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 19th
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 20th
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.
Comments
Post a Comment