MENA Revolts: COMBATING BOURGEOIS REVISIONISM

COMBATING BOURGEOIS REVISIONISM

Social Media Activism or Mass Revolutionary Organization

The current growth in online activism such as social media platforms (Facebook, twitter, YouTube, blogs, etc.) and their politicization is a product of the growing radicalization going on in the society especially among youth. Youths, fired up by enthusiasm to end regimes of corruption and perfidy deployed various social media to beam life pictures of movement, and expose the lies of the combated regime. Mass mobilization of people within and outside the countries was facilitated by social media. Western mainstream media that could have ordinarily censored various stories were compelled by social media news dissemination to air news of the revolt. Government propaganda instruments were circumvented by live news from social networks and real-time online reportage. All of these show that at time of social upheaval, the best of technologies are deployed by mass of workers and youth to advance revolutionary movement. Furthermore, mass initiatives, hitherto buried and wasted by capitalism, are pushed to the fore.

Consequently, some commentators, both left and right, have opined that social media will now be another avenue of mass organization. It is also suggested that social media can replace hierarchical structures of organization in mass movement. However, overemphasis and centralization of all struggles around online campaigns is not only misleading but also a reflection of the demoralization occasioned by bankruptcy of the official platforms like trade unions and so-called opposition parties. This is in addition to the lack of genuinely anti-capitalist, revolutionary platforms across the world against the neo-liberal ‘democracy’ (read dictatorship of the market) that only ensures the recycling of thorough-bred, scrupulous capitalist politicians, who hide under different banners to implement the same neo-liberal and imperialist policies of the previous government, if not on a higher and more scrupulous level. As a result of this, social media is seen by many, who felt betrayed by leadership of traditional organizations of the working class, as alternative to democratic organization. For the anarchists, this is an opportunity to put to practice their rejection of any mass party, while the right-wing commentators, being mouthpieces of capitalism, hope that these revolts and revolutions can be curtailed and derailed by amorphous social media activism.

Indeed, working people and the oppressed, every technological improvement of the society has been used by the working class movement to advance struggles of the working people. The working class utilized the Post to disseminate ideas and programmes, and build their organizations in the early turn of the 19^th century while working class intellectuals used printing to produce intellectual work and journalistic activities for the education, information and organization of the working people in this period. Also, in the early 20^th century, the availability of telegraph and radio was exploited to communicate to a wider layer of the working people.

Therefore, the current availability of social network facilities like Facebook, YouTube and twitter is only a continuation of the past, albeit on a more sophisticated level. The only difference is that unlike in the past where there are mass organizations of the working class and militant left-leaning unions and organizations that maximized the use of these technological platform for better organization, the current uni-polar world and collapse of these mass organizations or their transformation to pro-capitalist mouthpieces, has made the use and availability of the InfoTech facilities, despite its enormous potentials, to be limited in scope. If there have been revolutionary mass-based organizations, built from the grassroots, the use of InfoTech would have meant better-organized and democratic platforms as such platforms will openly stream uprisings to grassroots of every nation.[1] This will mean that the oppressed people especially in the downtown will be able to know what is going on and be able to participate in debates and decision making through networks of the revolutionary platforms/organizations. This will surely resonate to other nations especially in the third world countries. What you have on the contrary is huge InfoTech potentials but no platform to utilize them for revolutionary purposes, as the trade unions and so-called opposition parties/organizations are very bureaucratic and indeed caught unaware during these uprisings.

Notwithstanding this shortcoming, these online platforms can help to disseminate ideas and discussions, and seek clarifications on fundamental problems facing mass movements and the society. This means that if just 1 percent of the 500 million subscribers of the social network, Facebook, are engaged in discussions about the next stage of working class platform, it is possible to build new generation(s) of youthful revolutionary cadres that will shed off the burdens of capitalist propaganda and the effects of the collapse of Stalinist ideas. This is interpreting the Karl Marx idea about the capitalist class' internationalization of its gravediggers i.e. working class.

It should however be pointed out that these online and mass media cannot substitute for revolutionary organization of the working class, no matter their potentials; but they can serve as veritable tools of interaction and dissemination of ideas and examples. This is even more important today, where the experiences and strength of revolutionary forces vary widely from country to country. The politicization of these mass media reflects the growing desire of youth and working class people to vent out their anger against capitalism; seek revolutionary ideas and change their conditions. But this cannot be achieved on online websites but through mass and fighting revolutionary organizations of the working class and youth from grassroots to the national level, using the best communication technology as a tool. To show the limit of the online protest platforms and other mass media; it is a known fact that majority of the people, especially in the third world do not have access to information technology while it is mostly middle class people, even among the youth have access to the infrastructure. Yet, the downtrodden i.e. working class, urban poor and rural masses, plays the decisive role in these movements. Left to the authorities, it is easy to deal with middle class as a class, but the working class and the urban poor are a different ballgame entirely because they hold the decisive stake in revolutionary movements. This is clearly reflected in Tunisia and Egypt, where decisive entrance of the working class from factory and workplaces coupled with the shift of rank-and-file of armed forces to the left, actually weakened the ousted regimes their remaining tread of existence for the regime. That these leftward shifts did not lead to ouster of capitalism is a long historical development already analyzed above.

It is necessary to state that this does not imply that the middle class radical mood cannot instigate revolutionary uprising, but it is fundamental for working class to play a decisive role as a conscious class in such movements. This is basic since the working class is the most organized class, being the livewire of capitalist economic foundation. The working class of course cannot achieve revolution alone, but it has to be a decisive force in the revolutionary movement, without which the revolution lacks the spark to overrun capitalism. The working class can however be woken to duty by radicalization induced by middle class movement of intellectuals, students/youth or even struggles amongst various trends of the capitalist class. The ability of the working class and youth to build revolutionary ideas and programmes to lead these movements is vital. While events can rapidly forge revolutionary idea and leadership in time of need, only a painstakingly built revolutionary platform and leadership, tested in idea and on the field, can provide a long lasting opportunity to change society. This has been underlined by various massive events such as the Chilean revolution in 1973, Spain in 1930s (and later in 1981-84) and France in 1968. Even in advanced capitalist countries where access to internet and mass media is high, Facebook, twitter or blackberry cannot replace mass meetings at local, state, regional and national levels, to review and democratically discuss ideas, evaluate events, plan programme and more importantly build confident collective force that will undermine the coercive, repressive and propaganda apparatus of the state. This does not undermine the role that various technical apparatus can give to revolutionary movements as historical examples cited above have shown.

Mass media and information technology can help to galvanize support and solidarity, communicate better and in some instances undermine capitalist mainstream propaganda machine, but they cannot replace the building of mass organizations. Therefore, those pundits raising the idea of online media replacing mass organizations are only talking from petty bourgeois or anarchist standpoint. As Vladimir Lenin, leadership of the Soviet Revolution in Russia in 1917 said; revolution is firstly an idea, then programmes and then organization. All these require direct mass involvements of workers, youths and the downtrodden in the workplaces, factory line, communities, etc. This can be greatly enhanced by commitment of sacrificing youths using platforms of information technology to disseminate ideas and mobilize.

However, as information technology is useful for revolutionary movement, so also it can be used by the capitalist/imperialist ruling class to undertake massive propaganda against the working class, as the coup against Hugo Chavez government, supported by many western media in 2003 revealed. It can also be used to undermine mobilization movements by imperialism directly investing in these social platform so as to blunt the political sharpness of these politicized platforms, the same way many pro-democracy and civil society groups and even trade unions were bought over, infiltrated and even transformed into a platforms for the dissemination of capitalist ideas in a seemingly innocuous manner. Already, the US imperialism, recognizing the role these online resources in mobilizing and disseminating radical ideas, is trying to emasculate these platforms by injecting funds in developing them with the aim of diverting the anger of the masses, especially youths to safe channels for imperialism. For instance, the now-former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the wake of the Egyptian revolutionary movement, was quoted to have said “… We (US capitalist ruling class) are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages and the training they need to access the internet safely”[2] (emphasis mine). Underline the ‘training’ and ‘safely’ to mean training to limit their activities to safely tolerable channels for the US capitalist imperialism. With the amorphous character of social media activism and its leadership, derailment and disorientation of revolutionary movements is much easier than under a bankrupt leadership of traditional organizations of the working class. A disoriented working class organization can be reoriented by workers themselves; social media derailment has no traditional base.

More than this, mass media and information technology, under capitalism, are still owned by capitalist bosses, who will not support mass revolts and revolutions that will upturn their system. But with democratic organization of the working class from the grassroots up to the national levels, it can be possible to undermine attempt of the ruling class to use mass media and information technology (including social media) to undermine revolutionary movement. for example, with mass organization and democratic discussions, workers in mass media and information technology can decide which information to pass to their revolutionary comrades; they can strike against attempt at misinformation and misrepresentation of revolutionary movement and they can censor ruling class’ (including their own employers) propaganda. This can only be achieved when there are revolutionary leadership with a genuine socialist alternative programmes.

Revolutionary movements and platforms are not built as a virtual movement but as a living one built from the grassroots, involving local campaigns and struggles that will give the working oppressed people to build confidence in their collective strength and the ability to struggle and be victorious.

The Role of Youths in Revolutions

One of the very important features of the MENA revolts is the heroic roles of the youth. From Tunis to Cairo, Algiers, Benghazi, etc, the young people dared the regimes of repression. Brilliant initiatives including organization of sit-ins, massive deployment of social media and information technology, etc showed the important role of new generations in revolutions. More than this, it reflects the fact that these movements represent not just the present, but also the future of these societies. One of the revolutionary implications of youth heroic role in the revolution is that the experience and lessons will serve as legacy for new generations.

Graphically, the roles of the youths have been inspiring which reflect the level of frustration faced by these youths. In these MENA countries, 60 percent of the population are young people with more than half  of educated youths unemployed while those employed (either self employed or government/private sector employees), are working like elephant but living like ant.[3] In fact, those between the working age brackets of 15 to 30 years constitute up to a third of the North African population. “The International Labor Organization estimates that the unemployment rate for 15- to 24- year olds in the Middle East is 25 percent. A survey of 1,500 youth by the World Bank found that the self-declared or perceived jobless rate was even higher—35 to 40 percent.”[4] In Egypt, unemployment among young people in 2010 was estimated to be around 27.3 percent compared to 4 percent for adults, while 50 percent those aged between 15 and 19 years are unemployed.

All this is coming on the heel of celebrated economic growth for the Middle East and North Africa. For instance, the economy of North Africa was put at 3 percent per annum between 2005 and 2011, while “per capita income in the region ranges from $2780 in Egypt to about $10,000 in Libya, compared to an average of $1445 for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).”[5] But the so-called growth has been centred around the top echelon of the population. As a result of the quest for better future, more section of the youths are getting educated, even when spending on education across the region has declined relative to population increase or size of the economy. This has meant that more young people look for better opportunities after education. but, as a result of the neo-liberal economic policies that ensure chronic exploitation of the working people for profits, lesser percentage of the young people are finding opportunity for decent jobs and better living. Consequently, many young people who should be contributing to productive economy have become dependent on their families, whose incomes are also falling as a result of high cost of living occasioned by inflation, dilapidated infrastructures and withdrawal of subsidies. Many of the educated youth are now in informal jobs where incomes are very limited in relation to work. All this defined the character and outlook of young people in not only MENA countries but also sub-Sahara Africa. It is thus no accident that young people played active and heroic roles in these movements.

Aside the socio-economic crises faced by the youth, is the changing political outlook of the youth. Unlike the older layers who saw emergence of many of the sit-tight rulers in the MENA region, young people are not burdened by the past. They want to create their own future. This is made more explicit by the now cosmopolitan character of many of the MENA countries. Added to this is the deeper global integration, with information and communication technology contributing to this transformation. Worse still, the sit tights, having stayed in power for long, held the people, including the youth in contempt; seeing them as mere subjects. Aside this is the obvious corruption, not only on the streets of Tunis, Cairo or Algiers, but at the top echelon of power. All this humiliating situations, coupled with the inability find any democratic outlet to express their conditions, led the young people to push themselves out in mass movements; daring all consequence.

There has also been attempt to represent the MENA revolutions as youth or demographic revolutions. Some pundits have posited that the success of the movements lies in the youths' rejection of all 'formal' organizational and leadership structures and ideas, rather their reliance on spontaneous mobilization and online media.[6] While it is true that the youths are playing brave and heroic roles in these movements, attempt to pose the uprisings as youth movements is not only misleading but indeed dangerous has it tends to blur the class character of these historic movements.

The economic crisis that has endangered the future of the young people is as a result of the inherent contradiction of capitalism that ensures enormous wealth for a few and suffering for the majority. This is made worse with the adoption of neo-liberal (ultra-free market) ideology by many third world political classes, especially since the past 25 years. This has meant squeezing of more profits from working people and erosion of social services for the majority. The working people have been seriously attacked in the recent times with daily insecurity of job, low pay and soaring cost of living. This is coupled with unprecedented corruption and lack of democratic opportunity to seek for change, no thanks to the autocratic/repressive state. Therefore, the underlining cause of the revolts is the capitalist economic exploitation, which has been accentuated in this neo-liberal phase. The crises that the young people have faced, and their roles in the revolts and revolutions, only confirms the inability of capitalism, worse still, neo-liberalism, to move these societies forward, or solve the problems faced by young people.

While the unemployed youths and students are active in these movements, in reality, it is the working class youth and indeed the working masses in general that played the decisive roles in these uprisings. This is reflected in the clarion call by the opposition groups for a general strike whenever any of these uprisings is at a critical turning point.

Moreover, the impact of every action of the working class, no matter how minimal has been very significant in these movements. For instance, when the workers in Tunisia decided to join the uprising, every activity and demand of the movement changed with echoes of not only 'Ben Ali must go' but also call for job and better living becoming deafening. In fact, some sections of the workers' movement like the Iron and Steel workers' union, were calling for workers taking over factories and democratic committees set up throughout the country to provide alternative government. This was however drowned by the central labour leadership and the leadership of the uprising. Also in Egypt, the immediate strike action of the workers in such vital concerns like the Suez Canal and textile industry greatly weakened the regime. At a time, the textile workers were calling for workers takeover of the state apparatus and democratic committees from the grassroots up to the national level. As usual, this was not taken up by the labour movement. Indeed, after the removal of the hated autocrats in Tunisia and Egypt, the workers have further mobilized for more protests and strikes, underlining the fact that the revolutions have only open a new vista for working class struggles.

The youth, like the students can play active roles in mass movements, but this can only bring fruitful result especially  in overthrowing authoritarian regime and indeed capitalism if it is led by an organized class of the oppressed represented  by the working class. The general term of the youth is confusing since the youth includes the working class youth, middle class youth and even children of the elite. Some of these classes of youth can play and indeed played active roles in revolutionary movements because youth generally are active minds and are motivated by ideals and quest for dignity, but without an organized working class leadership, itself under a democratic, independent and revolutionary leadership, programmes, and ideas, such movements will be diffused without clearly revolutionary programme of uprooting capitalism and enthroning a democratic socialist system. This can generate disillusion, frustration and counter-revolutionary/divisive tendencies at the turn of the movement. This is one of the problems that the mass uprisings in these MENA countries have posed with working class youth who play active roles in these movements being sidelined from the decision-making on the next phase of the struggle as a result of lack of grassroots democratic working class platforms that can serve as revolutionary government in process. Such a platform organized democratically from the grassroots to the national level will make use of the enormous political will, energy and wealth of experience of the working class, youth and the community people in alliance with the progressive middle class, students, youths and professional of the cities to build an alternative government that will threaten the rule of capital. These are the battle cry on the streets of these revolting societies as exemplified in various mass movements in Egypt and Tunisia calling for a 'Second Revolution'.

On the contrary, it is the middle class youths, students and upper layers of the working class (professionals); and civil societies (NGOs) who have had access to platforms of actions (like the media), resources and decision making, which has impacted upon the character, direction and demands of the movement. This has given lifeline to capitalist voices and further blurring the movements. However, this is not to imply that the working class and downtrodden youths have not put in their feet in the movements but they are not in control. There are reports of debates on the streets of Tunisia and Egypt on the next line of action while workers are organizing mass actions in factories, workplaces, communities and sectors to demand for one improvement or the other. In fact, the central trade union, UGTT, despite its recent treacherous past, was central to the downfall of the Ennhada-led tripartite government in the mass movement that emerged after the murder of opposition lawmaker in August– even if this only mean transferring power from one set of capitalists to another under the nebulous tag of government of national salvation. However inspiring these situations are, they fall short of revolutionary platform needed where decision making will come from the downtrodden from their living experience on the struggle so far. With such democratic revolutionary platform, it will be possible to organize nationwide political and economic agenda that can place power with the working class. The current arrangement only allows the ruling and capitalist class from effacing the working class. The unions need to be transformed into struggle platforms with democratic structures from the grassroots and workplace playing central role in decision-making coupled with the adoption of socialist programmes. This is the only way of genuinely moving the struggles forward and achieving the ultimate aim of these revolutions.

Peaceful revolution or Armed Struggle

One of the general comments on the revolts and revolutions in MENA is the emphasis on the so-called ‘peaceful’ nature of the protests, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, as opposed to violent and armed struggles taking place in some others like Libya, Syria and Yemen. A kind of odiousness is somewhat expressed when mentioning the armed revolts as an abnormal occurrence. It is believed that the peaceful nature of revolt can appeal to the sensibility of the ruling class and imperialism (which they refer to as international community) to concede to the demands of the revolting mass. This can only happen when the vital profit interests of capitalists (both local and international) are not threatened in the short or long-term bases. Even in such situation, imperialism and local ruling classes, knowing that mass revolts always have ripple and far-reaching effects on the consciousness of the masses, will attempt with all energies (both subtle and open) to rubbish the movement through various means, not the least sponsoring violence and agent provocateur. Even, in the so-called peaceful protests in Egypt and Tunisia, it did not go without brutal murder of hundreds of people: 122 in Bahrain, over 300 in Tunisia and over 840 in Egypt as at 2011 (aside over 2000 casualties in the military repression of pro-Morsi protests in 2013)[7].

More than this, when the various local ruling classes attack protesting and revolting masses, there are vague criticism (or complete mute) by imperialist ruling classes globally, who actually arm these regimes[8]. However, when the masses take independent initiatives to defend themselves, such actions are classified as violent means of fighting. This is aimed at blackmailing the revolting masses, in order to either give the rejected ruling class (who are in many instances plaint to global capitalism) a leeway to justify its massive repression and violence or to blackmail the revolting mass with the aim of putting the revolt under the control of imperialism. In some instances, as witnessed in Libya and Syria, imperialism and its proxy states, will covertly support and bankroll armed struggles – started by genuine independent efforts of the masses but were subsequently hijacked by pro-imperialist oppositions – but overtly claim to oppose violence.

The attempt at portraying peaceful protests as the only and genuinely legitimate mean of revolutionary change flies in the face reality. It will be a welcome situation if revolutionary movements achieve their objectives without major casualties to the oppressed masses. However, this is possible when the majority of the lower and middle layers of the armed forces have been won over to the side of the revolution with the working class taking direct leadership control through general strikes that cripple capitalism. At such a point, the use of state terror that may warrant armed defence of the revolution will be worthless. In such situation, the best capitalist rulers could do is damage control, or organizing sabotage and subterfuge to justify imperialist intervention through imperialist war or sponsoring of civil war a la Angola and Mozambique, Ethopia, Nicaragua, etc. In addition, when a protest movement is not posing fundamental threat to the interests of capitalism and ruling class in general; you can have peaceful movements. Even at this, the so-called ‘peace’ is relative as seen in Bahrain, Tunisia and Egypt, where several hundred were killed and more than ten thousand others wounded; even when there was no armed struggle. That is, the revolts can still be accommodated within the framework of imperialist capitalism. The terror organized by the Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak regimes was initial reactions against the fear that the revolutions will immediate change the status quo. But imperialism and local ruling class effected regime change by sacrificing Ben Ali and Mubarak, as a way of putting hold on the revolutions. In these situations, imperialism tried to put in place pro-capitalist elements in the leadership of not just the countries, but also of the mass movements, so as limit the radicalization that was unfolding. This can be successful temporarily in the absence of a genuinely revolutionary working class platform that rallies the forces of the working and oppressed people, youths and the rank-and-file of the armed forces together, to challenge capitalism and enthrone s genuine working people, democratic socialist society. If this kind of platform with such orientation develops, surely imperialism and all the forces of reaction globally will mobilize to suppress violently such movement. Even, when such movements are peaceful, imperialism in alliance with the local capitalist class with tag them ‘violent’ with the aim of providing excuse for unprecedented repression.

This will mean in a place like Libya, that the so-called humanitarian concerns that was used as excuse of the hawkish imperialist to oust Qaddafi will be replaced with tacit and unashamedly open support for the repressive machine of Qaddafi regime; knowing full well that takeover of the running of the country and its resources by the working and oppressed people will spell doom for the interests of global capitalism, both in the short and long run. Imperialist support for the opposition, aside coming at a time when imperialism was able to reconfigure the leadership of the revolutionary movement in its interests, was more or less a strategy to secure a strong foothold on the MENA revolutions. Moreover, it was an opportunity to oust Qaddafi and ensure a secure control over Libyan oil, which reserve is estimated to be the largest in Africa. While imperialism launched a military occupation through NATO on Libya on the ground that the regime has killed over six thousand civilians, the same imperialist rulers permutated with Syrian regime even when tens of thousands were being killed. In fact, until later when a formidable pro-imperialist opposition (comprising many former members of the Al Assad regime) was forged, that the demand of US government changed from political reform to regime change. The armed struggles, which were started by working people and youth in Libya and Syria, in defence against regimes’ terror, were hijacked through manipulation and lack of revolutionary leadership of the working class, by pro-imperialist forces, which were later funded by pro-US Arab regimes and western powers.

The failure of US and European imperialism to launch military intervention against Assad in October 2013 – due to Russia’s and China’s opposition and domestic opposition to another military intervention after the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan – has more to do with geo-political permutation, especially in relation to Israel and Iran, than ending human carnage in Syria. In reality, imperialism cares no hoot if millions are killed, inasmuch as its interests are secured. In Bahrain, where the mass movement did not even have socialist aim, imperialism openly supported the ruling Khalifa family, because the country is host to US fifth military base. A change of leadership could have led to renegotiation of the existence of military base in the country; which can set in motion a chain reaction across the Middle East. It is therefore not surprising the US support for military invasion of the country by Saudi forces that crushed the revolution. This further confirms that imperialism is only liberal when its interests are secured, but will employ the most brutal method to secure its interests. The corrupt and undemocratic Khalifah regime is a prop of Saudi ruling classes and US imperialism.

In Yemen, US imperialism and Saudi-led GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) could only agree to the removal of Abdullah Saleh, after they secured safe landing for imperialism in the country. This involved a very shameful safe landing for Saleh and other members of his brutal regime, which guaranteed them immunity from prosecution. Indeed, Saleh was replaced by his deputy, Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi, who alongside other members of the Saleh-led ruling mafia ran the country aground with unprecedented repression and corruption. The presidential election in February 2012 that saw the emergence of the al-hadi, aside being fraught with irregularities was achieved after the opposition has been fractionalized and the workers’ and youth movements (that started the revolts) curtailed. Indeed, the armed struggle and defence, which started on the streets of Yemen by young people as a reaction against the regime’s terror, was however hijacked by tribal leadership, many of whom have been appendages of the Saleh regime or his opposition in the ruling clique. It was therefore possible for Arab leaders to manipulate the leadership of the armed groups, and co-opt them. These situations clearly underscore the necessity of the independence of working class movement in revolutions. Indeed, without the working class playing conscious leading roles in revolutionary movement, with clear-cut socio-economic demands, such movements are prone to being derailed.

Thus, the idea of ‘peaceful’ protests/movement is relative, and can be used by capitalist class and its town criers globally to emasculate the revolting mass of the working and oppressed people from changing society. Just like Bahrain, Yemen is another outpost of US military imperialism in the region.

Consequently, the working people and youths cannot allow themselves to be bonded and hoodwinked in their struggle for revolutionary transformation by such hollow words of admonition of ‘peace’ by capitalist pundits and moralists. Should the working people allow themselves to be slaughtered under the guise of being peaceful? Even without prompting, the working people and youths in MENA responded to the terror of the state, as reflected in various form of physical defence. From the defence committees set up in Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions; to the organized armed resistances in Libya, Yemen and Syria, the working people decided to take their destinies and fates in their hands, and not refused to succumb to vague, moral-ism of bourgeois pundits. For instance in Egypt, after Mubarak withdrew the police from the streets, with the aim of causing state sponsored chaos, the youths and the working people organized defence squads in communities including barricades to check state sponsored barricades. In addition, when the pro-Mubarak thugs stormed Tarhir Square to violently disperse the movement, they were not only defeated (through on a well-organized resistance), the entrance of the square was securely guided and guarded subsequently. In Tunisia, working people and youths organized defence committees to defend their communities against state-sponsored terror, and opportunists who may want to use the revolution to organize violence.

Furthermore, in Syria, in the cities of Homs, Dara’a and Hama, there were reports of formation of defence committees, while barricades were also set up. Indeed, many were reported to be carrying weapons to defend their families and communities in the wake of massive brutality of the state forces, especially at the border towns with Lebanon. A so-called Free Syria Army was set up, with hundreds of deserters for the Syrian army moving towards this platform. The Free Syria Army, which later called for support from western powers, was subsequently armed by imperialist forces and pro-imperialist Arab regimes. While these are clearly odious paths, the fact that dissident armed forces, even if on a distorted manner, shows how possible the mass of working people and youths, if well organized can organized an independent and revolutionary armed defence committee to defend revolutions against state repression and imperialist capitalism. In Libya, state repression led to spontaneous emergence of defence councils by the youths, working class people and dissident rank-and-file of the armed forces in Benghazi and eastern Libya. In Yemen, the poor young men, though organized under tribal rulers, had to take up arms against the Abdullahi Saleh regime’s continued violence. These are just examples of heroic resistance against state terror.

In all the aforementioned examples, the armed resistance cannot be said to be substitute to mass revolts. Of course, it may not be in an organized manner, the armed resistance did not end mass movements. At a period of state direct provocation, the working people and youths have elected to stay united and comported, not of course without mistakes. But the working people cannot be bonded by so-called non-violence. Inasmuch as the capitalist ruling elites will not simply surrender power without a fight, so also will the working and oppressed people not limit themselves to mere protests in the face direct physical liquidation. This does not necessarily mean that the revolting working and oppressed people will immediately start taking up arms against the capitalists. Indeed, there will and should be attempt to mobilize the as much as possible of the rank-and-file and the officer layer of the armed forces (police, army, etc) to the revolutionary cause, which will more easily isolate the state, and reduce its ability to use remnant of armed people against the people.

However the heroic efforts of the working masses and youths in creatively resisting state violence, without such defence initiatives or armed struggle put under the democratic control of the revolutionary mass under a revolutionary platform, and such armed struggle made a subset of the whole political struggle for total revolutionary change, it will either be defeated or be hijacked by a section of the bourgeois class. This clearly is what has happened in these revolting countries, where initiatives of the revolutionary masses were hijacked by imperialism and its agents in the region. History is replete with several armed struggles, which aside taking many decades became degenerated and lost mass appeal, were later manipulated by various strata of the capitalist classes and imperialism to gain control over economic resources and political power in many countries, especially in third world countries. Even, where these armed struggles led to take over of power, without being subjected to democratic control of the revolutionary working class and made a subset of the whole revolutionary movement, they only led to undemocratic, sometimes brutal and corrupt regimes that later became fetters against further development of the society (as witnessed in North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Ethiopia, etc.) Since a revolution undermines the authority of the state and its rights to the sole control of coercive forces including armed forces, the best way to take this right away completely from the hands of the gang of capitalists, is to take every part of the authority of this class vis-à-vis economic, political, propaganda, etc. This will remove any base of support for the capitalist regime by overwhelming majority of the armed forces, which would have moved to the side of the revolution.

Therefore, a genuine armed resistance can only be successful if it is linked with the overall mass movement to remove all rights to authority by the capitalist state. This will imply that, aside organizing running of societal affairs by the elected committees of the revolutionary movement from the grassroots to the national levels, the armed resistance forces will only constitute the defence committee of the councils; and will be subject to their democratic and revolutionary control. This will rapidly appeal to the rank-and-file of the armed forces (and even the middle layer of the armed forces). More than this, a direct appeal/clarion call to the ranks of the armed forces (most of whom are recruited from the ranks of the working class and peasantry) to join their brothers and sisters, and not to serve as butchers for their class enemies, will greatly undercut any reliant base of the capitalist ruling state. The existence of elected committees organizing society’s need  such as supply of food, shelter, movement, communication and services needed during revolutionary period; and the contention of power from the discredited state apparatuses, will show to the ranks of the armed of the armed forces the kind of state that is being forged by the working masses. Themselves, enslaved by the capitalist system, will be prepared to defend such revolutionary initiatives that wish to liberate them. This is the best means in which armed struggles can drive revolutionary movement forward. An armed struggle/campaign that sees itself not as a subset of the collective democratic platform of revolution will only be manipulated by various bourgeois forces/oppositions (in many cases supported by imperialism to rescue capitalism).

The Libyan situation underscores what can happen when the masses take their destinies in their hands; but it also reflects the limitations imposed by spontaneous movement without revolutionary vanguard party/party to channel the mass outburst for clear-cut anti-capitalist revolutionary movement. This explains why the armed struggle, which started as the initiative of the youths, workers and dissident army officers, was hijacked by bourgeois opposition and imperialism. Thus, armed struggle, which initially rejected imperialist intervention later, succumbed to accepting the intervention, in the face of initial overwhelming attacks of the Gaddafi regime, and in the absence of well-organized revolutionary vanguard party. Had there been a genuine revolutionary leadership of the workers, youths, women and armed personnel, there would have been appeals to the working people throughout Libya (especially in Tripoli and western Libya) to join the revolutionary movement, oust Gaddafi and form elected revolutionary councils across the country. Also, such appeals should go to the working people across Africa and Middle East (nay the west) to support the revolutionary cause by ensuring their governments do not use their resources to support Gaddafi. Surely, formation of elected revolutionary councils in the eastern Libya, would have appealed to the working and young people throughout Libya to follow suit and made it difficult for imperialism to hijack such revolutionary movement, at least in the immediate period. From this initiative will emerge discussions at various levels on how to move the revolution forward; the type of society needed to be created; how the economy will be run, etc. The efficacy of democratic armed defence committees, set up from below was shown by the defeat suffered by Gaddafi forces, led by his son, Saif el-Islam, in Benghazi by the organized mass of workers and youths. Indeed, there were protests against the regime in Tripoli and other western Libyan towns at the beginning of the uprising. However, as a result of the hijack of the revolutionary committees set up by youths and workers, by the bourgeois oppositions (comprising former members of the Gaddafi regime) and middles class elements, coupled with intervention of imperialism, which Gaddafi used to undertake massive repression against even the western Libyans, the genuine revolutionary process was aborted, but replaced western imperialisms’ manipulations.

---

[1] With mass revolutionary/militant organizations of the working class, mass revolts and revolutions in MENA can be made available through mass media organs of the working people e.g. leaflets, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, radio reports, etc which are readily available to working people, oppressed and the poor in workplaces, communities and offices. This will surely generate debates and discussions on how such can be replicated in their various countries. More than this, it can help to develop solidarity actions across borders in support of revolutions, which can help the working and young people in such countries as Syria, Libya and Bahrain, where the revolutionary movements are being repressed and manipulated by local rulers and imperialism. In the revolting societies themselves, the presence of mass organizations will make mass mobilization and empowerment of the ranks of the working people, poor and youth in communities and workplaces (in participating in decision-making processes of the revolutions). Of course, spontaneous movement can bring about such through militant/revolutionary mass organizations that mass mobilization through InfoTech can be maximized on a sustainable and revolutionary basis.

[2] Anup Shah, Middle East and North African Unrests, Global Issues, www.globalissues.org

[3] Uprising in Middle East, www.socialistworld.net, website of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI)

[4] MENA: Oil, Revolution and a Path to Stability, Revenue Watch Institute, April, 2011

[5] Ibid. and other sources

[6] Ibid.

[7] a. Wikipedia, online encyclopedia, www.wikipedia.org/bahrainuprising,  retrieved May, 2013

   b. Ahram Online, www.english.ahram.org.eg, 0 May, 2012, retrieved, May, 2013

   b. Egypt Independent, 04 April,2011, egyptindependent.com, retrieved, May, 2013

[8] For instance, US subsidize Egypt militarily with $1.5 billion in aid while over $3 billion is given to Israeli state every year, despite the latter’s obvious and heinous crimes against the Palestinians. More than this, the multinational arms corporations get direct help and backing from their home imperialist countries to sell arms to many countries, including repressive and undemocratic regimes, who have terrible human right records and/or regimes that are corrupt.