Syria: Another Unending Imperialist Agony

An Imperialist Turning Point?

There has been much agonising in the various imperialist camps in the last couple of weeks. A lost vote in the British Parliament by the Con-Dem coalition, a retreat from instant retaliation by the White House to await the return of Congress, the Pope backing non-intervention and even Putin saying that he had cut spare parts supplies for the S-300 anti-missile missile system to the Assad regime, all show an unusual degree of confusion amongst the masters of the universe. None of this agonising compares with the agony that the population of Syria has already had to undergo for more than two and a half years. Over 100,000 have died and more than 6 million have become refugees with 2 million of them in official UN camps in Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon. This is what makes Obama’s “red line” of the use of poison gas all the more arbitrary. According to the current information a maximum of 1400 people died (the most authenticated say about 400) in this horrible manner. However these figures are miniscule in relation to the humanitarian crisis that has engulfed Syria since March 2011.

And let us not be taken in by the supposed “humanitarian motives” of those calling for strikes against the Assad regime. The US, being the only power so far to devastate whole cities with nuclear bombs, was no stranger to chemical warfare in Vietnam (where napalm and Agent Orange have still left their mark). More recently the US connived at Saddam Hussein’s use of sarin gas against Iranian conscripts by warning Saddam of an impending attack. The Pentagon knew they were aiding and abetting a gas attack against the Iranians. As one US military man said “he did not need to tell us he would use gas. We already knew”. [See for the full story.]

In Britain the situation is a bit more complicated since the shadow of the lies that Blair told to get a vote for war in Iraq looms heavily over the discredited political system. In the face of the biggest mass protest ever seen in the UK (15 Feb 2003) the House of Commons bought Blair’s “dodgy dossier” that claimed that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and voted for war. Not only were no such weapons found but the fallout from the war in terms of chaos in the Middle East and increased terrorist attacks in the UK have made many of our ruling class aware of the consequences of getting involved in Syria. Touchingly the Stop the War types are modestly taking the credit for the rejection of Cameron’s motion for war but in fact most MPs based their vote on soundings they had done in their own constituencies – there was even less support for a Syrian attack than the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. Even ex-General (now Baron) Richard Dannatt (former Tory adviser on military matters) came out against the war on the grounds that we should not send “our troops” to places where the UK population would not give them any credit.

The Widening Conflict

No, the motive for hesitation in Western ruling class circles is the old one. How to make a precise calculation of their wider interests? Over Afghanistan and Iraq it was much clearer. That was not only about trying to rid a “nest of vipers” in Afghanistan (whose eggs had been hatched by the CIA in the anti-USSR war) but also retain control of the oil market and thus maintain the dollar as the dominant global currency. (See our analysis in but there are many more). Whilst the USA (and its ally Israel) was quite happy to see the Assad regime in retreat from Lebanon (where it still acts as a conduit for Iranian aid to reach Hezbollah) and even see the overthrow of the Damascus government, the prospect of more chaos and another staging post for Islamic fundamentalism emerging have given it pause for thought. Bush’s oil wars (nor the intervention in Libya for that matter since the state has since virtually collapsed) did not have the outcomes that US imperialism needed and putting US boots on the ground in any area is considered now to be a dangerous and possibly counter-productive ploy (despite the fact that US casualties have been relatively small – less than the number who have died by suicide and in accidents). This dilemma has partly fuelled the debate inside the US ruling class. Whilst the Obama regime has for two years taken “the Metternich position” on Syria, i.e. ignore the escalating violence and “let it burn itself out beyond the pale of human civilisation”, others (including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, head of the CIA Petraeus and Defense Secretary Panetta) argued that allowing Qatar and Saudi Arabia to arm the Islamic groups meant that whatever the outcome of the fighting some form of anti-American Islamist regime would emerge. In deference to this Obama agreed to send small arms to the more secular opposition forces but, again underlying the current paralysis, none have yet arrived. Obama’s off the cuff electoral promise last year that if Assad used chemical weapons it would be a “red line” issue was intended to appease his critics at home and give Assad a warning. It then came back to haunt him when his new Secretary of State, John Kerry, announced that the US had credible intelligence that sarin gas had been used by the Assad Government on 21 August. Kerry, who sprang to fame in 1971 as a “veteran” who testified before Congress to the rape, murder and mutilation of civilians in Vietnam by the US Army, and called for US withdrawal because there was nothing in Vietnam that threatened US’ vital interests, is now the head of the warmongering camp. Obama’s get out strategy has been to put the issue to a Congress which was not even sitting at the time. Whilst Cameron ineptly rushed to steamroller a resolution for action through the House of Commons (and humiliatingly lost) Obama has prevaricated once again on the action so many of his own party are calling for. For decades US Presidents have been wresting the right to declare war without Congressional approval but now Obama finds it useful to hand that responsibility back. The divisions in US ruling class opinion run deep. The hawks keep on saying how the real question is the “red line” about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and that if no action is taken now it will reveal US impotence or, as they put it, undermine its “credibility”. Ominously their speeches end with the assertion that they are 100% behind Israel.

Israel for its part would have been quite happy if the Arab Spring had not happened. After all, the result of all their wars since 1948 was to surround themselves with Arab dictators who in one way or another would do business with them or, at least like Syria, not dare to confront them head on. But the fall of Mubarak and the active engagement of the reactionary monarchies of the Arabian peninsula and Gulf in assisting various Islamist anti-Israel groups has widened the circle of Israel’s enemies. At the moment they are too weak and too divided to be a big threat but the situation is being watched closely by Israeli intelligence. Israel was not slow to act when it came to Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria and has now bombed Syrian soil several times against the Hezbollah forces.

And then there is Turkey. Erdogan has been excoriating the West for both its failure to act against Assad and its acquiescence in the removal of the democratically-elected Islamist Morsi in Egypt [See]. At first his rhetoric was quite useful to divert attention from his own little local difficulty with protestors over the AK party’s creeping islamisation of the country. However there are also real material problems for a Turkish economy which saw its GDP drop into recession in 2009. This has now recovered but only due to deficit financing which means, according to the Economist [], “Turkey's deficit measured in dollars is second only to America's.” With the lira plunging 10% and capital fleeing the country Turkey is now facing more difficult terms for the loans the AK party have used to fund a building boom. On top of this the growing number of Syrian refugees and the fact that Turkish lorries cannot now get south as the border with Syria is closed (they are now taken in their hundreds by ship to Israel) is a further economic blow to the Turkish state. Small wonder he wants something done to get the war finished as soon as possible (and a bit of tough (if impotent) rhetoric will go down well with his voters as an election approaches).

The most consistent imperialists in all this have been Russia, China and Iran. Although they are increasingly worried by Assad’s handling of events they have not deviated from support for his regime. Iran has sent advisers (and it is reported troops) who seem to have put some backbone into the previously retreating forces of the regime. China has refused to sanction any intervention in Syria in keeping with its international policy of non-interference and not passing judgements on the records of other regimes (a current plus for Chinese advances amongst African states). For Russia the stakes are higher since Syria represents the last sovereign state which it can count on as an ally in the Middle East. Russia still has bases there including its largest naval base outside home waters and the total collapse of the Assad regime would be an enormous blow both strategically and materially. The Russians learned the lesson of Libya where they failed to prevent the imposition of a no-fly resolution in Libya thus sealing the fate of Ghaddafi. If the US does start air strikes expect the Russians to step up supplies of S-300 missiles. Putin offered to stop sending parts for them to Assad as an opener for some kind of negotiated political settlement but the US refused to take what they saw as a poisoned chalice and so we can expect Russian support for Assad to remain strong. Their final master stroke on the international chessboard has been to take up Kerry’s ill-thought out challenge for Syria to hand over all its chemical weapons. This proposal could delay US action for months and may even stalemate it altogether. This is not a given as it also affects Russia’s relations with Syria. The Syrians have agreed to the Russian proposal only if the US withdraws its threat to carry out air strikes (which Putin has been happy to accept). The Syrian regime has never admitted to having chemical weapons (which it holds in case it need to retaliate against the Israelis equally undeclared nuclear weapons) and Assad continues to repeat his threat that if the US attacks over the poison gas issue then his “allies” will wreak unspecified revenge on the US somewhere in the world. In this context getting a UN resolution to include both a chemical weapons ban and the threat of air strikes is unlikely and after a bit of time they can all get back to square one.

No War But the Class War

Already we have seen the war spill over into Lebanon and involve Iranian forces directly. Turkey too has not only been drawn in as it is used as a base by anti-Assad fighters hiding amongst the refugees. As we write US aircraft carriers and a Russian flotilla are closing in on the Eastern Mediterranean. Despite the Commons vote UK fighter bombers have been despatched to Cyprus and in next-door Jordan (where nearly 20% of the population are now Syrian refugees) 1000 US troops, F-16 fighters and Patriot missiles are already assembled after a recent military exercise. All of this outside interference underlines the fact that we are not talking about the Syrian “Civil War” which the news media so often refer to but about the latest cockpit in which imperialist antagonisms are being fought out, if only by proxy. In a sane world everyone would see that no-one can win here. Any impartial observer can see that without an end to the carnage another 100,000 will die for nothing and the danger of the Syrian conflict becoming a wider one is increasing weekly. The fact is though we don’t live in anything like a sane or impartial world but one dominated by capitalist imperialist motives.

In this situation the proletariat in Syria can do or say nothing. It has already been ideologically and materially dismembered by either falling into line to defend one of the competing forces or it has simply become victim of the conflict. It cannot even get direct help from the international working class. Modern warfare does not directly engage the working class as it did in previous wars even up to Vietnam. Armies in the leading capitalist states are no longer conscript armies, weapons are stockpiled years in advance. Even the unprecedented international demonstrations which engulfed the Western world in 2003 to oppose the attack on Iraq were ignored by a political system which is only superficially representative and democratic. Modern wars are more like the ones described in Orwell’s 1984. They are fought a long way away and don’t materially have an impact on most people in the leading imperialist states.

But the new social media mean that the world is becoming a smaller place. Opposing these wars without giving support to brutal regimes like that of Assad is the start of opposing the system that survives by them. The more our rulers ignore opposition to war the more they discredit themselves and their system. The smarter elements of the world’s ruling class know this and this partially explains their hesitations today. But the bestial appetites of capitalist imperialism won’t hold back for long. Whether in Syria or Mali or the Congo the struggle for the planet’s resources will break out anew. For the international working class there is nothing here to support (not even the supposed “revolution” which started the anti-Assad struggle over 2 years ago). Our position remains the same as ever. The only war we support is the class war to destroy this system of global carnage once and for all. Fighting against austerity or whatever else capitalism tries to impose on us is a first act in rejecting this system. Currently the world proletariat is out of the game and we can only get back into it by fighting for our own interests on our own terms. In the final analysis it is only when workers in the world’s most powerful states have paralysed the ability of imperialism to interfere where it wants will we take a real step forward on the road to human liberation.

Jock, 10 September 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013


Noting Jock's final paragraph, when considering the aspiration of the CWO and ICT for a moneyless world society, allowing for the likelihood that it will be a long time until that is established, at what point will it be reasonable to regard a country or countries, which still use money, as tending to be anti-imperialist rather than totally imperialist ? Never ? Marxist-Leninists regard several states as already tending to be anti- imperialist. Of course a 'state' operates to defend one or another class and the aim of the so-called 'communist left' is to get rid of states completely, but that too will take some time. Is the possibility of an interim workers' state defended by a 'proletarian dictatorship' ruled out by the CWO and ICT ?

T34 thanks for your post. The dictatorship of the proletariat and a workers' state are not the same thing. In fact the first we would only use in quotes as it is an oxymoron. Under the dop we will still have statist tasks to perform (suppression of the bourgeoisie) but this has to be controlled by the mass of the class through workers' councils so that when the tasks of suppression of the bourgeoisie and their forms are over then we can watch the "withering away of the state" or rather the mutation of the dop into a stateless classles society en route to communism. The "Marxist-Leninist " idea is counter-revolutionary and shows they did not learn the first time around (we refuse to even consider their notion of what is "anti-imperialism" since it simply means suport for one imperialism (usually the US) against another).

Thank you for your reply of 2013-09-19, but doesn't the consciousness of the mass of workers lag behind full revolutionary consciousness ? If so, it is hard to see how miscellaneous workers' councils would be sufficiently aware of what, from a revolutionary view, is necessary, in combining to 'perform statist tasks', as you put it.

As for your not even considering the notion of anti-imperialism and thus seemingly regarding all states as imperialist, it seems to me that the workers of many states have definitely learnt first time around that Marxism-Leninism means supporting their struggles against imperialist occupations of the lands in which they live, as in India, Vietnam and so on, taking Marxism-Leninism as a method rather than a state of affairs.

Marxism-Leninism was an invention of Stalin to disguise the counter-revolutionary destrcution of the proletarian revolution of October 1917. It is now peddled by Maoists (who support a "Chinese revolution" that never involved the working class). For us it is a counter-revolutionary ideology as the people of Vietnam etc long since discovered. The proletarian revolution will as Marx stated be the work of the working class itself. No-one can do it for us. It is though a process in which consciousness will develop by leaps and bounds in the course of which the workers will shake off the ideological chains of capitalism and create their own revolutionary political organisation to point the way and fight all reactionary ideas including that of Marxism-leninism.

Dear Editor, Your comment of 2013-09-20 19:29 seems, to me, to be best responded to by reading and noting an article entitled 'Communists and the struggle against imperialism', of December 2011, which is currently on the web. It summarises some key Marxist-Leninist views.

Airstrikes Threat On Syria! Third World War?

No War But The Class War!

More than 110,000 dead, two million of refugees in nearby countries, more than three million internally displaced, 130,000 arrested or missing, tons of bombs, missiles, shells, cluster bombs… This is the reality of war in Syria since two and a half years!

And as if this materialization of permanent war of capitalism against the proletariat was not enough, the mainstream bourgeois media announced us on August 21st the “ultimate horror”: chemical weapons were used in a suburb of Damascus, killing more than 1,300 people, some 3,600 others were wounded.

The Syrian regime is accused of this, and it’s true that it would not be its first slaughter since it had already proven what it is able to do in terms of repression. Others accuse groups of “rebels”, and more precisely jihadists militarily supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

We, the communists, do not want to enter in any way into this debate, and even less to endorse the ravings of “conspiracy theories”, very fashionable in some “militant” and “ultra-leftist” circles. Because fundamentally, whether it was the capitalist State in Syria represented by the Ba’ath regime who did it or it was done by one of the fighting factions of the bourgeois “opposition” with the support of regional and international powers, it is ultimately State terrorism, the capitalists’ terrorist State, which is responsible for this antihuman and anti-proletarian gassing, as it is responsible for all this war, as for any war…

But today, when capitalism is facing its worst crisis of valorisation since the end of the second world slaughter, its only alternative is once again the mass destruction of surplus productive forces (of commodities, dead labour, but also of labour force commodities, thus of living labour, thus of proletarians!)… The only viable solution for capitalism (to boost subsequently a new cycle of valorisation) is therefore a generalized war, the “third world war”… Its only problem (which is a major problem!) is how to mobilize the proletariat all over the world so to recruit it in whatever ideological campaign to justify the massacres to come.

Present war drum roll announcing a military intervention of some Western powers in Syria partakes in this ideological campaign. Especially since Syria is in the heart of a region which is a geostrategic issue of capitalists’ voracious appetites. Two major constellations of States already share the ground and participate in the reorganization of the region: on one hand Russia, China and Iran, which support the current regime (but to which extent this support won’t threaten the whole of their interests?), and on the other hand the U.S.A., France, Great Britain and their regional allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar…

Threat of military intervention strengthens this polarization and also backs up in their analysis the public opinion, bourgeois propaganda, “experts” of the question, and even groups and organizations which claim social revolution, anti-capitalist struggle, proletarian insurrection, struggle for communism and/or anarchy, all of them continually repeating ad nauseam since over two years that the events in Syria is nothing but a proxy war (between these various State powers), or at least a civil war between two bourgeois camps (with the support of these same State powers): Ba’ath regime against “democratic opposition” (which in some cases is reduced to its simplest jihadist expression)…

However, this version and grasping of history, and therefore of the facts taking place in front of our eyes, although it covers a part of the reality on the ground, purely and simply eliminates another aspect of this social matter in motion, which is essential for us communists: the class struggle which had sparked off what has been going on now. In March 2011, a significant movement of struggle, an uprising of a proletarian nature, against poverty, against the rising of prices, against unemployment, against the drastic austerity measures imposed during the previous decade in Syria, against repression, broke out… Since the beginning proletarians have tried to go beyond spontaneity of the movement, various structuring of struggle have been set up, among others hundreds of coordinating committees (Tansiqyat) that try to respond in the practice to needs of the struggle, its organization on the ground, its coordination, its centralization, its consolidation, its spreading and its self-defence, although they develop very contradictory levels of radicalism as for the perspectives of the struggle. Very quickly also the movement of our class countered State terror with direct action, encouraging defeatism within the central apparatuses of repression…

Because of lack of developing its perspectives, because of lack of revolutionary direction, and under the influence of the direction given by different bourgeois factions, who try to achieve their own interests while taking profit of the proletarian struggle, this class struggle, this class war, partially turned into an inter-bourgeois struggle, into an internal civil war and into a proxy war. This doesn’t in any way detract from the importance of the fundamental proletarian nature of the movement. Always and everywhere in the history where the both antagonistic classes clashed, bourgeois factions either temporarily united against a common enemy or they continued to oppose each other so that only one strong counterrevolutionary pole emerges, able to defeat the class historically determined to put an end to this age-old nightmare that is capitalism and its social relation (as the insurgent proletariat in Commune of Paris, Russia, Germany, Spain… tried to do). Everywhere and always in this same history, “foreign powers” intervened either to directly suppress the movement of our class (operations of international gendarmerie) or to support a bourgeois camp against another (e.g. “Russian Civil War” from 1918 to 1921 during which various Western armies militarily supported the “Whites” against the “Reds”) or even to wage a proxy war (Spain 1936-1939)… And it will be like this in all future conflicts which will set the world of value ablaze till its violent abolition by force of social revolution.

Let’s come back to Syria and recall what we wrote six months ago in another text: “there is no doubt that the bombing of cities and the massacres, the terrible State repression and its militarization, represent a nagging strength that tries to recruit proletarians in struggle (…) for one or the other bourgeois factions opposing each other in the attempt to conquer the power and the management of social antagonism. All the international and regional State powers (…) push the class confrontation to militarization, in order to make it losing its dynamics of subversion of this world of misery, in brief to deprive the proletariat of its class autonomy… The third camp in Syria (that is to say the proletariat opposed to both poles of the counterrevolution) is on the road to ruin and to be recruited if isolation which it is plunged in is not broken, if _the universal content of its struggle (which appears in all the struggles of our class) is not put forward, if_ it doesn’t quickly find an echo to its struggles, if new insurrectional hotbeds don’t develop elsewhere in order to not give a single moment of rest to the voracious bourgeois anymore…

Every movement of struggle and subversion of social relations in history has its own dynamics, which, if it doesn’t grow, if it doesn’t expand, then fades away and finally withers away. Certainly since two and a half years, the dynamics of the struggle movement of our class in Syria runs out of steam, on one hand because of simultaneous thrusts of bombings, killings, massacres, imprisonments, on the other hand because of the action of various reformist policies that use the proletarians as cannon fodder in their war between bourgeois factions, but also because of the influence of jihadist tendencies that are turning the class war into a sectarian war, despite the strong resistance of the proletariat.

This resistance of the proletariat to the various jihadist factions trying to confiscate our struggle and to force the restoring of law and order (among other things through moral and religious order) in the “liberated zones” still expressed itself these last weeks, through a series of actions that the bourgeois media obviously ignored.

In Raqqa, for example, which was in the grip of hard fighting against the Syrian army, a continuous protest against arrests of proletarians by jihadist group “Jabhat al-Nusra” has been held since June. Women shouted: “Shame on you! You betray us in the name of Islam”. Throughout August, residents of al-Raqqa have been protesting almost daily against the “Islamic State of Iraq and Levant” demanding the release of hundreds of prisoners, abductees and missing persons. Likewise in Aleppo proletarians launched the “Enough is enough!” campaign calling for an end to abuses committed by armed groups. Some of them obviously left our class terrain and no longer fulfil their original purpose of defence and protection of daily protests against the regime and against repression, but came to use violence precisely without any class criteria. Demonstrations were held in front of “Sharia Court” (Islamic Court) in Aleppo after a child was killed for allegedly insulting the Prophet Mahomet. Among the protesters’ mottos, we could hear: “The Sharia Committee has become the Air Force Intelligence!” in reference to the most brutal security branch of the regime, whose torture chambers have welcomed thousands of proletarians. In Idlib, protests against the local “Sharia Committee” also took place…

To all fighting proletarians in Syria!

Finally, we want to warn the proletarians in struggle in Syria who are on their knees while suffering endless bombings and massacres orchestrated by the current regime, and who yet develop illusions about an intervention of the “international community” (which is nothing but a bunch of capitalist gangsters), who call for airstrikes or a “no-fly zone”… There is nothing to expect from any State power, all of them have always fought and suppressed proletarian revolts in history. Whether in Indochina and Algeria during the fifties or in Vietnam later, the French and American armies left the battlefield with piles of corpses… Whether in Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, or very recently in Libya, whether on the pretext of “war on terror” or “humanitarian relief”, the imperialist issues meant nothing but a reorganization of exploitation and the replacement of a dictator by another or by a bunch of more presentable and more “respectable” torturers… No, there is nothing to expect for the development of our struggles while choosing a “lesser evil” against a “worse”…

To all fighting proletarians in Syria!

In the beginning you revolted against misery and repression imposed on you by a particular faction (Ba’ath regime) of ruling class. But too many of you have made yourselves the auxiliaries of another bourgeois faction of managers of capitalism while participating in the war, on the side of the united front of nationalism and sectarianism. You are told, our enemies would like to make you believe, that this war “against Assad” is not like any other one. All representatives and tendencies of “anti-Assad” united front whisper to you to tactically postpone attack against capitalist propertied class, existing social relations and present state of things, until “devilish” Assad is defeated. While accepting this, you don’t side with the proletariat, but against it. Your allies are no longer the proletarians, all exploited, but the bourgeoisie. Supporting united front means to fight for someone else, and being an extreme expression of sectarian and nationalist rivalry.

The perspective of an attack against capitalist misery and bloodshed in this war, which has never been so compelling, depends on the ability to make apparent the frontier that exists between action and need of the proletarian class on one hand and the camp of the bourgeoisie, that of its democratic dictatorship, on the other hand. Not to point out this frontier means to underestimate historical role of the proletariat, but particularly to fail in assuming the important and fundamental role of its vanguard in the struggle. Capitalism is war, war is capitalism. At war as in peace, there is still capitalist profit, exploiters and exploited.

Refuse any united front in favour of one bourgeois faction or another! Stop this war of one bourgeois military apparatus against another. Turn your arms against your “own” officers, political sharks, foreign military advisers and capitalist bosses of your “own” camp. Be vanguard and show to “proletarians in uniforms” in ranks of Assad forces that there’s only one unity, that of exploited beyond the artificial frontiers of capitalism. Spread this method of our class action behind the front of your “enemy” soldiers to join you in executing bourgeois imperialist butchers who are the only to profit from this massacre.

More than ever we reaffirm our support to proletarians in struggle in Syria, as everywhere else in the world, Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, Tunisia, Colombia, Chile…

We call on proletarians to denounce the military intervention in preparation and to strongly oppose it through direct action, sabotage, generalized and insurrectional strike…

Wherever warplanes and warships, missiles and poison gas come from, behind them there are always men and women who have to transport them to their destination, to fuel them… Only proletarians in struggle can and have to prevent the war machine to kill, the production machine to function…

Let’s develop new hotbeds of struggle, let’s consolidate those already existing; let’s apply the strike to armies, factories, mines, offices, schools… anywhere we suffer exploitation from this world of death and misery…

Against our own exploitative bourgeoisie, against our own warmongering State, in the U.S.A., Russia, France, China, Great Britain, Iran, Turkey, Syria, etc., let’s organize and develop revolutionary defeatism.

« *September 2013* «

“Kings intoxicated us with smoke,

Peace among us, war on tyrants!

Let’s apply the strike to armies,

Rifle butts raised on high and breaking ranks.

And if they insist, those cannibals,

On making heroes of us,

They’ll soon learn that our bullets

Are for our own generals.”

(The Internationale)

TŘÍDNÍ VÁLKA *«* CLASS WAR *«* GUERRE DE CLASSE *«* الحرب الطبقي *«* *«*

Tridni Vlak seem to be the only ones who put an unambiguously proletarain description on the tansiqiyat. See syria/ "The tansiqiyat are not one group of people. They are probably more than 500 groups who do not share many things other than hating the regime. Some of them are not Muslims, many are not religious at all, some drink alcohol and didn’t fast in Ramadan.

The tansiqiyat in villages and suburbs are mostly conservative and some are islamist. those in the city are more politically aware and secular. I met some in the cities who are young engineers, doctors, bankers etc. all are very tech-savvy.

The thing is that the tech-savvy well-prepared Ikhwan and FB revolution page ( and later SNC members ) are well connected with the tansiqiyat since day one. They are the central command for many isolated, lost and clueless tansiqiyat. So they fell under their charm as the only saviors!

This is unfortunate as the internal opposition is only in control of smaller number of tansiqiyat as it is more dangerous and easier to get caught than communicating with people through skype under the safety of TOR. So the poor tansiqyat were thrown to the lap of the islamists and the SNC. it’s not who they are it’s who they were pushed to be." Tridni Valka seem to be both wrong and romantic here - smells of the GCI.