An AWL Politics Master-class

The AWL long since gave up Marxist analysis and programme in favour of moralism, tea and sympathy, and a reliance on bourgeois democracy and democratic imperialism to fight the workers battles for them. But, their latest pronouncement on the situation in Syria, seems to have reached an all-time low when it comes to vacuous statements. In an article that meanders through their contradictory view of the situation in Syria, they end with the world shattering conclusion

“Workers’ Liberty supports the fight for women’s rights, secularism and workers’ rights in Syria. Down with Assad’s regime! For liberty and democracy!”

Well thanks for that then. I doubt many people on the Left or even within the ranks of Radical Liberalism would ever have thought of aligning themselves with those sentiments!!!

But, of course, that's part of the problem, and it shows the inane nature of the AWL's politics, of trying to formulate its responses to individual situations to meet its moral imperatives rather than on the basis of Marxist analysis and principle. The reason is simple.   As it stands that statement is quite clearly and obviously contradictory, and in other circumstances the AWL have said why such statements are inadequate, and in fact dangerous.

In Iraq, the AWL argued against raising the demand for “Troops Out Now”, because they argued, with some justification, concretely, a removal of the Imperialist Troops would necessarily result in either the coming to power of one or other group of jihadists – at the time the AWL only thought it likely that Sunni Jihadists would come to power – or else it would result in sectarian Civil War. Quoting Trotsky, they argued that you should not recklessly raise demands, the consequence of which will be the opposite of those you desire.

The AWL's Politics and Philosophy
are based on the idea of a Moral Imperative
proposed by Kant, not objective scientific
analysis as proposed by Marx.

But, applying that principle to Syria, it is quite clear that concretely, here and now, if Assad falls, then the only forces that will take his place are precisely the kind of clerical-fascist, jihadist forces, whose coming to power in Iraq, the AWL were so opposed to! The necessary consequence of Assad falling, and those clerical-fascist forces coming to power, as has happened in Libya, will be precisely that the very noble aspirations of the AWL for “women’s rights, secularism and workers’ rights in Syria”, will be dealt an even more deadly blow than they ever could have been under Assad! So, the question is why does the AWL oppose such demands in Iraq, in Kosovo etc. and yet support such demands in Libya, and in Syria? Could it be the same reason that they called for Soviet Troops out of Afghanistan, but opposed calls for US troops out of Iraq?  Could it be that what motivates the AWL is its reliance on democratic imperialism to pursue its moralistic, and liberal agenda, and that means adopting contradictory positions, and even supporting clerical-fascists provided they are on the same side as Imperialism?

That is not to say that socialists should support Assad either. In Iraq, it was quite possible to demand “Troops Out Now”, and to raise that demand in such a way as to make it clear that it was a demand for workers in Iraq, and internationally to combine to force that withdrawal, that in the process of such a struggle the Iraqi workers should seek to gain the lead of the movement, and to do so in opposition not just to Imperialism, but in opposition also to the clerical-fascists.



The subjectivist, Third Campism of the AWL
means they are merely the other side of
the coin to their fellow Third Campists of the SWP.
The latter's Third Campism leads them to ally with
clerical-fascists like Hezbollah in pursuit of their
"anti-imperialist" moral imperative.  The AWL are led
to ally with other clerical-fascists in the Camp of
Democratic Imperialism, to pursue its Moral Imperative.

In Syria, it is quite possible to raise the demand for the downfall of Assad, but to do so in the context of opposing the clerical-fascists who are seeking to hijack the opposition movement – as indeed the mullahs did in Iran in 1979 – and of opposing the feudal Gulf Monarchies who are pursuing their own agenda in the region by supplying high-tech weapons, large sums of money, and Special Forces troops under the tutelage of the CIA. Yet, the AWL make no demands whatsoever to oppose the clerical-fascist allies of Imperialism and the Gulf Monarchies in Syria. Not one single word.

On the contrary, just as they did in Iraq and in Libya, they have acted as apologists for the clerical-fascist allies of Imperialism and the feudal Gulf Monarchies. In Iraq, they bigged up Shia clerical-fascists like Sistani, promoting him as some form of bourgeois constitutionalist. We have seen where that has led, as Iraq is falling more and more into becoming a Shia clerical-fascist dictatorship, much in the way of Iran, but likely given the current dynamics of Sunni-Shia conflict in the region to descend rapidly into a sectarian Civil War.

As a State capitalist economy most workers in Libya
were employed by the State.  That association is now
 making workers the target of the clerical-fascists who
 hold real power in the country.  Black workers have
been particularly targeted.  Various humanitarian
organisations have pointed out the truth, some have withdrawn,
but the AWL "objectively’ picks its nose while it watches
men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people".

In Libya they closed their eyes to the fact that the “rebels” they were supporting were a tiny minority whose only military advance came on the back of of massive military intervention by Imperialism and the Feudal Gulf Monarchies. Now that those clerical-fascist forces have seized control of the streets in Libya, the AWL likewise remain schtum about the torture and atrocities those erstwhile allies of theirs are committing, often against black Libyan workers, and indeed workers in general, simply for having been employed by the State!

In Syria, the opposition to Assad, for a long time, truly was a popular revolt, in a way that it was not in Libya. Large numbers of people came out on to the streets to demand, not originally the downfall of Assad, nor even political reform, but economic reforms. As in Egypt, and other such revolutions, what begins as economic demands, quickly and necessarily, is transcended into political demands. The people of Syria, for a long time, continued to resist the brutal suppression of Assad, in a way that simply did not happen in Libya. There is undoubtedly a large element of that within the revolt in Syria still today, but it is simply naïve, if not dishonest to claim that this today is the dominant nature of the revolt in Syria.

Depleted Uranium enables high-tech munitions to
pierce tank armour.  On explosion it becomes an aerosol,
which then poisons the air, gets into land and water courses,
which then is consumed causing birth defects for decades
after.  The diocsin used in Agent Orange by the US in
Vietnam has had similar consequences.

It is quite clear, even from the biased accounts of the western media, that a large part of the revolt, in Syria today, is the work of outside forces, who have seen their opportunity to intervene, in that initial uprising, for their own ends. A look at the video footage of some of the government tanks, when they explode, from the inside, shows that very high-tech weapons are being used by the rebels, undoubtedly, as was the case in Libya, using depleted uranium, to be able to pierce the armour, which is why the tanks explode from the inside. Its a tragic irony that depleted uranium weapons are being used in Syria today, as they were in Libya recently, given that, this week, the US has, eventually, agreed to start helping to clear up from its use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, which, like DU, has such long lasting, and terrible, effects on future generations.


There are plenty of accounts of the way in which the feudal Gulf Monarchies are channelling funds, and high-tech weapons, to the rebels, through Turkey and Jordan, and the way the CIA are providing logistic support for this traffic, in the way they did in providing Bin Laden, and the jihadists, with weapons, in Afghanistan, to fight the USSR. It is no coincidence that the weapons are, almost exclusively, ending up in the hands of the jihadists, and not in the hands of the more secular rebels. The US seems to have decided that its worth risking throwing its lot in with the Sunni Gulf Monarchies, upon whom it relies for oil, and for petro-dollars, to keep the US economy afloat, even if that means giving a free hand to Al Qaeda, and other Sunni clerical-fascist groups in the region, and despite what that might mean, in the not too distant future, if they succeed, for Israel.

Even the biased western media, which has been making full use of the latest technology itself, to photoshop images (See: Western Media Caught Falsifying Images), has had to carry stories about the Minorities living in Syria that have been ethnically cleansed. The media and the apologists like the AWL, frequently talk about the atrocities committed by the Government, but rarely do they talk about the equally brutal atrocities committed by the jihadists, atrocities not only committed against the State, but also against Minorities. Iraqis, who sought refuge from Sunni thugs by moving to Syria, are now fleeing Syria, back to Iraq. Shia refugees, Alawis, and Christians are fleeing Syria in droves into Lebanon, as well as Syrian Sunnis fleeing into Turkey and Jordan. What began as a movement for economic reform across Syrian society, has been turned, largely as a consequence of the insertion of these external forces, and their own political agenda, based on regional interests, and global power politics into a sectarian civil war. Once more, even the biased western media reported early on that the Syrians involved in that movement resented and opposed that external intervention, (See: also Rebels Find Jihadists Too Extreme) the AWL, once more closes its eyes to that reality in order to remain on the side of US Imperialism, and its Sunni clerical-fascist allies.

Like their predecessors the Opportunists of the Miliukov type that Trotsky attacked, they cherry pick which atrocities to protest, as a pretext for justifying Imperialist adventures, and those to remain quiet about. Trotsky wrote,

“An individual, a group, a party, or a class that ‘objectively’ picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive”.

“On the other hand, a party or the class that rises up against every abominable action wherever it has occurred, as vigorously and unhesitatingly as a living organism reacts to protect its eyes when they are threatened with external injury – such a party or class is sound of heart. Protest against the outrages in the Balkans cleanses the social atmosphere in our own country, heightens the level of moral awareness among our own people… Therefore an uncompromising protest against atrocities serves not only the purpose of moral self-defence on the personal and party level but also the purpose of politically safeguarding the people against adventurism concealed under the flag of ‘liberation’.”

(Trotsky On The Balkan Wars)

Yet, even they have to allow the light of reality into their world to some extent.

“First, there has been a growth of independent, salafist Islamist militias, backed and funded from outside Syria. Two journalists were recently kidnapped by such a group in northern Syria and report that their captors were all foreign fighters.

Second, there has been drift within the main body of the organised opposition towards both a more (Sunni Muslim) religious and a sectarian (Arab and anti-Alawite) stance. One chant heard in Hama is, “The Alawi in the coffin, and the Christian to Beirut.”

For example, Zabadani, a town with a population of 5,000 Christians and 30,000 Sunni Muslims has two Free Army militias. One is more secular; the other — bigger and better funded with guns and money from abroad — is salafist.”

Yet, despite all that they claim,

“The only minority which remains solidly tied to the state in their majority is the Alawites. Alawites have received preferential treatment in jobs, housing and education. Alawis are in key positions in all the security services.

The rebellion retains its basic character, while becoming more and more militarised.”

Of course, the comments about the Alawis are true, but is that any reason for socialists to simply sit on their hands, whilst they are subject to the wrath of a vengeful, majority? Catholics were oppressed by Protestants in the North of Ireland, but that is no reason for Socialists then to have no regard for the rights of Protestant workers, as part of a settlement of that situation! But, even if it is true that the Alawis are the only Minority solidly attached to the State, it is not true that these Minorities now are supportive of the opposition, precisely because that opposition has taken on distinctly sectarian, and clerical-fascist dimensions, that are immediately hostile to the interests of those minorities.

The same is true in relation to the Kurds. The Syrian Government has undoubtedly utilised the Kurdish region for its ends. The Kurds in Iraq are increasingly at odds with the Iraqi Government, but are equally hostile to the Sunnis who oppressed them for decades. They are attempting to oppose the Iraqi Government, which is dealing with Turkey, to try to provide itself with an oil pipeline into Europe, and is thereby allowing Turkey to launch air and ground assaults on PKK militants (revealingly described by the AWL as “terrorists” as opposed to its use of terms such as “rebels”, “freedom fighters”, “opposition” when it comes to the clerical-fascist militias in Syria). Interestingly, the AWL have little to say about Imperialism's ally Turkey launching these missile and air attacks on the Kurdish “terrorists” unlike their, and the western media's, outrage, at such atrocities, committed by the Syrian Government.

Many of those Kurdish militants have sought refuge in Syria, where they feel more secure than in Iraq. Contrary to the AWL's cheer leading claim that, “The state’s forces are now seriously stretched. Most of the regular army is locked-down in barracks and monitored closely by the intelligence services to guard against defections” most western military analysis is that the Syrian armed forces remain strong and relatively solid. They had little difficulty removing rebel forces from Damascus, and seem to be having little difficulty in removing rebels from Aleppo. Again contrary to the version often portrayed by western media, part of the reason for a more deliberate advance seems to be according to the UN observers a concern to avoid collateral damage – a sensible course if you do not want to alienate even more of the population. Where the UN have been on the ground during such assaults, they have reported that they have been relatively accurately directed at rebel forces. In Aleppo, it appears that the Government forces acted to trap the rebel forces and contain them so as to eliminate them, and prevent their escape, which meant bringing up sufficient forces to ensure their encirclement.

Its likely that the withdrawal of forces from the Kurdish region was not due to a lack of forces, but was a deliberate tactic to keep the Kurds relatively on side, given that they are quite clearly opposed to the Sunni clerical-fascists, particularly those coming in from outside Syria. The fact, that the PKK is coming into Syria from Iraq, is itself an indication of the continuing strength of the Syrian armed forces, because they know that unlike with Iraq, Turkey does not yet dare launch attacks on them inside Syria. When Turkey probed Syria with one of its jets recently it was promptly shot down. This also seems one reason that Imperialism is less inclined to launch an air war against Syria as it did in Libya, because Syria has far more, and far better air defences than Libya did.

As I wrote recently, all of this means that the prospects, for Syrian workers, are not bright. But, as Libya has demonstrated, as Iran after 1979 demonstrated, and as many other similar situations have shown, the kind of lesser-evilism, that the AWL promote, is not the solution, for workers, either. The resolution of the problems, of the Syrian workers, rests in the hands of the Syrian workers themselves, in combination with the international workers movement, such as it is. The job of Marxists is to tell that truth unpalatable as it may be given the current circumstances, not to fob them off with tea and sympathy, empty platitudes about being in favour of women's and workers rights, apple pie and motherhood, and other such drivel.



The Spanish Civil War showed
the catastrophic results of the
kind of Popular Frontist politics
the AWL advocate.

As far as we are able, given our meagre forces, the job of Marxists is to assist the Syrian workers to organise themselves for their own defence against their enemies on all sides, and to do so in alliance where appropriate with other forces. That most certainly does not include throwing in their lot with Imperialism or with its clerical-fascist allies, or its feudal Gulf Monarchist allies. On the contrary, the Syrian workers need to build their own organisations in strict separation from their class enemies, and where possible to do so across sectarian divides. As Marxists in the Imperialist States, our task is to oppose the intrigues and intervention of our own States, and those of its clients in the region – that applies to Marxists in Russia and China and Iran too.

The riots last Summer showed the importance, and necessity of building workers militia and defence squads in our own societies, to ensure the defence of working class communities, which the Capitalist police cannot be relied upon to do. But, we need also to build such workers militia on an international level to to defend workers in situations like Syria, in the same way that the International Brigade did in Spain during the Civil War.  (Though we need to ensure that such Workers Defence is not based on the kind of Stalinist Politics that the International Brigade was dominated by).  The Clerical-fascists are able to do that, many of the jihadists fighting in Syria, as was the case in Libya are themselves from Britain. That the international Labour Movement is not able to organise for its own defence on at least the scale that the clerical-fascists do should be to their eternal shame.

For Marxists, it should be clear that “women’s rights ... and workers’ rights in Syria” are not compatible with either a continuation of the Assad regime or with the clerical fascist regime that would be its likely successor under current conditions. Under the latter secularism would not be conceivable either. The only guarantee of those basic bourgeois democratic rights is not the kind of Radical Liberalism that the AWL promote, but is a Workers' Syria. Unfortunately, we have to admit that such a development is unlikely at the moment. Our task as Marxists, is therefore, to do whatever can be done to defend the Syrian workers to sustain them against the main threats against them, and to help as far as can be done, to create the conditions whereby a Workers' Syria, and indeed a Workers' Middle East and North Africa is possible, as part of a Workers' World.

Down with Assad, Down With Imperialism, Down With the Feudal Gulf Monarchies, Down With the Clerical-Fascist Militias, Defend the Syrian Workers, Build International Workers Defence Organisations.