MENA revolutions: BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM AND REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALISM
BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM AND
REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALISM
These developments
require clear analysis as it has the tendency to distort consciousness of mass
of workers and youths in Africa, Middle East and the
third world, who are seeking genuine ideas to move their uprisings
forward. We need to ask if the nationalism of the likes of Nasser or Qaddafi
are what are needed in the current situation. What were behind radical
nationalism of the likes of Nasser and Qaddafi; and why did they fail? These
questions need enunciation and analysis.
Legacy of Imperialist Partition and
divisions
The partitioning of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and
Latin America were done by imperialist nations based on areas of economic, political and military influences. Thus, you have
people of similar cultural and economic identities and histories, separated by
geographical and administrative partitions by imperialism while people of
diverse and different identities patched together, with some given superior
political power over others and their resources. Also, you have people sharing
similar resources (like water courses, minerals, land, etc.)
and trade relations separated by geographical demarcations by imperialist
powers. The outcomes have been economic dislocation and disequilibrium coupled
with cultural and ethnic violent crises as witnessed in Rwanda, DR Congo,
Uganda, Nigeria and Cameroon, Sudan, among several other with combinations of
these factors[2]
partly leading to civil wars, organized state terror,
inter-national wars and conflicts, as seen in Sierra Leone-Liberia situation,
Chad-Niger-Sudan situation, Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, etc. All this provides
opportunity for imperialist nations, despite hoax about humanitarian interests,
to allow their multinational corporations gain
cheap access to resources, especially mineral resources, and profits in collusion with local corrupt rulers, as
seen in their indictment in such crises as DR Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra
Leone, Sudan, and now Cote D’Ivoire.[3]
Through common interests of its people, Africa, with
its vast resources and favourable geography, has enormous potential to propel
the people of the continent to ‘El Dorado’.
In the Middle
East and Arab world, the European and later US imperialisms, having defeated
the Ottoman Empire, manipulated various elites in the various tribes to gain
access to land, power and resources of the Middle East. This involved use of
elites from minorities to control the society, promotion of religious
differences to manipulate various sections of the society, military subjugation
and imposition of the capitalist economic system; all
of which are well documented. The US capitalist ruling class and its
European collaborators only modernized and accentuated this in the post-World
War II global political system, especially with growth of the oil economy, even
when mass movements forced independence out of the imperialists’ hands.
The history of
capitalist imperialism reveals the failure of advanced countries to liberate
the third world; or the third world elites and capitalist class ability to
develop a nationalistic programme to move their countries forward, even on a
capitalist basis as witnessed in Europe, America and South East Asia during the incipient years of capitalism, and in the
post-World War II era. More than this, the contradiction inherent in
global imperialist capitalism, accentuated in this
neo-liberal age, has shown that the system
cannot solve national question of minorities and oppressed/subjugated
nationalities both in the backward countries and the
advanced capitalist countries (remember it took UK, several decades to
resolve Irish nationality question, albeit on a precarious capitalist
foundation, while nationality question of Scotland and
Wales in England, Catalonia in Spain etc. are still unresolved). In fact, in Europe today, many countries in the south, east
and central Europe are undergoing what can simply be called economic
colonization by the bigger Europe. This has been brought to the fore by the current
global economic maelstrom, with such countries as Greece, Portugal, Latvia,
Iceland, etc. under the total control of European capitalist big businesses.
Economic Limitation of Capitalist
Nationalism
In his
“Critical Remarks on National Question”, V.I Lenin
analysed that, “Developing capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national
question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movement,
the struggle against all national oppression and the creation of national
state. The second is the development and growing frequency of international
intercourse in every form, the breakdown of national barriers, the creation of
international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics,
science, etc… The former predominates in the beginning of development; the
later characterizes a mature capitalism that is moving towards its
transformation into socialist society.” This assertion indeed reflects
the contradictions of the capitalist system. The centres of capitalism, in Europe,
Japan and US, developed on the basis of nationalistic consciousness by their
bourgeois class, the further development of capitalism led to expansion to the
peripheries of capitalism in Africa, Latin America and Asia in search of cheap
raw materials, labour and markets. This led to the stunted development of these
parts of the world. As a result of stunted and dangerous entry of the periphery into the orbit of capitalism, starting
with slave trade, that sapped the workforce and destroyed the engine of
development in the third world countries, especially Africa; and imperialism-controlled
development, the third world could not develop to the level of advanced stage
of capitalism.
Replication of
the capitalist development witnessed in advanced capitalist countries in the
third world countries, will lead to massive production capacity in the third
world countries that will require new markets beyond the shores of these
countries. Had these occurred in some countries i.e. development of capitalism
in the third world as witnessed in Europe, there would have overexpansion of
production, as there would be glut in the market. This will lead to bitter
struggles among capitalist countries, which may result in wars, revolutions or
both, depending on the balance of forces between the working class and
capitalist class. However, this cannot even occur as the advanced capitalist
countries, having developed the first stage of capitalist development
enunciated by Lenin above (that is developing as nationalistic capitalist
economy) had to move to international market. This necessitated subjugation of
the nationalistic aspirations of the later comers to the capitalist world, i.e.
the third world, and the lumping together of different nationalities to make
exploitation of human and mineral resources easier and grimmer.
Even in the search for expansion, the national
bourgeois class (and their representative governments) of various advanced
countries used their national bases to launch bitter struggles amongst each other
for control of the third world markets. Thus, as tendencies for global
integration and international expansion increase, so the drag of nationalism
increases among the capitalist classes in the advanced countries of Europe, US
and Japan. This is meant to defend various spoils already acquired. These bitter struggles led to the various wars – the
German war and the First World War. The Second World War further underscores
the irreconcilability of the contradiction of the nationalism and international
integration. The ruins created by the war, radicalization
of wide layer of youth and working people in Europe and US, coupled with
the strength gained by the Soviet (Stalinist) bloc from the Second World War,
created opportunity for growth of nationalistic consciousness in third world.
Cold War and Left Nationalism
After
the Second World Wars, and the accompanying social and economic menace that
gripped war-weary Europe, many colonial countries started revolting against
imperialist dominations. This was also coming on the heel of victory gained by
Soviet Union in the war, which boosted its international stature and increased
its sphere of influence. The economy of Soviet Union, unlike Europe, was not
seriously affected by the war, which is traceable to the nationalized economic
system that ensured massive mobilization of society’s resources for public good
as against the anarchy of capitalist profiteering. This period of independence and anti-colonial
struggles thus saw many petty bourgeois elites (who constitute a tiny minority
of the population, no thanks to the imperialist underdevelopment of the
colonial world), sometimes leaning on Soviet bureaucracy (or balancing between
the Soviet and Western capitalist blocs).
However, as a result of the weakness of the national bourgeois and the petit
bourgeois classes in the third world countries, it meant that their nationalism
would only translate to their being given some crumbs from the table of
imperialist capitalism, thus incorporated as local vassals for global
capitalism. Indeed, the genuine development of nationalistic consciousness in
the third world that will see their development to full and advanced capitalist
state can only signal a catastrophe for global
capitalism than the two world wars, as earlier analyzed above. Of
course, some third world countries, reflecting the balance of capitalist
geo-politics, tilted towards the Soviet Union in the post-world war II. As a
result of the distortions of the genuine ideas of the October Soviet Socialist
Revolution of 1917, and the failure of Stalinism in supporting genuine socialist
internationalism coupled with its strangulation of the genuinely revolutionary
working class movement, what developed in most of these pro-Soviet third world countries are left Bonarpartist and some
left nationalist regimes (that tried to balance between capital and labour).
This was wrongly referred to as ‘socialism’ by petty bourgeois intellectuals
and apologists of Stalinism (and capitalism).
Although the
economies were partially nationalized and major social and economic gains were
recorded, to differing degrees as witnessed in Egypt (under Nasser), Syria,
Libya, Iran, Angola and Mozambique, Congo-Brazzaville, Burkina Faso, etc.
within the period of 1950s through 1980s; the absence
of genuine working class movements that stand for democratic running of these
nationalized economies meant that the petty bourgeois leaders, masking as
‘Marxists’, ‘communists’ and ‘socialists’ only played fiddle or subservient
role in international politics, and not genuinely interested in building a
working class unity and solidarity across borders. Thus, when the political
economies of Soviet Union and its Eastern European Stalinist states collapsed
in the earlier 1990s, these so-called ‘communist’ governments and regimes shifted orientations towards the bourgeois class and
imperialism (Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc.);
or at best started winding down their so-called anti-imperialist grandstanding (Libya, Syria, etc). This is in addition to the
inability of the Soviet Union to continue subsidizing these economies.
This
reality also reflected in nationality question. On the basis of lack of
socialist democracy that allow people to decide the direction of the economy
and the society, nationality question, were only partially resolved, by growing
social and economic improvements. However, the collapse of Stalinism and these
Stalinist states, led to the re-emergence of capitalism with all its attendant
social and economic contradictions; one of which is the re-emergence of
nationality question as seen in Yugoslavia, former Soviet Union, etc. In many
of the left Bonarpartist/nationalist states, even before the semi-nationalized
economies faltered, nationality crises were already on the horizon. This was
because the Bonarpartist rulers only carried out ‘revolutions’ over the head of
the people, balancing among various social classes. This also meant balancing
among various nationality/ethnic forces. Therefore, it was much easier for
forces of reaction and imperialism to use the tool of ethnic and national
divisions to combat the little social progress in these countries.
This
is also the reason these regimes could not survive for long. Their existence
and social progresses they engendered were dependent on the global balance of
forces, and even the state of global capitalism. This is because these states
were either still operating within the confines of capitalism – with capitalism
not fundamentally uprooted (unlike in the Stalinist states), or were being
weighed down by the terrible Stalinist authoritarian method of governance.
Acting out the script of Stalinism, workers’ movement, and genuine movement of
the people seeking genuine political reforms that would allow democratic
planning and control of the economy were brutally repressed from Soviet Union
to Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, China, Egypt, Syria,
Ethiopia, etc. All this isolated many left nationalist and left Bonarpatist
regimes in the third world, such that the manipulation and intervention by
reactionary agents of imperialism led to destabilization of these states; while
the subsequent disintegration of Soviet Union, led to social, ideological,
political and economic flailing of many of these states. The collapse of Nasserism
along with its united Arab nationalism, and the faltering of the Syrian
semi-nationalized economy in the early 1970s and early 1980s are reflections of
this. Imperialism-inspired wars and strives in Angola; among several others are
also manifestation of limitation of radical nationalism.
Even Cuba,
which is still able to sustain the
bureaucratically nationalized economy, suffered serious economic downturn in
the wake of the Soviet Union collapse; and in fact had to liberalize minimally
the economy to sustain the economy and avoid a political revolution that consumed
the Soviet Union and eastern European ruling cliques in the early 1990s.
However noteworthy is the huge social gain of the nationalized economy – mass
literacy of up to over 90 percent, high lifespan of more than 80 years, etc. –
in an otherwise agrarian and disadvantaged country like Cuba. These social
gains are still being sustained to a large degree up until today, despite the
isolation the country faces. How far the Cuban regime can go is a function of
both local and international situation. For now, Cuba is enjoying the
friendliness of Latin American regimes like the Venezuela. Furthermore, based
on weakness of US imperialism, after the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq, in
addition to the sustained global economic downturn, Cuba is still enjoying some
balance. However, because of the long period of isolation, a rightwing layer
within the leadership, seeking some way out may grow in strength and try to
express itself. While the pro-capitalist layer within the ruling layers are
still not bold enough as of now (especially in
this era of globalised anti-capitalist revolts), without mass working class
political party and mass revolts throughout the world, especially in the Latin
America, Cuba ruling elite will either be isolated by or incorporated into the
global capitalist system, with the possibility of the presently
weak pro-capitalist clique gaining strength.
The ultimate
implication is that the national question could not be resolved by all these
various trends of ruling classes in the third world and global capitalist
imperialism. This is because resolution of national question under capitalism requires liberation, at least
partially of the colonial nationalities and the development of their elite
classes. This will also require full expression of the democratic rights of the
working class and oppressed nationalities because it will require mobilization
of the masses as analyzed above. None of this can be undertaken to a reasonable
extent by imperialist capitalism or Stalinism. Thus, the collapse of the
Yugoslav entity (after Tito rule), Chinese-Tibet crisis, Russia-Chechnya,
Russia-Ukraine problems, and various divisive and nationality problems in the
third (and even first and second worlds) only underline this historical
failure. The increasing struggle for control of resources and markets,
especially by the new entrants into the global imperialism like Russia and
China, only meant further manipulation and subjugation of third world countries
and their continuous dependence on imperialism for survival.
Nationalism and National Question in
the Post-Soviet Era
With the
collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European Stalinist economies, all the
former pro-Soviet Union countries have been integrated into the orbit of global
capitalist economies, as second fiddle, even the powerful Russia and China. The
result is that the third/second world ruling elites only serve as bulwark
against development of nationalistic aspirations that can threaten the
existence of global capitalism even in the mildest form. They will rather serve
as prison warders against genuine aspirations of minorities and oppressed
nationalities than opening the floodgate for mass movements of workers and
youths. The seeming nationalism of such countries like Iran, which is paying a
fake card of opposition to US/European imperialisms, aside being exacerbated by
imperialism itself (through its belligerent attitude towards Iran), is only
being tolerated. This is premised on two reasons: (1) it poses no fundamental
threat to imperialist capitalist interests in the Middle East, at least for now
and; (2) imperialism is weak politically to wage a war against another
strategic country in the Middle East region, after being bruised in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This however does not mean that there are no attempt at bringing
Iran under control and/or effecting a regime change in the country, using either threat (of action against Iran's nuclear
ambition)[4]
or using closer and more friendly countries to draw Iran into the US/Europe’s
imperialist orbit. Such other countries like Brazil and India are only
advancing their nationalism within the confines of the operating global
capitalist imperialism; therefore, economic and political manouvres can be used
to whip them in line if they decide to drift away; more so that their economies
are tightly tied to the global capitalist system. Moreover, their development
is structural uneven i.e. it only favours the big
capitalists and imperialism, while vast majority are still poor.
All of these
underline the fact that the unresolved national question and aspirations under
capitalism is more starkly manifested today than during the Cold War era. Therefore,
only revolutionary socialism can resolve national question on a global scale, by
making self-determination with full democratic rights of the oppressed
nationalities and minorities a fundamental principle in the society, while also
giving total democratic rights to the working people to run the economy and
determine how society’s resources will be used for the benefit of all.
With this, it will be possible to eliminate the selfish profit interests that
drive the suppression of the democratic rights of the oppressed people. The
current revolts in the Middle East and North Africa has brought this reality
home more than ever as exemplified by the rise
of pan-Arab nationalism, the Palestinian nationality question and several other
unresolved nationality problems in Africa and Asia.
The spread of
revolt in the Maghreb also reflect the depth of anti-imperialism in the region.
It also showed how the Arab world and Middle East has been subjugated and
exploited by imperialism using puppet regimes as carrot and Israeli bully state
as the stick. Furthermore, the failure of African Union (AU) to play any
tangible role in the Libyan crisis has further exposed the
bankruptcy of so-called pan-African bourgeois nationalism. The bourgeois
classes in Africa rely solely on the directive and order of their imperialist
masters. This is not unexpected as African
bourgeois elites are economically dependent on western colonies, and thus
hardly have any independent political authority to assert, especially those
that directly impinge on the economic interests of their western capitalist
masters. It is not also accidental that most of the military decisions and
actions concerning the continent are controlled and directed from the centres
of global capitalism with African rulers playing the pawns a la peacekeeping
activities, AFRICOM, etc.
The divisions,
and lack of minimal unity of purpose (at least of developing the continent in
the interests of her bourgeois class) amongst African rulers is also traceable
to its weakness to stand up to imperialism and unsettle its apple chat. This
will require relying on the mass of the people to challenge imperialism. None
of African ruling elites will toe this path, because as vassals of global
imperialism, they fear mass revolts and revolutions (that may challenge their
illicit privileges) in any part of the continent than even their masters in the
centres of global capitalism. Long gone is the era of radical nationalism of
bourgeois class in third world, nay Africa; only internationalist revolutionary
socialism can liberate the oppressed nationalities and indeed the third world
from the clutches of imperialist domination and exploitation. Various
pseudo-left intellectuals, who, in this age of neo-liberal capitalism, are
advocating bourgeois nationalism in Africa and other third world as substitute
for revolutionary socialism are either ignorant or out rightly treacherous.
Revolutionary Internationalism
As Lenin
analysed that, “The Marxists’ national programme takes both tendencies (of
nationalistic consciousness at the nascent state of capitalism, and its
internationalist tendency at its matured state – K.I) into account, and
advocate firstly, the equality of nations and languages; and the
impermissibility of all privileges in this respect. Secondly, the principle of
internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the
proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined kind”[5].
Consequently, genuine revolutionary socialists must reject bourgeois
nationalism as solution to underdevelopment and misery that has gripped Africa
and Middle East. Bourgeois nationalism is aimed
at promoting and continuing the exploitative and
profit interests of a section of capitalist class. Working people and
revolutionary activists must neither fall the prey of capitalist
internationalism, which is glaringly expressed in the so-called in humanitarian
intervention in Libya. We must always raise the banner of independent
organization and actions of the working people and
young people on both national and international fronts.
For
revolutionary movements, imperialist created divisions as enunciated above are
obstacles to region-wide and international revolutionary movements. Therefore,
revolutionary and genuine working class organizations have the responsibility of
raising the banner of independent unionism and solidarity across borders at all
times especially whenever revolutionary struggles break out, as imperialism is an octopus with centre in the
advanced capitalist countries and tentacles are the peripheries of the world.
This however should not be mistaken for support for imperialism-orchestrated
capitalists’ unions (EU, AU, etc) or local capitalist rulers’ distractive
policies of elite unions like the United State of Africa initiated by late Kwame Nkrumah and promoted by the late Qaddafi, his
ilk and intellectual co-thinkers. These only
regionalize entrenchment of corrupt capitalist system
without solving the basic problems faced by the working and toiling masses.
On the other
hand, working masses must demand full democratic rights for all minorities and
the majority nationalities up to the rights for self-determination if that is
the democratic and collective wish of the oppressed people of the affected
nationalities (and not an imposed view of the ruling elites of such tribes). It
must however be emphasized that if this is done on a capitalist basis (which is
the source of the problem in the first instance), the society will again go a
full cycle to break up again as the capitalist
class both within and without will not be able to resolve its contradiction,
leading to further balkanization. The current
situations in South Sudan, and the former Yugoslavian states, are examples of
failure of bourgeois self-determination. As alternative, we must demand
for democratic socialist basis of existence, where working and poor people of
all nationalities will voluntarily unite on a common agenda for the full
realization of economic, political and cultural rights of the working people
and youths. This will indeed separate the working people’s position from that
of a capitalist class, who want to use self-determination as an instrument for
control over resources and means of production.
Put together, while
socialists, working class and youth activists must defend democratic rights of
the minorities to self-determination on a socialist basis; we must also emphasize
the need for solidarity among the working people and youth of all ethnic,
cultural and religious inclinations. We must in addition campaign for voluntary
federation (or confederation as the case may apply) of these nations under a
democratic socialist arrangement with full workers’ democracy from the
workplace and grassroots to the national level as a basis of harnessing
collective resources for the common interests of society. This slogan is very
much important today for the Middle East, Arab world,
Africa as well as Palestinian and Israeli working people and youths.
However,
irrespective of these programmes, working class activists and youths must start
building solidarity and transnational movements across the boards, as
capitalism itself is globalised. Of course, revolutionary movements have
natural tendency of becoming a contagion, especially at this period when means
of communications have been simplified to every corner of the world, yet,
conscious efforts in opening up contacts with workers' movements across borders
can speed up development and cross-fertilization of ideas and programmes in
revolutionary movements. This will bring Trotsky’s ideas of internationalized
permanent revolution to fruition. This point is vital because inasmuch as
revolutions are contagious, so also is the impact of distortion and defeat of
revolutions.
Distortions or
defeats of revolutionary movement in a country can adversely affect the
development in other countries both objectively and subjectively. An historical
example is the impact of the failure of revolution in Europe, especially
Germany between 1917 and 1923, on the Russian revolution of 1917. As a result
of these failures, Russian socialist state was isolated which subsequently led
to the emergence and consolidation of a bureaucratic layers led by Joseph
Stalin which, emboldened by the absence of genuine socialist example in any
European country that provide example to Russian working class, made nonsense
of genuine internationalist ideas for over six decades. This, in the post-World
War II struggles and movements (including the independence and anti-colonial
struggles), led to the truncation and at best distortion of revolutionary
movements, especially in the third world countries. This is the background to
the emergence of distorted workers’ state a la China, Cuba, etc, or
nationalistic Bonarpartist (sometimes, petty bourgeois/military) regimes as
witnessed in Egypt (under Nasser), Vietnam (under Ho Chin) North Korea and
Libya. As a result of the false policies of Stalinism (e.g. Popular Front of
workers and so-called ‘progressive’ bourgeoisie; bankruptcy and final
dissolution of the Third International, and subsequent entrance into the United
Nations; two stage theory; etc), many of these mass movements, revolts and
revolutions could not develop into enthronement of genuine working class
government.
Another recent example of impact of
distortion of revolutionary movement is the attempt of Tunisia’s main
trade union (UGTT) leadership to form a party in the mould of the Brazil’s PT
(Workers’ Party of Lula da Silva) [6],
which has become a bankrupt, pro-capitalist platform for corrupt politicians.
The party, PT was built among workers and came to power on the crest of popular
movement and radical populism, was later compromised and made a vehicle for the
protection of capitalist and imperialist interests in both Brazil and the South
America region. Surely, the UGTT leadership was influenced by the electoral
successes of PT as a workers’ party, and not its transmutation into a
capitalist machine. While of course the building of a workers’ party in Tunisia
will be a positive development, but building such a party in the pro-capitalist
image of Lula’s PT or trying to build a society in the form of a pro-imperialist Brazilian state reflects the absence
of revolutionary socialist programmes and
leadership of the working people.
Historical Comparisons: 1989 and 2011
Western
pro-capitalist pundits and media have portrayed the revolts and revolutions in
MENA as replica of the anti-Stalinist, anti-dictatorship movements of the late
1980s and early 1990s, especially in Eastern Europe. Capitalist pundits want to
present the eastern European mass movements as revolutions against socialism,
with the aim of scaring the revolutionary workers and young people in MENA
taking the road of socialism. Moreover, they also want to present the MENA
revolutions as democratic revolutions to restore genuine socialism. What they
however refuse to mention is that the deposed regimes in MENA and those being
combated by mass movements were superintending over capitalism, under the
direct supervision and support of capitalist leaders and strategists in the
west.
In
such country as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Soviet Union,
mass of workers repulsed by undemocratic and repressive rule of the Stalinist
regimes coupled with the debilitating economic conditions revolted against the
ruling Stalinist regimes. These mass movements led to the collapse of Stalinism
in the Eastern Europe, and Stalinism generally as a ruling ideology. When
compared to the present-era revolts and revolutions, there are of course
similarities. Many of the revolts and revolutions in MENA also have democratic
contents and outlook. Furthermore, entrench authoritarian and repressive
Stalinist regimes, backed up by enormous military power, were simply turned
asunder by mass movements of workers and youth, who previously considered these
regimes undefeatable. The same situation was present in the MENA revolutions
where hitherto feared regimes were eroded away by surging flood of mass of
movements.
To
the capitalist town criers, this is where the comparison stopped. But there are
more. Both the anti-Stalinist revolts and the MENA revolts are products of
economic decay that led to worsening conditions of living of majority of the
populace. However, there are sharp differences in the economic underbelly of
these revolts and revolutions. Stalinism, through nationalization of the
economy, which release enormous wealth of the society, was able to enormously
improve living conditions, industrialize society, develop infrastructures,
provide jobs for all and ensure better human development. In many respect,
these achievements outdid those of capitalist societies, which is based on the
profit-first ideology and the vagaries of the market. Nevertheless, these
achievements were not sustainable without democratic control by the working people,
who are the producers. Without workers’ democracy that involves workers
democratically managing and running the economy and the political process from
shop floor and factories to the national levels, these economies would only
lead to enormous waste. Moreover, the lack of genuine internationalization of
the socialist revolutions led to limitation of the revolutions and the
unwarranted competition with capitalism especially as reflected in arms race.
The bureaucratic regimes of Soviet Union placed enormous restriction on mass
initiatives, while many revolutions that could have led to genuine workers’
state were sabotaged by the bureaucratic cliques of Soviet Union all in a bid
to preserve its hegemony. All of these led to monumental waste and mismanagement
(by appointed managers) of nationalized economies of Soviet Union and other
Stalinist states.
By
the mid- to late 1980s, these economies had started developing fault-lines,
based on accumulated waste and mismanagement explained earlier. Mass queues for
food and shortages of basics started becoming a new norm in societies
associated with adequate provisions. This is made worse by the lack of
democratic space for people to effect change in government, coupled with
repression of mass organizations of the working people. This was therefore
developing latent angst against ruling regimes. Initially, this anger was
expressed in movements against undemocratic rule and mismanagements as seen in
the Solidarity movement in early 1980s in Poland and Romania. These movements
were calling for the nationalized economy to be under democratic control[7]. In fact, as far back as
1956, Hungarian workers had organized mass revolt against Stalinist
undemocratic rule. They called for workers’ control of factory and the economy,
and sacking of managers. However, this movement was drowned in sea of blood by
Soviet tanks.
Leon
Trotsky, the leader, alongside Lenin, of the Socialist revolution of October
1917 in Russia, had warned that without workers’ democracy and international of
the revolution, Soviet Union was heading for collapse. This was in 1936, when
Soviet nationalized economy was growing at the pace of over 20 percent
annually. He was not a doomsday prophet, but a scrupulous dialectician, who
understood historical process. He did not only warn of imminent
counter-revolution against the gains of the revolution, he also foresaw the
rise of workers of the soviet state, rising to depose undemocratic bureaucratic
caste that is holding the nationalized economy aback. Interestingly, the two
prognoses were confirmed by events in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As said
early, from one country to the other in Stalinist Europe, mass movements were
breaking out to challenge the bureaucracies. However, on the basis of massive
repressions against these movements leading to several hundred dead, coupled
with lack of revolutionary leadership of the movement with clearly socialist
programmes, these movements irrevocably turned pro-capitalist. Added to this is
the growing layer of pro-capitalist elements within the bureaucracies. Many of
these leaders, on the basis of their privileged lifestyles and inability to
move society forward, had started seen themselves in the images of capitalist
big business, without the scruple of managing a nationalized economy.
In
addition, this period coincided with the return of growth to capitalism in the
west, which saw improvement in technology and modernized (and glamorized)
cities of London, New York, Paris, etc. coupled with limited democracy in these
capitalist states (which were being eroded way anyway by so-called democratic
governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan/George Bush senior, in
Britain and US, among others). These were attractive to workers and young
people in the Stalinist states who have been forced to manage with
authoritarian rule and increasingly outdated infrastructures engendered by
mismanagement of nationalized economies. Initially, the nationalization of
economies in the Soviet states catapaulted these countries to development,
which became attractive to workers and youth in the west and the third world.
Contrarily, the degeneration of these revolutionary situation by the
bureaucratic system of running these Stalinist states, led to workers and
youths of these countries being attracted to capitalist societies. This
ironical situation actually reflects the counter-revolutionary process
underway, and the limitations of Stalinism – which is clearly not in tandem
with genuine ideas of socialism.
Therefore,
the movements in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s contain both
elements of revolution and counter-revolution. Revolution because the intent of
the masses is to end dictatorship, but counterrevolutionary because, as a
result of absence of clear-cut socialist leadership, coupled with the bankrupt
policies of Stalinism, the societies moved backward with restoration of
capitalism and reversal of all the gains of nationalized economy. It is no
accident that these countries, hitherto known for high human development, full employment,
better infrastructures, are now synonymous with retrogression in all facet.
Immediately after restoration of capitalism, social indices went down rapidly
with societies near cannibalism. Despite all the promises of capitalist
restoration, gangster capitalism reign supreme, even now. Even, the former East
Germany that was propped up by West Germany after the collapse of the Berlin
Wall has not restored all the gains of nationalized economy e.g. full
employment. Soviet Union itself unraveled into more than 15 states with wars
and conflicts defining this. A more brutal example is the balkanization of the
Yugoslavia federation, which led to million dead, no thanks to horrible role of
imperialism. Indeed, historic mass movements and political revolutions
developed in the former Soviet states in the 1990s and early 2000 as seen in
Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Armenia, etc; as masses after the shock of capitalist
horror, started rebuilding their forces of resistance. It is with this
background that the revolutions in Eastern Europe should be viewed.
The
revolts and revolutions in MENA on the contrary, were and are movement against
the dictatorship of capitalist regimes and capitalism as a system, even if the
revolutionary masses have not fully realized this. Since, the 1980s, countries
in MENA and globally have succumbed to the dictates of neo-liberal ideology
being vigorously pursued by western governments, especially Thatcher’s Britain
and Reagan’s US. Many radical economic and social measured undertaken by nationalist
governments and capitalist governments in the third world were being reversed.
Some of these reversals were carried out through direct political coups and
subversions superintended by western government, which toppled many third world
political leaders that tried to implement or implemented any radical measures.
These were carried out at a time when squeezing of workers’ rights and
entitlements helped to restore capitalism (after the late 1970s debacles) and
provided some growth. This, as said earlier also coincided with the period when
Stalinist economies were showing signs of default. This provided some political
opportunity for capitalist rulers to begin the process of neo-liberalizing
global economies. Many third world countries, especially those under the
tutelage of capitalism, were tied down with the shackles of odious debts.
The
1990s, with the collapse of Stalinism, saw intensification of this process.
Workers’ rights and conditions worsened while social services and
infrastructures collapsed. Unemployment, underemployment and misery prevailed.
Meanwhile, population especially of the youth continued to increase. This
itself is a product of improvement in science that saw reduction in mortality
rate, and rise in birthrate, especially in third world (where access to family
planning were absent coupled with pervasive poverty). By this time, mass
movements were developing as seen in various movements in Africa, Eastern
Europe and Asia. In MENA, while many result of authoritarian rule and rise in oil
wealth (which led to some concession to the population), this process of mass
radicalization were delayed, the 2000s saw the rise in these movements as the
contradiction of neo-liberal capitalism started manifesting fully. In spite of
increasing wealth, the various ruling classes in MENA could not sustain little
concessions they were compelled to give, as a result of surging population
especially of the youth, and crisis in global capitalism (that led to rising
cost of living). Therefore, the mass movements in MENA are both democratic and
economic. While the worsening conditions are the underlining causes, the lack
of democratic space to reject capitalist government catalyzed the movement.
Therefore, for the revolts and revolutions to make fundamental progress, it
must discard capitalism, and in enthroning a genuine egalitarian society, must
learn from the limitations and distortions of Stalinism. What is therefore
needed is the enthronement of genuine democratic and revolutionary socialism.
Comparing with Cold War Era
In examining
the scope of these revolutions, it is important to draw comparison with
previous revolutionary movements and developments, and placing them in historic
contexts. It is worth stating that these movements, no matter their gallantry,
should not be placed on exact pedestal with the Cold War era revolutions, independence and radical mass movements especially in
the neo-colonial world and Eastern Europe. These revolutions, despite having
various trends, such as the guerrilla movements (Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, etc.),
young officer radical military coups (Burkina Faso, Nasser’s Egypt, Portugal
and even Libya) and electoral revolutions
(Chile, Nicaragua); were able to radically alter the socio-economic outlook of these countries with serious encroachment
on capitalist interests with some degrees of nationalization and provision of
basic social facilities for increasing section of the population on the basis
of the existing global objective situations then. These regimes, even if later
facing lack of sustainability or even total collapse – as a results of the
non-reconcilability of the contradiction of nationalized economy with
undemocratic regimes/lack of genuine working class revolutionary party and
programmes; and failure of genuine international revolutions of the working
people – provided higher economic development and improved living standard for
the people by making available a significant portion of huge wealth, hitherto
going to the private accounts of the multinational corporations and their local
accomplice, for the improvement in the living conditions of people. It is
apposite to state that these infrastructures are now the basis which capitalism
is using to make huge profit through neo-liberal policies of privatization and
commercialization as seen in China, Russia (and the CIS), Vietnam, etc.
But these were
in the bi-polar world where the presence of the alternative ideological system
existed, represented by the then Soviet Union, which provided
a pole of attraction for millions of
working class elements and youths the world over, despite the fact that it was
a perversion of genuine ideas of socialism which involve
workers’ democratic involvement in the nationalized economy and working class
internationalism as cardinal principles. Even then, as a result of the economic
gains engendered by the nationalized economies of these countries which were attractive to
the workers and youths in the West, coupled with the radicalization growing up
from the aftermath of the second world war, the capitalist West was forced to
introduce welfare policies for its citizens and concede to many of workers’
demands, albeit with bitter struggles.
All of these are absent in the contemporary period with
the collapse of the Stalinist Soviet Union and other Stalinist states and the
emergence of a uni-polar political and neo-liberal economic world outlook.[8]
As against the presence of many left-wing and militant workers’ movements (even
though in many instances with pro-capitalist or at best petty bourgeois
leaderships) and several social democratic and ‘communist’ parties with
programmes of social transformation and state control of the economy; the
collapse of the Berlin Wall has made many of these parties and organizations,
as a result of confusion, disillusionment and outright treachery of the
leadership, adopt officially or semi-officially, the neo-liberal ideology and
economic prescriptions with some variants of “welfare state”, neo-Keynesianism
or at best toned down their militant outlooks
in order to appear ‘modern’.
Also, the capitalist ruling classes the world over have used the
situation – i.e. the collapse of the bipolar ideological world – to increase
exploitative quest for profit while many repressive regimes are made brazenly
emboldened to attack workers’ movements and rights, as there are no political
alternative to the ogre of capitalism, or the available left-wing forces are
either disoriented, sectarian or just evolving as a nucleus party of the
working people. This is especially true for many third world countries where
imperialism-propped repressive regimes held sway.[9]
This has meant
diversion of mass anger formerly under the sway of the mass workers’ movements
and leftwing parties to divisive, base ideas such as religious fundamentalism,
ethnic and racial bigotry, terrorism, etc. by the capitalist class and
imperialism as seen in the various post-Cold War conflicts and wars. This
itself is a product of collapse of these mass parties coupled with the
unraveling of the ethnic and divisive cards played by the imperialist nations
and to some extent too, Soviet Union – that have consumed more than 20 million
lives[10].
All of these have emboldened not only repressive regimes but also ‘democratic’
(of the advanced and semi-advanced countries) and quasi-democratic regimes
(especially in third world countries such as fraudulent democracies of Nigeria
and other African countries) in implementing anti-democratic laws and enhancing
repressive regimes. This in turn has made many neo-colonial regimes to move
towards and lean more on imperialism, while further using state repressive
apparatus to introduce further neo-liberal economic policies, handing over the
economic mainstay to the foreign and local capitalist class and outright
looting of the state treasury. Just recently, the Ethiopian ruler was reported
to own billions in foreign accounts while his official annual salaries are
supposedly a few thousand dollars. When probed by the media his defense was
simple: the constitution of Ethiopia allows the ruling elite to partly own part
of the privatized state enterprises (which are sold to foreign multinational
firms). In those quasi-democratic societies like Nigeria and other Africa
countries, the death (either ideological and political) of workers’ movements
has led to the reign of capitalist, pro-imperialist, neo-liberal political
class both in the ruling party and opposition parties, which has had untoward effects
on the strength and organizational power of resistance of the working class. In
many instances, the trade union leadership support neoliberal capitalism in an
as-a-matter-of-fact attitude.
Therefore, the
fact that the demands and organization of these emerging revolutionary
movements in MENA have not led to the overthrow of capitalism and regimes of
capitalists is not a simplistic one but that of a long drawn historical process
with several facets. We can only draw general trends of events that have made
socialist ideas to have little influence in the development of these radical
movements. But no movement is lost in the course of revolutionary
transformation of the society. The period may be a little extended, but every
mass uprising is a chain reaction that will continue to spiral until it reaches
the right resonance to realize the historical task. Every mass movement
provides the revolutionary organizations, militant minds and change-seeking
youth, opportunity to deepen their ideas amongst the masses and deepen their
understanding of social events. This is where the challenges before the genuine
voice of revolutionary change come in. It is the time for working class
activists, change-seeking youths, intellectuals and revolutionaries to use
every avenues of propaganda including information technology to reach out to a
wider layer of the oppressed layer. More importantly, they need to play active
roles in the day-to-day agitation of the working class and the oppressed to
raise the ideas of genuine anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, democratic,
revolutionary socialist ideals. In the coming periods, as the reactionary
character of the pro-imperialism regimes in these revolting societies continue
to unravel and their solutions continually fail, the socialist voice will gain
increasing echoes amongst the working masses. The important point is that, the
revolts in these MENA countries may have ripple effects in other countries in
the near future, which may have bigger resonance than those of MENA countries.
[1] Of course, Qaddafi
played into the hand of imperialist governments, who have been waiting for
ample opportunity to revenge Qaddafi’s affront on imperialism, and to have full
access to Libya’s huge resources including oil reserve and petro-dollars.
However, this should not be confused with genuine movement of the masses in
Libya, especially in Benghazi.
[2] These factors include but not limited to subjugation
of minority groups (or in other cases placing of pliable few educated elites
from minority groups over the majority and their resources and vice versa);
divisions of the same ethnic groups over various countries, and resource
control problems. These have helped many neo-colonial local ruling elites(who
are agents of imperialism) a la Felix Houphouet-Boigny
(of Ivory Coast), William R. Tolbert and
Samuel Doe (Liberia), Mobutu Sese Seko (DR Congo), Apartheid regimes in South
Africa, etc. loot resources locally and in other countries; or divert public
anger to divisive politics in order to continue their rule.
[3](a) Manny Thain, Apocalypse
Africa, in Socialism Today, No. 107, March 2007, pg. 26-27
(b) Andrew Wallis, Silent Accomplice: The
Untold Story of France Role in Rwanda Genocide, 2006 (the writer does not
actually approve of the ideas and rationalization of the author of this
article, but only used some valuable data)
(c) Blair, David, British ally behind world’s
bloodiest conflict, UK Telegraph, April 2009, www.telegraph.co.uk
(d) Erlinger, P, US/UK Allies Grab Congo
Riches and Millions Die: 2001-2003 Experts Reports, Global Research, Nov, 2008
(e) Keith Harmon Snow, Merchants of Death:
Exposing Corporate Financial Holocaust in Africa, Global Research, Dec, 2008
[4] This can be done using
Israel as a proxy state, or through a direct action. The Iranian theocratic but
highly undemocratic ruling class, faced with growing mass movement and
opposition from home is trying to utilize fake anti-imperialist and
nationalistic pride to divert attentions from its authoritarian rule and its
hold on power. This draws more ire of imperialism, especially US imperialism,
which seeks to isolate Iran, and if possible, militarily attack the country.
[5] V.I Lenin Critical Remarks on the National Question, Collected Work on
National Question.
[6] Giuseppe Caruso, Glimpse of
the Tunisian Revolution, May, 2011, Pambazuka News, www.pambazuka.org
[7] See Peter Taffee, Rise of
Militant, pg. (Fortress Publications, London), 1996
[8] China regime has adopted capitalist economic
arrangement since the days of the Xiaoping Deng in the late 1970s while
retaining the Stalinist/Maoist political machine with a carrot and stick
approach to avoid the Russian-type collapse of the ruling clique and total
takeover of the country by the capitalist class which is tightly linked to the
world imperialism.
[9] Refer to 16
[10] Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment