I have recently observed a sudden change in the situation in Syria. A few days ago, the military organization “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” operating in Idlib province along the Turkey-Syria border suddenly launched an attack on the Syrian government forces. The situation has been progressing rapidly over the past few days, and they have already captured Aleppo. I briefly looked into some information about this organization. “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” is regarded as a terrorist organization by all Western countries, Russia, and other nations. It includes remnants of East Turkestan militants, and neither the Syrian government nor its allies have the reason or the capacity to support it; only Turkey backs it. It is a branch of al-Qaeda, advocating for the implementation of reactionary Islamic law, and appears to be a very reactionary Islamic organization.
The captured Aleppo was one of the most important cities in northern Syria during the Syrian civil war, with a population of over three million, comparable in size to Kyiv. Aleppo was also a stronghold of the Syrian government forces during the civil war, a densely populated area with soldiers, civil servants, and teachers. Before the ceasefire, it had been besieged for several years but was not taken. This time, it fell in just three days. I believe the reason is quite clear: the current Syrian government is entirely a puppet of Russia. During the civil war, Russia directly sent air force bombers to support the government to maintain control. Now, Russia is deeply embroiled in its own troubles and no longer has the capacity to support the Syrian government, leading to its rapid collapse.
But why has such a clearly reactionary Islamic organization, opposed by all imperialist countries and supported mainly by Turkey, risen? Is it truly supported by the United States? (I have seen no evidence of this, and the only group that has close relations with the US openly is the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.)
This situation also reminds me of the “Islamic State” (ISIS), which was very influential during the Syrian civil war a few years ago. This organization was also openly opposed by all imperialist countries, with both the US and Russia deploying airstrikes against it. Yet, it was a highly reactionary organization that implemented Islamic law and demanded the abolition of all women’s rights. What was the class basis that allowed such an organization to develop and grow in the Middle East? Why do imperialist countries not choose to support such forces? Are there any studies or materials on this topic?
I first learned that the Syrian government is actually a puppet regime of the Russian Empire. Can you talk about how the Russian Empire took control of it?
How long has this organization been growing in the Middle East roughly?
In terms of class foundations, it should be the local feudal landlords, like the Khomeini regime in Iran. But I also don’t quite understand why imperialism doesn’t support this.
I don’t quite understand why feudal landlords can still thrive now. Is the main class foundation of the Khomeini regime the feudal landlord class?
Is Turkey a comprador (comprador) of some imperialist? If such reactionary organizations come to power, they will once again repeat the fascist acts of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It doesn’t seem to be supported by feudal landlords, and now this organization nominally calls for the formation of a coalition government, declaring respect for every minority and religious group, and not to be mutually annexed. It might become a democratic republic supported by the comprador bourgeoisie under American imperialism.
Previously, you said they implement reactionary Islamic law to restrict people’s rights, so you made this inference. Because after the Iranian Islamic Revolution, they have been doing it this way. As for the specifics, I don’t know much and will have to look at future information.
It’s not entirely the landlord class, but the landlord class definitely participated, and it can be said to be a joint dictatorship of landlords and comprador bourgeoisie, similar to the Republic of China period. After all, these countries have not experienced a thorough bourgeois revolution or socialist revolution, so there are still many remnants of feudal production relations.
According to Iran’s own statistics, in 1960, out of 3.98 million rural households nationwide, only 1.9 million owned land, while the remaining 2 million were all tenant farmers.
Even among the 1.9 million landowning households, farmers with less than 1 hectare of land accounted for one-quarter of all landowning farmers.
There were only 4,000 households with 100 hectares or more of land, accounting for 0.2% of Iran’s rural population, with an average landholding of 2.477 million hectares per household.
Although the Iranian king’s land reform later distributed some land to farmers, by the 1980s, the landlord class was still quite powerful, and this land reform was top-down, likely preserving many feudal landlords.
It should be a comprador of the United States, and after World War II it was also part of the U.S. Marshall Plan, and later even participated in the Korean War United Nations forces.
Does anyone know which class the so-called Rojava Commune in the Syrian situation actually represents? On Bilibili, various leftist circles boast about this force, such as the so-called “Alliance of the Kurds,” “left-wing” cooperation (which is absurd, like anarchists teaming up with Marxists), and claims of a bottom-up popular governance, with the bourgeoisie eliminated in the central areas, leaving only peasants and petty bourgeoisie, etc. Anyway, they promote the disgusting idea that anarchism is better than Marxism (anarchists even like to cite the “Sapata National Liberation Army” to prove the superiority of “anarchism”). I don’t believe in this nonsense, but unfortunately I have no sources or channels for information about the Rojava Commune. My current theoretical level is not enough to analyze the Rojava Commune scientifically. Please comrades, help me solve this problem. Thank you!
The article about Syria is about to be published in our second monthly magazine after revisions. Welcome to follow. However, it does not contain content about the so-called “Rojava” commune. You can check out the relevant answer by “Contemporary Zhang Jingxuan” on Zhihu. After reading his answer, I think this regime is almost certainly a comprador of the United States.