Imperial Theatrics in Syria: Where Is Justice for Syrians?

By Javier Sethness, for the Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice

Douma Reuters
Douma, Eastern Ghouta (File: Reuters)

On Friday evening, 13 April, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the commencement of joint U.S. missile and air strikes with France and the U.K. against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in response to the Syrian military’s alleged use of chemical weapons during the siege of Douma on April 7th. This chemical attack on Douma has reportedly taken the lives of more than forty people and, according to the Syrian-American Medical Society, at least five hundred others have presented with symptoms consistent with exposure to chemical weapons—likely chlorine and possibly also sarin.

The Douma gas massacre, for which Assad is clearly responsible, represents the culmination of the regime’s long siege of the rebel-held Damascus suburb, a campaign which began in 2013, aimed at retaking control of the whole of Eastern Ghouta. During the ferocious intensification of Ghouta’s bombardment, which began on February 18 and ended with Ghouta’s fall just days ago, Assad and Russia cruelly murdered an estimated two thousand civilians using napalm, cluster munitions, and chemical weapons in an indiscriminate assault on residences and hospitals alike. It was the Douma chemical attack which finally led Jaish al-Islam, the last rebel group holding out in the region, to surrender and accept forced transfer to the northwestern province of Idlib, thus yielding full control of the city to State forces. As Frieda Afary observes, the fall of Eastern Ghouta to Assad recalls the regime’s previous conquest of Eastern Aleppo in December 2016, portending the defeat of the Syrian Revolution. Meanwhile, Trump allows Turkey a free hand to attack the Kurds in northwestern Syria.

Into this fraught context come the joint U.S.-U.K.-French strikes of April 13-14. The strikes have consisted of an estimated 100 missiles fired from naval and air forces in the Eastern Mediterranean against the regime’s Scientific Studies and Research Center in the Barzeh district of Damascus, as well as suspected chemical-weapons depots and a control center west of Homs. There are unconfirmed reports that the Hama military airport and al-Shirai and al-Dumayr airbases near Damascus have also been targeted, in addition to other suspected chemical-weapons sites around the capital city. According to U.S. General John Dunford, these strikes aim to “deter future chemical-weapon use” on Assad’s part. For its part, the Russian military claims to have intercepted almost 70% of the incoming missile strikes, as it had promised to do in the days leading up to the attack, though the Pentagon has cast doubt on this assertion. The number of casualties from the strikes has not been clearly reported so far, but it is likely to be significant. Plus, striking chemical-weapons depots with missiles may recklessly endanger nearby populations.

Still, in effect, these punitive strikes hardly amount to an overwhelming military response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and they certainly do not anticipate larger strikes aimed at reversing the regime’s gains in the war. While announcing the strikes in joint press conference with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis on April 13th, Dunford declared that “operations are [now] complete.” Indeed, the potential military damage done by the strikes was greatly mitigated by Trump’s sustained telegraphing of the raid, which allowed regime forces ample time to abandon their bases, transfer aircraft and matériel to Russian military sites, and even supposedly evacuate Assad himself. Effectively, then, the attack is little different than the largely symbolic missile strikes Trump ordered against Syria’s al-Shayrat airbase in response to the Khan Sheikhoun sarin gas attack of April 2017.

Although the U.S., the U.K., and former colonial power France are effectively invoking international law and the “responsibility to protect” doctrine in their punitive strikes on Syria, we find such pretexts cynical. By continuing and intensifying established Obama-era practices, Trump has murdered thousands of Syrians and Iraqis, particularly through his loosening of rules of engagement and his attendant granting of greater decision-making power to his field commanders. Moreover, the Trump Regime has completely rejected its responsibilities toward the millions of Syrian refugees, denying all but 11 of them entry to the U.S. so far this year. This illuminates its true lack of concern for those starved, bombarded, gassed, imprisoned, tortured, displaced, and assassinated by the Assad Regime and its allies. As Leila al-Shami writes, the recent strikes are “less about protecting Syrians from mass-atrocity and more about enforcing an international norm that chemical weapons use is unacceptable, lest one day they be used on westerners themselves.” In like manner, Trump’s open support for Israeli atrocities against unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza mobilizing to demand their rights further illustrates the emptiness of his sudden claim to be the champion of oppressed Syrians.

Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact that this attack comes at a particularly sensitive time for Trump, whose attorney Michael Cohen just had his office, home, and hotel room raided by the FBI, on the referral of Robert Mueller. We therefore see a clear element of distraction in these strikes, noting a clear parallel with the case of Bill Clinton, who resorted on two occasions to bombing Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq in 1998 to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Currently, Trump faces not one but several domestic political scandals. In addition, Trump clearly seeks to capitalize on these strikes to promote his image and brand ahead of the upcoming midterm elections—and conceivably, the 2020 presidential elections, too—as being “different from Obama,” who famously failed to enforce the “red lines” he had outlined following the regime’s ghastly sarin attack on Eastern Ghouta in August 2013.

We should clearly recognize that this attack isn’t designed with “regime change” in mind. No: despite official criticisms of his regime’s brutality, Assad serves too important a function to the U.S. to be deposed—namely, oppressing and murdering Sunni Arab Muslims who revolt against oppression en masse, thus maintaining geopolitical “stability.” As Nicole Magnoona Gervitz writes paradoxically, Assad in fact serves Western and Israeli interests: “An Arab despot who crushes his own people always has a special place in the Zionist heart. Israel [and the U.S.] ha[ve] always relied on corrupt Arab despots like Bashar al Assad to put down the masses for them.” So the imperialist demagogue Trump, true to form, is really just posturing as a humanitarian with these strikes, seeking to gain political capital and unsully his own reputation as a brutal, uncaring criminal. In the wake of the attack, indeed, the Pentagon was quick to clarify to Syrian refugees in the Jordanian border camp of Rukban that this was a limited, retaliatory strike, and that any offensive action they might take against regime forces in response would not be supported by the imperialist militaries.

In essence, then, the joint Anglo-Franco-American strikes symbolize the spectacle of bourgeois international relations, whereby one authoritarian-imperialist camp attacks another merely out of concern for image, but without substance. We lament the civilians whose lives have been taken by these attacks, as well as those who have been and continue to be murdered by Assad’s forces and their allies, in their bid to drown the Syrian Revolution. We condemn the militarism, imperialism, and authoritarianism of the Western powers as well as of Assad and his backers, and we look forward to the coordinated unification and intensification of international popular struggles to depose tyrants and borders alike.

Stop the U.S.-Russian-Iranian attack on Syria!

For a free Syria and a free Kurdistan!

Syrian refugees must be allowed asylum!

Down with all forms of imperialism, war, xenophobia, and religious intolerance!

For human liberation and an end to exploitation and domination everywhere!


Sunday, April 29 – The Fascist Threat: From the Global to the Local


The Coalition for Peace, Revolution & Social Justice invites you to a panel discussion:


Sunday, April 29, 2018, 6:00-9:00 p.m.
Westside Peace Center
3916 Sepulveda Blvd., near Venice Blvd. (free parking in rear-reserve spacing not in effect on weekends)
Suite 101-102, press #22 at door to get into building
Culver City (LA area)


Ali Kiani, International Marxist-Humanist Organization, on war and authoritarianism in Middle East
Michael Novick, Anti-Racist Action, roots of fascism in colonialism
Mimi Soltysik, Socialist Party, on alt right speakers on campus
Jamie Garcia, Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, on the surveillance state

Reportback from 3/28 Sidewalk Rally to Protest Racist Assassination of Socialist Feminist Marielle Franco

Two weeks to the day after her brazen assassination, members and friends of the Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice gathered near the Brazilian Consulate in Los Angeles to protest the murder of socialist activist and councilwoman Marielle Franco, apparently by government agents in Rio de Janeiro.

Our slogans emphasized Marielle’s legacy as as a fighter for Black people, women, LGBTQIA folks, and poor and working-class communities in Brazil, accountability for her killers, and an end to police murder and fascism in Brazil and the US, among other issues. We handed out scores of fliers to pedestrians and drivers, and received a largely positive response from the public, especially from bus drivers and other working-class people.

The CPRSJ will continue to stand with and for all the Marielle Francos of the world, and in solidarity with the democratic struggles of all oppressed people. If you share this goal, get in touch with us.

Marielle presente!

In Defense of Freedom and Humanity in Afrin!

by Ali Kiani


Response to Fredo Corvo, “Is the defense of Afrin proletarian internationalism?” (Libcom, 5 March 2018)

Over the past decade, the Kurdish people of Rojava and Afrin under the threat of internal war in Syria have surprised the world in their struggle for freedom by creating a democratic model of self-government that empowered women to rise to the top leadership of every aspect of society, including the Peshmerga militia, to a greater degree than all the authoritarian and reactionary regimes of the Middle East. Women holding key positions in self-government and army, reflecting the belief that women’s rights should be at the center of every important decision-making process in society, is one of the important breakthroughs in the struggle of people in the Middle East for freedom and democracy.

This is one of the important reasons for not only jihadist but also all ideological and religious authoritarian regimes that are united to destroy this liberty phenomena that is growing among the freedom movement in the Middle East, as we have seen in the example of a Yazidi women’s liberation militia that was shaped after this model.

Now Erdogan with the help Iran and Syria and Russia and the blessing of Trump try to do what jihadists could not do. As soon as the brutal bombing and invasion of Afrin started, brave people started defending their humanity against one of the largest armies of not the world but at least the Middle East, and this without air support. The destruction of city was unattainable. And then, Erdogan’s forces are headed by proxy militants, most of whom are Islamists, who are near the gates of the city of Afrin. The humanitarian situation is going to become much worse. The city is full of refugees who have no place to go. Each day the Turkish jets, which are provided by the Americans, bombard the city, and Turkey’s tanks, supplied by the German government, will soon appear on the hills around the city which with the help of the world remained silent on this atrocity. Meanwhile, the devastation and tragedy continue in Eastern Ghouta. Even the declaration of a cease-fire and no-fly zone did not stop Erdogan bombing defenseless people. We know that the Turkish people do not believe the lies of the regime of Erdogan, and that people who want peace do not support the campaign of mass murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing that Erdogan has set about implementing, and which Turkish journalists have exposed.

Now at this time I see “A critique of two article published by the International Marxist Humanist Organization by Fredo Corvo.” Corvo sarcastically chooses a title that denies the defense at least being Marxist—“Is the defense of Afrin proletarian internationalism?“—without clearing his ideological approach, whether as Marxist or non-Marxist, leading us to question the motive for his writing this article. Is it anti-Marxist (which he is), or is it anti-anarchist (which he also is)…? Or does he write in defense of Erdogan, Assad, or the Islamic Government of Iran?

In the first paragraph which should be considered introductory, FC (Fredo Corvo) explains the event: “The Turkish invasion of Northern Syria, with the declared goal of expelling the Kurdish YPG from the Turkish border.” This he comments on as being a reactionary imperialistic move to keep Erdogan in power, but he does not clarify his position on the right of self-determination of the Kurds. Instead, he focuses his critique on left radicalism (Marxist and anarchism), in particular Marxism, with its ordinary pattern of defending the Kurds and condemning the invasion of Turkey. This should be nothing new, except “in this case we see that groups and individuals who orient themselves at the Communist Left (1) are influenced by left bourgeois positions. Even groups whose ancestors defended proletarian internationalism in the Second World War now find it difficult to put forward the workers’ struggle against imperialist war. As we shall see, this has partly to do with a microscopic view of Rojava, the microcosm of a supposed ‘socialism in one province’.”

First of all, I have to say that what he refers to as our ancestors is not the Marx that Marxist Humanists link to, but a Stalinism that was dominated by a most post-Marx “Marxism” during and after the Second World War. In fact, no tendency within Marxist-Humanist organizations nor any of its founders ever believed in socialism in one country. And since I prepared this speech for a rally against the war which was later published as an article, the critique is now addressed towards me and my understanding of Marxist Humanism. This came about before I knew such a philosophy even existed within the Iranian Revolution, when I rejected Maoism, Stalinism, and “socialism in one country” and even Lenin’s ideology before its philosophical upheaval. This happened for me in the period from the beginning of the Iranian Revolution and before the takeover by the Islamic movement. I consider Khomeini reactionary based on my own personal experiences and his book Islamic Government, thus leading me to wonder how exactly I was influenced by “left-wing bourgeois positions”?

Then FC issues a sharp attack on the International Marxist Humanist Organization (IMHO) and Rojava based on two articles that were published on IMHO’s site. He calls Rojava a Myth. FC then continues with defining Marxist humanism and anarchism. He writes, “I will not reiterate my criticism of these principles of Marxism-Humanism. (7) Instead, we move from the Rojava myth to some classic justifications of involvement in the imperialist war, which can also be found in the ‘defense of Afrin’ by some Marxist-Humanists.” He does not explain how the “Rojava myth” means the “classic justifications of involvement in imperialist war.”

First, FC attacks Marxist Humanists; second, he attacks Marx on the national question; third, he pits Lenin against Luxemburg in an attempt to to dismiss Lenin; fourth, he opposes Trotsky to Stalin to try to dismiss Trotskyism; fifth, through a lengthy story of Marxism from World Wars I and II he tries dismiss any support for people’s struggle against imperialism and puts the PKK against Rojava based on abstract proletarianism—all because I wrote: “(…) the least we can do is to offer solidarity with the progressive, multi-ethnic people of northern Syria for the future possibility of a democratic alternative in the Middle East based on justice and freedom, something that could evolve into an anti-capitalist humanist alternative. The Kurdish people of Afrin can depend only on International solidarity and the comradeship of progressive forces who stand for an anti-capitalist alternative.”

FC has an abstract understanding of Marxism or class struggle, if he believes that in the age of imperialism and the globalization of capital and its financialization, the struggle of the Kurdish people in the Middle East—a place dominated by reactionary forces, being a war zone in a mostly rural area for self determination—is not defensible from a proletarian point of view just because their objective survival situation forces them to coexist with one imperialist against the other to resist the most immediate threat from reactionary forces. This is not defensible for the purposes of solidarity. If FC had any experience of organizing people for survival and armed struggle against the most brutal dictators, despotic religious fanatics, the principles of war or its physically and psychologically tormenting effects, he would think twice about analyzing things as being so black and white. If FC had any experience of being among the people of Rojava or other Kurdish populations, or if he had first-hand information about people that are there, and if he would observe the situation of what they teach about reactionary forces including US and Russia, he would not put himself to judge or deny simple solidarity with them. Neither I nor my Marxist-Humanist organization has ever supported these organizations or their policies unconditionally.

The dialectic of revolution is not just in thought but objective as it was for Lenin, especially his understanding of imperialism, which was a deeply dialectical concept. As Kevin Anderson wrote recently:

For just as imperialism transformed the nature of capitalist domination, helping to create a new stage based on finance capital, monopoly capitalism also changed the character of the opposition to capitalism. Imperialism not only impacted the working classes inside the industrialized capitalist societies. It also set in motion a whole series of events outside the core capitalist powers of Europe and North America, events that brought into being one of the great revolutionary forces of the whole twentieth century, anti-imperialist national movements, from Ireland to India and from China to the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. As Lenin saw it then, while imperialism immensely strengthened capitalism, at the same time, in dialectical fashion, it created these new contradictions that opened up revolutionary possibilities.

Lenin noted not only the oppression of people of the Global South under colonialism, but he also wrote presciently as early as 1916 of their subjectivity, their agency: “The dialectics of history are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene” (LCW 22, p. 357)  Unlike the complacent reform socialists of his day, who condescended to colonial subjects and who purported to see positive as well as negative sides to imperialism, Lenin is unequivocal in his opposition to imperialism and his support for anticolonial liberation movements […]. However, he added two caveats: (1) That the colonized cannot liberate themselves completely on a national basis, that as cited above, in order to do so they will need to ally with forces inside the industrialized imperialist nations, ‘the socialist proletariat.’ Thus, they might even win independence, but will not be able to create in full a new humanist society by themselves in a technologically underdeveloped nation. (2) That the national liberation movement needs to be actually liberatory in its content, not necessarily fully anticapitalist, but at least not retrogressive and backward looking. In this regard, he singles out “Pan-Islamism” as a non-liberatory form of opposition to imperialism in his 1920 “Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions” […].. On this score, Lenin met vociferous opposition from fellow revolutionary Marxists.  Even Trotsky took a while to agree to Lenin’s position, while Luxemburg and Bukharin, both of them important revolutionary Marxist theorists, argued against Lenin’s position, claiming that in the era of imperialism, all nationalism is reactionary.  Some today would say that Lenin’s position is either invalid or outdated, and that one just has to look at the outcome of anticolonial movements once they come to power.  Look, they say, at Jacob Zuma or Robert Mugabe or Nicolas Maduro.  But that’s like saying that the labor movement is invalid or outdated because once unions gained some power, their successful labor bureaucracy channeled the workers away from revolution and toward integration with capital.

So, it is not due to the limitations and setbacks of national movements in the age of state capitalism that create the need for solidarity among the left and working classes toward these movements, but it is due to the potential for its revolutionary aspects to increase as an important aspect of the anti-capitalist struggle. This is true for the outcome of their struggle for freedom, democracy, and political independence for a national federation, as long as they believe in a Humanist alternative to capitalism, based on the self-emancipatory revolutionary principles organized from below. In fact, I think—this my personal ideathat any form of centralized state opposing the decentralization of power is contradictory to communism, and the same is true for conceiving of a transformation toward a new humanist society and even the transformative period of socialism that would not allow the dissolution of either the state or class, as Engels claims.

Internationalists for Afrin and Ghouta

by Javier Sethness

Syrians evacuate from the town of Jisreen in the eastern Ghouta area on the outskirts of Damascus on Saturday. | AFP-JIJI

Response to Fredo Corvo, “Is the defense of Afrin proletarian internationalism?” (Libcom, 5 March 2018)

As a response to “Afrin Under Attack by Neo-Ottoman Erdogan: We Must Defend Afrin,” a statement published on the website of the Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice on January 22, Fredo Corvo’s posing of the question, “Is the defense of Afrin proletarian internationalism?” (Libcom, 5 March), unfortunately presents several arguments based on straw-men. Though he ostensibly writes from a libertarian-communist perspective, he dedicates much effort to critiquing Marxist humanism, thus overlooking the fact that our Coalition represents a convergence of different revolutionary-left groupings and individuals. Plus, Corvo’s critique is only vaguely anti-capitalist, far from being concretely humanist or anti-imperialist. It is unclear whether Corvo’s critique can be considered anarchist.

Citing Rosa Luxemburg, Corvo argues that small nations such as the Syrian Kurds inevitably serve as “the pawns on the imperialist chessboard of the great powers,” adding that calls for solidarity with those besieged in and displaced from Afrin by Turkish imperialism and its Arab proxies inevitably recall Stalinist calls to defend the Soviet motherland and suffocate any consideration of an alternative to what exists. That is to say, Corvo holds our statement in solidarity with Afrin to by necessity be supportive of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), or the hegemonic proto-State of Rojava/Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS) since 2012, and U.S. imperialism, with which the PYD and its armed forces, the YPG/YPJ and SDF, are allied. He accuses our position of advancing the “myth of Rojava” and of being “left bourgeois.”

Yet these insinuations and charges are untenable. It is unfortunate indeed that Corvo uses Luxemburg in an anti-humanistic manner, minimizing the destruction wrought by Turkey and its proxies in Afrin in the past two months and rendering-invisible the suffering of besieged working masses, internally displaced peoples, and refugees in and around Afrin. It is this principle of the defense of oppressed peoples, which Corvo acknowledges as being “undisputed within the workers’ movement,” to which we appeal in our statement in solidarity with the peoples of Afrin. It is not necessarily to endorse any project of national liberation that may be favored by Syrian Kurds and other oppressed minorities of Syria, though we do stress the importance of self-determination for oppressed peoples. In addition, it is certainly untrue that our Coalition presents an uncritical view of the Rojava Revolution, as in the idea of the “Rojava myth” to which Corvo alludes: even the statement on Afrin itself mentions the Revolution’s “contradictions, as seen in these very ties between the Kurds and U.S. and Russian imperialists.” We concede many of the criticisms Corvo raises against the Revolution, particularly with regard to relations between the PYD and the Assad Regime. For example, the Kurdish-majority forces of the YPG/YPJ appear to have collaborated with Russia and the regime in their reconquest of Eastern Aleppo during fall 2016, and it is known that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) arranged to transfer territory taken from Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) west of Manbij to Assad regime control in March 2017 to provide a buffer zone between itself and the Turkish-supported Free Syrian Army presence in Jarablus. Moreover, pro-regime militias arrived in Afrin on February 20, 2018, to reinforce the defense of the city, and Assad has allowed transfer of SDF troops and matériel to pass through State-controlled territory en route to Afrin. Furthermore, we are aware that the Rojava constitution of 2014 recognizes private property as a “right” (article 41). Yet these realities are not ones that are readily acknowledged by uncritically supportive Rojava-solidarity activists and organizers in the U.S., such as the North American Kurdish Alliance (NAKA). As a Coalition, we did not support NAKA’s calls for a no-fly zone over Afrin and MANPAD’s to be transferred to the YPG/YPJ as part of the demands set forth for the worldwide day of mobilizations for Afrin on March 24. Had we done so, and had we been reluctant to acknowledge some of the Revolution’s limitations, Corvo’s critique might be more apt.

We acknowledge that the Syrian Revolution which began in March 2011 was a necessary precondition for the Rojava Revolution of July 2012, and we seek to build solidarity for both ongoing processes, which are greatly threatened by the despotic forces of Assad and Putin as well as Erdoğan, respectively. We disagree that our statement in solidarity with besieged and displaced workers and peasants in Afrin equates to or implies an uncritical “defense of Rojava” on our part, and we reject the idea that such a statement aligns us with neo-Stalinism or imperialism against the working classes. We do not see our call for solidarity with Afrin as different from our support for the besieged population of Eastern Ghouta, who now must await capture by the very forces that have been bombarding them for nearly five years now, cross perilously into regime-controlled territory, or accept forcible transfer to the Idlib province, which will be the next major target of the militaristic imperialism of the Assad Regime, Russia, and Iran. Support for oppressed peoples means criticizing and organizing against those forces oppressing them; it does not mean uncritical support for those who claim to defend them by force of arms.

Ironically, then, we agree in the abstract with Corvo’s conclusion that an end to the various wars and genocides now gripping the Middle East will not come until the region’s working classes “attai[n] the same level as in Iran at the turn of the year,” with a few qualifications. First, this task is not only that of the Kurdish workers, as Corvo implies, but of all workers in the region—and not only the region, but also the world, given the global nature of imperialism. Second, both the Syrian and Rojava Revolutions have demonstrated impressive initiatives in terms of self-organization and class struggle that in fact may have anticipated and in some ways inspired the recent Iranian uprising, just as popular regional Palestine-solidarity movements and protests in Egypt against the U.S. invasion of Iraq served as precedents for the Arab Revolts which began with Mohammed Bouazizi immolating himself in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, in late 2011, emanating echoes that would resonate in Syria, as elsewhere, among Kurds and Arabs alike. So yes, in sum, the defense of Afrin and Ghouta against aggression is internationalist and humanist.

Sidewalk Rally, March 28th: Protest the Racist Assassination of Socialist Feminist Marielle Franco in Brazil!

“Survival is our best form of resistance.”

Wednesday, March 28, 5-7PM
outside Brazilian Consulate
8484 Wilshire Blvd (corner La Cienega)
Beverly Hills

Sponsored by the Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice

Socialist activist and immensely popular Rio de Janeiro city councilwoman Marielle Franco was an unapologetically Black, lesbian, and feminist champion of Brazil’s favelas and oppressed. On March 14, only days after exposing another police atrocity in the favelas, she and her driver, Anderson Pedro Gomes, were brutally murdered by gunmen using police-issued ammunition. We call this rally to honor her legacy and to call for justice. We stand with the tens of thousands in Brazil and around the world condemning this latest crime in the long war against Black people, women, LGBTQIA folks, and the working classes.

Suggested slogans:
Stop the Genocide of Black People in Brazil
Who killed Marielle Franco?
Marielle Franco Presente e Marielle Vive! (Marielle Franco is Present and Marielle Lives!)
Black, Queer, Woman, Socialist: Murdered because she was all.
For Marielle, I say no! I say no to military intervention!
Down with Brazilian fascism! Down with police gangsters!
Justice for Marielle! Justice for the favelas!

More information:

Invitation: Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice Partnership Meeting


Wednesday, March 21st, 730pm

Socialist Party LA, 2617 Hauser Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA

The Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice will be hosting a partnership meeting on March 21st in the hopes of inviting others to joining the coalition as members. We will be prepared to answer any questions you might have.

The Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice (CPRSJ) aims to resist capitalism, imperialism, and authoritarianism in the Trump era. We are helping to develop a thoughtful, multidimensional, and proactive opposition to the intensifying authoritarianism that has become evident around the globe, as exemplified by Donald Trump in the U.S., Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China. We oppose NATO and U.S. imperialism because they underpin capitalist-militarist hegemony around the globe. In general, we target rampant class oppression, imperialism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, nativism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, and environmental destruction.

Since its founding in May 2017, the CPRSJ has held three public forums, a freeway banner drop, a Black Friday banner drop at the Westfield Mall in Culver City, a protest outside an Army recruitment center, and a rally at the Los Angeles Federal Building. While much has been accomplished in a short period of time, we feel we are just scratching the surface and are looking to grow with additional partners.

The CPRSJ currently includes the Socialist Party USA, the International Marxist Humanist Organization, Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, and members of Solidarity. See our Principles of Unity here.

For any questions, please write