REVOLTS IN THE MAGHREB1 (First Draft)
REVOLTS IN THE MAGHREB1 (First Draft)
The events unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa (subsequently referred to as MENA) since December 2010 have been indeed breath-taking. From Tunisia to Egypt, one autocratic regime is falling after another. In places like Yemen, Bahrain (despite brutal crackdowns), Algeria, Morocco, Iran, Saudi Arabia and more fiercely Libya and Syria, the working people, downtrodden; indeed the youth have given them quit notices waiting for the sit-tights to vacate the rented palaces they have used the sweat, blood and flesh of these people to forcefully (and seemingly perpetually) occupy. Even in southern Saharan African countries like Djibouti, Uganda, Sudan, Senegal, Swaziland, etc, movements are breaking out, gaining inspiration from the mass struggles from the Maghreb mass movements2. These events have elicited widespread support and interest from virtually two-thirds of the world landmass (including Jintao’s China, where there has been increasing and pronounced mass actions by the working class). The youths of the “democratically comfortable” western world have not only risen in support of their brothers in the Maghreb (challenging their imperialist governments’ support for the congenitally corrupt, repressive regimes) but directly revolting against the brutal neo-liberal cuts being undertaken by the capitalist governments of Europe and America.
The small rats of the Maghreb had hitherto assumed the stature of giants having been given a magnifying mirror by imperialism as gifts for their subservience and turning of their peoples’ land to imperialist fiefdoms. To underline the trembling effects of the MENA revolutions, tens of thousand of once sleepy workers and youths in Wisconsin in US have gained inspirations from the ongoing revolutions to challenge the hawkish, pro-big business policies of the Walker/Republican government which has launched an unprecedented attack on the labour unions’ rights in a bid to stave off massive resistance to its $1billion social service cuts that will see thousands of jobs axed, pensions and wages reduces and public services like education, health, etc seriously under funded. The government had predicated the massive misadventure on the dwindling state resources, a result of the handing over of the economy to the hands of the big businesses that have now burnt their fingers in the maddening racket that saw the world capitalist economy in doldrums since 2008. The workers and youth have refused to be the sacrificial lamb for the crime of the gambling master. They have dubbed Mr. Walker, a Walker Gaddafi. Workers in Michigan in US have also taken the road of struggle while half a million workers walk the streets of London to demand the end of neo-liberal austerity launched by the Tory government of David Cameron in May (and massive protests on June 30, where tens of thousands of workers, pensioners and youths marched on the streets of Britain against the austerity measures). Prior to this, tens of thousands of students and youths have risen up in the wake of revolutionary movement in Tunisia and Egypt against horrible cut being planned by the Cameron/Tory government. In other parts of Europe like Greece, Ireland, etc, the revolts (of workers and youths) now hidden, now open, are being given further impetus by the revolutionary movements in the MENA, with the youths in these so-called democracies believing that they can revolt to remove governments. There has also been huge mistrust in all politicians (capitalist) in the whole of Europe as exemplified by various opinion polls in Europe and more graphically depicted by the mass protest and sit-in by workers and youths in Spain against all political parties and the revolt in Greece.3
In sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), the movements are still ‘mild’ (with protests, strikes and rallies breaking up here and there) but just emerging with the prospects of massive development of struggles on the way, when placed against the background of massive economic suffering the working people and youths are subjected to in African countries. Like every huge volcano, which is always preceded by tremors, the revolutions in the MENA are only tremors of bigger and far-reaching revolutionary volcanoes that will engulf the whole Africa, Middle East, the third world and indeed the world. The question is not whether these revolutions occur or not, inasmuch as the present iniquitous capitalist system continues to define the contradiction of world economy wherein there is huge resources/wealth for a tiny fraction at one end and unending misery for the majority of the world human inhabitants. The real questions are: When? How? To what degree? And will such revolutions lead to the ouster of imperialist capitalism in Africa, Middle East, and the world at large.
It can easily be argued by any pundit that the MENA revolutions have not led to the overthrow of capitalism in the affected countries but may have indeed provided a better platform for them to operate. It is important to remind such people that the revolutions have just begun and not yet concluded. Furthermore, these revolutions, even if they have not overthrown capitalism yet have removed the veil to which it used to blind the people. Capitalism has been laid bare economically and politically in front of the people, it will soon be unraveled and possibly thrown overboard. Already, the mass of working people and youth in Tunisia have chased away not only Ben Ali, but also part of his old political family including the former prime minister, Ganouchi. The army generals in control (who were also parts of the ousted regimes) in Tunisia and Egypt are being forced by growing and daily mass movements to concede one demand or the other. As the revolutionary movements are deepened, the generals, the ruling elites and capitalism itself will be challenged, as their interests will class openly with that of the working people.
Some pundits have opined that the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa cannot occur in SSA, because the Arabs have militant character and that the regimes overthrown by the revolutions are autocratic and sit-tight; and since the SSA and Asia have ‘deepened’ democracy such cannot occur there. This has been given wide and wild echo by pro-capitalists pundits such as in Nigerian and African newspapers.4 It was even proclaimed that Africans are too docile and various divisive forces like religion, ethnicity culture, etc., which are in diversity in the rest of Africa make nationwide revolts, let alone revolution, impossible. It is however vital to remind these capitalist oracles that these excuses were exactly the same that were leveled against the Arabs and the Middle Easterners. They were said to be comfortable with monarchy. But these pundits forgot easily that between 2007 and 2009, national protests were features of the so-called hitherto conservative and religious Middles East, in response to rising food prices.
Indeed, to underline the depth of these illusory excuses, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, maintained few days before the Egyptian movement broke out that the Tunisian situation could not have occurred in Egypt because to her, stability is the second name of Mubarak’s Egypt. Just few days after, the story changed, the Egyptian masses through their actions made Mrs. Clinton eat her words. What these capitalist mouthpieces do not know is that mass movements are not respecters of fake economic statistics or assumed strength of the state repressive apparatus, which are sometimes presumed as a symbol of stability. These pundits consider mass movement as a static body which can be seen from a cliff, forgetting that revolution, just like motion picture, is a connection of several still pictures connected together to make a lasting impression. As each still picture does not make a real meaning, so the motion pictures does not make fully meaning without understanding the role of each still picture in relation with each other. Revolution is a concentrated expression of mass disenchantment that seeks to uproot the source of the societal misery, once and for all. How correct the revolutionary movement is able to determine its primary enemy (imperialism and capitalist system in this case) from secondary or expressive one (the political class) is a function of objective (that is, the historico-political economic stage of such a society) and more importantly, the subjective factor vis-à-vis the presence of a revolutionary vanguard party, the revolutionary history of the country and democratic leadership with clear-cut revolutionary, time-tested ideas, programmes and slogans.
While the fundamental objective condition have been satisfied as reflected in the inability of capitalism to guarantee basic needs of majority of humanity despite abundance of resources (mineral, human and technical) to make living worthwhile for everyone, the second condition has been a major problem of humanity for a time being. Consequently, the duration of a revolutionary upsurge will depend on the ability to overcome the forces that is keeping society backward. This in itself will depend on the ability to reach the correct ideas, programmes and slogans needed for total overhaul, which raise the question of a vanguard party and leadership. Therefore, a revolution may start, suffer setback, resurge on a lighter state and forge ahead again depending on how close the masses are to the revolutionary programmes, ideas, party and leadership. Also, revolutionary upsurge may take different forms depending on the state of revolutionary consciousness and the presence of aforesaid conditions as reflected in the different stages of the revolutions from Tunisia to Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Libya. This is clearly reflected in the different form the revolts have taken: in Tunisia, it was the movement of the rank and file policemen that showed the limit of the regime coupled with the early growth of the idea of a general strike; the Egyptian revolution required the mass confrontation with and subsequent defeat of the heavily armed and brutal police force and shock-troopers, and the ‘neutral’ posture of the army with the working class lately placing a foothold on the movement; in Yemen, the poor had to embark on massive and continuous mass movements that at a point combined with armed attacks while in Libya, an armed uprising had to be engaged in to combat the reactionary forces of Ghadafi. Moreover, the relative influences of religion, tribal and imperialist forces in each country reflect the historical background and relation of forces in each country. All this shows the different stages of balance of class forces in relation to the political economic standing of the state and the subjective factor of history of class struggles in each society. 5It also reflects the presence of a clear cut or semi-conscious popular platforms. Despite the treachery of the leadership of the UGTT leadership in Tunisia, the presence of this union, which had history of radical unionism (which the leadership at all levels used as passport to serve as lackey of the ousted regime) provided general platform for the working masses which reflects the faster rate at which some democratic gains were made and the quality of such gains, when placed side by side with Egypt, Libya and other revolting societies. However; a general trend is the fact that the working class did not emerge as the independent class leading these revolts.
But one thing is certain, the revolutionary upsurges have set basis for the demystification of the ruling clique and the capitalist system upon which it stands, as they are challenged by the working people and youth. It shows the oppressed masses are no longer afraid of the state repressive apparatus. The idea and thinking that the ruling class can be challenged and defeated have been ingrained into the consciousness of the masses, including the youths and teenagers, who are the bearers of the future revolutions; this is one of the real essences of a revolt. Even if the revolutions are defeated temporarily by the counter-revolutionary forces of capitalism and imperialism, the heroism of the masses will resurrect the movement sooner or later. This however does not imply that these revolutions in the MENA have already being defeated.
As against the prognosis of capitalist oracles that the people are bound by cultural, religious and racial shackles that make them unprepared for revolutionary actions, the revolutions in MENA have torn these arguments to shreds as all these barriers were broken down by the revolting mass. In fact, the revolutionary movements were able to remove all discriminations the society faced hitherto. For instance, in Tunisia, women who are considered as second class citizens, rose to the head of the revolutionary movements, with youthful women carried shoulder high, leading mass movements. Also in Egypt, women, who are hitherto subjects of assaults on the streets, were playing active leadership roles. A woman was asked by a Press TV journalist why she left her home and came to the Tahrir Square, and she simply said she wants to make history for her son. Even in such “Islamic” countries with clearly ultra-conservative ruling elite as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to mix with men nor even given political rights, women were seen in their thousands organizing independent mass movement and ensuring vigilante in the night as shown in various documentaries on Press TV and Al Jazeerah. Indeed, the Saudi protests started with the women in the eastern province demanding the release of detained and long forgotten activists. In Libya, despite Ghaddafi regime’s maddening attacks on the people, the women joined the tens of thousands of Libyans in Benghazi and other eastern cities to demand end to a monstrous and corrupt regime, a latter-day puppet of imperialism.
These heroic roles of women in the revolutionary movements reflect the fact that, under capitalism, it is the women and children that bear most the exploitation and misery engendered by capitalism as the family itself is turned to the nuclear unit of capitalist society. Even in the advanced capitalist societies that pride themselves as the bastions of liberty, average working class women still earn less than their male counterparts (about two third)6. In the backward neo-colonial countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, women are still subjected to the family hierarchical structures that make them subservient to men, and dependent on them. Furthermore, economic exploitations have meant that women, who earn far less than men and undertake unpaid domestic services, are the immediate and worst sufferers of economic dislocation for the working people. This is even worse in the Arab world as religion and cultural prescriptions make women totally subdued. For instance in Saudi Arabia, the new political ‘reform’ agreed by the government stipulates that only men have the right to vote in the municipal ‘elections’; in fact women are prevented from driving! Therefore, it is expected, the flurry of mass supports the women and children will put on these revolutionary situations. More importantly, they will be worse victims of counter-revolutionary situation, thus their huge enthusiasm in the revolutionary situations which have broken down all barriers imposed by religion, culture and creed. As a result of these, in any revolutionary movement challenging the existence of a social order, the women and youth (representing a new layer, unbounded by the past) are always seen playing yeoman roles in such movements. This brings to mind the Great French revolution of 1789 and the Russian revolution where women played key roles in changing society, and even in the British Miners’ Strike.
The sense of equality was really felt on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, Mitsura, etc. Also, racial and religious barriers were clearly broken down. In Egypt for instance, which is officially named Arab Republic of Egypt with Islam recognized as the official state religion, thousands of Copts and Christians joined and indeed led the revolutionary mass movements. The Christians clearly rebuffed the ‘injunction’ of their spiritual leader not to participate in the revolts and in fact served as guards for the Muslims praying in the Tahrir Square during the course of the revolution. This goes to show that religion, creed, gender, etc. are only artificial barriers created by capitalism and its ruling class to make exploitation of the masses easier. These barriers are meant to divide people and make them develop artificial identities that narrow socio-economic and political needs to ethnicity, religion, creed, cultures, etc. What this will mean in a country like Egypt is that, the Copts and Christians will be fighting for a secular state while the Muslims and Arabs will be routing for an Islamic state, all of which will blank out the capitalist economic exploitation that is at the base of the divisions. While cultural identity is a right that everybody must be given, this is only being exploited by capitalism to make people disunited. The sectarian violence that occurred in some districts in Egypt in the first week of May, 2011 clearly played to the hands of the ruling military clique and the relics of the ousted regime (many of whom are still in one office and post or the other) who wanted to use this to launch a clampdown on further revolutionary actions of the working people and the oppressed which they have been unable to mitigate even by a dangerous constitutional change that seeks to illegalize protest. It was even opined in some quarters that the violence might have been instigated by the regime itself to divert attention and further militarize the society. However, the working people and youth countered this with a massive movement on Friday, 13th May to not only call for unity amongst all oppressed Egyptians but also demand jobs, rejection of the military clique and solidarity with Palestinians. This shows how a revolutionary movement can be driven forward even beyond expected scope by a threat to the freedom already won. (The regime later arrested a so-called Israeli spy for organizing the violence as reported by Press TV and Al Jazeerah TV)
In Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, the western media and capitalist politicians always divide the country to the Muslim north and the Christians south, when in reality, more than 250 ethnic identities exist in the country with diverse distribution of religion across the country. With this kind of imperialist characterization reminiscent of the colonial partition of Africa, the seed of ethno-religious conflagration is already being sowed especially in a poverty ridden country like Nigeria, as the subjugated minority ethnic groups will seek all means to assert their identities while the capitalist class will use the generalized characterization to make exploitation of and rule over the people easier7. These arrangements are indeed product of imperialist colonial rule, where people were divided based on imperialist economic and political interests in order to make colonization and exploitation easier. These divisions have only denied the people the collective will needed to move the society forward beyond the scope of capitalism.
The partition of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were done by imperialist nations based on areas of economic 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), climatic conditions and trade relations separated by geographical demarcations by imperialist powers. The end result has 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 others, where the combinations of these factors: 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 – making some bigger rats a la Felix Houphouet-Boigny (of Ivory Coast), William R. Tolbert and Samuel Doe (Liberia), Apartheid regimes in South Africa, Mobutu Sese Seko (DR Congo), just to mention a few in these neo-colonial countries use various dubious and dangerous means to access resources in other countries, in most cases for selfish and pecuniary interests of the ruling clique, or divert public anger to divisive politics – leading to civil wars, inter-national wars and conflicts, as seen in Sierra Leone-Liberia situation, Chad-Niger-Sudan situation, Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, etc. All this provide opportunity for imperialist nations, despite so-called hoax about humanitarian interests, to gain cheap access to resources, especially mineral resources, 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.8 (analysis of the role of imperialism and imperialist nations on economic dislocation, autocracy, conflicts and wars in the third world in the later part)
In the Middle East and Arab world, the European and later US imperialisms manipulated various elites in the various tribes to gain access to land, power and resources of the Middle East, away from the ottomans. This involves use of elites from minorities to control the society and vice versa, promotion of religious differences to manipulate various sections of the society, military subjugation and imposition of the capitalist economic system. 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 from the imperialist ruling classes.
For revolutionary movements, these imperialist created divisions are obstacles to region-wide revolutionary change and movements. Therefore, revolutionary organizations have the responsibility to raise the banner of independent unionism and solidarity across borders at all times especially whenever revolutionary struggles break out because 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 union of countries on a capitalist basis (EU, AU, etc) or rotten local capitalist rulers distractive policies of elite unions like the United State of Africa proposed by Gaddafi and his ilk, which only regionalize sit-tight corrupt capitalist economic entrenchment without solving the basic problems faced by the working and toiling people – a clear example of which is the collapse of all African rulers on the temple of neo-liberal capitalism, even the so-called radical rulers like Ghaddafi.
On the other hand, we must demand full democratic rights for all minorities as well as the majority groups up to the rights for self determination if that is the democratic and collective wish of the oppressed people of the affected minority group (and not an imposed view of the ruling elites of such tribes, claiming to be acting on behalf of the people but in the real sense defending their own interests), but must underlined 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 when the capitalist class both within and without will not be able to resolve its contradiction, leading to further balkanization. As alternative we must demand for democratic socialist basis of existence, where working and oppressed people will be voluntarily united 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 to have control over resources and means of production. Therefore, any self-determination demand must involve democratic right to control the society’s resources and economy under common ownership. Put together, socialists, working class and youth activists must defend democratic rights of the minorities to self determination on a socialist basis, we must emphasize the need for solidarity among the working people and youth of all ethnic, cultural and religious inclinations; and when such states are formed, we must campaign for voluntary federation (or confederation as the case may be) 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 all and to counter the effects of globalised capitalism as a genuine socialist state cannot exist in a sea of capitalist arrangement. This slogan is very much important today for Palestinian and Israeli working people and youths. 9(quote Lenin’s writings on national question)
However, irrespective of these programmes, working class activists and youths must start to build solidarity and transnational movements across 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 while global capitalism has been integrated more than ever, conscious efforts in opening up contacts with workers' movements across borders can help to speed up development of ideas and programmes, and help mitigate the effect of the absence of subjective factors (including programmes, leadership, slogans, strategies and tactics) in revolutionary uprisings. This will bring Trotsky’s ideas of permanent revolution to fruition. It should be further underlined that faulty or false starts and aims of revolutionary uprising in a country can adversely affect the development in other countries both objectively and subjectively.
Historically, the former point is underlined by the failure of revolution in Europe, especially Germany between 1917 and 1923, which made the Russian revolution of 1917 isolated, and later 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 can threaten its rule, made nonsense of genuine internationalist ideas of socialism – with full workers’ democracy at all levels of society – for over six decades, despite later having enormous opportunity to do this. The latter point (the subjective factor) is reflected in the nature of the current waves of uprising where idea of youth driving revolution has been substituted to that of working class revolutionary programmes. The trade union leadership of Tunisia, UGTT is planning to visit Brazil to get the idea of how PT (Workers’ Party of Lula da Silva), which has become a bankrupt, pro-capitalist platform for corrupt politicians, was formed; with a view to forming a workers’ party in Tunisia. While of course the building of a workers’ party in Tunisia will be a huge improvement, especially as the electoral period is near which makes imperative the presence of independent workers’ political platform; but building such a party in the pro-capitalist image of Lula’s PT or trying to build a society in the form of an emerging imperialism like Brazil is a reflection of the absence of revolutionary programmes of the working people coupled with the bankruptcy of the UGTT leadership. This false idea will surely resonate throughout the revolting societies.
Some left leaning writers have suggested that the revolutionary movements widely spreading across the MENA could not be referred to as revolutions in the real sense of the world since they have not led to the overthrow of the capitalist system and worse still, it is the same old ruling structures that are still in power, with only faces removed. And just recently, the imperialist ruling classes in US and Europe have seen these revolutionary movements as opportunity to influence mass movement by either military intervention as in Libya (to remove Ghaddafi and his regime, which has become an unstable supporter of imperialism and capitalist oil economy10(analysis of Libya in subsequent sections) ) and Bahrain (with the tacit support/uncritical attitude towards the Saudi/UAE military intervention, in support of the Bahraini regime’s repression against the protesting citizens), or manipulation of the revolutionary movements with a view to ensuring emergence of capitalism compliant regimes (a la Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia).
In the real sense, these movements have been and are still serious limited in scope, organization, demands and ultimate aim and historical link, as they have not led to vital attacks on the economic foundations of capitalism and imperialism neither has the working class emerged as the full leader of these revolutionary movements. But, it will be erroneous to conclude that these movements lack revolutionary contents. These movements are revolutionary in many respects, even if they are fundamentally limited, economically and politically. In the first instance, these movements are historic. From Tunisia to Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, etc, the movements are fundamental challenge to the ruling regimes in existence for decades. In Tunisia and Egypt, over two- or three-decade old regimes were toppled while in others countries, the seemingly strong regimes were demystified by mass bravery. Even, if for now, the movements do not lead to ouster of capitalism, it has set the foundation for subsequently mass revolts and uprisings that may later realize the need to replace capitalism, as a basis for moving forward. Indeed, the working people and youth in these revolting countries (and even in other nations, south and north) are realizing the limit of the revolutions and there are debates on how to move these uprisings forward and take it away from the capitalist caretakers. This is reflected in increased debates on the streets of Tunisia, Egypt and even Libya, Yemen, etc where the uprisings have not yet succeeded in removing bankrupt regimes. More important is the nearly daily mass movement in Egypt and Tunisia to demand further push for the revolutions.
Secondly, elements of revolutionary contents are reflected in the fact that fundamental ingredients enunciated by Lenin on revolutionary situation were, and are still present. The working masses have been awaken to the need to end regime of corruption; they rapidly moving from the state of class-in-itself to class-for-itself, realizing that changing their conditions depend on their mass movements. They broke down all vestiges of the past and challenged the regime and capitalism on the streets. The working class from Tunisia to Egypt and now Yemen (where the idea of a general strike has been raised by the opposition), capitalism was challenged on the streets. Also, the ruling class was divided on either granting more concessions to the masses or embarking on more crackdowns, either of which put the regimes in jeopardy. In Tunisia and Egypt, various concessions given by the regime only inspired the masses to demand for more until the regimes fell. Even, when the regimes embarked on massive crackdown, it only downed on the protesting working people and youth that there is no going back on the mass movement leading to sharp divisions within the ruling class. Of course, it can be argued that the divisions within the beleaguered regimes are product of short sighted interest to access power by these elements, by positioning themselves as pro-democracy support; worse still, they are acting as stooges for imperialism, with a bid to limit the scope of the revolutions.11(from various sources including Wikipedia and Press TV)
But that the regime, and indeed imperialism, divided on the interpretation and response to the mass uprising, reflect the radicalization of the society. More striking are the divisions within the military and the armed forces, as the rank and file and junior officer police and military officers breaking rank with their superior to join the revolutionary movement. This is the situation in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain; while in Egypt, the rank and file military men openly showed solidarities with the protesting masses on the streets, allowing them to stand on armed personnel carriers or sheltering under them. Though, some ruling military generals tried to also pose as pro-democracy supporters, haven seen the mass supports for the revolutions by the low ranking officers, many of whom refused to shoot on the masses as seen in Tunisia, Egypt and even Bahrain; while attempt by the monstrous Gaddafi regime to crackdown on mutinous military men who refused to shoot on protesters, killing over 150 of them12 (refer to 10), led to mass revolts by the young officers, who took up arms against the regime and redefined the revolutionary movement Libya.
It is worth mentioning, the heroic initiative by workers who occupied various government and industrial concerns and some in cases, being taken over by the workers. For instance, the workers in Tunisia and especially Egypt (in Suez and Cairo) took over factories and workplaces, and even placed their union leaders under scrutiny, while some union leaders were removed and replaced democratically in the factory and workplaces. The bankrupt and pro-regime leadership of the central workers’ union in Tunisia, UGTT was forced to lead mass protests against the regime and in support of the revolutions, while the leadership was put under serious criticisms, only surviving on a thread. In Egypt, the Iron and Steel union demanded among other things, the workers’ take over of the economy and the factories, in their leaflets while urging the working class and the oppressed to form democratic councils from the local to the national level.13 (socialistworld.net)
All these scenarios are confirmation in sketchy forms, the Lenin’s criteria for revolution. However, the absence of a revolutionary and genuine working class political leadership to lead these revolutionary movements for total social revolutions, have limited the scope of these movements and may provide opportunity for imperialism and capitalism to gain firmer control under a fake democratic veil and re-enact on a bigger scale capitalist plundering, more so at a period when global imperialist capitalism is facing one of the its worst economic and political crises. But this will only instigate a bigger movement of the working class and youth, who will then learn better lessons that unless they take over the running of the society, none of the sections of the capitalist ruling class can be an alternative. It is however apposite to underline that even if the revolutionary movements have not led to the ouster of capitalism, they have opened the floodgate for long term mass movements, which may take several directions, depending on the evolving objective (the socio-economic and political relations both locally and internationally) and subjective (the stage of working class consciousness, presence of revolutionary platform/party and clear-headed leadership) factors. This point is basically underlined by the continuous movements of workers, youth, police, military men and even judges in places like Egypt and Tunisia. As some media analyses have reflected, the revolutions have moved from purely political to more of political-economic; which will put capitalism in general in question. From the above, it will be erroneous to say that because the revolutions have not achieved the overthrow of capitalism while the old structures are still in place, these movements cannot be said to be revolutionary without putting in historical perspective the limitations of the contemporary period, and the massive revolutionary prospects and vistas the current revolutionary movements have opened for the working class and youth throughout the world, especially in the third world and neo-colonial state societies.
Talking about the scope of the revolutions, it is important to draw comparison with previous revolutionary movements and developments, and placing them in historic contexts so as to know why the current movements are not rejection of anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, or acceptance of neo-liberal ideology, with only democratic content needing reform as being implied by the bourgeois pundits, journalists and activists. It is worth stating that these movements, no matter their gallantry, cannot be compared with the Cold War era revolutions or radical developments especially in the neo-colonial world and Eastern Europe. While these revolutions, despite having various trends, such as the guerrilla movements (Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, etc.), young officer radical military coups and regimes (Burkina Faso, Nasser’s Egypt, Portugal and even Libya), electoral revolutions (Chile) were able to radically alter the socio-economic foundations of these countries with serious encroachment on capitalist interests coupled with some degrees of nationalization and provision of basic social facilities for increasing section of the population. 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 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 served as attraction to millions of working class elements and youths the world over, despite the fact that it was a perversion of genuine ideas of socialism as espoused by Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and Vladimir Lenin in which workers’ democratic involvement in the nationalized economy and working class internationalism are cardinal principles. Even then, as a result of the massive economic gains engendered by the nationalized economies of these societies which was 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 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. 14 (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.) 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 (even if with bureaucratic arrangements), 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. 15 (refer to 8)
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 – 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 lives16. 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; and 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). This is what is called “democracy” and economic growth in Africa – from Tunisia to Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, etc, which hiding under the guise of fighting terrorism and defending democracy, continue to recycle themselves in power by manipulating laws and constitutions, and attacking workers’ and popular mass organizations. Even 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 has 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 also 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; and more importantly 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 importance is that, the movements 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; and possibly also learn from its limitations.
The current growth in online activism such as social network platforms (facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc.) and their politicization is a product of the growing radicalization going on in the society especially among youth. However, overemphasis and centralization of all struggles around online campaigns is not only misleading but also a reflection of the demoralization occasioned by bankruptcy of the official platforms like trade unions and so-opposition parties coupled with the lack of genuinely anti-capitalist, revolutionary platforms across the world against the neo-liberal democracy that only ensures the recycling of thorough-bred, scrupulous capitalist politicians, who hide under different banners to implement the same neo-liberal and imperialist policies of the previous government, if not on a higher and more scrupulous level. It thus needs to be underlined here that against the attempt to portray online activism as a replacement to mass platform and organization of the working people and the oppressed, every technological improvement of the society has been used by the working class organization to advance their struggles. The working people utilized the Post to disseminate ideas and programmes, and build their organizations in the early turn of the 19th century while working class intellectuals used printing to produce intellectual work and journalistic activities for the education, information and organization of the working people in this period. Also, in the early 20th century, the availability of telegraph and radio was exploited to communicate to a wider layer of the working people.
Therefore, the current availability of internet facilities like facebook, YouTube and twitter is only a continuation of the past, albeit on a more sophisticated level. The only difference is that unlike in the past where there are mass organizations of the working class, the presence of the bi-polar world and militant left-leaning unions and organizations that maximized the use of these technological platform for better organization, the current unipolar world and collapse of these mass organizations or their transformation to pro-capitalist mouthpieces, has made the use and availability of the InfoTech facilities, despite its enormous potentials, to be limited in scope. If there has been revolutionary mass based organizations, built from the grassroots, the use of InfoTech would have meant better organized platforms as such platforms will openly stream uprisings to grassroots of every nation. This will mean that the oppressed people especially in the downtown will be able to know what is going on and be able to participate in debates and decision making through the network of the revolutionary platform/organization. This will surely resonate to other nations especially in the third world countries. What you have on the contrary is huge InfoTech potentials but no platform to utilize them for revolutionary purposes, as the trade unions and so-called opposition parties/organizations are totally bureaucratic and indeed caught unaware during these uprisings.
In fact, the trade unions in these revolting countries need surgical operations, especially in countries like Tunisia and Egypt where there are some organized trade union structures, to make them independent, democratic and revolutionary while new pan-national independent workers' unions are needed in such countries like Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, etc. Notwithstanding this shortcoming these online platforms can help to disseminate ideas and discussions, and seek clarifications on fundamental problems facing mass movements and the society at large. This means that if just 1 percent of the 500 million subscribers of the social network, facebook, are engaged in discussions about the next stage of working class platform, it is possible to build new generation(s) of youthful revolutionary cadres that will shed off the burdens of capitalist propaganda and the effects of the collapse of Stalinist ideas. This is interpreting the Karl Marx idea about the capitalist class' internationalization of its gravediggers i.e. working class, and globalization of the communication tools for them to share ideas and build international platform and unions - this is clearly underlined in the Karl Marx and Frederick Engels jointly authored Communist Manifesto’s clarion call on ‘workers of the world, (to) unite!’
It should however be raised that these online and mass media cannot, as against the postulations of some bourgeois pundits, substitute for a revolutionary organization of the working class, no matter their potentials; but they can provide platforms of interaction and dissemination of ideas and examples. This is even more important today, where the experiences and strength of revolutionary forces vary widely from country to country. The politicization of these mass media reflects the growing desire of youth and working class people to vent out their anger against capitalism; seek revolutionary ideas and change their conditions. But this cannot be achieved on online websites but through mass and fighting revolutionary organizations of the working class and youth from grassroots to the national level. To show the limit of the online protest platforms and other mass media; it is a known fact that majority of the people, especially in the third world do not have access to information technology while it is mostly middle class people, even among the youth have access to the infrastructure. Meanwhile, it is the majority of the downtrodden that play the decisive role in these movements. Left to the authorities, it is easy to deal with middle class as a class, but the working class and the urban poor is a different ballgame entirely because they hold the decisive stake in revolutionary movements. This is clearly reflected in the Tunisian and Egyptian events, where the decisive entrance of the working class from factory and workplaces coupled with the decisive movement of the rank and file of the armed forces to the left, actually weakened the regime and removed the remaining tread of existence for the regime. That these leftward shifts did not lead to ouster of capitalism is a long historical development already analyzed above.
It is necessary to state that this does not imply that the middle class radical mood cannot instigate revolutionary uprising, but it is fundamental for working class to play a decisive role as a conscious class in such movements. This is basic since the working class is the livewire of the capitalist economic foundation. The working class cannot achieve revolution alone, but it has to be a decisive force in the revolutionary movement, without which the revolution lacks the spark to overrun capitalism. The working class can however be woken to duty by radicalization induced by middle class movement of intellectuals, students/youth or even struggles amongst various trends of the capitalist class. The ability of the working class and youth to build revolutionary ideas, programmes and leadership to lead these movements is vital. While events can rapidly bring revolutionary idea and leadership to focus, it is only a painstakingly built revolutionary platform and leadership that can provide a long lasting opportunity to audaciously change society. This has been underlined by various massive events such as the Chilean revolution in 1973, Spain in 1981-84 and France in 1968. Even in advanced capitalist countries where access to internet and mass media is high, facebook, twitter or blackberry cannot replace mass meetings at local, state, regional and national levels, to review and democratically discuss ideas, evaluate events, plan programme and more importantly build confident collective force that will undermine the coercive, repressive and propaganda apparatus of the state. This does not undermine the role that various technical apparatus can give to revolutionary movements as historical examples cited above have shown.
Mass media and information technology can help to galvanize support and solidarity, communicate better and in some instances undermine capitalist mainstream propaganda machine, but they cannot replace the building of mass organizations. Therefore, those pundits raising the idea of online media replacing mass organizations are only talking from a middle class or anarchist standpoint. As Vladimir Lenin, the leadership of the Soviet Revolution in Russia in 1917 said; revolution is first of all idea, then programmes and then organization. All these require the direct mass involvements of workers, youths and the downtrodden in the workplaces, factory line, communities, etc. This can be greatly enhanced by commitment of the most sacrificing youths using the platforms of information technology to disseminate ideas and also mobilize. However, as the information technology is useful for revolutionary movement, so also it can be used by the capitalist/imperialist ruling class to undertake massive propaganda against the working class, as seen in the role played by US and western media in the military coup against the Hugo Chavez government in 2003, or even undermines mobilization movements by directly investing in these social platform so as to blunt the political sharpness of these politicized platforms, the same way many pro-democracy and civil society groups and even trade unions were bought over, infiltrated and even transformed into a platforms for the dissemination of capitalist ideas in a seemingly innocuous manner (as exemplified by the degeneration of the World Social Forum), because of their nebulous ideological orientation, programmes and organizational structures/arrangements.
Already, the US imperialism recognizing the role these online resources in mobilizing and disseminating radical ideas, is trying to emasculate these platforms by injecting funds in developing them with the aim of diverting the anger of the masses, especially youths to safe channels for imperialism. Quoting the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the wake of the Egyptian revolutionary movement, “… We (US capitalist ruling class) are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages and the training they need to access the internet safely”17 (emphasis mine). Underline the ‘training’ and ‘safely’ to mean training to limit their activities to safely tolerable channels for the US capitalist imperialism. This poses the positions: first is the vulnerability of the working class movement through these platforms to infiltration and misdirection by state actors, imperialism and their stooges/agents. Marxists will welcome the development of InfoTech in the development of social movements, but we will always emphasize the need to build a real mass revolutionary organization and leadership with direct democratic space to make the masses the force of change required in the society. With direct organization, built from the grassroots it can be easy to undermine the effects of infiltration of online platforms. More important is the fact that revolutionary movements and platforms are not built as a virtual movement but as a living one built from the grassroots, involving local campaigns and struggles that will give the working oppressed people to build confidence in their collective strength and the ability to struggle and be victorious.
There has been attempt to represent the MENA revolutions as youth oriented. Some pundits have posited that the success of the movements lies in the youths' rejection of all 'formal' organizational and leadership structures, and ideas but rather rely on spontaneous mobilization and online media.18 While it is true that the youths are playing brave and heroic roles in these movements, attempt to pose the uprisings as youth movements is not only misleading but indeed dangerous has it tends to blur the class character of these historic movements. Graphically, the roles of the youths have been inspiring which reflect the degree of frustration faced by these youths. In these MENA countries, more than 60 percent of the population are aged below 30 years with more than half of educated youths unemployed while those employed (either self employed or government/private sector employees), are working like elephant but living like ant.19 But this is just a part of the story. The working people have been seriously attacked in the recent times with daily insecurity of job, low pay and soaring cost of living. This coupled with lack of democratic opportunity to seek for change, no thanks to the autocratic/repressive state. Therefore, while the unemployed youths are active in these movements, in reality, it is the working class youth and indeed the working masses in general that played the decisive roles in these uprisings. This is reflected in the clarion call by the opposition groups for a general strike whenever any of these uprisings is at a critical turning point.
Moreover, the impact of every action and of the working class, no matter how minimal has been very significant. For instance, when the worker in Tunisia decided to join the uprising, every activity and demand of the movement changed with echoes of not only 'Ben Ali must go' but also call for job and better living becoming deafening. In fact, some sections of the workers' movement like the Iron and Steel workers' union, were calling for workers taking over factories and democratic committees set up throughout the country to provide alternative government. This was however drowned by the central labour leadership and the leadership of the uprising. Also in Egypt, the immediate strike action of the workers in such vital concerns like the Suez Canal and textile industry greatly weakened the regime. At a time, the textile workers were calling for workers take over of the state apparatus and democratic committees from the grassroots up to the national level. As usual, this was not taken up by the labour movement. That these fundamentally genuine programmes were not independently taken up by the workers, does not necessarily imply that the workers were not conscious of their roles in the revolutionary movement but more importantly reflects lack of confidence in their organizations which hitherto was an annex of the state/managements. Indeed, after the removal of the hated autocrats in Tunisia and Egypt, the workers have further mobilized for more protests and strikes, underlining the fact that the revolutions have not ceased. The failure of the workers' movements to taking organized roles in other revolting societies, even on a minimal level like those of Egypt and Tunisia has led to these uprisings being hijacked by imperialism, divided along ethnic lines and stalemated currently witnessed in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, among others, as will be discussed in later sections.
The youth, like the students can play active roles in these movements, but this can only bring fruitful result especially in overthrowing authoritarian regime and indeed capitalism if it is led by an organized class of the oppressed represented by the working class. The general term of the youth is confusing since the youth includes the working class youth, middle class youth and even children of the elite. All of these classes of youth can play and indeed played active roles in revolutionary movements because youth generally are active minds and are motivated by ideals and quest for dignity, but without an organized working class leadership, itself under a democratic, independent and revolutionary leadership, programmes, and ideas, such movements will be diffuse without a clearly revolutionary programme of uprooting capitalism and enthroning a democratic socialist system which may generate disillusion, frustration and counter-revolutionary/divisive tendencies at the turn of the movement. This is one of the problems that the mass uprisings in these MENA countries have posed with working class youth who play active roles in these movements being pushed back from the decision making on the next phase of the struggle as a result of lack of grassroots democratic working class platforms that can serve as revolutionary government in waiting. Such a platform organized democratically from the grassroots to the national level will make use of the enormous political will, energy and wealth of experience of the working class, youth and the community people in alliance with the progressive middle class, students, youths and professional of the cities to build an alternative government that will threaten the rule of capital. These are the battle cry on the streets of these revolting societies as exemplified in various mass movements in Egypt and Tunisia calling for a 'second revolution' although without concrete plan of organization and programmatic demands that will challenge capitalism.
On the contrary, it is the middle class youths, students and upper layers of the working class (professionals); and civil societies (NGOs) who have had access to platforms of actions (like the media), resources and decision making, which has impacted upon the character, direction and demands of the movement and has given lifeline to capitalist voices and further blurring the movements. However, this is not to imply that the working class and downtrodden youths have not put in their fit in the movements but they are not in control. According to reports19, there are debates on the streets of Tunisia and Egypt on the next line of action while workers are organizing mass actions in factories, workplaces, communities and sectors to demand for one improvement or the other. In fact, the central trade union, UGTT, despite its recent treacherous past (and in an attempt to catch up with the tides) is said to be musing the idea of playing political roles in the next elections coming up in September. However inspiring these situations are, they fall short of revolutionary platform needed where decision making will come from the downtrodden from their living experience on the struggle so far. With such platform, it will be easy to organize nationwide political and economic agenda that can place power with the working class. The current arrangement only allows the ruling and capitalist class from effacing the working class. The unions need to be transformed into struggle platforms with democratic structures from the grassroots and workplace playing central role in decision making coupled with the adoption of socialist programmes. This is the only way of genuinely moving the struggle forward and achieving the ultimate aim of these revolutions.
In a country like Libya and very recently on a smaller scale in Yemen and Syria, where armed struggles have broken out, in which the working class elements and youths (including emigrants and students) are playing heroic roles, will follow the same trajectory: without a working class platform organized democratically throughout the country, standing at the head of this armed groups and linking the armed struggle with political struggle coupled with a mass campaign and propaganda over the head of the regime to the working masses throughout the region, the armed struggle may be defeated, either partially (as in partition of Libya or government of national unity) or totally, or bought over by imperialism. An appraisal of armed struggle will be addressed subsequently.
We need to look at the economic indicators and how far capitalism, especially at its neo-liberal era, has been able to solve the basic problems of humanity in spite of the huge wealth at the disposal of the world today coupled with the rapid improvement in technological and scientific powers. This will help to determine the real forces behind these movements, the relation of these forces and how to make the revolutions resolve the economic contradictions that is behind these revolutions. As against the views of some people that the revolutions were merely anti-authoritarian regimes that is seeking for dignity, democracy and jobs, in reality these revolutions are a fundamental attack on the contradictions of imperialist capitalism in these societies, and indeed capitalism itself. Therefore, the fundamental progress in these revolutions will be determined by not only the organizational strength and structures but more on how it undermine and challenge capitalist economic foundations. This is why the analysis of economic system in these countries is vital. But as a start, we need to expose the fundamental limitations of capitalism to move society forward as this will provide background to why we advocate socialism as the basis of change that these revolutions are clamouring for.
To start with, capitalism globally has shown that humanity has reached its peak with the system, which despite building the technological and material capacity to take humanity out of misery, want and poverty, still stands as a fetter to further progress of the society. Despite the huge wealth at the disposal of the world today, more than half of the world’s 7 billion people still live in one want or the other. In 2009, the United States alone spent more than $2.5 trillion to bail handful of capitalist big business, who threw the world economy to the despairing situation in their rabid quest for quick super profit. Today, most of the corporations that swindled the whole world have returned back to profitability while the rest of humanity continue to suffer unemployment which the ILO put at over 250 million in 2010, while over 10 percent of Americans are currently jobless. Just 10 percent of the US bail out fund can fund education, sanitation and Medicare for hundreds of million people of the third world who are suffering from ignorance, squalor and ill health. Also, in 2009, just 87, 000 millionaires out of population of over 6.5 billion (0.0013 percent), were created by the iniquitous capitalist system with some individuals in worth of billions of dollars while hundreds of thousands are dying of curable diseases. According to the Guardian of London in 2006, just one percent of the world’s population controls over 40 percent of the world’s wealth while 50 percent poor own only 1 percent of the wealth. It indeed stated that just 10 percent of the world’s adults own 80 percents of the world’s wealth. For instance, in Nigeria, just two individuals, who were classified as part of the richest people in the world are worth up to $3 billion (over 500 billion Nigerian naira), yet this is a country where over 70 percent of the around 150 million population are living in poverty. In the same country where 17, 474 politicians corner officially over N1 trillion as salaries aside other illegal fund, maternal mortality is the worst in the world with 150 cases recorded in 100, 000. While the world has developed technology such as telemedicine, tissue transfer, aqua puncture, etc which can, if not eradicate, at least seriously mitigate all the world’s diseases, common diseases like malaria and water borne diseases continue to destroy the future of millions of infants and youth. According to World Bank, more than 1 billion people, mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, have no access to clean water. In a world where information and communication technology has made development of society and dissemination of ideas and knowledge needed to make every youth a whiz kid, half of the world’s youth are still illiterates and lack basic education tools, talk much less of information technology. Even those who are literate could hardly afford access to the wonders of technology no thanks to poverty, huge exploitation by capitalist multinationals corporations, lack of basic facilities like electricity, access road, etc. In Africa, less than 50 percent of the population’s children have access to education, and of those going to school just one out of three complete primaries and post primary education. In the whole world, less than 30 percent of the population has access to electricity while half of the world’s population lives on $2.5 dollars per day. Yet, in 2009 alone, the world's capitalist governments' military budgets are worth more than a trillion dollars.
We go to these extents to show that the world is not in short supply of required wealth, resources and technical advancement, needed to put permanent smile and happiness on the face of every man and women in the world; yet humanity is faced with unprecedented poverty, misery, diseases, and wars and strife. It would have even been different if humanity has never enjoyed better living; but in the real sense humanity has had opportunity of massive social development. For instance, between 1960’s and 1980’s, the wealth gap between the richest 10 percent and poorest 10 percent was around 30 to 1, but today it is more than 500 to 1. Within the same period(1960s-80s), due to government investment in social and public services, and direct involvement in the economy, there is virtually job for more than 90 percent of the youthful population, but today over 40 percent of the youthful and workable population are jobless, not because humanity does not need the service of another worker, but because the rule of profit which means that big business invest in “profitable ventures" (note that profitable means the one that can bring the quickest profit, not necessarily those that can bring food to the table of the ordinary people). This explains while just $6 billion is needed to provide education to millions of young and poor people in the developing world, hundreds of billions are lying fallow in the accounts of edge funds waiting to be invested in “profitable” investment such as speculative businesses and pure gambling which in the final analysis only redistribute the already made wealth and not create new ones. In 2009, while the world is still rattled by the economic recession, top US corporations are sitting on $2 trillion cash. All of these have shown that capitalism globally, despite developing technological and scientific advancement, has served as fetters in translating these to socio-economic advancement of the people, due to its profit-motivated interests, which means that technological innovations which can develop humanity on a massive scale, will be patented and commercialized. It also means new developed medical and scientific advancement will not be available for millions of people in need of it, because profit will have to be made from it. Today, 24, 000 children are dying daily due to poverty and curable diseases, but you have pharmaceutical corporations and medical big businesses declaring billions in profit, which are not invested in people’s need but in further exploitative and speculative businesses.
The situations have been more aggravated since the middle 1980s when Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in US unleashed the neo-liberal dragon to recoup rapidly, the wealth lost by the capitalist classes throughout the world, during the Keynesian and welfare state eras when capitalist ruling classes throughout the world had to encroach on the profits of the capitalist big business and reducing their market through state funded public and social services to stave off mass discontent arising from mass radicalization in these 1950s and 1970s. (Neo-liberalism means the return of the liberal capitalism of the 18th century when capitalists, then in an infant state were given freedom and power to expand their businesses having broken loose from feudalist/aristocratic states by revolts and revolutions carried out by the working people from new factories, journeymen, poor artisans, serfs, farm workers, downtrodden of the cities and unemployed, but led and directed under the guide of the emerging factory capitalists, who were also exploited, through state policies (in favour of landowners) of the aristocratic governments, controlled by big landowners and feudalists. The post-revolt governments which comprised of the capitalists and their defenders (both in parliamentary and republican forms) only insured the interests of the capitalists against the downtrodden, majority of whom have been transformed to workers of factories and big farms. The scientific and technological breakthroughs like the steam engines and electricity, while consolidating the economic and political powers of the capitalists (who were becoming ever big factories and trusts and moving beyond the boundaries of their countries) was at the same time multiplying the ranks of the working class, who were seriously exploited in order for the multiplication of capital, and getting them organized. The end results were wars (including the world wars), revolutions (including the Paris Commune, and more significantly, Russian Revolution of October 1917). The welfare states of the 1950's to late 1970's were products of avoiding the total ruin of capitalism by socialist revolutions and to rebuild the image of battered capitalism (through wars and economic depression). But the welfare state means that the government must encroach on the profits of capitalists through increased tax, increasing wages to merge rate of inflation, control of prices, direct involvement in production to provide full jobs and essential services. Although, part of the services provided by the state like mass education, healthcare, road and railways, etc helped the capitalists minimize, the capitalists ability to increase profit were restrained by the Keynesian state policies leading reduced investments and consequently attacks on jobs, workers' pays and expectedly industrial unrest and militancy. Attempts by governments to resolve led to more state deficits. In order to finally resolve the contradiction (of the state trying to play a balancing role between labour and capital, while placing the means of production in the hands of the capitalists) is either to side with the workers by taking away means of production from the capitalists or side with the capitalists, by handing over the means of production, exchange, wealth distribution and economic powers completely to them. Since the states are capitalist state, they sided with the capital meaning breaking all the barriers of maximizing profits both locally and internationally - thus the term NEO-LIBERALISM. This coincidentally was a period of Soviet decline, making capitalist class less fearful of the repercussions of return to liberalism. Indeed, there was massive attack on workers' militant platforms like unions and parties such as the Tory's attack on trade unions and miners, while the collapse of the Stalinist Soviet system in the 1990s only provided more weapons for capitalist power globally to attack workers and pursue more profits. This process which started in the western advanced capitalist countries of North America, Europe and Japan, was vigorously and forcefully pursued by capitalist governments through front organizations like IMF/World Bank, in the third world in order to open up their economies to multinational corporations. The end result has been the concentration of wealth in the hands of few corporations and individuals while governments sheepishly follow this process and in fact helped it through imperialist interventions to break barriers to profits in third world (through supports for undemocratic regimes, sponsored coups, economic strangulation, political disintegration, etc. which were the capitalist governments international order to prevent pro-Soviet Union third world states from breaking away from capitalist stranglehold during the Cold War era.) xx(appendix). In fact, the introduction of neo-liberal phase of capitalism was made possible after attacks on and infiltration of working class organizations and parties were successful. It should be further underlined that the collapse of the Stalinist soviet system in the 1990s further gave full impetus for the complete unleashing of neo-liberalism. This was carried with all instruments of imperialism – economic sabotage; political strangulation and subjugation; and military interventions without any challenge. This allowed many multinational corporations from the advanced capitalist countries to have easy ride to the third world economies under various ludicrous policies such as free trade (which undervalues the products from third world countries and make them to be dependent on primary products), liberalization (opening up the third world economies to serious exploitation by the foreign multinationals with the local government devaluing the currencies and removing protections for small/medium enterprises and state owned corporations, enterprises and social service organizations, all leading to death of local enterprises, collapse of state-owned enterprises, decay of public infrastructures and dwindling budget for social services in order to maintain weak local currencies and service mounting debts), privatization, financialization of the economy, etc. On the other hand, introduction of neo-liberalism gave the little rats ruling over the mismanaged economies of the third opportunity to protect their little wealth, and even expand them. Ready made examples include Mobutu of Zaire, Marcos of Philippines, Babangida/Abacha of Nigeria, among several others around the world. But what these brutes stole in their countries, their loots pale to insignificance when compared to billions extracted and looted from the economies of these third world countries by western multinational corporations, ably aided by the western imperialist governments, turning blind eyes to the atrocities of these brutal rats.
Prior to the introduction of neo-liberal capitalist policies, many of the third world economies were partly controlled by state, even those countries that were pro-capitalist West - a fall out of the Keynesian/welfare state ideology of the post-war period (1960s – 80s). But these state-controlled economies were run like private fiefdom of the ruling elements with nepotism, cronyism, looting, corruption and lack of planning being the order of the day. As a result of the autocratic/military regimes and quasi-democratic governments (comprising educated elites who got rein of power from the imperialist nations as trusted juniors and isolated themselves from the masses after independence), required that they build allegiance and supporters among the local elites through patronage. One of the ways of doing this is by giving them political appointments in running various aspects of the economy undemocratically leading to the aforesaid anomalies. Even those countries with seemingly genuine interest in state running of the economy (for instance, those that emerged from bitter struggles with imperialism/colonial rule, or chased away pro-imperialist local regimes, mostly through coup and armed rebellions) run these economies in the image of the Stalinist bureaucratic arrangement. This is contrary to the socialist democratic control and management where the working people and the communities will have control over how state owned enterprises are run and plans made on the basis of this. This coupled with other socialist measures such as election and recall of all public officers including factory managers, open and democratic accounting, average wages of skilled workers for public and political officers, etc, will ensure adequate planning and execution of economic policies and prudent utilization of society’s resources, without making life difficult for the majority while a few live more than their needs, as currently witnessed in the anarchistic capitalist economic arrangement. It was the absence of these things, coupled with lack of internationalization of genuine working class, struggle, solidarity and unity, which killed the so-called economies of these hitherto state managed economies. Yet, despite these fundamental shortcomings, huge improvements were made in the lives of the people in the 1960s, when these economies were still progressing, before their shortcoming became fetters for their further progress. In fact, it was the shortcomings of these that were used by western capitalist governments and their mouthpiece to unleash the neo-liberal dragon.
The introduction of neo-liberalism, was not to correct (and could not have been the correction to) the shortcomings of the bureaucratically and corruptly managed state controlled economies but to reverse all the positive gains of these economies and hand over the economies to the capitalist sharks to cream off these gains and use the state built infrastructures to get mega-profits. The collapse of the Stalinist Soviet system and the bankruptcy of the once militant trade unions and hitherto left-leaning workers’ parties only provided veritable environments for this to take place. The end result has been huge and unprecedented wealth disparity, attacks on social sectors like education, health, childcare, pension, old age care, etc., retrenchment and unemployment. Indeed, within 1960s through the '80s, Africa's economies grew by over 80 percent by average, with the growth in states' investments in industry, infrastructures and social services playing significant part of the growth. Although, some of the growth were funded by grants and aids (which made the African countries tied to the political and strategic interests of the major players in the Cold War politics, especially US and other western imperialist nations), and loans (mostly from western nations) which later become a rope to tie many countries to the burden of neo-liberal structural adjustments; these were used on industrial and infrastructural development , even if some of the funds were creamed off by the corrupt officials and multinational corporations (through overbloating of contracts sums and capital flight), aside lack of democratic planning and control of state policies leading to waste, mismanagement and lack of priority. But they are still an improvement over the current arrangement where the state insures private businesses, including multinational corporations rather than the citizens at public costs. Interestingly, the facilities provided with the borrowed funds and grants in the 'Golden' era of capitalism, are now been used by the capitalist class (both local and foreign) to gain huge profit in this neo-liberal era. Indeed, the so-called gains of governments' disengagement from economic control, is ephemeral as the state resources/wealth that would have been used to secure jobs are now used as overhead cost to ensure the survival of big capitalist corporations, who rely on state economic, political and military interventions to survive. So much for the ideology of lean government!
The working and oppressed people have always rose to resist these policies, but the bankruptcy of the leaderships of the pro-capitalist workers’ movements and former left-leaning social democratic and ‘communist’ parties have led to defeats for the working people, the poor and the youth. These resistances have not alone taken the forms of strikes and protests, but also open rebellious activities like factory occupations and uprisings as seen in Argentina in 2004 (when five presidents succeeded each other within two weeks of massive protests across the country). Even, in the advanced capitalist countries, the working class has taken to open revolts (as in Miners' Strike in Britain in 1984, Seattle movement in US in 1999) or used electoral means to defeat anti-poor governments. Although, as a result of the absence of genuine alternative political platforms of the working and oppressed people, another neo-liberal, if not worse governments have only replaced the rejected ones (a reflection of the two- or three-party ‘democracy practiced in the capitalist world today), as seen in Britain, France, Ireland and the US. In Africa, and specifically in Nigeria, between 1999 and 2007, the labour movement led seven general strikes that paralyzed the ruling class, showing the huge quest for alternative by the working people, but such diverted to safer channel on behalf of capitalism by labour leadership.
These examples shows that the working masses and the youths have not been passive in resisting anti-poor policies, but they have been held back or led to defeat by their pro-capitalist leaderships. Furthermore, the various capitalist ruling classes, especially in the third world countries, in a bid to continue to rule over the rottenness of capitalism and protect their privileges, have adopted divide-and-rule strategies to further weaken vibrant structures of resistance. This has led to germination of racism, ethno-religious strives, religious fundamentalism, and recently, war against terrorism, etc, which aside destroying the fabrics of a civil society, are now being used to further attacks the democratic rights of workers and the poor, and prevent them from challenging the status quo through the strengthening of repressive state apparatuses and capitalist laws. This has further given these third world regimes, both autocratic and pseudo-democratic, to divert huge resources for pecuniary interests/hand over the economy to the imperialist capitalist sharks. All this have been the features of the Middle Eastern and North African countries where general revolts are now taking shape. These political economic analyses are fully unraveled in these revolutions, and they explain the shortcomings and the fundamental limits of these revolutions.
Some analysts, the self-acclaimed capitalist democratic advocates, have opined that what is needed in these revolting societies is democratic elections and smooth liberal economic system. The big imperialist governments and their multinational backers are already advocating two- or three-party democracy that will make easy exploitation of the working class. They are already strategizing on huge profits to be extracted from these economies. Whether these will be achieved is a living question. But, it needs to be stressed that if it happens, it will only delay bigger and sharper class revolt later on. The imperialism’s double deals in these revolutions will be explores subsequently in this treatise, but let us look at the economic outlooks of these revolting societies and see if they confirm the prognosis of the capitalist democracy advocates.
To start with, the mass movements on the streets of Tunisia to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc, have clear message of the failure of capitalism, especially in its neo-liberal form. Thousands of protesters in Tunis to Cairo, Benghazi, Damascus, Sana’a, etc. continue to echo the demands for jobs, wage increase, cut in food prices, etc. This knocks the first blow against the advocates of mere political reform. Secondly, while the revolutions might have taken political form in its first phase, the movements are developing into clear cut political-economic struggles with thousands pouring out demanding immediate economic improvement, retrieval of all stolen wealth for social and economic improvement of the people. This in some instances has led to demand for the removal of subsequent ruling caste that has taken over from the ousted rulers a la Tunisia and Egypt.21 More importantly, it should be underlined that while the political structures in these countries are truly rotten and require not just reform but total dismantling, it is a fact that these degenerate ruling classes represent an economic system that loots the resources of the society and handover the mainstays of the economy to the big sharks of capitalism both nationally and internationally. No ruling class stays in power, especially autocratically, without having economic privilege and interests it is defending. Conversely, no ruling class that maintains economic justice and equal distribution of wealth, will fear or repress mass protest, or maintain a repressive and spying state, or even wage an open war against the people. On the other hand, the mass of people are less interested in the number of years a leader used in power, inasmuch as their economic survival and living standards are maintained; and there is freedom. However, such a society is not possible or sustainable without full democratic control of the working people coupled with full socialist policies to prevent waste and to organize the society on a planned basis. Therefore, that these societies are ruled over by strong/repressive states only underline the desperate attempts of the ruling classes to hold on to the economic system that insure their privileges and wealth. It is suffice to recall many semi-revolts that occurred in democratic and semi-democratic societies in recent times such as the current class war in Wisconsin, US and growing mass movement in Britain, Spain, Greece and France; or those in the 1980s - 90s in the so-called democratic societies. What shall we term these semi-revolts –Democratic reforms?
Indeed, under the guidance of European and US imperialisms, such states as Tunisia and Egypt have been holding ‘elections’ to re-elect the reigning but ruining ruling caste, in order to sustain the pro-imperialism corrupt states while getting the credential of ‘democracy’ to gain full imperialist recognition.
In Tunisia, while capitalism and its town criers are quick to refer to economic growth and wonders of the Ben Ali ousted regime, more social crises continue to face the masses. For instance, while the IMF has lauded Tunisia’s economic reforms as a model, more than 14 percent of the working population is officially unemployed. Of the official 3.6 million working population, 55 percent are in the service sector and another 22 percent are in the agricultural sector.22 From this labour distribution it is glaring that majority of the working population are in the informal sector (otherwise tagged service sector) where they earn token that could hardly be called income, making them little different from the unemployed. This also applies to the agricultural sector where the so-called about 800, 000 are engaged majority of whom are poor peasants who subsist between poverty and misery. It should be further recalled that the MENA revolts started with the self immolation of a 26 year old ware seller whose wares were destroyed by policemen. Is there any need for further analysis of the so-called employment in Tunisia? To show the poor state of living of workers, recently the workers in Tunisia embarked on mass street demonstrations to demand improvement in their poor wages (less than $50 a month). The implication of these data is that various governments, especially in the third world official data are mostly exaggerated statistics or more or less half-truth. In fact, the same IMF that praised Ben Ali’s regime to high heavens reported that just 10 percent of the topmost Tunisians on the social ladder control 32 percent of total national income, while the lowest 10 percent get only 2.3 percent. What this translates to is that the $27.7 billion of the annual GDP is coming from just 10 percent of the nation’s population. On the other hands, the working poor who are in the majority will always bear the brunt of the $10 billion foreign debt of the government and the big business through diversion of public resources to debt servicing and repayment, and its attendant results. This is clearly reflected in the fact that foreign companies (271 in 2006 alone) took advantage of the brutal exploitation of the working class, as labour cost “is relatively low” according to IMF.23
But, are these the products of neo-liberal capitalism: the facts speak for themselves. In the 1970s, the GDP per capita increased rapidly by 380 percent. This was when government invested state resources in social and public infrastructures coupled with government control of a major section of the economy including industries, run albeit on a bureaucratic, undemocratic top-down basis. The implication is that the economy was run to benefit a greater proportion of the population as lesser parts of the economy is in the hands of the private sector. This compelled government to tailor economic and industrial policies toward provision of secure employment, better wages, improved social services like education, health, water, roads, etc. rather than being tailored towards providing cheap profit for the capitalist owners. This means that any gain in the GDP would surely reflect much more in the lives of the majority than in the bank accounts of the handful capitalist class. Thus, this period witnessed reduced wealth disparity. Even when multinational corporations were part of the development policies like constructions, banking and even parts of industry while the ruling caste live on huge privileges, there is still a huge improvement in the living conditions of the people.
On the other hand, aside the fact that GDP growth rate has reduced to about 7 percent by average in 2007, most of the growth has been in the service sector (about 63 percent) like stock and financial markets, tourism, telecommunications, etc. which generates huge profits for the few but contribute less to employment, industrial development, advancement and better living conditions for the majority. Furthermore, majority of the growth is going to a thinner section of the population. This has reflected in declining human development indices. It should be noted that this era is characterized by neo-liberal policies which has seen labour pay reduced, social services commercialized and more money and power handed over to the big business such as the $458 million bond (a credit system that hands over public resources to the financial sector under the guise of mobilizing resources for development) while about 160 state-owned enterprises have been sold out since 1987 when Tunisia officially entered the capitalist neo-liberal market.
With these situations, it only needs a very repressive regime and treacherous labour movement leadership to avoid uprising. This explains why the ousted Ben Ali regime had to queue behind US and French imperialisms and hold on to the strand of anti-terrorism to prop itself up as an acceptable state in the international cycle of imperialism, while also using divide-and-rule cum infiltration to weaken the working class power, as witnessed in the buy over of labour unions’ leaders and espionage activities in trade union and militant mass platforms. But, like a bottled up steam, the bigger the force that is stopping the discontent, the bigger will be the bang when the content is to escape. That this bang has not led to ouster of capitalism and enthronement of democratic, revolutionary socialism, coupled with the increasing opportunity for imperialism to manipulate the revolutionary upsurge is a reflection of the absence of a working class alternative platform. But, the revolution is still unraveling, with working class forcing out one concession after the other from the ruling class. It will get to a point in which imperialism and its stooge will not be able to grant any more concession as the interests of imperialism will run contrary to that of the working people. In fact, it will attempt and indeed is already attempting to roll back the little gains of the revolution. At this point, the working people will realize that the revolution is incomplete, and unless they overthrow the capital system, they cannot move forward.
From reports, the official trade union leadership has lost its authority while the rank and file workers are taking up various local union leaders who have sold out to the management and the state. There has been call for the right of independent unionism in the country. All of these are exceptional and can only come at a time of revolutionary consciousness. This point to a fact: the revolution of the future is being prepared by the movements of today. Therefore, it is clear that it was the adoption of neo-liberal economic pill coupled with imperialism-sponsored autocratic regime that has prepared the ground for the revolutionary movement; therefore it must be uprooted if the revolution is to be rooted. While the working people and youth may understand that the neo-liberal capitalist economy does not favour them, the absence of a revolutionary working class, pan-national political platform and leadership, with a clear-cut socialist programme has limited the scope and horizon of the revolution, which has placed imperialisms in vantage position to re-establish themselves into the orbit of capitalist exploitation in the country. Already, $40 billion grants have been extended to Tunisia and Egypt by the big imperialist countries of G8 at its meeting in late May, 2011 in France; to further root the economy under the capitalist soil and tie the country to the apron string of imperialism. It is also meant to prop up the pro-imperialist, capitalist ruling elites in these countries with the aim of making it survive mass anger and derail the growing revolutionary movement. In the first instance, the rapid rate at which the grants were agreed and promised shows that there are enough resources in the world to make everyone live better but the contradiction of division of labour amongst countries in the capitalist world will not allow this. Of course, the grants would not have been extended to these countries had anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist governments emerged from the revolutionary movements in these countries. On the contrary, these imperialist governments would have mobilized all its arsenals to intervene and destroy such governments. Furthermore, the rate at which imperialism mobilized fund to save a propped up regime and prevent further spread of the revolution shows that imperialism is in a despairing and desperate state and need to be uprooted on a global scale. But, as one African Oxfam (a UK based NGO) official said after the announcement of the grants, these promises may follow previous ones that are hardly fulfilled. Even, if fulfilled, they will only be used to, aside derail the mass movement (and buy over many of the opposition figures, who actually stand for nothing), open up the economy to the foreign multinational corporations of these imperialist to make profits in multiples of the grants while the grants will become another usurious burden on the working and oppreessed people. In fact, one of the conditions given for the grants allocation is that the economy will be run on a market (i.e. capitalist) basis. This implies that the grants will be spent on terms favourable to increase in profits for the multinational corporations from the contributing imperialist countries e.g. in the award of contracts. This shows attempt to carve up Tunisian economy for the major imperialist countries and their big multinational corporations. Even if these grants are not redeemed or only part of it is redeemed, it will give the imperialist countries opportunity to intervene politically and militarily especially when class struggles become sharper.
Notwithstanding the restoration of imperialist capitalism in the country, it is only a matter of time before new movements emerged as the irreconcilability of imperialist capitalism and genuine welfare, economic and political demands of the working class and youth will again lead to more open class confrontation. Truly, the new movement will learn from the past.
Going over to Egypt, the pro-capitalist pundits have tried to portray the revolutionary movement has a response to the sit-tight rule of Hosni Mubarak and his cohort. While sit-tight rule itself is enough source of mass anger in a country with notoriety for high level state repression and spying on percieved opponents however, the movement has a very deep root in the socio-economic foundation of the society which has meant poor living conditions for the working class and lack of hope for the youth. This economic foundation itself is engendered further by the neo-liberal phase of capitalism. The best of the bourgeois commentators have linked corruption of the elements of the regime which has made nonsense of public service, as a major source of anger in the Egyptian society. This tend to imply that without corruption (if that is at all it is possible), the society will operate properly on the basis of imperialist capitalism in its neo-liberal phase. Truly, the pro-imperialist and repressive features of the Mubarak regime played a role in instigating the mass movement that shook, and is still shaking the foundation of capitalism in the country, especially when viewed from the standpoint of the flow of the enthusiasm from Tunisia, where another autocratic regime was ousted. Indeed, the pervasive corruption that had eaten deep into the fabrics of the society, ably catalyzed by the top echelon of the regime (who cream off a sizable portion of the nation’s wealth), which has led to failing public services for years, played active role in rousing mass angst. However, it needs to be stressed that all these are features of the capitalist neo-liberalism unleashed on the country in the past two to three decades ago.
Neo-liberalism mean that the economy be opened up fully to the capitalist class, both local and foreign, to amass as much profit as possible while the state tailored economic and monetary policies and politics toward total protection of the profit for the capitalist big business and imperialist corporations in the hope that wealth will trickle down from the capitalist profits to the masses through increased investment and spending that will lead to more employment, increased labour values, etc. On the contrary, more profits for the capitalists has meant investment in short-term, non-productive businesses which yields less production and jobs, and concentrates more wealth in the hands of the capitalist class, as governments, especially in the third world countries, as a result of the fear of capital flight, will appease capitalist class with more concession at the expense of the working people. The history of capitalism dictates that the third world local elite are latecomers to the orbit of capitalist exploitation, therefore the political elite, who were imperialist vassals during the colonial periods (the degree of their compromise depending on the role of the working masses in the independence struggles and the international situation i.e. balance of forces between the working people and the capitalist class) and post-colonial eras, also serve as the local economic elite. Thus, the state and the business are completely intertwined with individuals playing roles in both, leading to either direct control of the economy by the same elements in political power or by using their political power to tailor the state economic policies toward enhancement of their economic interests or embark on direct looting of public resources for personal use. Under an imperialism led neo-liberalism, this process is driven more ruthlessly as multinational corporations care much less about corruption or equality, but continued and improved profit making. This tendency will percolate down to the lower rung of the state apparatuses thus creating a society that seems to look like everybody is corrupt. Thus, the corruption being referred to as the basis of the revolt in Egypt is nothing but a reflection of the political economy of the capitalism in a neo-colonial world.
However, while in the Keynesian, state capitalist and welfare states in the late 1950s to late 1970s, the economic foundation of corruption are masked and indeed the extent significantly reduced. The neo-liberal phase of capitalism, with its poisonous pills of privatization, wage freeze, commercialization, trade liberalization, etc has laid bare this brazen corruptive nature of capitalism especially in the third world countries, as state resources and economies are openly, brazenly and officially handed over to the capitalist class.
These analyses are clearly manifested in Egypt especially since Hosni Mubarak took over from Anwar Sadat. In the 1950s through 1970s, the regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser, introduced what can be termed a state capitalism where a section of the economy including the very important Suez Canal were nationalized, albeit under military bureaucratic/undemocratic managements, providing a basis for state control of wealth and provision of basic social infrastructures and services such as employment, education, health, etc. During this period there was state control of foreign trade, progressive tax was introduced and properties of 600 wealthiest families seized. State investment increased from 10 percent in 1952 to 20 percent in 1962. The Aswam dam which was completed in 1968 tripled electricity generation. Consequently, public elementary and secondary education was made free with higher education following suit leading to growth in student enrollment by 8 percent a year between 1952 and 1970 with all the graduates and school leavers guaranteed secure jobs. Indeed, the state employment increased from 350000 in 1952 to 1.2 million in 1970.24 This is against the current horrible situation in which up to 60 percent of educated youths are unemployed! Although, a portion of the state wealth was creamed off by the military ruling elite through increased privileges and perks while mismanagement and waste, associated with bureaucratic management of state economy, which laid the basis for the limits of the gains of the partial state control, it need to be stressed that the economy improved far more rapidly than under the colonial regime. Furthermore, the capitalist class (especially the foreign business) was allowed to play active roles in the economy while the working class were prevented from playin roles in the direct management and control of the state economy as the trade unions were state controlled and union leaders on the payroll of government; all of which further undermined progress the partially state controlled economy was making in favour of the majority. While the sustainability of this arrangement is surely unguaranteed on the basis of partial state control and bureaucratic mismanagement, it needs to be emphasized that wealth/income gap was not as rampart as currently witnessed, as there was massive provision and responsibility for infrastructural development and provision of basic social services.
However, since the introduction of neo-liberal economic doctrine; slowly in the 1980s and rabidly since 1990s, the gains of the past have been eroded away. In 2003, customs and tariffs were drastically reduced to give the multinational corporations free access to the country. The labour cost has been greatly slashed in favour of big business; with workers in such sensitive sub-sector as Medicare collect a gross wage of 700 Egyptian pounds (around $80) a month, from which about $35 is paid as taxes and electricity bill. Yet, the same government slashed corporate tax by 100 percent to 20 percent while outsourcing companies (for multinational corporations) are allowed free reign as a result of flexible labour policies that allow for grim exploitation of the working class. The economy, aside being in the hands of handful foreign corporations and local big businesses like Orascom and Raya, is under fully corrupt hands of the ruling caste comprising army generals and government bureaucrats. These government officials own substantial part of the economy by using looted fund to acquire stakes in the industries. For instance, US military grant to Egypt is being siphoned by the military generals who own stakes in military industries that manufacture consumer goods. Also, Mubarak family alone is reported to be worth more than $20 billion24. This is aside billions of liquid and investment assets, owned by other generals who were the mainstay of the Mubarak regime.
The level of inequality in the Egypt is so much such that the poorest 10 percent of the population only take 3.9 percent of the national income while the richest 10 percent control over 30 percent. Thus, the GDP per capita of $ 6, 200 only mask the huge inequality in the society. There is such cordial and friendly economic and political relation between Egypt capitalist class and the western imperialism such that US and European officials and business leaders always make dates with the Mubarak regime regularly. As a result of these neo-liberal policies that has ensured huge profit for the few, over 40 percent of the population is said to be officially living below $2 a day ($730 a year) while over 20 percent of the 26.1 million workforce is officially unemployed. Note that these data in themselves only mask the real poverty state of the Egyptian society. For instance, with an average of about $90 as wages, the working people (32.6 percent of the national population) are only earning about $28.2 billion of the $500.9 billion national GDP (5.62 percent)! It should be noted that most of these working people are earning poor wages with most of the 32 percent of the working people in the agricultural sector being poor peasants while majority of the 48.6 percent in the service sector are mere petty traders and artisans. Contrarily, the big multinational corporations and local big business are earning billions of dollars as profits as the handful 20 big companies in Egypt are worth $100 billion while in 2009, a year of global capitalist economic recession, the richest African was an Egyptian, the owner of Orascom.
The general summary of these analyses is that the working masses in Egypt have been living in penury for the past over two decades as a result of neo-liberal capitalism unleashed on the country. Despite billions of dollars that is accruing to the country yearly, the public and social infrastructures are in their decrepit state such that government itself, out of public outcry promised to use $3 billion paid as royalty by Etisalat, a telecomm company, in 2010 to develop the failing infrastructures, but annually the government earn over $5 billion from Suez Canal alone. All this, coupled with the repressive apparatus of the state, which had been ruling on Emergency Rule for up to three decades, ably supported by US and European imperialisms, has built up the anger of the working and poor masses for years. Since 2001, the Egyptian masses have been trying to raise up their heads against the dictatorship, improve their conditions and rebuild the society. For instance, as a response to the global food crisis which hit Egypt badly in 2007/2008, there were protests against the regime while in 2009, the masses also protested against the rigged elections which virtually made the ruling NDP (now dissolved) the sole party in the country while thousands of opposition, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood were in jails.
Therefore, it only took the tinder box of Tunisian revolt to remind the Egyptian working and poor masses of the historical challenge before them to change their conditions. The absence of working class political platform or a genuine workers’ movement is a major bane of the revolutionary waves. But the masses are learning fast through every protest, that they need to go beyond mere protests and uprising, they need a vanguard revolutionary mass-based democratic party to have a successful revolution that will end the nightmares of capitalism and imperialism. These are the lessons that have not been learnt since the days of even Abdel Nasser. The latest development in which working class has started asserting themselves through organized movements demanding increased wages, better working conditions, removal of corrupt managements and democratic rights including the right to form independent trade unions, is a pointer in this revolutionary re-assertion. The masses seem to be bending backward after a major leap to learn and rediscover themselves and their ultimate aim. From removal of the ‘all powerful’ Mubarak, the working masses are now demanding the basic daily demands. In general, the working masses and youth in Egypt are still on the move, now gradual, now rapid; now small, then big movements – the class struggle in a transitory state with only the course of objective situations and the subjective factors of leadership and party being major determinants. On the other hands, imperialist capitalism is trying to reassert itself with the propping up of the new ruling elite in the country.
Moving over on to Libya; events have been more complicated as a result of fake credential of the roguish Muammar Gaddafi regime and its experience in clearly state terroristic policies and activities, coupled with the absence of a clear working class revolutionary programmes and platform to defeat Gaddafi both militarily and politically, not to mention the rabid interests of the imperialist nations to hijack the movement for their interests (which will be explored later in this work). Gaddafi, having developed from state subversive activities has engaged in open warfare against the people through direct fascist methods and appeal to fake anti-imperialist and sometimes base sentiments. Just like Zimbabwe which had strong anti-imperialist struggles for independence (with huge anti-imperialist sentiments flowing amongst the populace), the open warfare, anti-imperialist slogans and imperialism’s involvement, coupled with lack of clear-cut revolutionary platform of the working people, has made the situation confusing for the working and young people in not only Libya, but also throughout the world. At present, the imperialist nations under the banner of NATO have mobilized all their forces to Libya to uproot the Gaddafi regime, not on the ground of humanitarian protection but for the protection of imperialist capitalist interests, as the same NATO countries have not military stopped Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Yemen monarchical ruling classes from grand manslaughter they are carrying out.
Unfortunately, a section of anti-imperialism pundits have been echoing the fact that imperialism is interested in the Libyan oil without mentioning the fact that the Gaddafi regime itself has been handing over Libyan oil wealth and indeed the economy to the hands of imperialism since early 2000. Since 2001, over 100 state-owned enterprises have been sold, after Gaddafi regime reconciled itself with imperialism. (Note that its anti-US stance was not a reflection of genuine revolutionary ideas; on the contrary it is an attempt to protect the regime’s interests in the oil wealth). Furthermore, more than 50 percent of the Libyan oil is under private investment with the economy further handed over to the big business. Even, the state oil company is managed and run by such multinationals like ENI, AGIP, etc. In 2004, Shell got a $200 million gas contract from Libya as part of the "deals in the desert" by western powers while another $900 million oil deal was signed with BP in 2007 by Gaddafi regime. In fact, 29 out of the 100 privatized state-owned companies were fully (i.e. 100 percent) privatized. The government had tried to retrench workers, but it has been careful or fearful of the possible outcome. However, it has tried to reduce the labour share of national wealth while selling the idea of workers becoming entrepreneurs, another euphemism for rationalization of workforce – a reflection of the falling productivity of the economy, privatization of the wealth and further financialization of the economy. Gaddafi himself was quoted in 2006 of wanting to redistribute oil wealth to the citizens, which according to him is meant to take more than a million citizens out of poverty. In a population of about 4 million, it means a quarter is to be taken out of poverty by the regime. This definitely is just a part of those living at the fringe of penury and not their total number. As a result of the growing pauperization, xenophobia has grown against the foreigners, ably aided by the Gaddafi regime itself through his alliance with European countries' racist immigration policy25. Yet, this is a country that was once known for full employment, improved living standard and high level of education and healthcare. Currently, the country only produces 25 percent of its needed food, which by 2007/2008, due to hike in food prices globally, has meant serious erosion of the real incomes of the working people.
Counterpoising these facts to the Libya of the late 1960s to early 1980s, the impact of the change in economic gear will be better appreciated. For instance, through the 1970s to early 1980s, GDP per capita grew between 676 percents and 480 percents respectively. This was a period when the state was actively involved in the provision of massive infrastructures and rebuilding of the colonial economy. Of course the period also coincided with the era of huge oil exploitation; therefore, the increased GDP per capita may be a product of increased oil income while a relatively smaller population may also contribute to the GDP per capita growth. These are true, but it should be understood that the level of inequality in the country is relatively very small, with a far smaller number of the rich. Furthermore, the effects of imperialist capitalist exploitation was seriously limited as the Gaddafi regime, claiming to be part of the non-aligned movement, leant more on the East than West (or at worst try to play in between the two), making foreign exploitation seriously limited, unlike in Nigeria where from the start, the oil was in the hands of the colonialist foreign corporations. This translates to the fact that more money will be available to the populace through increased social infrastructural and industrial developments. Thus, this period witnessed massive investment in education, healthcare, industries, etc by the state. There was also virtual state control of foreign trade and banking.
It was in the late 1980s, when the corrupt, kleptomaniac tendency of the Gaddafi regime started impacting negatively on the Libyan economy coupled with the historical shortcomings of bureaucratic /undemocratic control of the state economy (i.e. without full democratic participation of the working class organized independently as a class), that the GDP per capita growth fell to 42 percents. Even at this, the economy was faring much better when compared to other oil producing third world countries, which are clearly neo-colonial. As a product of the acceptance of neo-liberal doctrine, today the GDP growth has fallen to 3.2 percent since late 1990s; not because the society has reached the peak of its development, but because the contradiction between the capitalist neoliberal interests adopted by the Gaddafi regime and the welfare interest of the working people cannot be reconciled. Furthermore, any growth in the economy today will be shared unequally between the growing capitalist class (comprising the foreigners and the local elite, including the corrupt, kleptomaniac members of the Gaddafi regime) and the working population, with the balance conveniently favouring the former. For instance, as a result of the current revolutionary upsurge, the western governments have been compelled to freeze over $2 billion of assets linked to the Gaddafi family while another over $35 billion of assets of the country’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, the part of the Libyan wealth made available to international capitalism to make huge profits, have also been frozen. With this huge wealth, the western imperialist governments cannot consider any other plan than removal of Gaddafi in order to have access to this wealth. It is worth mentioning that the little improvements in the public and social infrastructures in the country, being enjoyed today are product of past investment.
It should however be underlined that the state investment in the public infrastructures and industry is not an endorsement of the character of the Gaddafi regime, which claim to be a form of socialist, but in the real sense is a corrupt, undemocratic, semi-monarchical (with the family members being major decision-makers in the country), semi-fascist (relying on a section of the populace, mostly on ethnic basis, as a reserved army to whip others into line) and semi-Bonapartist (leaning on antagonistic social classes at various points in history in order to justify its existence – a term used to define the nature of the government formed by Louis Bonaparte in France after the defeat of the Paris Commune and subsequent stalemate of class struggles in France) and ideologically clueless regime as reflected in the Third Way Doctrine. The open contradiction between the operation of the regime and the vague ideological compass of Gaddafi (as contained in the Green Book) clearly underlines this characterization. The popular waves of mass movements against colonialism and for self-rule in the 1950s through late 1970s, which moved leftward, threw up elements like Gaddafi, who though lack a coherent and consistent understanding and plans of the society, rode to power on the back of the popular anger against feudalist regimes and their colonialist base. The subsequent bankruptcy of the regime, its massive kleptocracy, support for other monstrous regimes across Africa and other Middle Eastern countries, its autocratic and undemocratic rule for over 40 years, its final bow before imperialism and currently, its maddening state terrorism against the citizens only reflect the historical trend of degeneration of the regime. That the current move of rebellion and mass movement started from the oil rich eastern regional towns of Benghazi and Ras Naf, further underline the economic undertone of the revolutionary undercurrent raging in the country - reflecting the degree of economic marginalization of the population even in oil producing areas. That the western part like Tripoli where larger proportions of the oil are produced, was still under Gaddafi regime's hold did not mean that the uprising in the east was an abberration but a reflection of the odious policy of regional politics of the regime (a divide-and-rule tactics of unpopular sit tights, especially with capitalist orientation to hold on to power at all cost). Moreover, there were protests in the western part including Tripoli at the beginning and the peak of the uprising, but on a lesser degree to the movements in the east - this will be explored subsequently.
Elsewhere, the protests and revolutionary contagions ably inspired by the movements in Tunisia and Egypt have been responses to destructive economic policies and looting of the state economies by the ruling classes with active support of imperialism, but made more rabid by long undemocratic rules. For instance, the Saudi monarchy that has been propped up by US imperialism, having being gates keeper (just like the Mubarak regime) for imperialism in the Middle East, has been living off on oil wealth of the country. In 1996 alone, the Saudi monarchy spent $2 billion for its ostentatious lifestyles out of the state budget of $40 billion. It is a known fact that the royal sheiks are full of expensive lifestyles underlined by wild acquisition of juices properties and assets in Europe, US, Asia and the Middle east. These sheiks are major investors in the European economies including in the real estate sector and sports. Therefore, the current waves of protests reflect this economic lootocracy exceptionally supported economically, politically and militarily by US and European imperialisms. The attempt by these regimes such as Saudi, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait to buy off the protests with monetary dole out to the citizens is a reflection of the economic disequilibrium in these countries. It is going to be ridiculous and an outright misrepresentation to argue that these revolutionary movements are mere opposition to autocratic nature of the regimes in question, over looking the economic underbelly, ably signified by the neo-liberal phase of global capitalism. This misrepresentation is meant to veil the capitalist crimes in these societies and the continuation of the neo-liberal capital system, under pseudo-democratic ruling class. More importantly, it is meant as an excuse to sustain neo-liberal capitalism in other third world countries, where neo-liberal capitalism has meant erosion of the living conditions of people. For instance, it is argued that since these revolutions happened or are happening in autocratic and undemocratic societies, it cannot spread to other ‘democratic’ societies. This is meant to hypnotize the working and young people into accepting the continuity of neo-liberalism. However, events in the recent have refuted this thinking as movements have been developing in other third world countries, though on a limited basis compared to movements in the MENA. More importantly, there has been huge movements and even semi-revolts in advanced capitalist countries of Europe like Britain, France, Ireland, Italy and more critical in Spain and Greece, in response to the austerity measures being supervised by IMF and EU. It need to be recalled also that the US ruling class and indeed Mubarak had earlier ruled out the Tunisian contagion spreading to Egypt, because according to the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Egypt is a stable country with economic viability. It is apposite therefore to state that the economic analysis given previously in this write up are meant to challenge the working class and young activists throughout the third world and indeed the world to begin the preparation for revolutionary movements, which can be triggered by anything. In the absence of genuine platform to lead such movements, the movement may be defeated, hijacked and misdirected to safeguard capitalism and imperialism which in the final analysis may lead to society being thrown several steps backward; the prospect of which is facing the MENA countries where revolutionary movements are happening. The challenges are more enormous today with the growing bankruptcy of the workers’ movement leaderships and their acquiescence to neo-liberalism. It is important to further state that the economic political economic analyses given so far again underline the revolutionary elements in the movements in these aforesaid MENA countries which will propel the movements in these countries forward, but what is clearly lacking are revolutionary platform, programmes and leadership.
In the wake of the growing stalemate in the Libyan revolution, coupled with the maximum use of terror against the revolutionary movement by the Gaddafi regime, the US and European imperialisms have been trying to reassert their strategic influence in the region, after their poor outings in the Tunisian and Egyptian events. The US and European imperialisms under the guise of 'humanitarian intervention', have launched a military offensive against Gaddafi regime as the NATO warplanes, under the commands of British and French forces, have continued to bombard the Gaddafi’s strongholds and military facilities, while trying to prop up their stooges (majority of whom are former members of the Gaddafi's notorious regime) as replacement for the Gaddafi regime. As early as early June, low level precision Apache helicopters by Britain have been used to shell the remains of Gaddafi regime' military facilities. While it might have been difficult to undertake ground combat directly (in order to avoid a protracted operation that may end in shameful withdrawal or political burden as witnessed in Vietnam war or currently in Afghanistan/Iraq respectively), British and French secret services have been deplored, with active collaboration of the stooge Interim National Council, to help train the rebels, and possibly fight along with them. Other countries like Qatar have also given military, financial and diplomatic support to the opposition elite in Benghazi. This aside giving them, the western multinational corporations’ unhindered access to the Libyan huge oil reserve, estimated to be the largest in Africa, at 41.5 Gbbl as at 2007, will also limit the scope and extent of the revolution and allow for full take over of the political economy of Libya. This is aside the contracts for reconstruction post-Gaddafi. This explains why all the imperialist ruling classes across Europe and US are so rabidly involved in the military adventure. Removal of Gaddafi will mean the presence of imperialism in the country and direct roles of determining the next ruling class that will be favourable to imperialist capitalism; while helping them reasserts their military and political influence in the whole Africa and Middle East.
However, some pundits, possibly fearful of the continued terror of the Gaddafi regime had argued for 'minimal' interventions of imperialism aside using the UN sanctioned ‘No Fly Zone’, which legally only covers the attacks on Gaddafi’s air strikes and not ground combat or regime change. Also is a section of the of the bourgeois analysts who, out of fear that unlike Egypt and Tunisia, the mass movement in Libya, which has developed into armed uprising may lead to emergence of a semi-revolutionary and seemingly independent government, especially when viewed against the background of the anti-imperialist history of the country, are supporting interventions by imperialisms. However, there is a fear that direct ground military intervention in Libya may lead to protracted and escalated war like those of Iraq and Afghanistan. Already, the rank of the rebel fighters is heterogenous with a layer who started the uprising and the armed rebellion comprising working class, youths and dissident soldiers sharing roles with new immigrants from Europe, who had come to join the revolution either independently or sponsored. But there is no clear-cut leadership for the armed groups while the leadership of the whole uprising has been hijacked by middle class elements at the base and pro-imperialist stooges at the top. There have been reported conflict between the rank and file of the revolutionaries on ground on one hand and the elite self-acclaimed leaders (many of whom are former members of the Gaddafi regime but are being today recognized by the US and European regimes as the official opposition figure). The rank and file revolutionary, who are the ones really facing the artilleries of Gaddafi regime want a total uprooting of the Gaddafi while also showing their opposition to imperialist take over (although, as a result of lack of rounded out revolutionary strategies and platform that could have mobilized the supports of the working class in not only western Libya but also throughout the region and then completely isolating Gaddafi and imperialism at the same time, they later supported military aid from imperialisms which attacked Gaddafi’s military forces, which had earlier pushed the revolutionaries to the brink of defeat in mid-March and early April). All this points to looming crisis that imperialism and its stooge INC will face when Gaddafi is removed as the rank and file fighters will want to exert their influence on the revolution, with possible threat to capitalist interests in the country.
On the other hand, the elitist opposition leaders want to place a break on the revolutionary spirit of the rank and file with a view to limiting their role in and influence on the government that may emerge after removal of Gaddafi, which has made them to be seeking some forms of negotiation and more imperialist involvement to force out Gaddafi or advise him to leave power, with the victory of the US/Europe backed Alassane Outarra armed groups over the outcast Laurent Gbagbo (with the capture of Gbagbo by US/Europe/African Union backed Outarra armed forces), may serve as a pointer to the Gaddafi regime, of possible verdict. The failure of the elitist opposition leaders to lay total control over the uprising has created dilemma for imperialist ruling classes at the beginning. While the European governments of UK and France wanted open and ground military campaign against Gaddafi, especially through arming of the rebels, the US has taken a cautionary measure, not only of the protraction and contradictions this will bring but also the outcome of arming rebels whose influence and demands after the removal of Gaddafi may pose more problems for imperialist control of the Libyan economy. Yet, without removal of Gaddafi, which is only possible through ground military campaign, the air raids will not stop Gaddafi, and may even at some times embolden him and give him some lifeline, especially if the air siege continue for a long time.
It is vital to restate the fact that the attempt by US and European capitalisms to place themselves on top of these revolutionary movements is also an attempt at whitewashing their images, which are being trailed by blood of the working people globally. For instance, since 2001, the US and European capitalisms have adopted Gaddafi regime into the imperialist ‘hall of fame’ because it was ready to place the oil wealth of the country at the disposal of the big business, without ever criticizing the sit-tight and indeed corrupt nature of the regime. Aside the full introduction of neoliberal policies by the Gaddafi regime since 2003, which has seen a greater percentage of the Libyan wealth being creamed off by global capitalism, the wealth of Libya, looted by Gaddafi and his political family has been traced to western banks and businesses. Take for instance, over $1.5 billion has been traced to Gaddafi in Britain alone.
In fact, Gaddafi's son, Saif was reported to have donated millions of dollars to academic think tank and NGO in Britain, without being questioned by the same government that is now so desperate to get Gaddafi out. Yet, it is the same western governments that will unilaterally sanction countries on the guise of corruption, lack of democracy and deteriorating human rights records, but the same governments look the other side when their favoured regimes (like Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc) commit the same crimes. US made weapons have been used to launch violent terror on the revolutionary movements by the Gaddafi fascist shock troopers. Therefore, the hands of US and other western powers are stained with the blood of the working people in Libya. Those clamouring for imperialist interventions are only asking the US and European imperialisms to wash off these stains with more blood.
Elsewhere, the revolutionary movements across MENA has further exposed the treachery of imperialism. An instance is the ousted Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, which had earlier being declared as economic magician which turned the Tunisian economy to wonders. Indeed, the economy was rated as the 38th most competitive in the world. But less than a year after this assertion, a young Tunisian had to set himself on fire because of unbearable economic frustration. More importantly, the European imperialism, like the Sarkozy government in France has been a major booster for the 23 year old Ben Ali ousted regime. No other place was the treachery of imperialism exposed more than Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. In Egypt, the US imperialism pumps $1.5 billion into the corrupt regime for military support, so that Mubarak’s Egypt could continue to serve as the gatekeeper against Palestinians (and to support Israel’s onslaught against the Palestinians, and to serve as bully to other countries in the Middle East). The US’s silence on the corrupt, undemocratic and autocratic nature of the Mubarak regime, while pumping billions to the economy is not accidental; the US knew that the money will find its way back into the US economy through military contracts for arms and other military services, contract to US corporations, free access of US corporations into the Egyptian (and indeed middles eastern economies) and stashing of the stolen billions from this monies in US vaults.
So the money is both military as well as economic investment. In 2007, the constitutional referendum conducted under the supervision of US and European imperialism, was done under heavy clampdown on the opposition, which led to just 25 percent of the eligible voters being allowed to vote, with the government declaring a 79 percent approval of the repressive and most undemocratic constitutional changes. The US and European capitalisms, while vaguely condemning some violence, not only accepted the Mubarak regime into its fold, but indeed stood as political advisers to the regime with the aim of conferring democratic credentials on the regime. To them, inasmuch as a favoured dictator like Hosni Mubarak, no matter how ruthless, can get away with blue murder, then the end justifies the means. The billions of dollars traced to the Mubarak family were safely kept with US and European banks and big business as investments with the imperialist governments looking the other side.
Also the Saudi Arabia monarchist regime has been a major ally of US imperialism, providing cheap oil wealth and contracts for the US multinational corporations while serving as safe basin for US imperialism in the Gulf and the Middle East. In 2006, the BAE (a British arms company) was indicted of fraudulently helping the Saudi regime to secure loots and military power in a fraudulent arrangement; but the Tony Blair government only covered up the crime because, according to him, Saudi regime was an ally of the British government, and it is not in the ‘national interest’ of Britain to probe the case! What he forgot to mention is that the European and US markets have served as beneficiaries of the ostentatious and expensive lifestyles of the Saudi Sheiks while the British and US companies have been major beneficiaries of military and oil contracts from Saudi Arabia and indeed the oil rich Gulf and Arabian Peninsula. Hillary Clinton, in response to the critique that US is supporting Bahraini regime which is repressing its protesting citizens, had declared that Bahrain is an ally of the US in the region while also justifying the presence of the Saudi military tanks in Bahrain to help repress the protests. While over a trillion dollar has been squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan, where heads roll daily as a result of the NATO/US airstrikes), less than a quarter of this is needed to provide adequate living standards for over 2 billion people who live in third world countries.
The reason the autocratic regimes are comfortably accommodated by imperialism is because of the huge economic and military advantages these regimes provide for capitalist imperialism. Autocracy, despite its unstable character, also help to achieve many neo-liberal policy implementation and economic pilfering associated with this, which may not be that easy under a semi-democracy. On the other hand, imperialist support for these regimes helps to protect their privileges and loots (which many times are safely invested in western banks, edge funds and big businesses). Thus, autocratic and corrupt regimes (even the fake democratic ones) and imperialisms have mutual advantages from these political economic relations. This explains why imperialism is comfortable associating with such brutal regimes as Egypt’s Mubarak, Saudi’s Abdullah, and Yemen’s Saleh, but the same US will be comfortable slamming sanctions on anti-imperialist government of Cuba. All this shows the bankruptcy of US and European imperialist diplomacy.
This is further echoed by the fact that all major elites being supported or recognized by US and European capitalisms in these MENA countries as opposition or governments in waiting, like El Baradei in Egypt and ex-officials of Muammar Gaddafi regime (who are now rebels) have either been part of imperialism or played active roles in the regime they are now opposing. This is also true of Alassane Outarra in Ivory Coast, a die-in-the-wool IMF agent, who the international capitalism is supporting as a replacement to the overused and abandoned Laurent Gbagbo (a former labour leader), who itself was propped by imperialism a decade ago but could not give a sustaining stability needed by imperialism for the free movement of cocoa from Cote D’Ivoire (the major and largest cocoa producer in the world). One can go on endlessly to list the crimes and bankruptcy of capitalist imperialisms diplomacy. What all this underline is the need to build independent movements of workers youth in all the revolting countries, and indeed the world at large as a counterweight to imperialist intervention and fake democratic propaganda. The global radicalization which has spread the entire world (including the advanced capitalist countries, where democracy is supposed in force) is a pointer to the effect a genuine revolutionary movement can have globally. According to a recent report by Press TV, it showed that more people in Britain are now disillusioned with the three-party system. A point underlined by the recent sit-ins by youths against all politicians in Spain.
However, the positions of radical Venezuela president, Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, who together correctly opposed the imperialist military intervention in Libya but wrongly pitched their tent with the monstrous Muammar Gaddafi regime, need to be put in focus, especially when viewed against the background of the popularity enjoyed by these leaders amongst wide layers of youths and working class in Latin America, and indeed the third world. Their position clearly reflects the limitation of their so-called internationalist policy. While Chavez and Castro were correct to oppose US/NATO military adventure in Libya, their tacit support for the monstrous regime of Gaddafi under the guise that all the atrocities of Gaddafi against his people were mere imperialist propaganda against him, is to say the least ridiculous. If the hundreds of lives wasted by Gaddafi is imperialist propaganda, is the adoption of neo-liberalism, privatization of the economy, widespread looting of state resources by Gaddafi family, nepotism and undemocratic rule of the regime (which has seen Gaddafi’s children holding no official post but directing the nation’s politics and directing the counter-revolutionary onslaught on the people) and Gaddafi’s previous reconciliation with imperialism; also propaganda? While of course, the regime might have played some progressive roles in investing in public infrastructures during its early days in the 1960s and 1970s, this does not make the regime permanently progressive.
It is worth mentioning that Gaddafi regime’s populist programmes in these periods are product of international situation then, where the presence of and the advancements provided by the Soviet Union, though a caricature of genuine socialist principles, coupled with the independence mood existing then, provided opportunity for Gaddafi, who needed to balance stabilize itself against imperialism, whose anointed stooge he removed through a coup, to undertake populist campaigns and programmes in order to have a mass base and international appeal against imperialism. Thus, the so-called progressive character of the regime is not a product of rounded out revolutionary programmes but an eclectic response to political pressures. Since the regime stabilized, it has been a mishmash of bankrupt foreign policies and paternalistic and undemocratic rule, culminating in compromise with imperialism and neoliberal capitalism (the worst form of capitalism so-far). It is vital to state that the Gaddafi political bankruptcy in favour of imperialism is itself a product of the unsustainable nature of a bureaucratic and undemocratic state-run economies and failure of piecemeal progressivism, without a rounded out revolutionary socialist internationalism with an independent working class role. That Chavez and Castro could give support for the Gaddafi regime against the revolutionary movement shows the collapse of their ideas, no matter the progressive roles individuals have played in history. That Chavez can befriend elements like Gaddafi shows that the Chavez himself lacks a full revolutionary internationalist policy.
A genuine revolutionary government will prioritize development of revolutionary solidarity with working class movement; deploying its resources to support every move by the working class movement to topple capitalism and imperialism. While diplomacy may be necessary for a revolutionary government, especially when it is isolated, this cannot stop it in mobilizing international support of the working class against imperialist intervention while also building genuine international working class movement for socialist revolution globally. But Venezuela can hardly be said to be isolated when compared with anti-imperialist or pro-soviet union governments during the cold war era; a clear example being Castro’s Cuba. Even, with a genuine working class programmes and solidarity, an isolated revolutionary government can defeat imperialism as reflected by the historic example of the Russian October Revolution of 1917. That the Castro’s Cuba was able to do this is simply debatable.
The Chavez position has only undercut support of the working class for his government. For instance, the revolting masses of Libya have been nauseated by the reported support for Gaddafi while they have rejected the so-called planned mediation by Chavez to safe the head of Gaddafi. The barrenness of Chavez policy again exposes the incorrectness of the policy of some Marxists and socialist who made absolute the Chavez minimal radical policies and courted him without emphasizing the importance of genuine and independent working class movement to build genuinely revolutionary socialist government in Venezuela, as a precursor to the socialist confederation of Latin America and the Caribbean. It is apposite to underline here that the Cuban regime under Fidel Castro might have played progressive roles in the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist struggles including supports for armed struggles against apartheid and imperialism such as in southern and central African countries like Namibia, Angola and Mozambique, Congo, etc., but hardly could these interventions be called revolutionary as the forces supported by Castro's regime later on sucumbed to the forces of imperialism and even became corrupt, inept, undemocratic and repressive against the people they purportedly claimed to be defending a la Laurent Kabila of DR Congo, Dos Santos of Angola, etc. This clearly reflects the bankruptcy of radical anti-imperialist struggles without a full working class independent participation and leadership. Unfortunately, Castro, now Chavez and their supporters have not learnt the lessons. The immediate effect of this is the handing over of working people and youths to the hands of the bourgeois democrats who will use the genuine aspirations of the working people and youths for change to gain political power and introduce neo-liberal capitalist policies.
On the other hands, with a genuine working class programmes of a genuinely pro-working class government, appeal can be raised directly to workers throughout the world over the heads of the capitalist governments, to not only give solidarity to working people and youths in Libya and indeed the whole Middle East and North Africa, but will also inspire working people and youths throughout the third world and indeed the whole world to rise against their local ruling elites while placing imperialism in abeyance. A slogan like 'No to Gaddafi, no to imperialist interventions, yes to government of workers, youths and the oppressed', will readily echo throughout the world which will make the campaign/demand for workers to strike against any government that relates with Gaddafi regime or any government that may want to intervene in the country. This will steer the Libyans in Tripoli and other western cities/towns to action to torpedo Gaddafi regime. Then, it can be valuable to organise tactical supports like using information technology to reach out to mollions of workers and youths throughout the region. A similar thing was done by Gamal Abdel Nasser regime during its Arab Nationalism campaign in the 1960s where an Arab radio station was established which reached out to Middles eastern over the head of their governments, which played a decisive role in undermining the pro-western regimes including Saudi Arabia. But this can only be done by a government that believes in the independent actions of the working people and oppressed to govern them democratically and not a government that believes in top down approach or sees working class independent organization and actions as threat. For instance, despite increased state spending on social services and some minimal nationalization, the government of Chavez has stepped up attacks on organised working class, especially at the industrial level, labeling them as counter-revolutionary.
This is similar to the campaign of the Ahmednejad government in Iran (another good friend of Chavez) which uses the claim of counter-revolution and imperialist plot to massively and violently repress genuine mass protests of workers and youths, a clear example being the state repression against 2009 revolts against election rigging by the Ahmednejad regime and his Ayatollah clerical supporters. Farcically, it is the same government that is now claiming to be mouthpiece and guardian of the mass revolts in MENA, which it has misrepresented as 'Islamic Reawakening' - an attempt to equate the current wave of revolts in the Middle East and North Africa with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Of course, there may be some similarities in terms of the political economic root of the two sets of revolutions (i.e. the bankruptcy of the Shah monarchical regime which is thoroughly pro-western imperialism, corrupt and repressive in Iran and on the other hand, the economic and political subjugation by the middle eastern regimes to the diktats of imperialism and neo-liberal capitalism), but there are also far reaching contradictions and differences. While the Iranian Revolution occurred when the Soviet system was still existing and providing some form of alternative (even if on a distorted basis) to those seeking end to capitalism, which made the islamic leaders who took power to undertake some form of state control of the economy with some significant degree of nationalization, albeit under an undemocratic theocratic strong state regime, the current epoch does not provide such alternative, as the collapse of the Stalinist Soviet system (a grotesque caricature of genuine socialism which actually combines nationalization of the economy with workers' democracy from the factory level to the national level) has created absence of left leaning alternative with a clear cut idea coupled with the weakness of the genuine Marxist forces globally, which has made the popularity of socialist programmes less forceful.
Despite the limited nature of the Iranian Revolution, especially in terms of the theocratic state that emerged, which alienated the working people, who carried out the revolution in the first place, coupled with the alienation of the revolution internationally, occasioned by the religious garb given unto it and subsequent repression of independent workers' movement in Iran, it was easy and possible for imperialism to launch a proxy war against the new state using the Saddam's Iraqi government, which itself, aside being a bastion for imperialism in the Arab world, was also threatened by the revolution in Iran. This war that lasted almost a decade, worsened the shortcomings of the revolution concerning the character of the state and the roles of the working class in it; as the theocratic state emerged more repressive during and after the war (when it got more emboldened) with the ruling caste living far above the levels of the working people. It is also vital to state that if there is a government that emerged from a revolutionary movement which was able to significantly nationalise the economy, even under a bureaucratic arrangement today, it will be hardly possible for imperialism to wage an open war or sponsor a proxy war against such country as such actions would have radicalised the working people and youths in not only the third world but indeed in the centres of capitalism. This is clearly reflected in the MENA revolts, which has not even led to radical change in the political economy of these revolting societies, on the consciousness of the masses in not only the Middle East, Arab world and northern Africa but indeed in Europe. For instance, the MENA revolts have inspired the youths in such western countries like Spain and Greece to reject all political parties and call for a new and truly democratic society, in the wake of deepening capitalist economic crises in the world today. The mass movements of workers and youths in Britain in the recent times are also clear examples. If there is a radical, left-leaning government emerging in any of these MENA countries, with a programme of massive social infrastructure development and nationalization of the economic mainstay under working people's democratic control, even without military or political economic interventions/attacks from imperialism, it will radicalise a huge layer of working people and youths throughout the world (especially the advanced layers amongst them) who are being attacked from all fronts by capitalist political economic system.
This shows the contradictory nature of post-Cold War neo-liberal global capitalism. The absence of Soviet alternative (even on grotesque Stalinist basis) and the massive propaganda offensive against socialism has denied the working people and youths of theoretical and political tools to combat capitalism in its most brazen form. But on the other hand is the deepening fragility of global capitalism today as a result of the greater integration of every facet of the world economy, inter-dependence of the system on political and economic situations in every part of the globe and greater divisions of labour between centres of global capitalism and its peripheries as exemplified in the greater quest for energy, raw materials and food sufficiency and security by the developed economies. This is in addition to the growing financialiation of global capitalism leading to fluidity in financial capital movement and capitalism itself, and consequent instability in capitalism itself as the financial capital search ruthlessly for the maximum return in every part of the globe leading to greater exploitation, pauperiation and alienation of vast layers of workers, the youths and the unemployed, especially in the third world. The absence of a genuine working class platforms have derailed the anger of thw working people and make it more pent up. It only requires the spark of revolt in a country to instigate spiral revolts across the world. However, without such revolts leading to emergence of an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist revolutionary government, the working people will be disillusioned in the possibility of revolutionary change.
There is need to draw another contrast between the Iranian Revolution and the current waves of revolts in the MENA concerning the roles of the working class and the so-called progressive bourgeois class. The Iranian Revolution developed from the working class with the trade unions playing active roles. Indeed, the development of general strike by workers sounded the final death knell of the Sha pro-imperialist and repressive regime. Consequently, the working class made attempt to directly determine the government that will emerge from the revolution but for the bankruptcy of the Tudeh (Communist Party) that is associated to the Stalinist government in the Soviet Union and the leadership of the trade unions. The Tudeh party with a false policy of alliance of the working class with the so-called 'progressive' bourgeoisie, subordinated the working class to the bourgeois opposition group comprising reactionary religious elements, prominent among whom is Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic Shia cleric who is on exile, and had been a critic of the Sha regime. Rather than mobilize the working masses behind the programme of a government built democratically from the grassroots and communities linking up to the national level, and nationalising the commanding heights of the economy under the democratic control of these revolutionary committees, the Tudeh party, under the Stalinist influences, advocated that the workers should be under the guidance of the 'progressive' bourgeoisie; in this case, the Islamic Shia leaders. The end result is a theocratic state with a serious limitation on democratic rights of the working people. Of course, there was partial nationalization of some section of the economy; the capitalist economic relation was left intact with the bourgeois class creaming off gains of the nationalization. This coupled with the nine year war with Iraq meant little improvements in the living conditions of the working people, although there was significant improvements in the social service sector like education, health, etc. By the 1990s when the war ended, the contradictions of limited nationalization and capitalism going pari passu coupled with the collapse of the Stalinist Soviet system in Eastern Europe meant an economic isolation for the Iranian government. However, with the growth of the energy demands and prices (leading to rising oil wealth), the US war in Iraq and the rise of new capitalist states like China, India and Brazil in the geopolitics of the world, Iran has been able to also weild an increasing influence in the geopolitics of middle east and to a limited degree, the third world. The oil wealth has provided opportunity to industrialise the country relying on the gains of the state control of the economy and massive infrastructure that accompanied this. But along with this influence is the attempt to open up the economy further to global capitalism in the line of China and Brazil, which has meant attacks on the living conditions of the working people and youths such as the withdrawal of/reduction in the fuel subsidies, among others. When this process is contrasted with the current wave of revolts in MENA, some lessons can be drawn. These revolts, while being spearheaded by the youths and the working people (though not initially as a conscious independent class) is being hijacked by the bourgeois 'oppositions' and in a place like Egypt, religious groups, especially Muslim Brotherhood, who are mainly under the influence of imperialism. Unlike the Iranian Revolution when it was necessarsary to undertake some form of state control on the economy, the current set of bourgeois leaders may retain political power for some times without nationalising the economy, but hardly can they sustain it without challenge from the working class and youths in form of new revolts against neo-liberalism that these new leaders will plunge these economies into. Interestingly, hardly will the Iranian regime supports a government that nationalises even a limited sections of its economy, as such will threaten the theocratic rule of the regime itself. A limited example of this is the Iranian regime's support for the Syrian regime's repression of mass revolts in the country, as the Assad's regime in Syria is a protégé of the Iranian state. This reflects the dialectical contradictions that have defined the political economy of Iran itself. This shows that it is not enough to have a revolution; indeed it is not enough to exercise state control over the economy. Without a full fledge socialist plan and workers' democracy, such measures will collapse sooner than later. This is a lesson for some 'leftists' who get carried away by the anti-US imperialism policy of the Iranian regime.
Worth examining also is the role of China and Russia in the geopolitics especially as concerning the current wave of revolts in MENA. It will be recalled that these two countries, who are permanent members of the security council of the United Nations, have been posing as alternative to the US capitalist hegemony in the global politics. Where US and her European tail bearers advocate forceful policies, these countries, though they hardly disagree fundamentally, will like to pose a seeming softer approach. For instance, both Russia and China voted against military interventions in Libya at the UN Security Council while Russia has opposed many sanctions of the US/European imperialism against non-compliant states e.g. Iran. China has ignored many US/EU sanctions and critique against some third world countries like Zimbabwe and Libya, especially as relating to governance and human rights issues and carried on businesses with them. All of these have made Chinese and to some degree Russia (which has also supported many imperialism-designated outcast nations especially in the Middle East and Asia) to seem to some 'radical' petty bourgeois pundits, to have "progressive" foreign policies. This is further reinforced by their opposition to the NATO war in Libya. While opposition to imperialist war may sound progressive, a critical scrutiny of this and longer view analysis will reveal the rottenness in this so-called "anti-imperialist" stance of China and Russia.
In the first instance, both countries are totalitarian states with facade of democracy, especially in Russia. Both have repressive attitude toward mass movements and organization. Therefore, they loath an independent working class movement both within and outside their domains. Till date, the Chinese ruling caste has continued to allow a genuine remembrance of the Tiananmense Square movement and repression where tens of thousands were massacred, brutalised and jailed when million strong movements of students, youths and workers opposed the capitalist orientation of the authoritarian regime of Deng Xioaping in 1989. *This must have an inspiration behind the deadly repression of revolts in many countries including Iran in 2009, and MENA countries like Syria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, etc. Remembering this event always put the pro-capitalist CP government in constant fear of mass movement which it has continued to place lids over for over two decades of capitalist restoration. In Russia, where despite so-called restoration of capitalist democracy since early 1990s (a fallout of the bankruptcy of the totalitarian and bureaucratised nature of the Stalinist kind of planned economy), the working class and youths are denied the rights to freely organise and oppose government policies, the regime has continued to militarise the state and concentrate power in the hands of the elite regime. Despite worsening living conditions of the vast majority of the citizens, the budget for the military and the armed forces have continually grown, reflecting a strong state. Remembrance of October 1917 revolution is always met with stiff repression from the state; same for the remembrance of the Hungary 1956 (when the then Stalinist Soviet Union brutally suppressed workers' revolution for socialist democracy in Hungary, then a USSR satellite state). Therefore, the so-called right to self determination by third world countries, supposedly being defended by the duo of China and Russia never applied to the working class and the oppressed in their own countries.
Moreover, these two countries are also imperialist nations, both militarily and economically, though on a smaller scale than that of the US. For instance, Chinese state has continued to deny right to self determination to Tibetans (although the western imperialist support for the Tibet's independence is an attempt to secure a counterforce base for their interest in the region) while Russia blinked no eyelid in militarily attacking Georgia in 2009, under the guise of defending the independence of South Ossetia (a similar excuse of US in the war against Iraq in 1991 also in Libya today) which in reality is an attempt to secure Russia's strategic pre-eminence in the region. More than this, the two countries have used bully to protect their interests in their areas of influence. For instance, Russia used its economic power as gas supplier and supply link to prevent Ukraine from going over to the EU in 2009.
Also, Chinese ruling caste has somewhat re-established the western imperialist system of supporting repressive and corrupt regimes and governments and their policies inasmuch as their economic interests are secured. As a result of the opening of the Chinese formerly planned economy to the vagaries of capitalist system, China has been turned to the world sweatshop, with hundreds of millions migrants from the countryside, paid extremely poor wages and denied democratic rights. This, coupled with the massive privatization of formerly giant state enterprises at token international capital and local nepotic capitalist class and conversion of public infrastructure (education, health services, transport system, etc), built under the state controlled economy (and even now under a partial state controlled economy), to the cheap use of international capital, has increased production in the country, which has made quest for energy and raw materials assume not just economic nature but also political nature for an undemocratic regime that is surviving on the past glory of Maoism/Stalinist planned economy (where living conditions were relatively comfortable with secure job for all able bodied citizens which covered up for the undemocratic and bureaucratic characteristics of Maoism/Stalinism). *The collapse of the Chinese economy, to the degree of western economic crisis of 2008/09, will definitely put the Chinese ruling caste in complete ruin and may even spell the end of capitalism in China.25 Therefore, China is embarking on aggressive quest for a secured energy and raw material sources to prevent the collapse of the fragile capitalist economy; with massive dole out of monetary resources and mouth-watery offers (including military supports) to many resource rich third world countries, which boost the corrupt tendencies of the rent-seeking ruling elites in these countries, at the expense of the working people of these third world countries. The western imperialist regimes, who complain about the "poor human rights records" of Chinese regime and its foreign policy, overtly accommodate this as the collapse of the Chinese economy or even regime will spell catastrophic doom for global capitalism to which Chinese capitalism is now and integral and vital part. * Chinese products are consumed by the US and European markets while China's trade surpluses provide cheap credit for US to finance its deficit (and provide credit for its citizens, who have been squeezed of saving and effective purchasing power by neo-liberalism, to buy consumer goods, including Chinese products). European and Japanese machineries and heavy duty products also get their markets in China's economic (which fragile growth rate determine the instability of European and Japanese sales).26 (further analysis at footnote) It can thus be safely opined that the Chinese ruling caste's 'anti-US' foreign policies (if it is really anti-US) are mere replacement of bigger imperialism with a smaller and more subtle one - a mere quest to place China as a gainer where Western imperialism fails, especially in the quest for energy and mineral security (and to a certain degree market). This is well understood by Gaddafi when he said in April at the start of the NATO campaign that Libyan oil will go to Russia and China.
Is Russia different in this regard; yes but fundamentally, she follows the same trajectory with China. Unlike China, Russia has seen a wave of deindustrialization as a result of the collapse of the Stalinist bureaucratically planned economy (although, China also had deindustrialization of state industries, but these were replaced by the capitalist firms especially foreign companies while many state industries were privatised and had redundancy in production) but it has also become a focal point for energy sources especially by Europe. Her vast oil and gas resources, coupled with being outside the OPEC (although the energy industry also serve the foreign policy interest of the ruling regime, which makes it also an unstable source of energy security) has provided Europe (especially the gas sector) with a lifeline of energy. The far reaching effects of disruption in gas supply to Europe during the Russia-Ukraine stand off in 2009 has underline the role that Russia energy industry is playing. Coupled with this is the need to cover other areas of Russian economy especially in terms of raw material sources and the need for markets for its vast energy resources.
More than this is the geo-political interest of the Russian ruling and capitalist class. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with it, the collapse of the economy and the attendant rapid fall in living conditions of the populace, the Russian economy has been subjected to the dictates of the imperialist capital in the west. The Russian economy was bailed out by the western capitalism27, which made the capitalist class subservient to the dictates of international capital. This is in contradistinction to the Russian military potential which is useless in the absence of economic independence of the capitalist class. All this has made the Russian ruling and capitalist class to undertake aggressively defensive foreign policy - trying to maintain an independent position internationally while undertaking aggressive but reactionary national and regional foreign policy, i.e. trying to blow cold in the international scene while blowing hot regionally. Having sold off the better parts of the hitherto state industries to mafia capitalist class, it has tried to maintain a somewhat protectionist policy (especially after the collapse of the rouble in the 1990s due to the currency gambling) while being forced by the logic of global capitalism to open up for foreign capital. In order to prevent economic collapse and capital flight, the only way it can survive in the murky water of capitalist competition is by posing as alternative to the US/European hegemony. But at heart, it is rabidly imperialistic. This explains why its (Russian ruling caste) foreign policy has only been passive and manipulative - trying to pose as alternative to US/Europe at the beginning but seeking for part of the spoil when the deed is done, and if US adventures go awry, trying to maximize from this.
At home, its mafia capitalism that has seen the hitherto state industries sold at token to the former members of the Soviet politbureau and their acolytes coupled with massive corruption has meant a wide increase in the wealth gap and worsening living conditions of the vast majority of the citizens*. This has meant increasing dissatisfaction with the political and economic system by the working people which the ruling class has tried to place a lid over through repression and buy over of the labour leaders. Appeal to nationalism and repression has led to germination of far right and ultra-nationalist forces (which will be a viable tool in the hands of the semi-fascist state, in the absence of a working class revolutionary platform). But the state is also careful as the shock effects associated with the outcome of capitalist restoration has cast out of the working class and the current layer of youthful working class and educated unemployed that is growing in the country, are not bound by the burden of the past; which raises the question of revolt in the country. This has reflected in the response of the Russian ruling and capitalist class to the MENA revolts - a kind of indifference to those revolts that do not provide any material benefit to its interests a la Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, (to some degrees)* Egypt and Tunisia. while maintaining a seeming anti-US/NATO stance on Libya.
All of these analyses point to the fact that the Chinese and Russian ruling castes opposition to the NATO war on Libya and their seeming anti-US/European imperialism stance is nothing but a chimera; and the working people all over the world must not be fooled by this. Unlike during the Cold War era, when mass revolts would give the Stalinist bloc (USSR and China) leverage, as planned economy with its massive state investment in humans development and social services, even under a bureaucratised form, will become ready made alternative to capitalism, the collapse of the Stalinist system and subsequent integration of former Stalinist states tinto capitalist orbit has meant an anti-revolutionary or even anti-progressive character of these states even more than the centres of capitalist system. At least, despite its hypocrisy, treachery and rotten, US and European ruling class claimed support for if not all but a proportion of the revolts. These former Stalinist states could nor place themselve in any vantage position in these revolts because the development of capitalism has made these countries look like twin brother to the revolting societies; thus they (the revolts) send jitters to their spines rather than emboldening them. Nothing underlines this more than the spontaneous movements growing in Europe and US a la Spain, Greece, and Britain. it should be recalled that the inflammatory statement made by Ghaddafi in condemnation of the revolt in Egypt in fact ignited the mass anger.Therefore, the working people and youth need not repose any trust in any of these so-called alternative powers (or emerging power), but solely on their strength and ideas of change, represented in this case by the revolutionary socialism which combines planned economy with democracy from the shop floor and communities to the national level. Working people must break away from the prison walls of union bureaucracy and shackles of capitalist ideas, and build not just fighting and revolutionary unions but political platform that will link, in solidarity with workers from sweatshops in Guangzhou to the streets of Tripoli (and Benghazi) and Lagos.
Some pundits have, while rejecting imperialist intervention, opined that regional organizations like AU should be empowered to "peacefully" resolve what they term 'political crisis' in Libya - another way of providing safe landing for Ghaddafi or smothering the revolution. It is suggested that the AU will act fairly in the interests of Africa as against the western intervention, which are coloured with ulterior motives. They opined that AU and African leaders will act independently. All this argument is not only incorrect but outlandish in every sense.
In the first instance, an attempt to refer to the revolutionary wave in the country as mere political crisis is only slapping the truth in the face; in deed the revolt, even if it did not consume Ghaddafi at the beginning, is a reflection of the fundamental political economic collapse of the pro-capitalist orientation of the Ghaddafi regime. In the real sense, the so-called African solution is nothing but an attempt to save Ghaddafi regime (on which many African leaders have relied for support), rubbish the revolutionary initiative of the working people and youths of Libya (who did not just to see the end of the regime, but the socio-economic system it represents) and thus save many a African rulers (all of whom are pro-imperialist, corrupt and/or sit-tight or ruling through repression) from the calamity that may befall them through the domino effects of ouster of Ghaddafi regime. This idea only represents the interests of emerging enterpreneural capitalist class who want to use the veil of pan-African nationalism to improve their stake in the struggle for foreign-capitalism-dominated African markets and economy. Genuine revolutionary programme will reject imperialist intervention but on the other hands campaign for the defeat of Ghaddafi regime through their revolutionary independent efforts, by building solidarity with the working people and youths in not only the western part of Libya but throughout the region and the world, the failure of which has been the only lifeline that the regime relied on (*recall that it was the solidarity actions of the working people and youths in US and Europe, against their governments' support for Mubarak and Ben Ali contributed to the impotence of imperialism to continue support for these elements).
The idea that AU (comprising pro-imperialist and corrupt rulers) can act fairly is indeed ridiculous as the contemporary history of Africa has shown. The parochial and narrow interests of local ruling elites in Rwanda, Libya and Uganda (of course in collaboration with foreign multinational corporations) played active roles in the continuation and brutality of the Congo war. The same goes for wars in Liberian, Sierra Leone and Cote D'Ivoire, where local leaders in Nigeria, use their state military powers (in collaboration with western powers) to protect their narrow (and imperialist) interest. Indeed, African rulers intervention in local regional 'crises' have led to more brutality, as they transport their brutal and crude Machiavellian idea to regional level. In case where they are not militarily involved, their stance has always in support of local ruling regime; and where they are forced to oppose to oppose such regimes, may be when their interests are infringed upon or forced by by their imperialist masters (as exemplified in the Zimbabwean case where some rulers like Angola's sit-tight Dos Santos opposed Mugabe). Even, the so-called 'enlightened' regional powers like South African ANC regime, the fake pan-African solutions are meant to safe the regimes it associates with. This is clearly exemplified by the bankruptcy of the so-called African leaders and AU leaders in the Libya issue where none of them initially condemned the atrocities of Ghaddafi, until prompted by imperialism. None of them could even publicly condemn the NATO war in Libya. In fact, South Africa (along with other African member states in UN Security Council i.e. Nigeria and Gabon, who are temporary members of the Council), which is now spearheading the so-called African solutions VOTED for the war in Libya at the Council meeting. Surely, the African solution is the nothing but dirty job to clean up the mess created by imperialist intervention in Libya. Already, the US administration is facing increasing opposition to its engagement in Libya (which cost the administration put at over $600 million, but is independently estimated at over $750 million as at early June - in a country were thousands are losing their jobs while austerity has become the way of life for the teeming millions of poor working class families), a war meant to safeguard the interests of the capitalist class. In Europe too, the growing mass anger at the austerity being executed against the working people and youths has been putting the Libyan engagement under big question mark. This is aside skyrocketing price of crude oil in the international market due to the war in Libya and the unrest in the MENA countries. This is making imperialism to start to look for easiest way out; one of which is the assignment given to African leaders to persuade Ghaddafi to leave power. The same AU, which views not sought (and which was reduced to imperialism's tail bearer and paper tiger throughout the war), and whose member states had no choice but to vote in favour of their benefactors (imperialism), which gave them the privilege of sitting among the big men, is now flexing muscle of African solution. Working people must not be fooled by this.
But could African "leaders" have done better or acted independently of imperialism? The facts speak for themselves: African economy, since its complete integration into the global capitalist orbit (at its periphery), African rulers and governments have more attached to the apron strings of imperialism. As against what was obtainable in the 1950s to early '80s, when many African states are still influenced by the idea of welfare state and the presence of the Soviet system, which gave them opportunity to still manouver and make pretense to nationalism in order to get more favours from imperialism (or Soviet Union), the present unipolar geopolitcal system has compelled them to be at the mercy of imperialist capital. Due to capitalist division of labour and imbalance (and inequality) in global capitalist system, African countries have been made mere suppliers of raw materials and cheap labour to global capital (where African migrant population are used for development of western capitalism either as cheap labour or professionals (the latter leading to braindrain), or at best they are used as extension of multinational corporations' productions with cheap labour and easier access to raw materials and markets - a mean to reduce cost of production through cheap labour cost and driving down of wages in the advanced capitalist countries, reduction in cost of state regulations and reduction in cost of transportation). The overall result is the dependence of African states on the benevolence of the imperialist capital (as the prices of raw materials and terms of trade are determined by the imperialist capitalist centres in the west, whose economic and military clouts, and colonial history make the determinants of policies). The introduction of brutal neoliberal capitalism since the late 1980s has led to worsening of the living conditions of vast majority of African population, which has eroded any veneer of legitimacy of most African rulers, most of whom are corrupt (and rely on imperialist capitals to sustain their ostenstatious lifestyles and loots), which makes them to rely more on imperialism for survival and privileges, which means subjugation of the continent to greater exploitation by foreign capitals and turning the continent to imperialist plaything. With this kind of relation, African rulers and African states and organizations will be mere tools in the hands of imperialism. Even when some of them protest sometimes (like the protest again unequal trade policy at the WTO or the so-called EU instigated EPA), it will only be a smokescreen that will never last a time. In many cases, imperialism may co-opt some leaders amongst them for legitimacy in further brutal exploitation (as seen in the recent invitations extended to some African states like South Africa and Nigeria, in the G8, G20 and now UN Security Council).
The recent idea of a United State of Africa, proposed by the now-embattled Moamar Ghaddafi, and which African rulers have recently re-echoed is nothing but an attempt by the illegitimate leaders to gain more privileges from imperialism and consolidate their rule at home. In reality, inasmuch as they can not go beyond the confines of neo-liberal capitalism (to which they rely on for their personal and economic survival), the idea of such a united state will be a mirage. The basic question is: will such united state of africa challenge the global capitalist arrangement that put Africa and other third world region in perpetual slavery and sources of cheap materials? Doing this will surely require Africa developing its technological, scientific, mineral and human potentials without the influence of imperialism, which can only be possible if there is a capitalist class which can sacrifice its immediate profit interests for the long term interests of developing capitalism in Africa. This will require a complete overall of the present neo-colonial capitalist economic and political structures and building a new structure in the form of the post world war II Europe, with massive state investment in industry, infrastructures and implementation of protectionist economic policy. This will surely mean declaring an open "war" with imperialism, which will arouse the political consciousness of the working and oppressed people of the continent, which in itself will raise the idea of going beyond capitalism - a monster African rulers will never wish for. Indeed, the current set of African rulers and its capitalist class are made in the image of colonial rulers with their economic and political careers tied to imperialism. They are the vassals of imperialism in the continent, and they are comfortable with that, even if it does not favour a class of them at one time. The idea of such a United State of Africa playing different layers of global capitalist forces (e.g. using alliance with China, Russia or India to get more concessions from the west) is only sensible if these other capitalist centres are themselves independent of the global capitalist relation - where national economies are inter-dependent and intertwined, under US leadership; or outside capitalism itself, as witnessed during the Cold War era. If at all, the United State of Africa is formed with this kind of orientation, it will only substitute one form of imperialism with another. More than this, there can hardly be any consensus amongst African rulers, whose economic interests and commitments vary. More importantly, the scramble for influence among various states, especially those with stronger economic clouts like South Africa, Nigeria, Libya, etc; coupled with diverse regional and territorial interests of various capitalist class in different countries, in their quest fro control of resources and wealth in other countries will only make such idea a mirage or a marriage of convenience.
If at all it is formed, it will a better tool of imperialist capital to further its profit interests in the continent by further integrating these corrupt regimes into its orbit, the same way Arab League, which was formed as an the anti-Zionist platform in the late 1960s (with greater significance to the global capitalism than Africa, especially through its vast oil wealth) has become a pawn in the chessboard of imperialism, while most of its rulers have soften their anti-Zionist rhetoric in favour greater integration into capitalist world.
Of course, Africa need integration to achieve its full potentials and provide comfortable living standards for its teeming population, but this cannot carried out either under imperialist capitalism or the corrupt capitalist political class but by the working people building alternative socialist societies throughout the continent. Gone and never to return is the era of limited pan-Africanism witnessed during the post-world war II independence era in Africa. As said earlier, Africa has been fully integrated into the global capitalist orbit, and its capitalist class cannot play any fundamental progressive role. Only revolutionary, democratic socialism (and not its caricature and horrible mockery supposedly practised by some petty bourgeois, undemocratic leaders during the Cold War era), point the way out. This will mean putting the enormous mineral, natural and monetary resources and productive forces under the democratic control and management of the working people, professionals, oppressed and youths from the community, factory and workplace levels organized up to the national level, with working people and youths playing roles in the decision making in the economic, political, social and cultural policies of the society. This is when the idea of voluntary confederation, and if possible federation of Africa. This presupposes the formation and building of genuine, fighting and revolutionary working class and youths unions and political platform in Africa countries, which will link up in solidarity, to confront global and continental capitalist structures and exploitations.
The responses of the centres of imperialism, especially US and European ruling classes have further reflected the fragility of the capitalist political economy on a global scale. At the beginning, they were taken completely off guard by the revolts starting with the Tunisian revolts. This is not unexpected as imperialism, having supported these regimes for all there autocratic and repressive actions, could not have dreamt of a popular movement that will topple their choice puppets. This is more dangerous for imperialism
The role of the mass media need to be put into proper perspectives so that we will not be confused when the same media organization that seems to support revolution at a time turn out to be the strongest opponent of revolution in other nation, or even turn out to oppose the same revolution when such gets more radical. It needs to be first underlined that as against the view that social media can replace the mass media of television (now developed to satellite networks), radio and newspapers (which has now also gone online) is clearly not in sight, going by the Arab revolts. Rather than go away, mass media (electronic and non-electronic) have used the development of technology to diversify itself, which has made these media extended beyond boundaries; reaching a wider layer of populace especially in the third world countries, while also reaching a wider layer of the working people and youths. Aside, expanding viewership and readership, mass media has also gotten a wider range of information sources from the common man on the streets, while an increasing number of independent media, either online or through other electronic means (television), have been developing at an unprecedented rate. More than this, new state controlled media (such as Press TV, China TV, Al Jazeerah, Al Arabiya, etc, which are challenging the hegemony of the central imperialist media like CNN, ABC, BBC, etc have developed enjoying wider viewership. Also, wired media are getting expanded by the day.
However, the question of what form of information reach the working people, and how information are presented is essential. While mass media are reaching a wider layer of the populace, the big capitalist media, has a result of access to resources, technology and state and capitalist class patronage are still having a great hold on the dissemination of information. This has impacted on the degree and credibility of information and analyses being churned out by these media. For instance, according to data, the biggest media organizations with vast network chains are controlling up to 80 percent of readership and viewership in the US. In Italy for example, the private media organization of the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi has been identified to have control in the media industry in the country. The moneybag, Rupert Murdoch's media empire covers over 175 media outlets globally. As Karl Marx in the "German Ideology” writes:
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e. the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production..." Mass media, being the major means of information dissemination is a potent tool in the hands of the capitalist class to entrench its ideology and ideas for the sustenance of the system. Therefore, the mass media, even under the state becomes an instrument for the defence of that state and by extension the ruling class, ideology and socio-economic interests such state stands for.
In a capitalist state, the mass media is mostly in the hands of big business, as the facts above depict. This is as a result of the historical legacy of liberal capitalism (i.e. the development of capitalism from competition amongst various small enterprises to merger and concentration of the capital into the hands of the few through the theory of survival of the fittest) and the role of the state in defending the capitalist class. Surely, media owned by private hands, even in the most democratic of societies, cannot promote the colective interests of the majority - the working class and the oppressed - but the class interests of its owners and by extension, the class interests of capitalism. For instance, no private owner will be happy seeing his/her media concern for deliberate promotion of the effectiveness and neccesity of mass actions of workers vis-a-vis strikes, boycotts, pickets, etc, when he/she is an employer and thus an exploiter of labour. If peradventures such media concern support some workers' action at a particular time, it will be in the individual interest of the capitalist owner, which will promote his business through sale (for instance Daily Mail in London, maintains an anti-war policy during the US war in Iraq). Even at that, it will only present workers' and oppressed people's independent actions as auxiliary actions that must not go beyond certain limits or even presents such independent actions as negative for the society's interests (like what the society will lose or has lost during strikes and not what the capitalist class stole from the working class). It can easily be argued that the media is now independent of its ownership; therefore it is not bound by the owner's interests. This is nothing but a fluke. In the first instance, it is the owner that chooses his business managers and business principles, the managers/editors are mere implementers of these principles (profit maximization); therefore any action of the managers/editors that impinges on the business interests of the owners will definitely not be tolerated. More than this, the so-called managers/editors are indeed part of the structures of capitalism and their progress depends on the progress of the business and indeed capitalism itself. Therefore, the management or editorship is under the control of not only the ownership but indeed that of the capitalist system. The roles of advertising are also important, as a media organization that cannot defend the interest of capital, cannot expect favourable patronage from the capitalist class class especially through adverts. Therefore, the private media must present itself as friend and defender of capital in order to gain patronage; and more can this be done than supporting the capitalist class' attack on the working class or diminishing and rubbishing the idea of class struggle or revolution. It should be underlined that advertisement itself is a promotion of capitalism - that the product is good, the company that produces it is efficient and the system of private production is the best means of getting the best products. All this determines the interests of the mass media in a class society.
This is clearly played out in the MENA revolts where capitalism is put into question. Most big private media hesitated to publicize the revolts just as their capitalist governments did; when they finally did, these revolts are portrayed as unrests that require quick resolution in order for the societies to move forward (that is for capitalism to continue its exploitation). A usual refrain in all this private media outlets like the CNN, ABC, and newspapers/magazines like Washington Post, New York Times, The Economist, etc is that the regimes like Mubarak should implement political "reforms" and open up the economy further for foreign control, so that the society can go back to "normal", even when it was glaring that what the oppressed people were fight for is the overhaul of these regimes and their structures, and end to neo-liberal capitalism that is denying them jobs, better living conditions but just generating super billionaires, corrupt officials and repressive state. Sometimes, it is painted as if the problem is the lack of total liberalization of the economy. All this is meant to hypnotize the working people in not only the revolting societies but in the advanced capitalist world that there is no alternative to neo-liberal capitalism and that revolts and uprising are not good after all for the society; even when are needed, they are like necessary evil that must not go on too long.
This explains why the revolts are portrayed as chaos with depiction of looting, in-fighting, breakdown in law and order, as the order of the day. The independent actions of the working people and youths are depicted as amateurish which cannot and must go too far. When workers or the youths are reported, it is portrayed as if they are not opposed to the system but just want some changes in their lives. Virtually, all the private media ran the idea that the revolts have affected normal lives (for instance, the fall in tourists' visits to ancient towns and monuments in Egypt is depicted as a results of the revolt but not mention is made of increasing activists' visits to Egypt and Tunisia in the aftermath of the removal of Mubarak, neither is reference made to the increasing patronage for the mass media in these countries, and even beyond.) Meanwhile, the business class is portrayed as refined and tutors who understand the society than the common man. They are portrayed as the messiah of the society even when they oppose or never participated in the revolutionary movements. When Ben Ali and Mubarak were ousted, these private media started looking for elements that can continue the system.
For instance, while the military are made to look like saints in the Egyptian and Tunisian situations, even when the top echelons of the military were integral parts of the ousted regimes. Prominence is given to pro-status quo and pro-capitalist elites and groups like Muslim Brotherhood, who can safeguard the interests of capital. During the build up to the NATO war on Libya, virtually, all the private media concerns supported the war, although with some objections to the method, the aim, limit of such campaign and its overall effectiveness (in removing Ghaddafi and fully restoring imperialist capitalist interests in the country.) No mention is made of the role of imperialist nations in propping up Ghaddafi, even including selling arms to the sit-tights and undemocratic (and indeed corrupt) regime of Ghaddafi. The publicity given to the so-called opposition elements, being propped up by imperialism over the head of the real rank and file revolutionaries; tend to make it look as if the revolutions revolve around them. But these are the elements who can put the revolutions in check and allow the continuation of neoliberal capitalism in these societies. The fact that these are members of the old regimes does not matter to the private media.
If these atrocities are not weighty enough, what about the selective supports of these outlets for the MENA revolts and indeed distortions of facts to favour capitalist interests. We are witnesses to how the revolts in Bahrain (and the brutal roles of Saudi Arabia monarchy) are blanked out, even when brazen and brutally repressions are being carried out. The western private media did not hide their supports for the Bahraini regimes, with the usual refrain that it is a friend of their national governments. The same goes for their reportage on other pro-western imperialism's regimes like Jordan, Morocco, etc. where the protest are reported as "minimal". In Yemen, while being forced to report the growing movement, there are usual references to possible growth of Islamic fundamentalism or rise of Al Qaeda, while keeping quiet on the fact that since the beginning of the revolts, the fundamentalist trends have gone underground. But instant and wide analysis is made on the movement when some tribal armed groups started taking arms against the regime. Meanwhile, huge publicity is given to the movements in Syria, even to the level of the absurd. This has given excuse for the Assad regime in Syria to paint the uprising as handiwork of the foreign governments or imperialism, or to deny media coverage to the movements. This has also posed such media organizations as Press TV as more independent and fair media.
If western private media are completely bias and indeed dangerously infectious in the MENA revolutionary developments, the private media in the third world is indeed a farce. Aside transmitting the facts and logic of their western uncles, they ensured that the reportage did not go beyond superficial reporting of role of imperialism and the so-called opposition while virtually blanking out the role of the working people and youths in the movements. Indeed, their central role is the defence of their local capitalist class and ruling class. But of course, some of the local media have tried to exploit the MENA revolts to seek for reform of the system and better deals for the emerging capitalist class especially in those countries where ruling elites' nepotism, corruption, control and inefficiency is hindering local capitalist interests. In some cases, there has been support for such actions as witnessed in MENA in these countries as for examples the call for protests I Uganda against the 23 year old regime of Yoweri Museveni, aside other examples, especially in Africa (Zimbabwe, Djibouti, etc.) But in general, the various local media tend to portray their countries as stable, democratic and progressive which do not need the kind of uprising as being witnessed in the MENA countries, where there are repressions.
If the private media are bankrupt politically as analyzed above, does this confers progressive characteristics on the state owned or state run media like BBC, Press TV, Al Jazeerah, France 24, and other state owned print media? The answer is indeed in the negative. Politically as analyzed previously, mass media reflect the socio-economic interests of its ownership and the economic system that pervades the society. The aforesaid mass media are by no means immune from the capitalist interests that determine orientation of the private media. For instance, the British government, which owned the BBC has completely oriented towards the neo-liberal policies, with rapid abandonment of the relics of the welfare state that was popular in the 1950s to early 1980s by all political parties. Also, as a reflection of the post-world war II geopolitical reality, the British ruling class only toes the line of US in its foreign policies. Therefore, all the state apparatus and structures will reflect this reality. Since political power is wielded by the capitalist class, who fund these political parties coupled with the fact that the economic system is based on capitalist logic (because the economy is dominated by the big capitalist firms and corporations, who determine how much get to the state - in terms of taxes, and the working people), policy formulations and orientation will have to be done to favour this system; which by extension will mean that decision making will have to be taken away from the people who are going to suffer for this economic relation i.e. working people and youths via buy over of politicians, conversion of political parties to instrument of capitalism and use of massive propaganda of both the private and public media in favour of capitalist policies. Therefore, mass media being an extension of the state will surely reflect this relation. Thus, it is not enough to mouth the need to take mass media from the private hands, the question of the economic system that the state defends will be a major determinant of who is favoured or defended by the mass media even under state ownership.
This fact is clearly exemplified by the response and the roles of the state owned western state media like the BBC and France 24, which throughout were mouthing the atrocities of the Ghaddafi regimes without mentioning that the British government and capitalist class have been major economic and political supporters of the regime, while gaining millions in profits from the oil and arms deals with the regime. These media, like several others in the capitalist centres of Europe, uncritical gave coverage for support for NATO war in Libya (in which British and French governments are playing major roles). It took investigation by private media like the Independent to unearth the shady deal between the Ghaddafi's son's donations to a British university endowment fund. Surely, the money could not have come from legitimate salaries of Saif or Ghaddafi himself. This is aside bankrupt anti-immigrant agreement between the EU and Ghaddafi regime which will see Ghaddafi, with surveillance equipment and fund from Europe, serving as prison warder for EU from preventing "illegal" African immigrants, who are escaping from poverty and suffering in their continent (which itself is generated by the imperialist capitalism administered by western multinational corporations, with active collaboration and supports from the western governments). This has seen tens of immigrant prisoners dying in the dungeons of Ghaddafi while majority are living in very terrible conditions. This is hardly reported by the European media including the state owned media. But it is convenient for them to continue to report the war against Libya, and even running analysis suggesting the inevitability of the war.
Of course, there are nationalistic instincts in the coverage and reportage of issues and news (i.e. portraying the country in a good light, while reporting others in not too bright light), but this is never done in the interests of the working and oppressed people. Just like the private media, the so-called elitist opposition leaders in these countries are portraying as the 'alpha and omega' of the revolutions while the workers and youths initiatives are relegated to the background. At best, the reporting of the roles of the youths is meant to obscure the real working class character of the uprisings, making it look as if all what they need is jobs and education meanwhile beyond job in a capitalist society is stark exploitation and poor wages that makes them perpetually enslaved to the rule of the capital. If all this is put aside, the bias towards the reportage and news analysis is indeed ridiculous. For instance, while the atrocities of the Ghaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria, hardly was the same done for such countries like Bahrain and even at the beginning Yemen. In fact, until when the autocratic regimes in Egypt and Tunisia were ousted, the western state media were very weary in their reportage, coverage and analysis of the revolts. This is not unexpected as the Bahraini and Yemeni governments are prop ups of the western imperialism.
But this does not portray some other anti-western governments’ media like the Press TV (the Iranian state owned media), Al Jazeerah (the Qatari state owned media) and other state owned media in Russia, China, etc, in better lights. Of course, as a result of the anti-western imperialism campaign of the say Ahmednejad’s Iranian government and Chinese government, there may be exposure of the atrocities of western imperialism and bankruptcy of its foreign policies and militarism, but that is exactly where it stops, as these media organizations are themselves the mouthpieces of their respective ruling classes, and as expressed earlier, they also represent the dominant class interests in their country. What this implies for Press TV is the blanking out or relegation of the massive protests and revolts of the oppressed people against the Assad’s regime in Syria, where massive crackdown was unleashed on the protesters. Until it became ridiculous (as other media continue to stream the movements in Syria on television networks and on the websites calling to question, the credibility of Press TV itself), Press TV refused to report that what was happening in Syria was an uprising. However, when the ultra-right wing elements and what appear like state sponsored agent provocateurs tried to derail the movement (which Assad’s regime used to launch massive crackdown on the peoples), Press TV massively reported this, while passively mentioning massive state crackdown. More than this, the analyses of Press TV is oriented towards rubbishing the movements in Syria, even to the level of manipulating facts, which is indeed a common feature all state media. Its massive reportage of revolts in Yemen, Bahrain, Oman and before it Egypt and Tunisia, while being helpful is indeed in furtherance of the foreign policies of Shia theocratic regime in Iran. It should be recognized that had the US and European ruling classes been closer to the Iranian regime (as they tried to do during the so-called Khatami regime), the so-called anti-west campaigns expressed by Press TV would have gone to thin air.
While the Ahmednejad regime, which itself derived its so-called radical credentials by exploiting the students and youths revolt against the Khatami pro-west regime, was a victim of mass revolt against its pro-market and corrupt rule of the 'Ayatollahs' as witnessed in the mass movements against the rigging of the June 12 2009 presidential elections in Iran, which the Ahmednejad regime brutally put down with the active supports of the 'Ayatollahs'. The Press TV only played the mouthpiece role of repression suppressing the reportage of the movements. The same is witnessed in China where state owned media, CCTV prefers to support the revolts outside and keep mum about the repressions within. Other mediums like Al Jazeerah and Al Arabiyyah, aside being pro-business is also biased in its reportage. While it supported the Syrian (and before it, Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions) it tried to cover up the roles of Saudi monarchy in the Bahraini revolts while only reporting more of human rights abuses of the regime than the revolt itself. All of this reflects the fact that all regimes operating under capitalism have mortal fear of revolutions happening near them as such put them, in the mildest under pressure, or better still threaten their rule and the exploitative system they defend. Other wired agencies like AFP, AP, etc while providing instant access of information, also reflects the class character of mass media.
But does this imply that the capitalist mass media or media under a capitalist society is altogether useless? This clearly cannot be the case. Despite the commonness of interest in protecting capitalism, various capitalist sub-classes are also divided on specific interests depending on sectors, national boundaries, orientation of the ruling class (dove or hawks, and various trend in-between) and level of development of different layers of the capitalist class; which will reflect in the mass media. This may make some media organizations to be more radical, progressive and balanced than others on specific issues or at specific crucial situations like wars (Iraqi war as an instance), economic crises and mass radicalizations such as the current revolting movements sweeping across continents. Furthermore, the capitalist class and ruling classes, inasmuch as they need to prevent the growth of revolutionary ideas amongst the working people and youths, at the same time also need quality information to not only examine the health state of the system, but to also plan and weigh public mood against its rule. This also apply to the idea of opinion polls which the capitalist class needs to measure their state of the system but it is also used to shore up support for the system and divert public consciousness away from fundamental socio-economic issues that challenge the foundation of capitalism to more trivial, sometimes divisive, means. (This also applies to education. While capitalist society requires an educated layer and technicians for the continued running of the system, education in a capitalist society must also be the one that makes the system safer. Therefore, it goes beyond acquiring formal education to be able to challenge the system.)
It is one thing for the media to present information and facts, it is another thing to present it in a way that defends the system or undermines revolutionary ideas. It is indeed a completely different thing to analyze the facts and information in the interests of the public. Rejection of capitalist media or media under capitalism is not the issue, the crux is the ability to use capitalist media or media under capitalism to raise people's consciousness which presupposes the need to build active and combative working class and youths organizations that will serve as a means of providing genuine revolutionary ideas and education to a vast layer of the working and oppressed people. Even a socialist society will still utilize information from the capitalist media and sources to determine the course of movement of capitalism. But this will be done utilizing the potent tool of Marxism and not based on the propaganda approach of the capitalist media. More than this, working class movement, if well organized on democratic and revolutionary foundations, can combat capitalist media or media under capitalism to its aim, or combating its anti-working class reporting. For instance, despite pro-business character of management and top echelon of the editorial of most media, it is the working class journalists, pressmen, printing workers, technicians, etc who undertake the real day-to-day jobs of the media (under excruciating conditions including working overtime). If they are well organized under revolutionary unions and in solidarity with other working class movements, they can serve as forces to combat anti-working class reporting of capitalist media.
Also, revolutionary working class movements can demand that public and private media editorship be put under the democratic control of the rank and file press men and journalists. But this presupposes that such journalists and press men/women are organized under fighting and democratic unions; otherwise such idea can even be a tool of the capitalist class, much more than when the editorship is composed of big men and women. Also, putting media under the control of rank and file journalists and pressmen/women, without raising the idea of putting the whole of media and indeed the mainstay of the economy under democratic public ownership will only turn workers into defenders of capitalist interests. More important, working people need to develop revolutionary organizations, which is the best means combating capitalist propaganda. With revolutionary programmes, workers' publications including newspapers and education programmes. This is enough to unleash the huge potential and initiatives of the rank and file working people. The growth of independent media especially online media which gone beyond the confines of and challenge to the big business and mainstream media. This itself reflect what can be achieved if the working people are organized.
But these independent and alternative media are themselves not full of mistakes and shortcomings. For instance, many of these media are themselves associated with some non-governmental organizations, which are funded by some multilateral organizations, petty bourgeois and emerging capitalist class groups (who want some changes into structures of capitalism that will favour their sub-class) and governmental agencies (like development agencies, parliamentary groups and agencies, etc) and structures while some emerge from professional journalists and groups who are appalled by the rapid degeneration of mainstream capitalist media especially as they get concentrated into fewer and big business hands. Therefore, these alternative media platforms, while they provide rich sources of information and may even provide useful analyses including critique of capitalism, are still within the confines of capitalism; their analyses may sound/look balanced and fair, but they blur out the class character of such information. They tend to give analyses, sometimes very powerful critique and exposure of limitations of capitalism, in a manner that suggests that the society an still make do with specific reform in some aspects of the system or that the sincerity of some state officials can resolve capitalist problems. There are also no-go areas for many if these independent media especially those with links to multilateral organizations, capitalist foundations, faith-based and governmental agencies and structures. Thus, these platforms must not be over-romanticized by the working class and youths activists but built upon.
Political Islam
One of the features of the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa is the growth in the strength of political Islamic forces, which are also presenting themselves as supporters of change and an alternative trend in these countries. This is not unexpected as the political history of the Middle East itself as being that of manipulation of religion by the various ruling elites in order to justify and maintain their grip hold on the political economy of the region. At the base of their idea is a very reactionary, undemocratic and in fact archaic worldview that subordinates the majority of people to their whims under the guise of unquestioned obedience to the directives and 'guidance' of the leaders and the 'knowledgeable'. On the surface is the fake anti-west propaganda and campaigns that makes them look like anti-imperialist activists. In a world filled with terrible history of western imperialism especially in the Middle East, coupled with the bankruptcy of the local pro-west ruling classes which has meant growing poverty for the majority, these political Islamic forces will surely gain an echo, especially at a period of sharpening social antagonism. When these forces are placed in power, the so-called anti-west posture fizzles into the thin air or at best they become local imperialists themselves sharing characteristics with the western imperialism, as they are capitalists through and through. More than is the manipulation of religious political forces by imperialism to gain foothold in this region, playing one set of ruling class against another. For instance in Egypt, the British imperialism played direct role in the emergence of various ruling elites (the Wafd, Sedki Pasha Group, and later the emergence of Muslim Brotherhood). One could also recall the support for the emergence and strengthening of the Mujahedeen (later al Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups) by the US against the nationalists in Afghanistan in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Of course, the middle east has had a long history of Islamic civilization, which while contending with the western civilization also share its history of gangster imperialism (invasion and colonization of people, slave trade, massive plundering and looting of conquered land's resources, imposition of ruling class and culture, etc.), but western imperialism and colonization policies only modernized and sophisticated this process (for instance, the defeat of Ottoman empire in the middle east, did not lead to political stability or better living for the vast majority of the poor middle easterners/Arabs). Therefore, the political Islamic trends in the Middle East have contradictory roles they are playing, especially in relation with imperialist forces. When they are in power, they are either stooges of imperialism or its local caricature. When they are not in power, they pose as alternative platforms (especially when the ruling class are corrupt, bankrupt and pro-imperialism), outright violent fanatics (trying to drag the society backwards to the stone ages) or even stooges of imperialism (when the ruling class seems to be anti-imperialism as witnessed during the Gamal Nasser in the 1950s to late 1960s). Generally, whichever trend political Islam takes, it is always conservative, undemocratic and anti-people/pro-capitalism. The MENA revolts have reflected these contradictions; with the growth of political Islamic trends in such countries as Egypt, Tunisia and Syria.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as one of the so-called opposition groups in the revolution not because of any fundamental progressive role it is playing as an organization (of course, its rank and file members are involved and even dragged the leadership to the revolution), but because it has been declared by the Mubarak state as the official opposition, in addition to the treachery of the labour movement leadership and the weakness of genuine left forces in Egypt. The MB developed as a pan-Arab organization in 1920s as part of the efforts of the British colonialists to create a new ruling elite that can serve as vassals for its interest in the region, and more importantly in Egypt. Various trends of political elites, taking different trends including different Islamic trends (fanatics, moderate, educated and modernized, etc) representing different but somewhat interlapping economic trends (landowners, traders/merchants, industrialists, etc) were scrambling for power from the colonialists. One of such trends, comprising one of the most combative layers of the reactionary Islamic trends is the MB. The end of the Second World War, which seriously weakened the European imperialism, necessitated the gradual withdrawal from the colonial frontiers and handing over power to local vassals, without losing control over the political economy of the colonies. In Egypt which meant installing of unstable regime in power in order to ensure the continued control of the economy by imperialism. The MB was pushed to the background as the British imperialism could not vouch for its management because of its deeply reactionary Islamic practices and believes. But the instability while it might have helped British imperialism to continue its plundering also produced other results. Firstly, the various ruling elites were discredited, totalitarian state emerged, there was mass disenchantment leading to growth in workers' activism and left forces especially 'communist' movements, and deepened splits amongst the ruling elites. It was this that led to the Free Officers coup that enthroned the Gamal Nasser regime in 1952. With the growing radicalizations of the regime, leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956, the British and indeed western imperialism were thrown aback. The only group, which has not been totally discredited (because it has never held power during the unstable periods of the 1920s to 40s) that can be used by the western imperialism and reactionary Arab regimes ably represented by Saudi monarchy, to internally oppose the regime of Gamal Nasser was MB. Thus began, the fission of all reactionary forces into the fold of MB with an Islamic garb of cover. On the other hands, the Nasser's regime while being a pro-poor Bonarpartist regime (with the government partially nationalising the economy and embarking on increased state public spending in favour of the poor), was also repressive and undemocratic. Of course, the opposition MB was being sponsored by the reactionary forces of imperialism, but this cannot be countered by state violent repression, but by the mass of people if indeed such government emerged from the mass movements of the poor. But the Nasser regime under the guise of nationalism, embarked on massive crackdown on opposition, including the 'communists' and left forces while turning the trade union leadership into the appendage of the state, with the leadership under the payroll of the government. This may be effective at a period of economic boom, when a wider section of the populace live well above poverty line; but not at a period of economic downturn or political setback, where such repression will only serve as catalysts for massive outburst of mass anger. Also, crackdown against the opposition can only give it public sympathy. Of course, the repression of the 'communists' was passively accepted by the Stalinist leadership in the Soviet Union, the false policy of the Communist Party in Egypt vis-a-vis limiting its base to the minorities and intellectuals only swelled the ranks of the MB. The death of Nasser and the rightward shift of the Sadat and Mubarak regimes only gave a better leeway for the MB. The two regimes, while maintaining the repressive apparatus of the Nasser regime, abandoned the progressive nationalism of Nasser and rather embraced fully capitalist and pro-imperialist/pro-Israel posture (leading to abandoning of the state welfare policies of Nasser regime and consequently the signing of peace treaty with Israel by Anwar Sadat). This surely moved a wider layer of youth and working class people, not only in Egypt but throughout the Arab world against the Sadat regime. This surely boosted the strength of the MB, which throughout this period was still funded by the foreign governments especially Saudi regime. The assassination of Sadat, supposedly in reaction against the peace deal with Israel, only pushed the Mubarak regime into the hands of imperialism, in addition to the increased repression against the MB and the consolidation of state power. The pro-west turn of the Mubarak regime did not stop the foreign funding abd support for MB, because the reactionary Arab regimes especially in Saudi are not favourably disposed to the peace deal with Israel, aside the fact that the pro-west overture of the Mubarak regime also threatens the Saudi monarchy standing with the western imperialism as both Saudi and Egypt are the two powerful forces in the middle east. Western imperialism, especially in US had a dual dealings with the MB: while opposing its so-called anti-Israel (sometimes veiled as islamic fundamentalism by US), it also adopted it as the official opposition so as to make it a counterweight to growth of left forces (with the aim of possibly reforming it to be less antagonistic towards Israel, a task that was to a significant level successful). Thus, there were continuous funding and support for the MB from the imperialism through Saudi and Arab ruling elites. The Mubarak regime, while keeping MB in line through repression, also accepted it as a loyal opposition. They were allowed to contest elections and hold parliamentary seats, without giving them access to full state power. This is safe for imperialism as the MB is led by millionaires and billionaires (thanks to the Saudi ruling elites) - whose words were laws - rich middle class and intellectuals as administrative officers and officials while the rank and file comprises the poor from the working class (who have been ruined by big business and state anti-poor agrarian policies), the poor working class and the youths (students, artisans and umemployed). With the failure of capitalism and the bankruptcy of the Mubarak regime, the treacherous character of the trade union leadership and the limited philantrophic posture of the MB it was possible to maintain this rank and file base.
Therefore, the various vacilating roles of the MB leadership during the course of the Egyptian revolution only reflect the real nature of the organization both historical and socio-politically. From the beginning, the MB leadership was opposed to the revolution. It instructed its members not to participate in the mass movements that led to the ouster of Mubarak. It only supported the revolution after its rank and file had defied its directive and participated in the revolutionary activities. Afterwards, it has been used by the military regime in power to roll back the progress of the revolution, trying to give every available support for the Supreme Military Council. Its leading members have been made to be part of the regimes including the Ganouchi regime that was put in place after Mubarak was ousted. To show that western imperialism, especially the United States brand, has been playing dubious roles in relation to Egyptian revolution. While using the excuse of Islamic fundamentalism to avoid openly calling for the ouster of Mubarak, it has also been reaching out to the representation of the so-called fundamentalism - the MB. According to US state department officials, the US government has been making progress in discussion with the MB. Furthermore, the US has been reaching out to MB for the past five to six years (under Mubarak regime). Surely, the MB will see further mass movements as threat to its deal with the military council and imperialism. Its leadership will stand for every anti-working class policies of the government and imperialism as its ruling layers are themselves pure and big time capitalists, while the organization is principled on free market ideology. But acting serious impulse from the masses, it may be forced to support limited mass movement with the intent of blurring its sharpness and derailing it. This is necessary in order to guarantee its status as the gatekeeper of the masses and the revolution, on behalf of the ruling elites. This explains its initial opposition to the May 27, 2011 call for a “Second Revolution” by the working people and youths, who are maintaining that there has been no change to the society since the removal of Mubarak. After its members, especially its youth section, joined a massive movement of hundreds of thousands, the leadership was forced to give tactical support for the movement, not before rebuking its youth section (which of course claimed that
In the coming period, the anti-working class and counter-revolutionary character of this organization will be fully unravelled, more brazenly than it is presently revealing.
Comments
Post a Comment