No to western intervention in Syria, for a socialist solution

Over the weekend the rhetoric has been ramped up by the west and military action is looking a growing possibility. I felt I needed to write this blog to oppose this and put my reasons why. There has been a flow of western leaders condemn an apparent chemical attack in Syria by President Assad. A lot of similarities to the claims of WMD’s are quite stark. John Kerry the secretary of state for the US government has recently come out with this. “US Secretary of State John Kerry has condemned what he termed the "moral obscenity" of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people. He said footage of the alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus was "real and compelling" and "undeniable". He said President Barack Obama was considering a response. It comes hours after UN chemical weapons inspectors came under attack near the Syrian capital. The team was dispatched to five sites around Damascus where hundreds of people were reported to have been killed on Wednesday. "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said in a televised statement on Monday. The US administration had additional information about that attack that it would make public in the days ahead, he added. He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons attack were signs the Syrian government had something to hide.” I myself am very wary of believing what the west has to say. Not because I’m anti western but their track record speaks for itself. The unsubstantiated charges that the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad carried out a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus killing large numbers of civilians have all the hallmarks of a staged provocation aimed at provoking Western intervention. Reports of the attack were made by Western-backed opponents of the Assad regime early Wednesday, just as a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team, admitted to Syria by the government just 72 hours earlier, began its work. Indeed, according to the opposition sources reporting the chemical weapons attacks, they took place in Eastern Gout in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, just a few miles from where the UN inspection team is headquartered. Initial contradictory reports of the alleged attack put the number of victims at as few as 20 and as many as 1,300. Why the Assad regime should choose such a moment to launch large-scale chemical attacks—under the noses of the UN inspectors—and what motive he would have for doing so, under conditions in which his military has been inflicting a series of defeats on the US-backed “rebels,” has not been explained in any of the extensive media coverage of these unverified allegations. Nonetheless, the US and its NATO allies, the principal supporters of the bloody war for regime change in Syria, lost no time in issuing condemnations and demanding an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, which convened behind closed doors in New York Wednesday afternoon. The White House issued a statement declaring itself “deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons.” Together with its allies in London and Paris, it called for both the Security Council session and for the UN team on the ground in Syria to immediately investigate the report. Proponents of direct US intervention in the Syrian civil war went further. The Washington Post rushed an editorial statement onto its web site declaring: “If the allegations of a massive new attack are confirmed, the weak measure adopted by President Obama in June—supplying small weapons to rebel forces—will have proved utterly inadequate.” The newspaper concluded that Obama must respond to the alleged chemical attacks by “ordering direct US retaliation against the Syrian military forces responsible and by adopting a plan to protect civilians in southern Syria with a no-fly zone.” Sounds familiar? Yes it does the very same language was being used in Libya when there was a no fly zone put in place that has done nothing in the long term to maintain stability and prosperity in the region if anything its made things worse. Not that we can equally believe the Assad regime either who have come out with this The Syrian government and its military, which have repeatedly insisted that they would not use chemical weapons against the population, denied the charges made by such US-backed outfits as the Syrian Opposition Centre. The Syrian Foreign Ministry issued a statement charging that the cooperation between Damascus and the UN inspection team “didn’t please the terrorists and the countries supporting them, which is why they came up with new false allegations that the Armed Forces used toxic gas in Damascus countryside.” Syria’s ambassador to Moscow, Riyad Haddad, told the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS that the charges were false and were designed to reproduce the “Iraqi scenario,” i.e., a direct US military intervention in Syria. “Our Armed Forces have never used chemical weapons and all fabricated concoctions in this respect aim to disorient international observers and defocus their efforts in achieving the set goals,” said Haddad. “It is no secret for anyone that all these falsifications that appear from time to time about the use of chemical weapons are nothing but an attempt to repeat the scenario that was used in the past with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” the ambassador added. There can be no support for western intervention or for President Assad either or the rebels who the west did support briefly. Socialists must support independent workers organisations to control their own destiny. Socialists do not support Assad or the ‘rebel’ leadership. We would give all necessary political and active support to workers on the ground fighting for a common front on a class struggle programme which is badly needed. With references and extracts from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/22/syri-a22.html and www.socialistworld.net

Hugo Chavez dies: The struggle continues

Millions of Venezuelan workers, the poor and youth will mourn the death of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez Describes Tony Saunois, CWI Secretary In an era when the gap between establishment politicians, who defend big business and the super-rich, and the masses seems to widen inexorably Chavez stood out. In fact in the age of austerity the measures he took to alleviate poverty stood out like a beacon. The workers and youth in Venezuela will be joined by many around the globe who have been inspired to support Hugo Chavez’s regime as offering an alternative to imperialism, neoliberalism and capitalism. Meanwhile the most pernicious right-wing capitalist commentators have wasted neither time nor ink in their outpourings of hatred of his regime. The mourning of his passing and anger at these attacks must be channelled into a new stage of working class struggle for socialism in Venezuela and internationally. Capitalist commentators’ hypocrisy Since his death numerous articles have denounced Chavez, and his regime, as an “autocrat”, a “dictator”, a “caudillo”. Some have tried to depict his death as the end of another failed socialist regime. The torrent of bile from these commentators was first readied in the hope he’d be defeated in the Venezuelan presidential elections in October 2012, but had to be shelved at the time. Against the expectations of the international capitalist media and its politicians Chavez romped home for a third term with 55% of the vote, on a turnout of 80%, a result any incumbent capitalist politician in Europe can only dream of. These self-same commentators deafened us with their silence during the attempted coup in 2002 – backed by US imperialism. When these alleged champions of democracy attack Chavez they brush to one side the fact that Chavez has faced 17 elections and referendums since 1998 and won 16 of them. They, and the capitalist politicians behind them, cannot abide the fact that a leader who spoke of “socialism” and the “socialist revolution” and who came into conflict with US imperialism and the capitalist class could win such popular support. They also fear the potential revolutionary movement of the masses which Chavez rested upon. “Por ahora” - ”For now” Chavez himself did not emerge as a political leader with a rounded out ideology or programme. He has empirically embraced different ideas – swept along by events as they have unfolded. Chavez was swept to power in 1998 with overwhelming support. Initially he only spoke of a “Bolivarian revolution” and reform of the old corrupt system. Chavez, like thousands in Venezuela, including junior army officers of which he was one, was radicalised by the “Caracazo” which rocked Venezuela in 1989. Carlos Perez had won an election opposing the neoliberalism of the IMF. However, he undertook a sharp U-turn and introduced a “shock therapy” of neoliberalism. It triggered a mass uprising of the urban poor. The army was deployed and an estimated 3,000 were slaughtered. Chavez’s right-wing opponents have little to say on these events. He was however radicalised and affected by these horrors. He led a left populist military revolt in 1992 against the murderous Perez government. As the coup was defeated he proclaimed the “revolution is ended. For now”. “Por ahora” was to become ingrained in the minds of the masses. Released from prison two years later, he built support and stormed to power in the 1998 election as the mass of the population demanded an end to neoliberalism and demanded change. The limited but popular reforms his government introduced, paid for with the country’s oil wealth, were enough to enrage the ruling elite which attempted a coup in 2002 followed by a lockout. After 48 hours the coup collapsed and Chavez was brought back to Caracas and to power. During the coup the masses poured onto the streets to oppose the new right-wing regime and a revolt by the ranks of the army and its junior officers. Right-wing coup in 2002 At this moment the situation erupted as the right-wing coup led by Pedro Carmona collapsed, making a decisive blow against the ruling class and capitalism. The working class and poor had the opportunity to take over the running of society. Unfortunately, at this moment Chavez opted to call for “national unity” and an agreement with sections of the capitalist class. The lockout was broken after a 12-month struggle. On each occasion Chavez was saved by the mass movement from below. These events enormously radicalised Chavez who by 2005 had begun to speak about the “socialist revolution”. It was in this period that he also made reference to the ideas of one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky, as well as to Karl Marx and called for the formation of a Fifth International. This enraged both the Venezuelan ruling class and US imperialism. Nationalisations and partial nationalisations of significant companies were carried through. The introduction of a basic but free health service and widespread education and literacy programmes enormously enhanced the popularity of the government. Significantly, in the 2006 election – following this turn to the left – Chavez won his largest electoral victory, taking over 62% of the vote! This development has had an enormously positive effect in putting the issue of socialism back onto the agenda in Venezuela and to an extent in Latin America and internationally. The idea of the “revolution” and even “socialism” and radical reform is overwhelmingly dominant in the consciousness of a majority of Venezuelans. This is Chavez’s positive legacy. There is a clear rejection of any idea of returning to the ‘ancien régime’. Blows to capitalism, but no decisive break However, despite the radical phraseology, in response to the global economic crisis which began in in 2007, Chavez, and the Bolivarian government, rather than drive forward with a programme to break with capitalism, moved in the opposite direction. Blows were struck but without defeating it the capitalist class remained in control. From within the Bolivarian a new force has also emerged – the ‘boli-bourgeoisie’, a powerful layer in society which has grown rich on the backs of the Chavez movement. This, combined with the emergence of a powerful bureaucracy, and deteriorating economic situation, has meant that despite the popular reforms, which the CWI supports, massive social problems of poverty, unemployment, corruption violence and crime remain. These continue and arise from the failure to abolish capitalism. Combined with a top down administrative approach from the bureaucracy and the lack of a democratic workers’ control and management in the revolutionary process, while Chavez has enjoyed massive support, it has also resulted in widespread discontent and frustration. Recent strikes by teachers and metal workers have been repressed by the state, all measures which have given a weapon to the right to beat the regime. Transform socialist aspirations into a reality If right-wing candidate Henrique Capriles and the right in Venezuela hope that Chavez’s death will mean an easy ride for them back to power then they are mistaken. Despite the discontent the idea of supporting the revolutionary process, of the idea of socialism and defence of the reforms is deeply ingrained in Venezuelan society. In the short term it is most likely to mean a victory for Nicolas Maduro, the vice-president, named by Chavez as his successor, in the elections. A rallying of Chavez’s supporters and the mass of the poor to defeat the right is already developing. Capriles and the right are, like Maduro, appealing for calm, peace and unity. The right feel their weakness and are being careful not to provoke a backlash from the masses. While the pernicious right-wing commentators have used Chavez’s death to beat their hypocritical anti-socialist drum, other sections of capitalism and imperialism have been more cautious. US president Barack Obama’s cautious statement, along with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, is aimed at opening a new era of cooperation with a future Maduro-led government. They have concluded the right-wing are unlikely electoral victors and therefore have left the door open for attempts to collaborate with a new “Chavista” government. Maduro and the leadership will not have the same authority as Chavez and a new era will open following the elections. Divisions between the different currents within Chavismo may open following the elections. Sections of the ruling class are looking for this as a means of ultimately defeating the Chavista movement. Such prospects underline the urgent necessity of the working class and the poor to rally to defeat the right but then to take the revolutionary process into its own hands with its own independent organisation and programme to transform the “socialist aspirations” raised by Chavez into a reality. The death of Chavez marks not the end of the struggle. A new chapter will now begin.

10 years on from 9/11, how the world changed for workers

This week sees the 10th year since the terrible disaster that was the 9/11 terrorits attacks in the United States. Where sadly 3000 maybe more we will never know for sure sadly lost their lives.

As marxists we do not condone individual terroism for our ends. We are against it in every way. Leon trotsky wrote many a good piece on marxists views on terrorism and how we oppose it based on its anti working class sentiment.

But the world changed that day no one can deny that fact. Even as socialists this posed interesting questions at the time. We of course opposed the attacks yet also opposed the imperialist attacks that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq as the "war or terror".


The bloody terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001 in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington were one of the defining moments in recent history. The deaths of thousands of people allowed capitalist reaction – led by George W Bush and the now discredited British prime minister of the time, Tony Blair – the excuse to initiate a new era of terrible imperialist war and foster the poisonous fumes of ethnic division and racism, directed particularly against those of the Islamic faith. This resulted in a colossal number of deaths and destruction which inflicted further untold misery and suffering on millions of working people and the poor, particularly in the neo-colonial world.

The Socialist Party, at the time and since, unequivocally condemned al-Qa’ida, which was behind these attacks, describing its methods as those “of small groups employing mass terrorism”. At the same time, we gave not a shadow of support to Bush or Blair and the cacophony of the capitalist media calling for a worldwide ‘war against terrorism’. In reality, they used 9/11 to justify state terror against defenceless and innocent people throughout the world, symbolised by the torture chambers of Guantánamo Bay and the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

However, this political standpoint was not shared even by some socialist groups, who were equivocal and refused to condemn these attacks. This was a profoundly mistaken approach which risked alienating a majority of working-class people who were repelled by the carnage in New York and Washington. Moreover, this opened up the possibility of driving them into the arms of Bush and Blair in the war preparations for invading Afghanistan and later Iraq.




Historically, Marxism has always opposed terroristic methods. In Russia, Marxism was compelled from the outset to oppose these methods in the struggle against the tsar’s brutal, dictatorial regime. Marxists counterposed the mass struggles of the working class which, by linking up with the peasants, particularly the poor rural masses, was the only force that could lead a successful struggle against tsarism. Not the assassination of even the most repressive government ministers but mass action, the general strike, a mass uprising to overthrow dictatorial regimes, could lay the basis for lasting success.

Leon Trotsky compared terrorism to capitalist liberalism, but with bombs. This seems strange to us today. It is inconceivable, for instance, that Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain and deputy prime minister, would be associated with terroristic methods! But Trotsky’s idea remains valid. Liberals believe that the removal of this or that minister or even a government can introduce fundamental change. The terrorist has the same approach but with violent methods. The replacement of a minister or government is insufficient to bring about real social change. Would the removal of the present government in Britain, for instance, and the coming to power of Ed Miliband and his New Labour party fundamentally change the situation? Merely to pose the question is to answer it. Because a Miliband government would be rooted within the framework of capitalism there would be no dramatic change, particularly in the social conditions of the mass of the people.

Al-Qa’ida, however, was an entirely different kind of terrorist outfit. Despite the attempts of some left groups to prettify the image of Islamic terrorists, al-Qa’ida was rooted in the doctrines of Wahhabism, a medieval version of Sunni Islam and the dominant creed of the theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. In the past, terrorist groups which based themselves, at least in theory, on furthering the social interests of the masses, engaged in the assassination of particular reactionary figures, governments, etc. The origins of al-Qa’ida, with its messianic non-class opposition to the ‘infidel’ and the ‘great Satan’, the US, meant that it was indiscriminate in employing mass terror. Not only did it attack the US and its allies, it also struck down innocent workers and the poor. This was evident on 9/11 but also in its other terrorist acts before and since.




Embracing mass struggle

In the magnificent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, beginning with Tunisia then Egypt, al-Qa’ida was of little or no consequence. As we predicted – against many left-wing groups, like the Socialist Workers Party in Britain, which adapted to organisations based upon right-wing political Islam and exaggerated their importance – youth and workers rejected the failed terrorist model and embraced the methods of mass struggle. Mass occupations of the public squares, strikes and demonstrations were the political weapons for the Tunisian and Egyptian masses to overthrow Ben Ali and Mubarak.

True, the trigger for the Tunisian revolution was the self-immolation of the street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. But this individual act had nothing in common with the methods of indiscriminate mass terror of suicide bombers that marks out al-Qa’ida. Moreover, the conditions for revolution would have had to be prepared by the whole preceding period for an accidental trigger to set in motion a mass movement in Tunisia and Egypt, a feature of all real revolutions.

Where religion still retains a certain base and an attraction to the masses, particularly in the neo-colonial world, it partly arises from the conditions of dictatorship or in the underdeveloped economic character of some countries with a large agricultural population. In the Stalinist dictatorship in Poland before 1989, it was Catholicism through the churches which provided the means of organising resistance on the part of Polish workers. Therefore, the rising had a pronounced religious colouration. This did not lead them, however, to draw pro-capitalist conclusions, in the first instance, from their opposition to Stalinism. In 1980-81, the Solidarity movement, with mass committees and participation, represented at bottom the movement for political revolution to replace the undemocratic Stalinist state structures. At the same time, it sought to retain the elements of a planned economy, nationalisation, etc. In the Iranian revolution of 1979, we witnessed a form of ‘radical Islam’ which appealed to the working class and poor for a time. It cannot be excluded that such phenomena can rise again in the neo-colonial world.

In Egypt, initially, the masses were able to concentrate their forces in opposition to the Mubarak regime around the mosques and, to some extent, the underground independent trade unions. But the Muslim Brotherhood was the only organisation which was allowed to function in a semi-political fashion, and also as a charitable, social self-help organisation. Naturally, therefore, for some sections these are the organisations to which they first turned in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Egyptian dictatorship. While Islamist groups and parties exist in Tunisia they do not have, it seems, the same roots as in Egypt at this stage. Post-Gadaffi Libya, on the other hand, could see a fracturing of the country and the growth of Islamist groups. But it is not clear that this will be the dominant trend. In Egypt, despite the recent sizeable mobilisation of Islamists in Tahrir Square, they are by no means guaranteed to win an absolute majority even in the hastily organised early elections which would favour them. Moreover, it is not certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will remain a cohesive, unified force. There are splits, partly reflecting divisions of a class character. There is talk of at least four different political parties being formed from the Brotherhood.

At the same time, the forces opposed to right-wing political Islam, secularists as well as socialists, are finding an echo among newly politically aroused sections of the working class in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the region. Even in Yemen, which is “widely assumed to have bought into the al-Qa’ida franchise” (The Guardian), the February uprising led to the creation of revolutionary committees where discussion raged about non-sectarian strategies for change. Everywhere in the Middle East and North Africa the initial impulse in the revolutions was for a non-sectarian approach with a clear direction towards class conclusions on the part of the masses. In the unspeakable social conditions in Yemen, a country of seven million people where one third of the population is deemed to be ‘food insecure’ and 10% are malnourished, it will take more than religion to satisfy the demands of the masses.

Liberated from the yoke of dictatorship, they have poured onto the political arena and, as the example of Egypt shows, will be not silenced by the edicts of the discredited military elite. They will push on to advance their demands for drastically improved living conditions, democratic rights, trade union organisation, etc. The vital ingredient which is missing to guarantee success in the struggle is the existence of mass organisations, of powerful trade unions and independent working-class parties. But the convulsive movements experienced and even greater ones to come will be great teachers of the masses that only through their own independent banner will they be able to conquer a position where they can begin to realise their aspirations for jobs, shelter and tolerable living standards.