He's a ba'athist, not a socialist, and inherited his position of power.
The revolution was about the government taking political prisoners, and mismanagement of water rights.
The revolution formed Soviets and was honestly pretty based, but then the CIA, ISIS, Russia, etc. got involved and escalated it into a civil war with so much violence social change was near impossible.
In this context, keeping Assad in power is the best case scenario for the country because the alternatives are rule by IS or rule by a US proxy. It's also the best bet for socialism because the Assad government tolerates the autonomy of the Kurds (and their socialist project) in a way that neither ISIS nor NATO do.
So, he's not good, but he needs to stay in power for the time being.
The revolution formed Soviets and was honestly pretty based, but then the CIA, ISIS, Russia, etc. got involved
Two amendments to this - the revolution had admirable/democratic groups taking part in it, but 1) the US/Turkey/Gulf countries were involved from before it began - there're leaked cables discussing dividing Syria along religious lines to topple the government years before the Arab Spring and the arms the rebels fought with were supplied by US+allies; and 2) the majority of the people who actually revolted were conservative Islamist Sunnis who targeted religious minorities from the start. Immediately after it became clear the US wouldn't intervene directly 90% of the "Free Syrian Army" dropped the pretense and left for the Islamic Front and other jihadist groups. The liberal/democratic minority in the revolution had zero chances of coming out on top once any fighting started - they served as supporting forces for jihadists so the US could ship them arms without looking bad.
He's a ba'athist, not a socialist, and inherited his position of power.
The revolution was about the government taking political prisoners, and mismanagement of water rights.
The revolution formed Soviets and was honestly pretty based, but then the CIA, ISIS, Russia, etc. got involved and escalated it into a civil war with so much violence social change was near impossible.
In this context, keeping Assad in power is the best case scenario for the country because the alternatives are rule by IS or rule by a US proxy. It's also the best bet for socialism because the Assad government tolerates the autonomy of the Kurds (and their socialist project) in a way that neither ISIS nor NATO do.
So, he's not good, but he needs to stay in power for the time being.
Based and Anti-imperialistpilled
Two amendments to this - the revolution had admirable/democratic groups taking part in it, but 1) the US/Turkey/Gulf countries were involved from before it began - there're leaked cables discussing dividing Syria along religious lines to topple the government years before the Arab Spring and the arms the rebels fought with were supplied by US+allies; and 2) the majority of the people who actually revolted were conservative Islamist Sunnis who targeted religious minorities from the start. Immediately after it became clear the US wouldn't intervene directly 90% of the "Free Syrian Army" dropped the pretense and left for the Islamic Front and other jihadist groups. The liberal/democratic minority in the revolution had zero chances of coming out on top once any fighting started - they served as supporting forces for jihadists so the US could ship them arms without looking bad.
Otherwise you're spot on.