Jeff Republishes Ken H:
"People in Libya and Syria are autonomous. They don't have to agree with
us and we don't have to agree with them. But we should look for every
opportunity to reach out to them."
Here is a thoughtful reply:
First question: To whom
in Syria do we reach out; or Libya or, for that matter, the people of the
United States? Do we reach out to the "Syrian people"? Or, do we
reach out to the Syrian workers and farmers? Or, do we reach out to the Syrian
revolutionaries involved in the struggle against Assad? And, no, the easy
answer of "to them all" is insufficient. In the case of the Syrian
"people", are we trying to reach out to the elements of what passes
for the liberal bourgeoisie, the Syrian army regulars and their generals,
the Syrian masses in the street and the revolutionaries among them because they
are all fighting Assad and his own large constituency still supportive of him?
You should be able to see where I'm going here. I don't really believe any of
you or Binh are taking a "nationalist" view of "reaching
out".
In reading Binh
carefully, I get the distinct impression that he and some of his supporters on
this list are interested in being able to say "yes" to Syrian
"revolutionaries" when those revolutionaries feel they must be
willing to allow imperialist aid so that they don't get massacred as a way to
"reach out". [ I should say here that I am a supporter of Binh on
most if not all things except his strident belief that anyone who opposes his position
on Syria is counterrevolutionary; a rather "knee-jerk" reaction of
his own I might add]. Now, I am not really sure--at least from reading Binh's
view or from any of the supporters of that position--that I really understand
(a) whether these revolutionaries actually are "revolutionary" or (b)
who such revolutionaries are. It might be useful to know to whom in Syria this
position is trying to reach.
Second question: What
specifically are we supporting among the myriad demands by the variegated
groups and currents in the Assad opposition with regard to Imperialist aid?
Have I missed something either in the bourgeois press or the revolutionary
press where there is a generalized call adopted by large sections of the Syrian
mass movement to "bring in the imperialist troops" (or, even
"HELP!" NATO/USA We Demand You Kill Assad For Us!)? Are we being
asked to call for Imperialist aid because there is an organized revolutionary
opposition serving as a vanguard that has issued such a call for help from the
revolutionary Marxists throughout the world? Or, are we simply looking at what
is happening in Syria, rightfully outraged by the bloodshed at the hands of
Assad, and--like the Imperialists--opining that "something's got to be
done" and because the Imperialists have a ready war machine
"handy", well, let's use them to get that murdering scoundrel
out.
To be plain and not be accused of simply being facetious, the first part of my
question indicates that revolutionaries must base themselves on a real
understanding of the forces within the struggle and find a meaningful, and
"thoughtful" way to promote support for a revolutionary struggle that
not only helps, but is not a hindrance either to comrade revolutionaries on the
ground or, most important, to the interests of Syria's (in this case) working
masses. The second part of my set of questions indicates that perhaps taking a
moralistic (albeit a humanist moralism) view and offering opinions to a wholly
volatile and diverse mass opposition with multiple class perspectives about how
"we are with you" and "we care" all primarily based on
bourgeois media hype intended to justify imperialist intervention is perhaps a
"knee-jerk" reaction.
Third question: Why is seeking imperialist aid--a desire of the bourgeoisie in
Syria and a perceived necessity by some "revolutionary" elements in
the mass movement--helpful in "reaching out" to the Syrian people? Is
the relationship of forces within the Syrian opposition that should the
Imperialists carry out their "limited" mission of aiding the
opposition (making the enormously dubious assumption that such limited aid is
truly NATO/USA's only intent) the revolutionary forces could successfully stop
Imperialism from further incursions or helping establish an equally oppressive
bourgeoisie, but one that would only be oppressive to the previously oppressive
sectors of Syrian society (just like in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite)?
Specifically, are the revolutionary forces really capable of leading a Syrian
workers' revolution once Assad is overthrown with Imperialist aid to "get
them started"? And, are these revolutionary forces (the ones Binh and
others seem to want revolutionary Marxists to support) actually revolutionary?
What evidence and analysis provides us with this understanding? And, no, I
certainly do not require a complete certitude about this nature of the
revolutionary forces; only that we have thought that part of it sufficiently to
be confident about the distinctions among the forces coalescing against Assad.
The moralistic argument that we are being "Ivory Tower" by even
asking such questions seems precisely unthoughtful and Binh's charge that those
who disagree with his frustration with the Marxist Left for engaging in
"knee-jerk" reaction by opposing Imperialism when it tries to intervene
with platitudes--and guns--about stopping the genocide of the people seem more
like a knee-jerk reaction albeit based on a justifiable humanist concern. One
has to ask whether such justified concern should be applied elsewhere and
throughout the world? Mexico is being beset by both government and criminal
elements resulting in thousands being killed. Is there a
"humanitarian" mission for imperialism to "save" the
Mexican people from . . .themselves? Honduras is undergoing massive repression
of the workers and peasants movement by murderous regime. How 'bout there? Or,
say? What about Afghanistan? Shouldn't we "Rethink" imperialist
intervention there because women are having their noses cut off by the Taliban
(according to the capitalist media/Pentagon/corrupt Afghan regime)? Hell, are
We sufficiently strong--at least intellectually--to "work with"
Imperialism whenever we see a need to overthrow corrupt regimes where
we--together with Imperialism--can agree? At least we could "do some
good". You know, even if it's not so good?
And, to avoid the charge of exaggeration, let me explain the underlying
points behind my question. It seems to me that the call for supporting
revolutionaries in supporting Imperialist aid against Assad is attempting to
raise the strategies and tactics of the Syrian opposition--led primarily by
sections of the bourgeois army and some revolutionary forces--determined at the
point of a gun and in serious danger of the annihilation of innocent Syrians to
a principle. I believe that is the inadvertent meaning behind Binh's knee-jerk
frustration for revolutonary Marxist "intransigence" in opposing any
Imperialist aid for any reason. For me, this position is not a knee-jerk
reaction, but one carefully considered both by history and by the circumstances
on the actual ground of the Syrian revolution. Some of our Syrian comrades and
sisters and brothers may wish us to lobby Congress for imperialist aid because
they are desperate, but we know that only the organized mass opposition and principled
dedication to the mass socialist revolution can accomplish what the Syrian
people need and ultimately want. It may pain us all to know this cold, hard,
often unsatisfying realization, but the Syrian people must win this battle
themselves on that ground and with our solidarity, the ire we can build against
the tyrannical regime, and the blows we can wield against Imperialism's designs
for their country and the rest of the world.
There simply are No Shortcuts to
removing capitalism from this earth.