Written, May 24, 2018; Part 1 web-uploaded November 2020; Hari Kumar
Introduction
Middle East politics today are a complex maze. But the extraordinary, vindictive and destructive war launched upon the Syrian workers and peasants by Assad, demands Marxist-Leninist interpretations. As the war grinds to a conclusion – which at the time of writing, appears to favour Bashar Assad remaining in power, the landscape of the Middle East has been transformed. Marxist-Leninists have had relatively little to say on the war and its forces, and in the main – they have taken the stance of a tacit or fully open support of Assad. We would disagree with this and offer a counter-point.
We suggest that a minimum of four core historical features, offer guides for Marxist-Leninists, to navigate the maze.
Firstly, is the nationalist fervour in the Middle East upon the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. Arab or Pan-Islamic nationalism, was seen as a solution for the masses. Ultimately it failed to establish meaningful independence in any of the Arab states. Nonetheless Arab (or pan-Islamic) nationalism wore progressive colours, when aimed against imperialism. The Communist International took critical and differing viewpoints to the pan-Islamic movements.
Under Lenin’s direct supervision, the Comintern warned of the reactionary nature in the pan-Islamic content:
“It is necessary to struggle against the pan-Islamic and pan-Asiatic movements and similar tendencies, which are trying to combine the liberation struggle against European and American imperialism with the strengthening of the power of Turkish and Japanese imperialism and of the nobility, the large landlords, the priests, etc.”
(“Theses On The National And Colonial Question”; Adopted By The Second Comintern Congress; 28July 1920; Protokoll,ii, p.224;. in Degras, Jane: “The Communist International”; p.143)
However later, the Communist International took a more flexible approach, stating that although it could take many “varied” forms, such movements against imperialism should be supported by communists:
“In Moslem countries, the national movement at first finds its ideology in the religio-political watchwords of pan-Islam, and this enables the officials and
diplomats of the great Powers to exploit the prejudices and ignorance of the broad masses in the struggle against this movement (English imperialism’s game with pan-Islamism and pan-Arabism, English plans to transfer the Khalifate to India, French imperialism’s playing on its ‘Moslem sympathies’). But to the extent that the national liberation movements grow and expand, the religio-political watchwords of pan-Islam are increasingly replaced by concrete political demands. The struggle recently waged in Turkey to deprive the Khalifate of temporal power confirms this…. Taking full cognizance of the fact that those who represent the national will to State independence may, because of the variety of historical circumstances, be themselves of the most varied kind, the Communist International supports every national revolutionary movement against imperialism.”.
(“Theses On The Eastern Question Adopted By The Fourth Comintern Congress”; November 1922; Thesen und Resolutionen,; In: Degras, Jane: “The Communist International”; p. 385-386 at )
Yet to date, Arab or pan-Islamic nationalisms, have failed to alleviate the suffering of the masses. This failure followed Western imperialist attacks on the peoples and states of the Middle East on the one hand; and the fall into open revisionism of the socialist state of the USSR after 1951 on the other hand.
Secondly, the imperialist presence in the Middle East remains a major catalyst of wars. In order to firmly grip the Middle East, both Western imperialism and Putin-ite Russian neo-imperial pretensions have vied in the Middle East. They have both backed important stooges. The West has long backed Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as Turkey. With these forces, imperialism, especially the USA, has dominated the Middle East. This domination was easier, when the USSR dropped all façade and pretense at being a socialist state, and formally dissolved on December 26, 1991. As the Syrian war launched in 2011 made clear, the role of Saudi Arabia has been very pernicious. As far as Russian growing neo-imperial aspirations are concerned, shoring up the Assadite grip upon Syria was key. But this also meant supporting Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah Shi’ite forces, which together joined forces in suppressing anti-Assad Syrian revolutionary forces.
Cumulatively, this led to a war by proxy in which the pro-Western imperial forces vied against the neo-imperial forces headed by Russia and Iran. As the Syrian war nears its conclusion, this division will continue to light more fires in the Middle East.
Thirdly, the legacy of revisionism removed any leading role for Marxism-Leninism. The communist parties in the Middle East grew fast, but were under revisionist control even at their formation. In these countries, in particular in Syria, they merely served as a left mask for the national bourgeoisie. Consistent with this, Khalid Bakdash reneged on the launch of the second stage of the national democratic revolution – the socialist stage. It may be more accurate to say that Bakdash never embarked on a revolutionary road in the first place. At a critical juncture, the party did not move forward to socialism. In the ensuing vacuum, the Ba’ath Party enlisted Gamel Nasser to assist in destroying the communists. This was an attempt by Egypt to control Syria, by forming the United Arab Republic.
Subsequently, the CPs of the area were either massacred by nationalist forces, or openly subservient to national states for governmental seats. At times both occurred as in Iraq and Syria. As shells of a meaningful CPs, they were incapable of providing any convincing communist leadership. Unsurprisingly, many young, sincere revolutionaries in Syria, nowadays profess neo-anarchic forms of ideology, and organisation. This testifies to the shallowness of available communist models in Syria.
Finally, the state repressions of the Middle Eastern states removed any possible discussion of strategy, tactics and meaningful history. Many of these – ultimately dependent upon imperialism – Arab states, adopted dictatorial and repressive policies. Their governments were just emerging from colonialism and semi-colonialism. Consequently, they often had a very weak national bourgeoisie and a weak working class. In contrast, they often had a large peasantry. Therefore, such struggling governments often ruled in the form of military dictatorship, reflecting their weak base, as they found the transition to democratic capitalism difficult. Moreover in their weakness, the national bourgeoisie found it expedient to use the imagery and rhetoric of ‘socialism’. They often built a ‘socialist’ façade, and a ‘mass’ party. Many such states continued to rule using a form of Bonapartist military dictatorial government. In several – where a mass base had been built – this was virtually indistinguishable from fascism.
Yet such countries, still could not break out of the strait-jacket of imperial control. This became even more impossible after the final revisionist take-over of the USSR in 1956, and the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. These governments increasingly retreated from even elementary democratic principles. Under siege at the ending of the 20th century, they were forced into the “neo-liberal” world of the new global economy.
Continued; Download the entire article as a PDF.