MENA revolutions: BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM AND REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALISM



BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM, IMPERIALISM AND REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALISM

One of the outcomes of the uprising in the MENA region is the rise of pan-Arab nationalism. Flowing from imperialist adventures and manipulations in the Arab world, exemplified recently by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, aerial bombing of Pakistan, imperialist support for Israel’s occupation and repression of Palestinians, support for corrupt right-wing Arab rulers, among others, there is huge hatred among working people and youth for western imperialism in the Arab world. This also partly explains the rapid spread of the uprisings across the region. Consequently, there has been rise in pan-Arab nationalism among wider layers of not only intellectuals and elites, but also among workers and young people. The revolts and uprisings have brought back memories of anti-imperialist and radical nationalist movements and regimes of the likes of Abdel Gamal Nasser of Egypt and Mossadegh of Iran. Also, in the wake of imperialist intervention in Libya, many petty bourgeois intellectuals have developed a false nationalism, tending to portray Qaddafi as a pan-African and sometimes pan-Arab nationalist. Thus, the mass movements, especially the initial movements of workers and youths against Qaddafi are explained away as imperialist orchestrated or western media propaganda[1]. All of this has underscored the need to address the idea of local and regional nationalism.

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

Popular posts from this blog

Revolt in Burkina Faso and the Challenge of Working People’s Alternative

Revolt in the Maghreb - Introduction