What is the dialectical relationship between “refugees” and “revolutionaries” in the case of Syria? This paper begins from the empirical puzzlement of why some groups of Syrians actively endorse the label of refugee while others dodge this categorization. As refugee studies have shown, the extreme violence inherent to many revolutions historically has often triggered large movements of refugees (Zolberg et al. 1989). “Refugees” on the move signal a crisis in the relationship between the country of origin and its citizens and represent “a problem” to be solved by the international state system. Similarly, revolutionaries in history have used crisis to violently overthrow of political regimes and induce radical social transformations by subverting relations between subordinate and dominant citizens. Through the persistence of the authoritarian regime Syria might be a case of unsuccessful revolution, yet social transformations are ongoing and more than half of the population are considered refugees or internally displaced. The Syrians in focus are members of the peaceful, but severely marginalized revolutionary movement in Syria. Based on nine months of multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork in 2013-2015 and more than 150 interviews, the paper explores comparatively how Syrians navigate in their first host country of Lebanon and in their second host communities in Europe. Formal and informal policies as well as popular attitudes towards Syrians are explored. Through a number of examples the paper argues that a persistent rejection, but also tactical self-identification of the refugee label can be identified. It is argued that the rejection is strongly attached to a subjective propensity to act. Being “a refugee” in Lebanon was often associated with deprived Syrians in the Beqaa’ Valley and in the Palestinian camps. After flight to Europe, these Syrians are suddenly themselves being labelled “refugees” by their new host communities. To understand the tactical endorsement as well as the persistent rejection of the refugee concept, the paper argues that a number of features must be taken into consideration. Geographical and cultural proximity of Lebanon and Syria (vs. distance of Europe), the continuation of destruction inside Syria, and levels of security are all identified as important facets. The paper concludes by considering the implications of viewing “refugee” as a discursive label more than de-politicized judicial status. In this context, rejecting “Syrian refugeeness” on the subjective level can be viewed as a revolutionary critique of the the Syrian political regime – and the international state system upholding it.