Statement on the Fall of the Assad Regime

In recent days, Syria has undergone major transformations with the fall of the Assad regime. The United Communists of Europe is closely monitoring the situation and gathering information in order to produce an analysis of the situation. This is a short statement that expresses our general orientation towards the situation in the Middle East.

After being in power for more than twenty three years, Bashar al-Assad has been forcibly removed from power by Islamist militants of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). What began in Aleppo, resulted in a rapid fall of the long-standing Ba'athist regime and the ousting from power of Bashar al-Assad. It should be noted that Assad's party, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, ruled through a coalition called the National Progressive Front, which included a number of Nasserite groups and two communist parties. Ba'athism is an ideology that fuses Arab nationalism with elements of socialism. In its different forms, both in Iraq and Syria, Ba'athism promoted a strong state sector through nationalisations, economic planning and alignment with the former socialist countries such as the Soviet Union. Originally, Ba'athism was anti-religious and promoted the idea of a secular republic, and struggle against religious leaders. However, in its Assadist form, it promoted a state-organised religious narrative in which particular Islamic organisations would be promoted to advance the ideology of the state. While there are some progressive aspects of Ba'athism, such as state economic planning and anti-imperialism, it expresses the class interests of the national bourgeoisie in the countries where it was in power (Syria and Iraq). As a result, Ba'athism was never free of racism, and had a particularly hostile view of the Kurdish people, who it labelled as foreign agents and refused citizenship. 

Under Hafez, Kurds were labelled as foreign agents from Turkey and not given Syrian citizenship. A systematic policy of racism towards Kurdistan has characterised both Assad regimes, negating the progressive content of some of Hafez's social democratic policies. Both Assad's--Hafez and Bashar--oppressed the Kurdish people, depriving them of education, decent resources and creating an atmosphere of hostility. Just as in Turkey, the Assad regime has prohibited the use of Kurdish in schools and daily life, and not allowed the publication of literature in the Kurdish language. US imperialism has exploited the division of Syrian Kurds from the Assad regime, giving them military aid in order to strengthen their position in the region. This may have enabled the YPG to defend its territory in Rojava for a period, but it is a policy that is doomed to fail and have catastrophic consequences for Kurdistan. Only a revolutionary policy that unites both Kurdish and Arab workers in Syria can stand up against imperialism and the local capitalists that rule Syria.  

Before proceeding further, we must say a few words about the two communist parties that are part Assad's coalition. In the 1960's, there was hostility towards communists by the Ba'athists, but this ended in the 1970s with the formation of the National Progressive Front (NPF). The NPF was set up by Hafez al-Assad in order to integrate communist and socialist parties outside of Ba'athism into the Syrian state. Their entire existence was made subordinate to their acceptance of the framework created by Ba'athism. The Syrian Communist Party (SCP) was pro-Soviet and advanced the Soviet policy of non-capitalist development, which viewed nationalist regimes in developing nations such as Syria, Iraq and Ethiopia as neither capitalist nor socialist. Given their strong state sector and progressive orientation towards national liberation movements, these 'non-capitalist' countries were viewed as allies of the USSR in the worldwide struggle against imperialism. The SCP always took a non-revolutionary stance, as it did not question the bourgeois nature of the Ba'athist regime. If it had criticised the Ba'athists, it would have become excluded from the National Progressive Front, and likely received criticism from Soviet leaders who provided it with significant aid. 

While the Syria of Hafez al-Assad had some progressive elements, his son Bashar entirely negated this progressive content and transformed Ba'athism into an instrument of neoliberalism. Throughout the 2000's, many state agencies were privatised, union power was significantly weakened, and Islamic ideology received more support from the state. While the Syrian Communist Parties (which split in the 80s into two--an anti-revisionist one and a pro-Gorbachov one) continued to advocate for strong state support to the Syrian working class, it never called for a revolution and always sought to maintain the status quo. 

In a way similar to the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s, communist organisations outside of the official National Progressive Front were not legal and could not publicly agitate for their ideas. Using a powerful security apparatus, the Assad regime arrested thousands of people who were critical of the government and used significant violence against protesters. As a result of this, ideas such as socialism and communism have been made unpopular in Syria, for many people associate them with the Assad regime and have never had the opportunity to explore leftist ideas. This is one reason why the primary form of opposition to the Assadist regime has been Islamism and imperialist-backed liberalism. 

Whereas his father Hafez led a Syria that was pan-Arabist and had a strong state sector, his son Bashar promoted neoliberal economic reforms, and used nationalism and religion to enforce these reforms. Assad's downfall is the result of the contradictions of Syrian capitalism. While Assad's regime stood on the side of resistance to US imperialism in the region, it subordinated itself to the Iranian bourgeoisie to promote its brand of capitalism in the Middle East. Internally, the Assad regime promoted neoliberal economic reforms, which encouraged the growth of reactionary Islamist organisations like the HTS. Working people across Syria could no longer depend on the Syrian state, jobs became flexibilised, and an authoritarian environment was created. In 2011, workers and youth rose up against Assad's brand of neoliberalism, but were met with brutal violence. This resulted in a large social movement to bring down the Assad regime and the growth of Islamism in Syria. 

In such a situation, its no surprise that the HTS--a reactionary Islamist organisation with close links to the Turkish bourgeoisie--would be capable of bringing down Assad. While no tears should be shed for Assad, the new situation in Syria will benefit the imperialist countries far more than the working people of Syria. Israel, the United States and Turkey will all be strengthened by the HTS's actions, which will have a huge impact on the entire region. In the new situation, it is crucial that revolutionaries support the formation of communist organisations in Syria. This is a long process, as the Baathist regime under Assad made any kind of independent revolutionary working class political organisation impossible. We must not offer any support to the Islamists or other conservative forces, as these are not capable of solving Syria's problems. Only a revolutionary movement led by a politically conscious working class--not just in Syria, but united across the Middle East--is capable of transforming Syria and other regional powers. It may not be in Syria that such an organisation first emerges, but in one of its neighbours: Lebanon, Iraq, or Palestine.

 While the HTS regime freed prisons of some political prisoners, it is to be expected that they will fill the jails with leftists and those agitating for socialist revolution. Anyone who seeks to promote Marxism and revolutionary communism in Syria will be branded a Ba'athist, in a way similar to how the South Korean government labels all opposition as 'North Korean spies'. The future situation will be a challenging one, in which it will take significant work to win the popular masses to revolutionary socialist ideas. Until that happens, we should support whatever progressive movements emerge in Syria, such as womens rights, Kurdish independence, and independent worker action. The United Communists of Europe is currently investigating the situation in order to gain a better understanding of the situation. 

The United Communists of Europe rejects every form of Islamism: Hamas, Hezbollah, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and Ansar Allah are all reactionary organisations funded by bourgeois states in the region. Hamas is the organisation of the Palestinian national bourgeoisie. Its actions on October 7, 2023 used terror against civilians rather than an organised guerilla campaign against the Israeli capitalist system to achieve its aims. What resulted from Hamas's actions was the division of the working people of Israel. In Israel, workers who might have been sympathetic to an independent Palestine and even against Zionism became more hostile to Palestinian forces. In Palestine itself, the actions of Hamas served to win the Palestinian working class over to a reactionary Islamist agenda that only served the bourgeoisie. Our slogan for Palestine is a single, secular, binational Palestine as the only way to fight for socialism in the long term. This is only possible when Palestinian and Israeli workers unite on the basis of class in order to fight the bourgeoisie together. Any other solution, whether rule of Palestine by Hamas or the PLO will only serve the regional capitalist powers, which will immediately deprive Palestine of its independence by subordinating it to its rule. The most likely winners in such a situation will not be the Palestinian people, but the bourgeoisies of Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. 

Our attitude towards Hezbollah is the same as towards Hamas. As Joseph Daher shows in his book, Hezbollah expresses the politics of the Shia bourgeoisie in Lebanon. It actively participated in the introduction of neoliberal economic policies in Lebanon and used its conservative Islamist ideology to enforce them. Like Hamas, it uses terrorismand conservative social policies to fight against Israel. Similar to Hamas, it is fiercely hostile to revolutionary communists and has been involved in murdering leftists in Lebanon. The primary funding for its military organisation comes from the Iranian bourgeoisie, which uses Hezbollah to fight against the Israeli bourgeoisie. Hezbollah's militants are foot soldiers of Lebanese and Iranian capitalism, not progressive fighters for an independent Palestine. It has always maintained close links with the Assad regime in Syria, for it provides it with an important link to Iran. Without the support of Syria, Hezbollah would not have been able to stand off for so long against Israel. Thus, when Assad has needed additional military power to fight against its own working class, it has brought in militants from Hezbollah to fight against the Syrian working class. There is therefore nothing progressive or radical about Hezbollah. Communists should not support it, as this does not help to advance a revolutionary programme in any way. 

The HTS in Syria was able to overthrow Assad with relative ease because of the defeat of Hezbollah in the war with Israel. Erdogan in Turkey is using the HTS as a way to strengthen the position of Turkish capitalism in the region, and particularly, to win its racist war against the Kurdish people. Already in the first few days since taking power, the HTS has won territory in Manbij from the Kurdish YPG. Israel will also significantly benefit from the seizure of power by the HTS, and it has already launched attacks in Damascus, strengthened its military occupation in the Golan Heights, and is seeking to advance into new territory. Hezbollah will also no longer be able to rely on the Syrian state to link it with the Iranian regime, significantly weakening their ability to fight against Israel. Thus, the result of the HTS victory is a strengthening of Turkish and Israeli capitalism, the deprivation of the Kurdish people of political power in parts of Rojava, and the creation of an extremely reactionary Islamist regime. It is likely that the immediate enthusiasm of Assad's downfall will quickly disappear once it becomes clear that the HTS is no better than the Baathists. 

Our immediate slogans for the situation in Syria and the Middle East are:

Break the power of the Islamists by organising a secular revolutionary party that can unite all working people in Syria!

For the unity of Kurdish and Arab workers in Syria!

Down with the imperialist powers who seek to exploit Syria's contradictions to advance their interests!

For a binational Kurdish-Arab Syrian state as the first stage in the long struggle for socialism in Syria! 

For a socialist federation of the Middle East, which includes Syria and Palestine as independent member states!