Socialist Worker: Assad and Russian Supporters Welcome in Stop the War Campaign.
SWP: Assad and Putin Supporters Welcome.
Today Socialist Worker publishes an account of the complexities of the Syrian civil war.
Alex Callinicos notes,
The Syrian war is a complex, many-sided conflict, pitting against each other domestic forces that are increasingly defined in confessional and sectarian terms. These are backed by outside regional and global powers for their own interests. The secular democratic impulse of the original 2011 risings survives only weakly.
He then observes.
Moreover, various currents in the Western left have their sympathies with different sides in the war.
In seeking ‘unity’ in the anti-war ‘movement’ (that is protests) he retreats into the 1st World War ‘revolutionary defeatist” bunker when it comes to his conclusion.
The moral of this is that the anti-war movement should stay out of all the different powers’ geopolitical schemes and the spurious arguments used to justify them.
Our task is to mobilise against the US-led military campaign in the Middle East and our own government’s participation. This broad stand can gain the support of Syrians opposed to the bombings.
This doesn’t mean that people who back Russia, or even Assad, have no place in the anti-war movement. Others on the British left have used their presence at anti-war rallies as a reason for not supporting the Stop the War Coalition.
This is a bad mistake. We should accept that we have different takes on the Syrian struggle, but still work together.
Socialist Worker stands strongly with the Syrian Revolution and its original promise. But we won’t forget that the main enemy is at home, and we’ll unite with all who want to mobilise against it.
How the inclusion in the anti-war movement of those opposed to what Callinicos describes as the Syrian Revolution – that is backers of Assad – works out is beyond rational comprehension.
This reasoning could mean that anybody fighting for the defeat of the ‘main enemy’ – ‘at home’ – is welcome in the anti-war movement.
Now in fact there is no real modern equivalent of this ‘defeatism’ since nobody is arguing the Patriotic case for defending the ‘Nation’ – the UK – against ‘its’ enemies.
There is, in other words, no parallel to the left patriotic ‘defencists’ of the Great War, or to those arguing (rightly) to defend their countries against Nazi occupation.
Trotsky, who is apparently an authority in these affairs, said in 1939,
“… Defeatism is the class policy of the proletariat, which even during a war sees the main enemy at home, within its particular imperialist country. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a policy which locates the main enemy outside one’s own country. The idea of defeatism signifies in reality the following: conducting an irreconcilable revolutionary struggle against one’s own bourgeoisie as the main enemy, without being deterred by the fact that this struggle may result in the defeat of one’s own government; given a revolutionary movement the defeat of one’s own government is a lesser evil. Lenin did not say nor did he wish to say anything else. There cannot even be talk of any other kind of ‘aid’ to defeat.”
Hal Draper.The Myth of Lenin’s “Revolutionary Defeatism”
There is no domestic British ‘revolutionary movement’.
A more rational left position today would be to start not from an abstract “Syrian Revolution”.
It is with the wishes of the democratic left forces on the ground such as the ‘Kurdish nationalist’ (Callinicos’s expression) PKK and its Syrian allies, not to mention Syrian democratic movements. It would be to support the cause of human rights expressed by the suffering peoples of Syria and Iraq.
How the ruin of Cameron, however much one would wish it for domestic reasons, can be compared to the aims of those battling the genociders of Daesh to see them and the other Islamist killers eliminated, is a trick of which groups like the SWP alone have the secret.
It is hard to see how any ‘unity’ could come about between those in the UK who wish for support for these groups in their just struggle, yet oppose British intervention in its present shape, can be made on the basis of a wish to see ‘our’ UK government’ beaten.
The SWP have a morally bankrupt stand.
To say the least.