Syria: imperialist war or class solidarity!

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Syria: imperialist war or class solidarity!
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Syria: imperialist war or class solidarity!. The discussion was initiated by redflag2.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

redflag2 (not verified)
The only query I have

The only query I have regarding the  article on Syria is with the contention that  the main reason why the two major imperialist powers USA and USSR never went to war during the cold war was due to the uncertainty of the bourgeoise in mobilising the respective working classes around their war aims. I'm not certain that this is true as patriotism/nationalism is one of the major ideological glues holding capitalist society together. In the event of war, similiar to the first world war, the intensity of nationalistic sentiment would have been huge and workers would have mobilised behind their bourgeosies. Lets not forget that in the lead up to the first world war we saw a heightened period of class struggle, in the UK, The Great Unrest 1910-14, and still workers went to war. It was only through the suffering of workers and the increase in wealth of the bourgeoise that workers began to become dissilousened with the war. I suspect a similiar situation would have aros if a war had been called during the cold war.

I beleive that the reason there was peace of a kind, although proxy wars were fought between the two major powers which did lead to a huge amount of suffering, was due to the economic crisis had just broken out during the 1970's and has taken forty years to manifest itself in a major systemic crisis of today. I do think that if the working class does devlop a Marxist perspective/consciousness then a major war could break out with all the horror it entails. The problem for revolutionaries is how do we help this conscoiusness develop? In the absence of such a perspective then many more Syrias can so easily delop.

"Lets not forget that in the

"Lets not forget that in the lead up to the first world war we saw a heightened period of class struggle, in the UK, The Great Unrest 1910-14, and still workers went to war. It was only through the suffering of workers and the increase in wealth of the bourgeoise that workers began to become dissilousened with the war. I suspect a similiar situation would have aros if a war had been called during the cold war."

It is true that the working class followed the bourgeoisie into war in WW1. But it's also true that after three years of war, they brought an end to that war through the revolutionary wave. The bourgeoisie have never forgotten that lesson. They were confident after the counter-revolution that they more-or-less controlled the class in preparation for WW2 ... but all parties were very careful about monitoring the mood in the working class. They also responded with any sign of working class independence with swift brutality and other fractions would delay the fighting while the other one "cleaned house" (e.g. Churchill's comment about letting Italy stew in her own juices).

"I beleive that the reason there was peace of a kind, although proxy wars were fought between the two major powers which did lead to a huge amount of suffering, was due to the economic crisis had just broken out during the 1970's and has taken forty years to manifest itself in a major systemic crisis of today."

Do you mean the crisis itself delayed the outbreak of war? If so, how do you relate WW2 to the Depression? Or do you mean that it was the slow manifestation of the crisis that resulted in a slow march to war?

I think you underestimate the impact of the workers' struggle on the bourgeoisie. For example, the protests against the Viet Nam war in the US, for all their confusion, were at least partially responsible for the inability of the US to bring its full force to bear. This showed the difficulty the bourgeoisie was having in conscripting workers to its armies. From that point onwards it became far more dependent on professional armies and "economic conscription".

It is notable that as the Cold War developed, there was a general shift from direct confrontations between superpowers - Berlin Blockade, Berlin Crisis, Cuba, Dominican Republic invasion, Korea, Viet Nam, etc. - to a focus on proxy war confrontations and "detente". The heightening of tensions during the 80s was surely connected to the accelaration of the economic crisis and the confidence the bourgeoisie was gaining in confronting the working class.

"I do think that if the working class does devlop a Marxist perspective/consciousness then a major war could break out with all the horror it entails. The problem for revolutionaries is how do we help this conscoiusness develop? In the absence of such a perspective then many more Syrias can so easily delop."

Isn't this contradictory? If the development of Marxist consciousness would lead to a major war then (a) why would we want to do it in the first place? and (b) how can it prevent more "Syrias"?

Surely a class conscious working class would be a barrier to the development of war?

redflag2 (not verified)
In my last post I should have

In my last post I should have said that "...if the working class does NOT develop a Marxist perspective/consciousness.." Agree that the more politically conscious the working class a class becomes then there is less chance that a major war could start. Also that it's only through the ongoing struggles of the class against the austerity attacks that provides the basis of the development for a Marxist political consciousness. The development of class conscious would lead the working class to see the need to overthrow the capitalist state and to replace it with a workers state based on workers councils as the first step to the dissolution of all states.

I think that there needs to be made a distinction between a major inter imperialist war and what could be called small skirmishes involving proxy forces. In the event of a major war I beleive that the working class would fall behind it's respective bourgeosies and the only thing that would stop it is the development of a political consciousness based on Marxism. No matter how horrific Vietnam was it did not at the time threaten the foundation of American capitalism. Major wars are the outcomes of deep economic crises which can not be solved through established channels.

WW2 was the outcome of a whole series of economic crisis that could not be resolved within the confines of the existing channels. I also think that we need to be careful in seeing something that did not exist. At the time I beleive that the working class at least in the devloped economies were still attatched to the reformist organisations. Germany 1919-23 the bulk of the German working class followed the SPD and what happened was that the vanguard of the class attempted to overthrow the German bourgeoise seperated from the bulk of the German working class. The same is true today in fact it may be worse today when after forty years of bourgeoise attacks the revolutionary left is even weaker than it was in the 1970's.


I think that an important element in the mobilisation of the working class for the first world war was the sudden, disorienting betrayal by the forces of social democracy, the "labour" parties and, not least, the trade unions all of  whom were avid recruiting sergeants for imperialism as they fully and inevitably threw themselves into defending the national interest. The sort of confidence that the working class had in these very influential organisations of capital at the time does not exist anywhere today. And, as Demo points out, the working class drew its own conclusions independent of these bodies as it launched into a revolutionary wave.

War, always innate to capitalism in both its rise and fall, could well have occured during the Cold War, not least from some nuclear accident or misunderstanding but, while not underestimating nationalism, there was no appetite for war and the jingoism that had characterised the mobilisation for World War I during the Cold War period.

The "Vietnam Syndrome" had a great weight on US foreign policy, an anti-war mood that lasted for years after the US got China to carry on the war. The massive demonstrations against the war world-wide were certainly supported by the representatives of the Russian bloc but the outbursts of protests in the US, as well as killing of US officers by US conscripts in Vietnam, gave the bourgeoisie pause for thought in their imperialist adventures.

I think that the situation today where there's an upswell of "general opinion" against war (intervention in Syria) shows even more of a difficulty in pursuing war. While this "popular opinion" is diffuse then, in my opinion, it is felt most strongly in the working class which I think has been expressed, sometimes quite concretely (Turkey recently) in protests across the globe. There has also been a big development for the bourgeoisie to use not just professional armies and "economic conscripts" (which they are) but also mercenary forces.

After the seemingly endless,

After the seemingly endless, although limited wars, in Afgahanistan and Iraq, the proletariat seems rather ill disposed towards yet another war. Public opinion has been running steadily against any intervention in Syria, even a limited one. Obama was basically forced to put his reputation on the line in order to drum up support for a strike and he has--at this point at least--failed. Working class sentiment still seems more isolationist than internationalist at the moment, but there is little appetite for another war. 

"I think that there needs to

"I think that there needs to be made a distinction between a major inter imperialist war and what could be called small skirmishes involving proxy forces. In the event of a major war I beleive that the working class would fall behind it's respective bourgeosies and the only thing that would stop it is the development of a political consciousness based on Marxism. No matter how horrific Vietnam was it did not at the time threaten the foundation of American capitalism. Major wars are the outcomes of deep economic crises which can not be solved through established channels."

I'm not sure I understand. There is, of course, a difference between proxy wars, limited wars and major conflicts. But it's worth remembering that even limited wars quickly escalate beyond the war aims of the belligerents. Both World Wars began as very limited strikes with precise and limited aims and quickly escalated.

Naturally, if a country was directly invaded there would be a tendency to rally around the national state as the threat is more visceral - troops could be rolling through the streets of my town to try and kill me! But for their to be a threat of invasion, one of the powers concerned has to have sufficient control over its working class to launch such an invasion. Do you think anyone has it?

Key questions

Without losing the primary perspective of Internationalism -on both class terrains- and without doubting that the adjective 'warmonger' belongs beside Churchill a much as anyone I will offer some thoughts re: 

Not at all definitive but here goes:

a) Before the organised barbarism of WWII, it is indeed true that the generalised crisis was global: US workers ate wild buckwheat to avoid starvation or succumbed certainly. The levels of starvation and misery in Germany however - due to the untenable economic 'reparation' demands of European Capital- were so concentrated and severe that it 'allowed' for the building of an industrial war infrastructure the vastness of which was even more fearsome than I could have imagined the more I discover.

(I wouldn't dare to speculate what Machiavellianism went on behind the scenes: the English King dining with Hitler: the US supplying oil to Franco in Spain well after Sept 1939)

The crisis was general but the extreme of uneveness was expressed in one 'Nation' which lead to a particular state and 'identifiable bastard' easily mobilising the workers for war which of course then gives all other 'allegedy' victim States a relatively easy path to Nationalist mobilisation for 'decent' reasons. Having said that, Demog. is right that the resulting carnage spreads 'way beyond the immediate aims of the belligerents'.   

b) Cuba Crisis: at school one of my friend's eldest brothers was an RAF pilot: his Vulcan bomber was on the runway loaded with H-bombs with its engines running in that week: it was that close.Six years later however ...

c) Having -by 'consent' or some macabre brinkmanship 'luck'- decided to avoid/delay mutual - nay global ruin, Bloc Cold War turned hot: but as redflag posts, though a 'proxy war' but still 'bloc war', the mobilising ability - adherence to Bourgeois ideological falsehood - was challenged - however disparate the motivations were : the 'domino theory' of 'communism that wasn't communism' was rejected enough by potential conscripts. Am I right in thinking that this was the last example of a 'conscript army war'?40 years ago?

And now we have the spread of war in the form of 'local wars': more chaotic and seemingly factionalised but Imperialist Powers must still be deeply involved: Assad hasn't got Albert Speer sized underground munitions factories: his stash probably contained the 15/20% creamed off from all the exports channelled through 'obedient' Syria over years from Thatcher/Reagan Blair/Bush Blah/Blah on their way to other proxy sites: when 'disobedient' phone Putin -as it were.

Does any state have the power now to mobilise enough workers' 'boots' ? It would require conscripting or 'buying' -say- the unemployed ? I would say no: 'non-adherence' to State ideology doesn't equate to class consciousness obviously but it does mean something: whether described as 'apathy' 'disillusionment' and even trying to think beyond 'eurocentrism', I don't see how a reversal into 'adherence' could happen among those living through or born into war, austerity, unemployment and social wage attacks.

I would agree with redflag2's other point however, that it is only through economic struggle first that the higher stake of political demand arises with its accompanying consciousness (or possibility thereof) Marx wrote it ...but the caveat/question still strikes me from what I hope I'm rightly getting from some of jk's posts : 'is it so logically clear now: is the 'resident ideology' still definitively secondary 'superstructure' and as clearly divorced from 'objective conditions' 

'A condition of stalemate' ....'with neither class being able to find a definitive response' is an ICC phrase (thesis 6 : decadence)

OK : seems a reasonable analysis: doesn't console me much: break the stalemate by breaking the 'rules': couple of mini-nukes fired off 'just because' that'll rearrange some pawns. ... or while forefronting the ethics of 'errant drones' (20 yr old ones probably) produce a thousand high-tech deadly accurate ones. Only the spooks would know.




Ok, I actually heard Charlie

Ok, I actually heard Charlie Rose say words to the following effect in his interview with Assad: "Many of the weapons the US has pledged to provide the rebels aren't getting through, because the US is worried about 'decomposition'". Wow, a member of the bourgeois media uses the decomp word! Who would have thought it? 

The entire interview seemed odd to me. Did they interview Gadaffi? Saddam Hussein before the second Gulf War? It almost seemed like an attempt to legitimate Assad, as if there really is a plan to leave him in place out of fear of the decomposition Rose alluded to.

redflag2 (not verified)
I'm probably not as hopefull

I'm probably not as hopefull about the ability of the working class as a class to resist bourgeoise ideology of nationalism/patriotism as the other contributers. I remember the Falkland war and the response not only from the lefties I knew at the time but also the response from the people I worked with and lived with, especially the reaction when the Belgrano was sunk. The stench of patriotism was strong and I fear that the working class as a class is in a worst position today than it was during the 1980's. Part of me agrees with JK 1921 when he argues that there is little taste amongst workers for a war today and that there is a more isolationist feeling within the class. But this could rapidly change especially when the full barrage of ideology is let loose in the months leading up to a major confrontation.

Agree also that the at least in the First World War the beligerents were surprised at the cost of the war, the duration and how it left Europe financially. Even after the end of the war the so called winners their economies were devastated and did not really recover to the post war levels. The present confrontation in Syria could easily end up the same way with Russia and China being quickly pulled into the conflagaration. So the stakes are high and the imperiative is to try to build networks of revolutionaries within workplaces/communities who are able to confidently put forward an anti capitalist perspective backed up with a communist programme and somehow win workers away from the reformist misleaders, those who have made their peace with capitalism and only seek to make the slaves lives less miserable.

One last point is that the reason why the bombs have yet to fall on Syria is that there are serious divisions within the ruling class. I know that there are many on the left especially the trotskyists who do beleive that something called public opinion managed to if not stop the bombs at least delay them being launched. To me this again falls into the trap of somehow thinking the capitalist class actually takes some notice of what the public wants it never has and never will. For instance the people do not want the austerity attacks and all the suffering that goes with it, the people did not want the 2002 war on Iraq where millions of people marched against the war to no avail. Now there is talk from the left of the UN being brought into the equation to somehow legitimise the attacks that are being prepared. In fact I think that the ruling classes are turning to the UN in the hope of trying to control the outbreak of any conflict so that it doesn't escalate into full blown conflagration.

Finally I do think that the ICC theory of decomposition does stand up to explain material reality and what the consequences will be if the working class is unable to arm itself theoretically to overthrow the politicaal rule of the capitalist class. failed states may end up becoming the norm in the developed capitalist states and dystopia will go from the world of literature to everyday reality.

This has probably been a confused thread but I thought it best to get down my thoughts on the current crisis.


Charlie Rose, etc.

Just a response to jk's post above. Yes, both Gaddafi and Saddam were interviewed on British TV before the invasions of their countries. They also gave up their chemical weapons before they were invaded.

But there's many differences and jk has a point here that there may be some reassessment of Assad's position in the west along with the involvement of Iran in any possible imperialist carve-up.

To effectively assess and verify the regime's chemical weapons, let alone destroy them, would take the presence in a war zone of a UN protection force of tens of thousands of soldiers - not the cholera-spreading type sent to Haiti - but a real, fighting force with all the back-up this implies. This looks very problematic even in the long-term and impossible in the time scale proposed for dealing with these weapons. So, to me, it does imply a re-think for some possible deal for Assad that must follow from the weakened US stance and the adroit Russian coup. A point on Russian interest in this is the fact that it has had two Chechen wars in the last decades and has ongoing problems with Chechen fundamentalists. In Syria the Chechen-led "rebel" brigades are an extremely formidable fighting force and if elements of this force got their hands on biological weaponry it would be a nightmare for Russia, the latter having direct experience of murderous gas attacks in Moscow and elsewhere. That's a part of Russian interest.

The dangers of the strength and development of the jihadi forces in Syria must be finally dawning on the western governments. The Daily Telegraph today gives fairly authorative detail of the fundamentalist forces from the IHS Jane's defence consultancy:

There are further reports, linked to by Ocelot on the libcom Syrian thread, that in the Syrian city of Ash Shaddadi, run by the al-Nusra Front, the latter controls transport, grain, oil, gas and cotton production. There are also reports in all this insanity that the FSA  are selling gas directly to the regime, on top of earlier reports that al-Nusra was doing the same with oil.

Ten days or so ago, US Secretary of State, Kerry addressed Congress with a view to convincing it that air strikes would not assist the fundamentalists but only the 'good guys'. He testified that the fundamentalists, particularly al-Nusra, made up only a small number of the anti-Assad forces and that the moderate forces were making gains. This has clearly not been the case for some time now. In an interesting development the researcher, Elizabeth O'Bagy, who wrote part of Kerry's speech and gave him these "facts", has been instantly fired from the Institute for the Study of War whom she worked for. She turns out to be quite close to the FSA leadership.


Airstrikes Threat On Syria! Third World War?

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 « « [email protected]