Translated by Bassel Othman
The uprising in Syria was the uprising that sparked a lot of skepticism and confusion. The political position of the Syrian regime in the Arab region is the reason for this, where the regime seems to be in an alliance “conflicting” with U.S. policies, and supports the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, and seems to be the last “resistance” facing the imperialist dominance in the “Broader Middle East”!
Marxist Perspective : Political economy Analysis or “strategic”political Analysis?
From the aforementioned perspective, it seems that our position should be closer to the Syrian regime. But what is the perspective which is essential for a Marxist to approach the situation and to start from ? The Political economy Analysis or “strategic”political Analysis ?
The view was always based on political analysis. The approach to this issue from a “strategic” perspective was based on the recognition of “international relations” and the resulting position, especially the (consensual / conflictual) relationship with imperialism, taking into consideration the fact that the latter is the “center” which governs the consideration of all other issues for a large sect of the Marxists, and it is ” the central ring” to which the contradictions are bound. And therefore it determines the position: with or against.
In Marxism (and this is a methodical basis, not a political position) we must then start from the economic analysis in order to understand the situation scientifically, otherwise the idealistic logic, which starts from the “political element”, the state, and ideas, controls us. We must start from the economic field in order to approach scientifically the field of politics.
Then, when studying the Syrian situation it must be dealt with the economic configuration that has been formed and that has become dominant. And then with the contradictions resulting from it, both internally ( i.e. in internal class frame), and globally ( i.e. global positioning frame).There we will see that the last ten years have led to the re-arrangement of the economy in order to become a completely liberal economy. That is, by the collapse of the economic role of the state, and the imposition of privatization, and then the destruction of the “public sector”, and the dominance of the private sector which has become 70% of national income. And then the transformation of the economy from a productive economy to rentier economy, through the focusing of employment in the sectors of rents, such as real estate, services, tourism, banking and trade.
This process is related to the transformation which made the private sector the largest sector. It means that the employment of the private sector went to this rentier sector. This lead to a major collapse of agriculture and industry. This process has lead also to severe class polarization, through which the wealth accumulated in the hands of a small minority.The new form of economic configuration provided somehow the well-being of less than 20%, but crushed more than 80% , as a result of unemployment (which reached 30% approximately), or the result of very low incomes, where the minimum income became less than 30% of the minimum necessary income to live a “natural” normal life.
This situation had lead to exacerbation of the extent of class contradiction. And this is an “ideal” situation for a class conflict to exist. The prolonged severe oppression, the absolute control of the trade unions by the regime, the prevention of all forms of protests and rejection, all these prevented the manifestation of class conflict previously, except that it was limited to some verbal objections and shy critics in the conference of trade unions, or what was pointed to by the “communist” parties participating in the regime, or in some points in the native press. But this has not prevented the increasing tension in all exploited poor classes, that was alone capable of causing a social explosion, despite the forms that it may take. The uprising is the expression of this escalating tension.
Therefore, starting our analysis from the economic element connects us to the class element. As it is well known in Marxism, the contradiction is in the structure (class stratification), which establishes direct exploitation (ie, positioning in the class-based society). Thus, our position must be determined from this point, not from any other point, i.e. not from the “global field”, in which the phenomenon of imperialism is based. Here becomes the contradiction a “political”one, moving it from a class conflict to conflict between countries, despite the economic base that governs this conflict, that I will refer to, next.
What is happening with some of the Left is what we have just said, so that the political situation is the factor that determines their situation, not the class conflict. The political element does not necessarily express clearly the class factor. There may be even a conflict between “pre-capitalist” forces and imperialist capitalism. The “pre-capitalist” forces are fighting here from a reactionary perspective. Therefore they do not become revolutionary forces that we should be in an alliance with. But when the popular classes rise up against a regime that has certain “conflicts” with imperialism, it is necessary first to identify the reasons for these conflicts, and then insist on the development of the class struggle because it represents the main contradiction.
Are these conflicts of economic bases , or due to class contradictions?
Here we must understand imperialism as an economic structure before it becomes global politics. But also we understand that the situation of class contradictions is what defines the political situation and not the opposite. The conflict between the imperialist countries, despite their common capitalist nature, is a result of competition, and there is a deeper contradiction with the countries that want to be free building industry and the developing agriculture and to achieve economic and political independence. Now there is a contradiction between the American-European imperialism on one hand, and the Russian-Chinese imperialism on the other hand. These contradictions do not affect the situation of the lower classes or the prevailing economic pattern. Thus these are just contradictions between Imperialist countries.
And the nature of the economy imposed by this pattern now, is the rentier economy, through the imposition of a market economy and liberalization, which was applied in response to the conditions of the IMF, that enforces abandonment of the economic role of the state (ie, the imposition of privatization, and ending the role of economical protection previously established in order to prevent the escape of surplus value to the outside). Rentier economy was spread during the last two decades, through focusing of the economic activity on real estate and services, import and banks and commercial activity, and the destruction of the productive forces in agriculture and industry. This is the economic configuration that allows the achievement of the imperialist plunder of money through the activity of which is active in mortgage speculation, and banks and all these sectors, and also in exporting to these countries.
On the other side we can see the accommodation of the Syrian economy with this configuration, despite the existing”contradiction” . We have talked about the transformation in economic structure over the last decade,that was going with a “plan” that seems to implement the terms of the International Monetary Fund despite the absence of an agreement with the Fund about that, which had also even worse consequences on the economy (where the Fund provides advantages, which were not provided in Syria ). In this sense, economic transformation in Syria was going towards binding its economy with the imperialism.
There was usually a distinction between the economy and politics by the Communist Parties in Syria, on the basis of the idea put forward by Comrade Khalid Bakdash (probably in 1980), in which he referred that if he looks at the internal situation he would have been in the opposition, but if he refers to the “national position” of Syrian regime, then he will be a supporter of the regime . This separation between class and national level, mainly between the economic and political (in the interest of the political), is at the heart of “misunderstanding” what is happening in Syria. Or is the basis of the taking the wrong position about what is happening in Syria.
Is it possible to separate the economical and political, and national or class factors?
The Idealistic logic makes this, but Marxism considers this issue in a scientific way. The political position is in general, and in specific,the national position especially is inseparable from the interests of classes, but it is the result of these. When the interest of the capitalist is importing goods, and employing of money plundered from the “national” market in the global market , smuggling these huge quantities of money to the global market, and the restructuring of the local economy on the basis of its ( the global market ) interests as previously noted, making it rentier economy interested to link with imperialist groups, and access to market capitalism. Here, the national issue falls down, or becomes subjected to bargains that serve the economic interests. Growing Capitalism in Syria see that its natural situation is in binding itself to imperialism and not in opposing it. That is because opposition to imperialism was based on building industry, agriculture and development.
This interprets the “contradiction” between the Syrian government and “imperialism.” It is not a class contradiction as long as the capitalist class has adapted to the pattern of economic imperialism, and not in adherence to the “ideology” or “national love”, because these have collapsed since a long time ,and “Baath Ideas and slogans ” became “wiper” used in cases of “political confusion and problems”. There has been a financial entanglement between the “new businessmen” and capitalists of Arabian gulf, Turkey, eastern Europe mafia, and Russia . That means that the “new class” that was founded on the basis of plundering the state and the public sector, adjusted the local economy according to the “general nature” of the peripheral form of capitalism .
This interprets the conflict with America, and Europe, but does not eliminate the fact that the dominant class is a rentier mafia class that is connected with the imperialist capital(even if it is Gulf or Russian or Turkish). In the sense that its the political conflict with the United States does not negate its nature, and that it adapted the economy according to the “global nature” of the current imperialism. Based on this, it forms “alliances” and relationships, and insist on their “resistance”, and name “reluctance”. This conflict is not a class conflict, not economic, but political, where the U.S. strategy after September 2001 does not accommodate the continuation of those in power, and was seeking to establish sectarian systems.
So, the ruling capitalist class established the economic configuration that is adapted to be merged with imperialism, but the political demands of the American imperialism had prevented the harmony, and pressured to make change in Syria.Then – after Obama’s success – there were attempts to make agreement with Syria, but perhaps due to the complexity of the new relations with Iran, Russia and Turkey, delaying this agreement. Here, we point that this contradiction with the American imperialism is a secondary contradiction as long as it based on the ground of peripheral capitalism. And it has entered the framework of inter-imperialist contradiction (between the American / European Imperialist Axis and Russian and Chinese Imperialist Axis). As well as in the context of regional conflict
In this situation the conflict is not essential, but only due to a partial difference in interests. The local economy became capitalist and accommodated with the general character of imperialism, and this is what enforced the occurrence of the social explosion.
So, we should not look at the uprising from the common political point of view but exactly from the nature of the class conflict , and we should understand the nature of conflict between the imperialists and its limits, so that it doesn’t become the criterion that indicates our position from the uprising. Especially in the idealistic methodical analysis, where the political position directs the analysis instead of relying on analyzing the reality, as it is, as the primary base of any attitude.
The common Left starts from the political factor, and this is the basis of misunderstanding the reality, since a long time. This left could not differentiate between class interests and the speech that is constantly produced by the ruling class, so it makes the speech in place of interests, where the speech in many times is a sham to camouflage the interests, and not to express it. And this is the basis of the wrong position of many leftists towards the Syrian uprising.
What can be said here is that the uprising is in its heart an uprising of the masses that became unable to live under these conditions, and that aim to overthrow the regime to achieve their demands on their status of living, and the political conditions that allow it. But also that have not found parties that express this after blowing the spontaneous uprising. These masses were then controlled by their “traditional” senses, and thus the slogans and logos were the product of that. Here we see the complete absence of Marxist forces, despite the participation of many Marxists.
This raises the question about how to form a clear Marxist position about the uprising ? And how to arrange and direct the Marxists participating in the uprising in order to form a real force first, and in order to influence the slogans of the uprising and its context, making it with clear objectives (in addition to overthrowing the regime), and developing its effectiveness, after the conscious element became an important role in its victory?
About the international situation: fear from the “imperialist conspiracy”?
From a logical perspective, giving priority to the “strategic”element at the expense of the real sensibe element was a part of the “problem in understanding” that was experienced by the Marxist elite, a perspective that can be called as Yassin Al-Hafiz named it “superficial political”perspective. Where it appears that the “global relationships” control the perspective in our position towards what is happening in Syria. The position of the regime in Syria in conflict with “old” imperialist countries, and in good relations or alliance with forces conflicting with these countries, is what leads to a rapid conclusion that what is happening is the “imperialist conspiracy”
There is no doubt that American imperialism has worked since the occupation of Iraq on changing the regime in Syria, from the perspective of the project aiming to control the region, which I call the broader Middle East Project. And thus from the political perspective it was clear that the U.S. imperialist tendency to dominate the world aimed to control the Syrian regime.The assassination of Rafik Hariri was in the context of applying pressure to change the regime. These are facts that must be clear, which indicate that the status of the Syrian regime had not adapted to imperialist globalization, and was not controlled by it according to the principles that have evolved after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that is based on forming sectarian systems like the case in Iraq.
As the Authority facilitated the control of the “new businessmen” (plunderers of the public sector previously), and allowed the liberalization controlling the economy according to the economic rules imposed by the institutions of globalization (the IMF and the World Trade Organization and the European Partnership), that goes along with the interest of a familial minority in particular, it ignored the shift of “the global financial crisis” (which is the crisis of capitalism itself) in 2008, so it kept on the same analysis, and lead to a lot of talk about imperialism and conspiracy, and “inevitably”lead to consider that everything happening in Syria is “an imperialist plot.
The superficial political perspective have not allowed the deeper understanding of this problem, and does not see the new global repositioning. Despite that some dramatized the extent of American collapse, and the victory of ” reluctance “, these now forget all their dramatized analysis. Thus, what we have to understand now are the global conditions, and whether the imperialist policies are still as they were before 2008, or have been changed ?
It has been focused after 2007 on the “defeat of America in Iraq” when the U.S. decided to sign an agreement of “withdrawal” from Iraq. And it was focused on the transformation of regional balance of power in favor of opposition forces after the defeat of the Zionist state ( Israel ) in July 2006 in Lebanon. But the approach of the uprising in Syria was dealing with it as if it is the same as the situation since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And thus remembering the “New Middle East Project”, and dealing with it as if the U.S. is still in the “Almighty” strength. And that the global situation is still imposed to its power, despite their amplification of the role of Russia.This approach is still dealing with Russia as an ally, as it was in the time of the Soviet Union, despite the fact that it is now a real imperialist country.
This is one of the changes that have taken place after the crisis of 2008. The crisis led to a blow in America’s economic situation, and a risk of collapse after the mortgage bubble burst, on September 15, 2008. The result of the solution for the accumulating debt crisis, for the benefit of banks that are in danger of collapse was the accumulation of U.S. debt that reached the level of that threats the state to collapse. This crisis reached Europe through the crisis of its banks that also imposed its countries to pay the debt of these banks, which caused the accumulation of a huge debt on these countries. This caused them to follow severe austerity plans that increased the pressure over people. All this made the world look without a dominant force as it was after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it appeared to be divided into axes, and established “multi-polarity” .
Despite the continued attack of Barack Obama administration in the years 2009 and 2010, it showed capability to progress more, after the accumulation of state debt , that was higher than the national income. The result was that the U.S. found that the “magic solution” to its problems, based on the wars, is no longer feasible, because the crisis itself is not a conventional crisis that a war is the best way to get out of . And it resulted from the dominance of money on real capital which appeared in the crucial role of financial speculation (in the stock markets, and speculations on food commodities and oil, etc.) and the control of employment in monetary branches. A situation which made the capitalism necessarily in regression .
This has been reflected in a change in the military strategy of the United States, by recession of its strategy of arrogant fighting in two major wars and numerous small wars at the same time (Strategy of Ramsfield, the Secretary of Defense under Bush Jr.), and the emphasis on not fighting in more than one war at the same time. And then focusing on the Pacific area, and limiting its control over the Middle East by the special air forces, and by stationing of military troops in some Gulf countries. And essentially reducing the number of troops and reducing the “defense” budget. There is no doubt that the fear of an explosion of a “new bubble” is controlling all the politicians and strategists in America. The economic crisis can no longer be solved by war, and America’s economy has become a burden on Capitalism as a result of centralization of monetary blocks that are active in speculation there, and the decline in industry to a large extent, and reliance more and more on importing, and printing huge quantities of dollars more than the world can really bear.
Although Russia was also affected by the financial crisis but still did not become its “victim” as America and Europe. China have benefited from this crisis to extend its dominance over Europe and other areas. Some other countries that had previously made some progress, such as India, Brazil and South Africa (and even Turkey) tend to impose their power in international relations, each of which becomes a new pole.
Under these circumstances, and global repositioning, came the Arab uprisings. America rushed to contain it after the moments of terror that controlled it, and that was easy for it in both Tunisia and Egypt, where the leaders of the army are in “close relationship” with the U.S. administration. The U.S. worked to prolong the conflict in Libya and Yemen,and to benefit from the disintegration of the basic structures in the community in order to weaken the states and control their tracks. But when the uprising started in Syria, the global transformations were much more difficult for U.S. to impact there. America’s economic situation was more difficult, as it has not overcome the crisis, after two and a half years of its beginning.Russia, on the other hand has begun an offensive policy after the attack of ” west ” in Libya.
This situation has changed all policies, and thus the “new Middle East project” is no longer an option, and it is not applicable anymore. The probability of intervention or war or seek to change the power became impossible. As long as an internal coup is no longer possible (after the failed attempt of Ghazi Kanaan / Abdul-Halim Khaddam), the alternative which is a military intervention, is even more difficult, not only because of the U.S. withdrawal, but also because any intervention here means a shift into a regional war which is beyond the capability of the U.S., especially that Syria would be supported by Russia, imposing that Syria becomes its share in the new global partition.
Because of this, the officials of the imperialist countries continuously emphasize that the choice of intervention is not available at all. Because of this situation as well, the United States didn’t take a clear position about the Syrian regime for several months. And allowed the Iraqi government to support this regime taking into consideration that Iraq was, and still under occupation
Therefore any perspective that does not consider all these variables will not understand what is going on, neither in Syria nor in the Arab World. The boring repetition of the word “imperialism” ,without a real understanding of the term, would not have a single benefit, nor the parrot-repetition of the word conspiracy. Imperialism is related to the structure of society through the economic system that matches its interests, and that what has been achieved in Syria, but this time with the support of Russian imperialism. It is imperative that we fight all imperialisms especially that the imperialist intervention in Syria is the role played by Russia to support the regime, and to justify all its crimes.
The era of exclusive U.S. dominance is finished, and the capitalist system became weak and suffers from the absence of a dominant center, and thus Capitalisms are re-positioning to achieve more power in a world passing towards multi-polarity, although it now appears to be divided into two poles: America / Europe, and Russia / China. By the end of American exclusive dominance the “New Middle East Project” reached its end, and it became difficult for the old capitalism forces to strongly influence the path that the Arab world will pass in..
In this situation is there a possibility for military intervention, or a military support for the opposition?
This is the only possible way for the conspiracy, the path for intervention in Syrian affair. Based on this, some argue to prove that what is happening in Syria is “an imperialist conspiracy” .But an imperialism taking position about what is happening is in the deep nature of imperialism, and an imperialism trying to pressure or influence events as well is “natural”. How can an imperialism be silent !
However, we pointed at the U.S. hesitation in taking a clear position about departure of the regime until recently, and how the U.S. did not take a solid position about what is happening in Syria. There is no doubt that its global situation is the basis of this attitude.It is not capable of performing a military intervention (perhaps if the present situation in the arab world grew up in 2005 or 2006 there could have been a military intervention), especially because an intervention in Syria could lead to a regional war that needs more than a limited intervention but an extended war, and this is beyond the capability of America and the Atlantic Alliance.
The armament will not be more than a marginal support, if it is decided. This is because it requires a base that is not present, not in Turkey nor in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon. Because a real support through any of which can lead to war, which does not seem to be possible.
Do we count the statements issued by officials of these countries, or see the reality and touch the facts ?
All those who base their analysis and position on the “conspiracy theory” rely on statements launched by the opposition or some of the leaks without touching the reality and the possibility of any practical role. This is a chronic problem of the “elites”, but is repeated like a caricature in the Syrian situation. Positions are based on statements and leaks and speculation and intentions and not on a real study of the facts, and understanding the possibilities of the reality. This causes their attitudes seem to be outside the context of the reality, and in contradiction with it, as a farce. The International situation is not pointing to any possibility of military intervention or even arming the opposition, and the “elites” base their position as if the military intervention is already present, and the armament is at its highest stages.
And these keep silent regarding the bloody massacres and the criminal acts of the regime. They see the uprising as an act of armed gangs, on the basis of the image that the regime propagates, since they are in the same “reluctant” position.
So, formal logic is the basis for this “crime” practiced by some elites, where imperialism remains as “something” with fixed identity, and the global situation stays divided, as it previously was, to a level as if Russia had not abandoned being a “socialist” country and had not become an imperialism. And thus the analysis was not based on the global economic conditions, nor did it take into consideration the relationship between global imperialist forces, nor the shift in global situation since September 2008, with the outburst of the economic crisis of capitalism, that was much more deeper than limiting it to its monetary character, but it is a crisis of the imperialism that is rot in reality. And on this context we should recognize the attempts to impose a new “global system”.
Is there a position scruffier than this? Perhaps the Arab uprisings will not only drop systems off, but also these elites as well. Perhaps these elites may have touched that these uprisings are revolutions on their logic as well, for this they are now defending the last strongholds of their old logic. Congestion has increased in depth, in layers that were crushed to the level of “starvation”, but were not seen by these elites because it was necessary to remove piles of “mental garbage” that were an obstacle to see this depth, which was impossible. Thus, this rising wave coming from the depth will remove all what is above it, the dominant classes, and ideas, and elite.
Last : The Fear from changes in the region
Therefore, the “Imperialism” is in a “condition of fear and horror”.
All signs suggesting a position against it will be correct and revolutionary?!
This is a product of a “mind” living the extremes of generalizations and superficial shallow logic. Thus a supposed image of the reality is produced by this mind. Here, the “virtual world” is considered to be the reality, and it retreats the reality in the jungles of “history.” Therefore it does not consider the presence of humans and economy, plundering, corruption and exploitation. As if these are excess that do not exist in the logic of “resisting imperialism”. People are considered ignorant rabble and tools, and all the existence is the presence of the “idea of imperialism,” which turn out to a Totem.
After all, this “mind” is the one who was able, barely, to see the equation of the system / imperialism, and is supposed to be against imperialism, therefore, is with the system. What is the status of the system? Its class character? The economic configuration which it established? And the relationship of this configuration with the global capitalism? These are not questions that this mind considers, but answers are already present in a virtual perception based on its “anti-imperialist” character. Hence, answers are previously ready, and it is in Syria, as in anywhere in the world “against imperialism.” For this there will be no need to look at people, classes, and the configuration of the regime, and its practices, and to the class nature of this regime.
What is then the impact of the Syrian uprising on the regional situation?
Opponents of this uprising base their position on their fear of the resistance to collapse, i.e. Hezbollah and Hamas (which quickly jumped to the other side). Perhaps also on the fear from the collapse of states that are in “conflict” with imperialism. Where Syria looks to be the last Arab country outside the “American herd”. Although we have our skeptism regarding this resistance, and regarding the limits of the Syrian conflict with the American Imperialism, these fears are legitimate. At the very least, there must be forces that say “No” to American Imperialism, regardless of cause. It is nice if something remains from that beautiful past, the past when the arabs and the third world raised their voice against the capitalism, and the arab nationalistic movement was wide, and acquired great changes, that caused a shift in the local situation and the global conflicts, and gave the hope in a world that overcomes Imperialism.
Syria was the pale remnant of this past. Maybe this caused some Marxists and nationalistic elites to support the regime. But these are living in the past, maybe they are binding themselves to a nice dream!
But actually, the global repositioning does not allow anymore anything of that past, even as a dream. The regime in Syria today is not even a remnant of that dream, where nothing from the hope of liberty and progress and “socialism” remained.
Its conflict with the American Imperialism is not based on a tendency to liberty and progress and “socialism”, but a result of its possible positioning between the new imperialist forces. Thus it belonged to the axis of Russian imperialism, and not the American Imperialism. The regime in Syria and Iran ( and previously Turkey ) are bound to a certain limit by the Russian-Chinese axis that is forming. This new axis that is forming is also an imperialist capitalist axis that seeks economic dominance and plundering also.
No doubt that all the hostile charge formed against the old imperialism will make the regime justify its relationship with the new imperialism. But this relationship remains related to the economic configuration internally, which will be necessarily a mortgage economy. Even in its relationship with Russia and China, the most important concern of these imperialists is the export of goods (including weapons from Russia), and financial recruitment.
From this perspective, that a Marxist must look from, there will be no change in the global position of Syria. The global conflict had put it in the Russian Axis, and there is no possibility to shift into the American Axis (despite the “love” of the new businessmen and regime elite, towards U.S.) and thus there is no possibility to change its alliance with Iran. Even the relationship with Turkey will return to be just as it was before the uprising.
The internal conflict will not change the regional and global Syrian alliances, and will be limited to the internal situation. This is due to internal and global balances also.
Despite the fact that the Syrian regime provided protection of the borders with the Zionist state, and disregarded the liberation of Julan, and also started negotiation about it, its position in alliance with Iran and its support to Hezbollah display it as the regime that plays a basic role in “resistance “. But it is essential to notice the great change of Hezbollah strategy. Hizbollah adopted the defense strategy after the liberation of South and participated in the Lebanese government. And this situation is similar to that in Syria, which is based on a defense strategy.
The Arab uprising, and the track that it will impose at last, will establish a different Arab situation in relation to the Zionist state and the imperialist dominance, based on conflict and fight, and not submission. We are in the context of a stage that will inevitably lead to a conflict with imperialism due to the tendency to destroy the economic structure that the imperialism previously imposed for continuous plundering of the country, and that is based on mortgage economy. In this context, the conflict with the Zionist state will be a part of the new stage. The uprisings aim is to achieve a radical change in the Arab world, and that would not be possible without a complete independence from the Imperialism ( old and new).
The revolution in Syria comes in the context of this deep change in the Arab situation, and will lead to a conflict with imperialist, despite the present situation of the opposition. This opposition, even if it could play a certain role now, would not be capable of that in the next stage soon. This is because most of this opposition does not recognize the great changes globally, and also internally. Such opposition is “living” in the past, especially that youths in the region over-passed all the political structures and do not find intersection with the present parties.
The misunderstanding of the internal Syrian situation, and of the global conditions, imposed the fear of change that is controlling elites. Thus the fixation to the past becomes a substitute of approaching the future. These elites attach themselves with the last straw to save themselves from sinking; the flood will sweep them just as it will sweep the systems. No doubt that the change will overpass every sectarian resistance in the interest of a popular mass resistance, and the Arab positioning will not be in belonging to a global axis ( U.S. or Russia), but it will be in belonging to themselves in the context of a rise in the global conflict to overcome Capitalism. The Arab uprising will be a part of the global class struggle to overcome Capitalism.
“Marxists” who do not recognize that they will be inevitably swept with the regimes, because their date would be expired. And because they are hanged to the eyelashes of regimes or the “resistance “, and is outside any activity, except what is passive. The horizon of the occurring changes reaches a radical change of all the equation established by the imperialism during the last 40 years in the context of the revolutionary rise for an independent united and developed nation.
Source: Bassil Othman