Cheering the collapse of Syria; An expose of the attitude of Revisionists

There always will be varying assessments of a given event which is good for a cumulative depiction of the event from the ML point of view. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it does not contradict the fundamentals of Marxism Leninism. Few assessments even may reflect partial revisionist approaches and views on a given subject which does not make the Party, organisation, or the individual  a revisionist as a whole. (read Lenin on Rosa on the subject)  The insistent and consistent revisionist assessments, especially contradicting the core of Marxism Leninism, however, are the indications of a revisionist character in its  core.

Similar to the case of Ukraine and “self determination”, there always will be those consciously and some unconsciously who by means of sophistry try to conceal or justify their desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie.(1) Assessments of few Parties, organizations, and individuals on the collapse of Syria have shown their revisionist characters in its core.

Keeping in mind the inevitable and unavoidable fact of the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism, it is an expected consequence that there will be Marxist Leninist, Revisionist and flat-out bourgeois assessments hidden behind the “socialist”, “communist” masks. In the case of Syria, some “communist” parties, organizations and individuals surpassed the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) “socialists” in their assessments. With billions of US dollars flooded directly by the US government and its civilian CIA institutions like NED and NGOs for the anti-communist propaganda; those kind of assessments are expected too.

Cheering of the collapse of Syrian Government (it is called Syrian Regime by the imperialists and echoed by all mentioned above) has nothing to do with Marxism Leninism but an indication of the desertion to the bourgeois camp if not already within the bourgeois camp as a bourgeois mouth piece.

Studying Lenin we will see that in no case “cheering” and claiming the collapse of Syrian Government is a “wonderful thing” has anything to do with ML but contradicts the core of Leninism.

Within a nation-state

The smart and sophist ones hide behind Leninism, distort Lenin’s theories in order to support their argument. They use the quote from Lenin as justification yet they again contradict another Leninist fundamental theory. They quote Lenin;

“We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism ; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism   and capitalism.” (2)

This quote is a quite common one for those who are pro-imperialist and who are  against any and all anti-imperialist struggles in the world. Since they generalize the “reactionary class” that does not only include the feudalists but also pre-monopoly capitalists and monopoly capitalists by way of which they deny the anti-imperialist struggles whether it be in Latin America or in Africa or Asia.

Relying on the insufficient  or little theoretical knowledge of the readers, they hide the fact that in his article Lenin uses “imperialism” in its economic sense;” monopoly capitalism”. The second fact they hide is that Lenin is talking about an “insurrection” within a country in reference to the subject of national  self determination in a country  where pre or post capitalism exists.  He states;

“Economically, imperialism is monopoly capitalism. To acquire full monopoly, all competition must be eliminated, and not only on the home market (of the given state), but also on foreign markets, in the whole world.

The political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the change from democracy to political reaction.

National self-determination means political independence. Imperialism seeks to violate such independence because political annexation often makes economic annexation easier, cheaper, more convenient, less troublesome. “(3)

Sophists of these kind either consciously or unconsciously  confuse the terms “nation” and “nation-state” which may easily be confused if cherry picked rather than reading and understanding the entire context of the article.

Now lets read the entire paragraph of  Lenin’s article from where they cherry picked their quote;

Why must “we” “actively resist” suppression of a national uprising? P. Kievsky advances only one reason: “...we shall thereby be combating imperialism, our mortal enemy.” All the strength of this argument lies in the strong word “mortal”. And this is in keeping with his penchant for strong words instead of strong arguments—high-sounding phrases like “driving a stake into the quivering body of the bourgeoisie” and similar Alexinsky flourishes.

But this Kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism (monopoly capitalism); we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism  (monopoly capitalism) and capitalism. (2)

Which “reactionary class” these analyzers talking about in the case of Syria? According to Lenin,  Monopoly capitalism is  politically reactionary compared to pre-monopoly capitalism , Feudalism is  politically reactionary as compared to capitalism and monopoly capitalism. Are they really against the “reactionary class” in Syria or they are for the most reactionary of all – feudalism which reveals itself as a radical religious ideology with sheria laws? The collapsed state structure in Syria had a “pre-monopolist”, capitalist  character. The non-existent new “government” in Syria now has a “feudal” of the worse kind character.  So these analyzers are “cheering “ the success of feudalism against capitalism in practice. Can this attitude have anything to do with Marxism Leninism?

Not even close. What is it that they are cheering then?

In cases of a nation-state against external imperialist powers

They are cheering the success of imperialism either as a defender of ultra-imperialism and/or the defeat of the anti-imperialist struggle in Syria.

The collapse of Syrian Government was not a direct result  of “insurgency” by the Jihadists . It was not a “revolution” as characterized by the imperialist bourgeoisie. As the evidences revealed, 300 Jihadist walked in to a city which was being protected by  30,000 Syrian soldiers. They kept on “walking” all the way to Damascus without any resistance while the Syrian army largely fled to Iraq and Lebanon. The collapse was a result of skillful plan and practice of imperialists each of whom had different agendas and formed  a “marriage of convenience” coalition.

In this sense, those who cheer the collapse of Syria are actually pro-imperialist puppets hiding behind socialist mask. The quote they use refers to  situation within a country and the attitude of Marxist Leninists. Let’s see what the attitude of Marxist Leninists should be in the case of a nation-state against the imperialist.  Here quoting Lenin what Stalin says;

"The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates, and undermines imperialism”  (4)

The perspective of Assad was a ” dictator” so his defeat is a “cheerful”, “wonderful  event” claims  are pro-imperialist in its core and has nothing to do with Marxism Leninism.

Stalin’s assessment that follows the above quote strikingly describes those claims and claimants as reactionary.

“For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism;

 whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. “ (4)

Is it clear enough?

It is obvious that by means of sophistry, confusing the subjects, cherry picking the quotes out of its context, they are trying  to conceal or justify their desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie. Such cheering  is expected from the NED fed “socialists” after all they are in “business” and they are professionals in the service of imperialists. However, cheering the success of imperialists  is not the duty of Marxist Leninists.

Who or whatever entity” cheering” and calling the collapse of Syria as a “wonderful event” cannot be a Marxist Leninist, in most cases not even a social democrat. Syria was probably the only secular country in the region  with various religious groups from Christians to Muslims, Sunnis, Shiites, Alleviates, Yezidis, Druze, Assyrians etc., living side by side without any serious conflicts. Now, after the collapse we read news and watch videos of massacres of people by these Jihadis'. Cheering theocracy over secularism?  Cheering conflict among the religious factions over peace?

The collapse of Syria is not a blow striking to imperialism but a blow striking to anti-imperialist struggle.

It is most likely that those who benefited from the collapse of Syria in the short term will be the losers in the medium and long term. Especially those who are  living in the region and cheered the collapse, may end up to  be the worse losers. Anti Imperialist and secular people of Syria will  come out of this darkness some day.  We will wait and see, but not too long.

Erdogan A

December 29, 2024

Bangkok

(1)   Erdogan A, Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination- stripping Marxism Leninism from its revolutionary spirit and siding with bourgeoisie.) 

(2)   Lenin "Reply to P. Kievsky" chapter 5, 1916,  'Monism And Dualism'

(3)   Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism - What Is Economic Analysis?

(4)   Stalin , "Foundations of Leninism