ‘Friends of Syria’ which would organize the rebels in Syria. But people who were fighting against the Syrian government rejected these offers. Only the leadership of FSA was in close contact with these groups. Free Syrian Army started an organized armed struggle against the government which intensified in early 2012. The newly formed Free Syrian army was joined by many army defectors. It was a very loose formation which spread to many parts of Syria. The armed struggle grew stronger with the support of the US which ensured a constant supply of arms and ammunition to Free Syrian army. This group started to occupy certain parts of the city and turned Syria into theatre of war. Soon cracks appeared in FSA as it gained some victories in cities. Alongside the FSA, many Islamic groups began to declare revolt against the Assad government and found support among common Sunni population which is amongst the most downtrodden in Syria. This changed the dynamics of these revolts. Along with FSA, the US was also supporting the fundamentalist organizations. Many of the fundamentalist organizations emerged out of the local branches of FSA. The FSA clearly acted as a stooge of the US imperialism and in the process co-opted and misappropriated the popular uprising of the Syrian people.
One of the major groups which arose from the defectors forming the Free Syrian Army later formed al-Nusra group. ISIS merged with many groups active in the country to form ISIL. It formed its own state within Syria and started doing business with Syrian government and many other Arab countries over a number of commodities including oil. This front was raised with the support of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US but it soon became relatively autonomous from their hegemony. A lot of groups emerged which announced their aim to establish the Caliphate.
The Syrian government facing insurgency and protests from the Kurdish people withdrew its forces from Northern Syria giving de facto autonomy to Kurdish people organized under PYD (Democratic Union Party). The US is helping the Kurdish forces in the region and has its military presence in the area as well. Organized under Kurdish supreme council it formed an armed unit to fight off the ISIL and other Islamic fundamentalist groups present in its area. Later, under the leadership of PYD, Democratic Federation of Northern Syria was established. It appears to be a secular and democratic state apparatus that has emerged out the war. The three regions under the federal structure are Euphrates, Jazeera and Afrin. This is being claimed by some left organizations as a Revolution. The leader who is being claimed as the ideologue is Abdullah Ocalan, who is influenced by the ideas of American anarchist Murray Bookchin. He claims to replace capitalism by ‘democratic confederalism’. According to Ocalan in democratic confederalism, private property is protected and is managed in such a way that it does not go against the public interest. It is just another model of capitalist welfare state, bound to collapse eventually due to its inherent contradictions. In DFNS, the military machinery controls the economy by oil and hydrocarbons selling. This is no socialist model as many of the people claim here. Nor is there any claim or promise to take it further from welfare state. Indeed, they have fought bravely; however, an objective assessment of their character is necessary, rather than becoming over-optimistic. The Democratic Federation of North Syria is willing to get recognition from the Syrian government in a federal structure. This as a solution to the current conflict is being proposed by Russia, but the Syrian government has refused this proposal.
Russia has been helping the Assad government militarily as well as politically in the international political scenario. The reason behind Russia’s support to Assad Government is not any altruistic motive, but is simply protecting its foothold in the Middle-East through the presence of the Russian army. It has two permanent military bases and is in the process of forming new bases in Syria. The naval base in Tartus which can be extended to full military base was the only base of Russia outside erstwhile Soviet Union. It has been helping the Syrian government to protect its political presence in the region. Secondly, it has a lot of financial projects going on in Syria and it is protecting those financial deals. The intervention by Russia is one of the reasons preventing the US from destroying Syria like it destroyed Libya. In this way, objectively speaking, the formidable Russian challenge to the US imperialism in Syria is positive thing. Any inter-imperialist rivalry threating the imperialist status quo, the continuity of the US hegemony, objectively, is good for progressive forces, because without a major imperialist conflict, old imperialist hegemons do not give up their hegemony. Such major conflicts always create latent potentialities of revolutionary interventions. In this sense, anywhere in the world, the defeat of the US imperialism is good for the people, even if this defeat comes in an inter-imperialist rivalry.
The US entered into alliance with many forces active in Syria but always opposed the Assad government. The US even tried to promote the formation of a Syrian National Council which was ultimately rejected by the people. After the capture of Aleppo by the Syrian government forces, the US has been losing ground in Syria. Aleppo is the biggest city in Syria. The presence of the US military forces has now been restricted to Northern Syria, where the US has its bases, but is under constant pressure from Russia and Syrian government to retract and leave those areas. The war, however, is still not over. The war has now shifted to Northern Syria where a lot of forces are at play. The Turkish invasion of Afrin to defeat the Kurdish independence movement in Turkey has led to the killings of hundreds of people while displacing thousands from their home. This is also an attempt by Ergodan to increase the influence of Turkey in the Middle East. He wishes to establish Turkey as leading power in the region. And imagines himself to be the future ruler of neo-Ottoman empire over the Arab world. Russia is encouraging Ergodan in this endeavor. Ergodan’s recent protest against the Gaza massacre by Israeli forces on 14th May 2018 was not borne out of love for Palestinians but was a calculated move to assert his authority as the leader of Arab world.
After this brief description of the timeline of war and major forces active in the war we shall now move on to discuss the nature of the Syrian war as an imperialist war imposed on Syria.
Imperialist Intervention in the Middle East and Syria
“War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war. If it was an imperialist policy, i.e., one designed to safeguard the interests of finance capital and rob and oppress colonies and foreign countries, then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist. If it was a national liberation policy, i.e., one expressive of the mass movement against national oppression, then the war stemming from that policy is a war of national liberation.
The philistine does not realise that war is “the continuation of policy”, and consequently limits himself to the formula that “the enemy has attacked us”, “the enemy has invaded my country”, without stopping to think what issues are at stake in the war, which classes are waging it, and with what political objects.”
— Lenin, Economic Caricature of Imperialism
The imperialist intervention in Syria is a part of the strategy of imperialist powers to loot and plunder the oil and blood of the Arab people. A valiant anti-imperialist struggle has been carried by the people of Arab world but in absence of a working class movement organized under the leadership of communist party, the end of this imperialist intervention looks far from over. Imperialist countries have been colluding with the bourgeoisie of these countries for plundering the labor, oil, natural resources and brutally suppressing mass movements. The formation of settler-colonial state of Israel also brought about a drastic change in the politics of the region. It was heavily supported by the West and after its victory in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, the US consolidated its partnership with Israel. Barring the exception of a few countries, the region is mainly under control of the US-Israel and Saudi Arabia-bloc which exert their influence over other states through military and financial instruments. Europian Union controls and maintain its ties with the countries nearer to its border namely the Euro-Med countries which are linked to Euro business and North African countries. European Union countries have military presence in these countries.
The Russia-China axis has now started to challenge the US hegemony in this region with the support of regional forces like Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Turkey has given mixed signs with its own desire to emerge as a leading Imperialist power in the region. Syria has been opposing US since a long time, it has maintained its anti-imperialist (anti US-imperialism) stance for a long time. The protests of 2011 gave a window to the US to implement its plan to overthrow the Assad government and set up a government with a favorable disposition towards its policies.
But it is not the policies of imperialist powers that can alone decide the outcome of the Syrian war. It will be decided by the class structure of Syrian society. The opposition of Syria to the US has its roots in history. The reasons behind the evolution of the Syrian conflict leading up to the current war must also be traced into the political and economic history of Syria. We would follow the history of Syria from 1970s when Hafez al-Assad came into power.
Syria since 1970s
In 1970 Hafez-al-Assad organized a coup against the Baathist government and captured power. He incorporated a layer of Sunni bourgeoisie into the state machinery. Important military and some of the strategic posts were occupied by members of Alawite community. His family members were in command of Republic Guard. Prior to the coup by Hafez, like all Baathist parties, Syrian government provided basic facilities to the people like education, health and other facilities. This government always had an anti-US stand and it was a close ally of Soviet Union. The Tartus naval base of Soviet Union was established in 1970s only. The state machinery was secular and minorities were not exploited on basis of their religion or ethnicity.
Hafez al-Assad followed path of gradual liberalization of the economy by 1980s that gathered pace through the 1990s. This ultimately culminated in a naked neoliberal reform program under his son, Bashar al-Assad who succeeded his father in 2000. Bashar al-Assad’s policies of privatization, opened up the economy for foreign direct investment, and removal of state control led to key industrial sectors such as metallurgy, chemicals, and textiles to come under private sector control.
By the year 2007, the private sector in Syria represented around 60.5 percent of GDP, up from 52.3 percent in 2000. A tightly-knit group of business conglomerates grew in close contact with the regime and benefited from the liberalization process. Neoliberal policies created new monopolies in the hands of relatives and people associated with the regime, either through familial ties or through positions in the public sector or offices in the military and security services. Rami Makhluf, the cousin of Bashar Al-Assad, embodied the regime-led mafia-style process of privatization. His economic empire was vast and he was the main shareholder of Cham Holding Company. According to an analysis published in the Syrian magazine Al-Iqtisad Wa Al-Naql in 2011, from the list of the 100 most important businessmen in Syria, 23 percent were relatives of high officials, or their partners or acting as their “interfaces”; 48 percent were new businessmen. But the majority of them had close relationships with the security services; 22 percent were part of the traditional bourgeoisie from before the nationalization policies of the sixties, some of whom also had close ties with the leaders of the state; and seven per cent had their main business activities outside of Syria.
The financial sector also developed quickly and many foreign banks were also established within the Syrian border. This whole process of neo-liberalization and privatization increased polarization in society. The population dependent on agriculture went bankrupt after government privatized the state farms. The large private farms appropriated much of the water resources. This fused with drought in 2007 aggravated the agricultural crisis which forced huge population of poor peasants to migrate to urban centers in search of jobs. A lot of Syrian labourers employed in Lebanon had to leave after the Syrian occupation of Lebanon ended in 2005. They had to come back to Syria. After the world economic crisis of 2008 the unemployment and poverty rates escalated to new heights. The rate of unemployment was already reaching above 10 percent. Around 70 percent people lived below the poverty line. Economic Crisis had put tremendous pressure on the working class. This was when the uprising had objective conditions ready to flourish in Syria.
War in Syria
War wreaked havoc on poor population of Syria. The working class, poor peasants faced severe conditions. Unemployment reached to almost 50 percent. The wages were extremely low. While the working class faced hunger, deaths caused due to unemployment during the crisis the government did not provide any aid to the people. The majority component of the uprising were the marginalized (informal and formal) workers of the cities and poor peasants from countryside who had endured immense suffering due to the acceleration of neo-liberal economic policies after Bashar al-Assad rose to power and also at the hands of repression by the regime security forces. The villages of Sunni dominated population were least developed and became the centers of revolt.
Some of the unemployed were forced either to join the opposition fighting groups, which paid a subsistence allowance to their fighters, or join the so-called ‘Syrian National Army’, a kind of regime militia, not necessarily out of conviction, but simply as a means of subsistence and an attempt to survive.
On the other side, the majority of Syrian bourgeoisie stood with the Assad government. Crony capitalists and businessmen extended their steady support to the regime. The political propaganda work of the regime like mass rallies and public relation campaigns were intensively funded by the bourgeoisie. The private media also played an important role in watering down the gravity of the uprising and the message of the protesters while exaggerating the regimes power and acting as its mouthpiece for furthering its agenda. The bourgeois class not only funded regime’s mass propaganda campaigns but were also instrumental in providing funding for the formation of armed militias to help in the defense of the regime.
However, as war reached to Damascus and Aleppo due to fear of loss in profit many capitalists closed down factories. Many capitalists closed factories and sacked tens of thousands of workers arbitrarily and moved or sold factories. Machines along with capital was moved. A large number of Capitalists decided to flee Syria taking most of the capital along with them. By the end of 2012 a total of $10 billion is estimated to be withdrawn from the banks in Syria. A substantial portion of this capital was invested in neighboring countries. Business operations from Syria were subsequently moved to Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates by some capitalists with the approval of Syrian government. The inflow of capital into the neighboring countries and establishment of joint ventures between Syrian companies and the local players strengthened their economy. Most of the capitalists who moved their businesses out of Syria are funding the government from outside. A small minority of this bourgeoisie are also supporting the opposition of Assad.
Syrian government opened up new avenues for the business class inside the country by giving them access to abandoned industries and sectors free from competition. This section of bourgeoisie was already growing before the war and was competing with bigger companies but during war they expanded exponentially. It grew by integrating the war economy network with the vacuum created by the bourgeoisie which left their businesses and moved out of Syria. Along with this bourgeoisie a new section of bourgeoisie emerged which grew out of the war economy in Syria. The war proved to be beneficial for the new section of the bourgeoisie that emerged during the war. An entire section of middlemen came into being who were involved in the trade of oil and cereals. These middlemen acted as mediators between the Syrian regime, Kurdish PYD and the Islamic State (IS) trading oil and other commodities. Their mode of operation can be understood by considering the example of Qaterji and his traders who used to buy wheat from Raqqa and Dayr Az-Zawr while paying 20 percent commission to the IS as the province was then under the control of the fundamentalist organization. Qaterji is one example amongst the many other profit earning traders who together formed a network of channels operating between regions under different controls. A number of them were loyal to the government. There were many others who supported ISIS and other rebel factions. There were many who had direct links with Saudi Arab and Turkey. A fraction of such traders and middlemen still want the war to continue as for them war is a means of doing business. For them the war is a profit-generating machine. Ghayath Naisse writes that “This new war bourgeoisie has interest in prolonging the struggle for an additional period, provided that this gave them the possibility to put the wealth they have plundered back into circulation. We find some of their representatives in a number of the political organizations of the opposition, especially the Syrian National Council and the Coalition of the Forces of the Revolution and the Opposition. These are supported by US and its allies. But it is not opposed either to working with the Syrian government itself: some of them are among those who have taken possession of oil wells and are selling their products to the regime which they claim to be fighting, as well as smuggling part of these products to Turkey.”
The above-mentioned changes were reflected in the political institutions as well. The end of 2014 saw appreciable changes in the membership of the chambers of commerce in Aleppo and Damascus. 10 out of the 12 elected board members in Aleppo were new investors. These new investors came into being after the uprising. In Damascus, 7 out of 12 had a similar background. In 2014, new members were nominated to be inducted into the boards of various chambers of industry in Hama, Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus by the Ministry of Industry. This was a strategic step in a bid to counterstrike the pro-opposition investors. In 2016, an analogous development also took place in the parliamentary ‘elections’ when new entrants were inducted to replace 70 percent of the deputies. Thereby indicating a considerable shift in the power-base of the Syrian regime.
Another character of Syrian bourgeoisie comes to fore when one dissects the nature of investment coming to Syria since the strengthening of Assad’s position in Syria. Especially after the capture of Aleppo and Homs, imperialist blocs opposed to Assad appear to be convinced that it will be difficult to dispose Assad. Even western countries have softened their tone towards Assad and now are changing the narrative by claiming that they are focusing on dismantling the chemical weapons possessed by Syria. Under the garb of disarming Syria of chemical weapons, the imperialist powers have donned a humanitarian mask with which they are trying to cover up the shameless and barbaric bombings on the innocent people of Syria. Irony dies a thousandth death when the imperialist powers in the name of dismantling chemical weapons unleash the full force of their lethal chemical weaponry to murder children, women and old people.
Now that the intensity of war has relatively declined and the phase of reconstruction has begun, all imperialist powers are eyeing to profit from this reconstruction business. Even the world bank offered a 21 billion dollar offer to Assad in 2013 which was subsequently refused by Assad.
Assad had said in an interview in June 2013 that: “The western countries, in contrast to their political stance in public, are striving to present to us under the table “attractive” contracts for the reconstruction of the country and extraction of the rich hydrocarbon deposits that have been discovered on the Syrian coast. The World Bank, which cannot move without US permission, proposed a 21 billion dollar loan with “generous” terms, which we completely rejected. We have already given the rights for hydrocarbon extraction in the Syrian EEZ to a Russian company. We trust the Russians, who are defending their strategic security and national interests that will be endangered if Syria is controlled by the West and its satellite powers in the region.”
This was Assad’s and the regime’s stand in 2013. The conditions now are drastically different. IMF predicted that to bring Syrian economy to the level where it was before war will require investments of around 200 billion dollars. Recently, a trade fair was organized in Syria in which many companies from the world over were welcomed to participate. Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, Japan, Czech republic, Belarus and other countries have invested in Syria after war.
What is the Character of Syrian Bourgeoisie?
This discussion brings us to the question about ascertaining the character of Syrian bourgeoisie. The analysis and the identification of the true nature of the Syrian bourgeoisie forms an important framework through which one can understand the class alliances it establishes with the imperialist powers. This is the question which will help us to understand the stage of revolution in Syria. The framework which assumes the stage of revolution to be National Democratic revolution is compelled to label sections of Syrian bourgeoisie either as ‘National’ or ‘comprador’. Their deductive line of thinking forces them to fall into the pit of misinterpreting the objective reality. The Syrian bourgeoisie lacks any of the characteristic features of the national or comprador bourgeoisie. The majority of the Syrian bourgeoisie rallied behind Assad even before the war and still remains loyal to the regime. It shares no common interests with the people and therefore cannot be termed ‘national bourgeoisie’. The Left today has taken a rather amusing position on this question. Some call the rebel groups as ‘a peoples’ alliance with national bourgeoisie which is being helped by imperialist US against the comprador bourgeoisie represented by Assad who is supported by Russia’! The absurdity of such a formulation becomes evident immediately. Other left groups and individuals hold the view that Imperialist US in collusion with the comprador bourgeoisie of Syria are fighting against the national bourgeoisie which is represented by Assad. This view is upheld by the revisionist Syrian Communist Party. Bashar al-Assad’s government is an autocratic regime. It is a dictatorship that blatantly represents the interest of the financial and industrial bourgeoisie of Syria. The Syrian regime is the enemy of the working masses of Syria. It has been brutally killing its own people to conquer the regions occupied by rebel groups. The industrial and financial bourgeoisie has openly supported the Syrian government and its actions. Apart from the big bourgeoisie which has constantly supported the Assad regime there exists another vacillating section of the bourgeoisie i.e., the trading class which shifts its support to whichever side it can profit from the most. As has been observed in the case of various suppliers active in region of ISIS who have shifted their position in support of Assad government. This is not a major section of bourgeoisie in terms of number and capital. It has just grown out of the objective conditions of war.
Secondly, the stand taken by Assad during many peace talks reflects the fact that the Syrian government possesses a free political will of its own. It is not a comprador of Russian imperialism. From Astana talks to Geneva peace talk Assad, has openly defied not only the US axis but has also taken independent stand from Russia. In fact, Assad declined Russia’s proposal to accept DFNS as part of the federation of Syria, as a part of solution in Northern Syria. From the above analysis of the Syrian bourgeoisie and its antagonisms with the working class it can be clearly concluded that the Syrian bourgeoisie is a junior partner of Imperialism in general and shares no common interest with the common people of Syria. And it is certainly not a comprador bourgeoisie. Within the framework of this concrete objective analysis of the nature of the Syrian bourgeoisie, one can arrive at a balanced understanding of the war. Thirdly, the stage of revolution in Syria is not New Democratic revolution but a Socialist Revolution, for which a three class alliance will have to be formed under the leadership of working class against the state of Syria which represents interests of Syrian bourgeoisie and imperialism.
Conclusion
The war is still going on and Assad and Russian forces are wining those pockets which were controlled by opposition. Though the US maintains its military presence in Northern Syria where it has two military bases but it is on the backfoot. Russia and Syria are mounting pressure on US to remove its military forces from Syrian land. Currently, the people of Syria in absence of a working class party are being crushed from different sides. The war has toned down in intensity and Assad government is emerging victorious. But the revolt that was crushed under this imperialist war will revive again. With experience of the uprising of 2011 and hatred which has increased multiple times in war towards the Assad government and imperialists, the people will rise again. The necessary condition for the victory of revolution is the building of a revolutionary party guided by correct ideology. The likely defeat of the US imperialism in Syria, anyway, should be welcomed, as an objectively positive development which might open space for revolutionary intervention.
References
- Ghayath Naisse, Syrian Bourgeoisie and people’s revolution
- Adam Hanneih, Lineages of Revolt
- Joseph Daher, Assad Regime Still Reliant on Fractions of the Sunni Bourgeoisie.
- Charles Lister, Free Syrian Army
- Regarding Syria, Monthly Review April 2011, Syrian Communist party
- Interview with Joseph Daher, Lina Theodorou, Antonis Faras
- SAMER ABBOUD, The economics of war and peace in Syria
