This is roots of the scene stuff, back to the Twisted Wheel, and played at the Torch in the 60's in the days when you could get in during the week for nothing, or next to it, in the days before the nighters.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Debt Slavery
The other week in a blog - Economy Sinking Into The Mire - I mentioned about a friend of mine who had told me about someone he knew who had found a problem with obtaining a re-mortgage. The problem basically is with people who took out fixed rate or similar mortgages a few years ago, that are now coming to the end of their period and need to be replaced.
The problem he said was that, because house prices have fallen, the Banks and Building Societies will now only provide a mortgage for the lower valuation and, because the initial price of the house remains outstanding, people are having to find considerable sums to make up the difference.
In fact, he hadn't mentioned it, but it occurred to me today that the situation is actually worse than that. The situation he was describing was the result of falling house prices, which as yet have not fallen anywhere near as much as I and other economists think they are going to fall.
But, the effects of the Financial Meltdown, and the restrictions on lending, that the Banks and Building Societies now have to impose, increase that problem several fold. Suppose someone had a £100,000 mortgage accounting for 100% of the price of their house. If the price of the house has fallen 10%, then that is the maximum value on which the Bank would lend. However, the Banks are now only prepared to lend around 75% of the value of properties, so, in fact, they would only provide a mortgage of around £72,000 (75% of £90,000). That means that the mortgagee needs to find a lump sum of £28,000 to make up the difference to cover the repayment of the original mortgage.
Given that many people have been unable to save deposits for houses, its unlikely that people, who took out mortgages 3 or 5 years ago, with no requirement for a deposit, and on low rates of interest, will, during that time, have somehow managed to save such an amount. That leaves them with the problem of raising these additional sums or face being thrown out of their house. That will undoubtedly occur in some cases, with the consequence of pushing house prices down even further. Of course, those who took out not 100% mortgages, but 125% mortgages in the madness of the pre Crunch era, will find themselves in an even worse position, especially as interest rates are on the rise, just as real wages face the biggest squeeze for 90 years!
Others will be forced to find the additional funds by borrowing at much less favourable rates on their credit cards, or via bank loans and overdrafts to find the lump sums. But, under current conditions that looks like sticking your finger in just one of an increasing number of holes in the dyke.
In fact, as I pointed out in my blog UK Debt The Facts although the Liberal-Tories have hyped up the issue of Public Sector debt, the real problem is not Public but Private Sector debt, the debt that individuals hold in mortgages, credit card debt, student debt, overdrafts and so on. This private Debt is twice the amount of Public Sector debt. The importance of that can be seen by looking at what happened in Ireland, and what has happened in Portugal, and what is about to happen in Spain.
In Ireland, the Banks essentially went bust - despite the Eurozone Bank Stress Tests passing them as fit only weeks before - because they had lent recklessly to finance a housing bubble, and consumer credit that was tied to it. When the Banks went bust, the Irish State, rather than forcing the shareholders of the Banks - which include many British and European Banks and Pension Funds - to take a haircut i.e. to lose the money they had pumped in, decided to bail-out the banks using Taxpayers money i.e. taxes taken from the pockets of Irish workers. When even that was not sufficient to save the banks, and when the consequence of the Irish State indebting itself meant that its creditworthiness was called into question, it found itself facing impossible interest rates to borrow money for day to day activities.
Hence the EU/IMF bail-out. In Portugal, the Government did not run up a large deficit bys spending money. Its problem is that its economy is old and alcking in investment. As a result it is incapable of generating sufficient income to pay its way in the world. It actually needs to massively INCREASE its borrowing to finance the investment in new infrastructure and Capital that would renovate its economy, and enable it to pay its way. But, precisely because of the problem it has, it is considered a bad credit risk, and so its problems have been made worse, precisely because it cannot borrow money at affordable rates of interest.
The credit rating agencies were busy downgrading it again this week even before the prime Minister resigned, because the Parliament refused to back any further austerity measures. Of course, the whole point of the Eurozone as a single Monetary Zone, should be that all members of it are able to borrow money at the same rate of interest as the other side of giving up control of their currency and interest rates. But, the Northern Europeans will not agree to that at the moment, because it would mean them paying higher interest rates. Spain is in the same position as Ireland. Its Regional Banks the Cajas have lent out vast sums of money to finance the Spanish Property Bubble, and a consumer credit bubble that inflated on the back of it.
But, Spain's problems are compounded compared to Ireland's. In recent years Ireland has experienced some consierable economic growth on the back of some significant investment by mostly US, but not exclusively, companies in areas of ICT, and advanced Technology. The title of Celtic Tiger was not entirely unjustified. But, Spain's much larger economy was heavily dependent upon property, and the construction industry that grew on the back of it. It does have other industries, but the largest ones tend to be in the old areas of auto production, where low wage economies in Asia and latin America have a significant advantage. It has a significant agricultural sector, but again it is under pressure from new low cost producers around the globe, especially as the vagaries of the Euro make earnings from that sector uncertain.
The reality is that the Cajas are in a worse position, probably, than the Irish Banks. Spanish property prices are a fiction maintained by Estate Agents, Property owners, the Cajas, and the State, all of whom an interest in pretending that prices are higher than they really are or should be. If the properties on the Cajas books were realistically priced, then many of the Cajas would be bust. Yet, in a recent evaluation that no one in the financial community believed, least of all the Credit Rating Agencies, the Spanish Government proclaimed that only a minimal amount of recapitalisation of the Cajas was needed. It is like De Ja Vu all over again. It is the same ridiculous attempt to present a fiction right up until the last minute of collapse that was seen in Ireland. And when Spain goes in a few months time, the consequences will be much more important than the collapse in Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together.
But, the reality is that the massive build up in Britain of private debt, the fact that hosue prices are FOUR TIMES what they should be on an historical basis, and that collapses in house prices always go way beyond what is needed to just get back to the average, means that Britain is in at least as bad a position as Spain,
not because of Public Sector debt, but because of the private sector debt that has built up, and been encouraged by UK Governments going back to at least 1970, and the Barber Boom, and arguably back to the Tory Chancellor, Reggie Maudling in the early 60's.
Moreover, Public Sector debt is easy to deal with. The Government can pay it down whenever it wants simply by printing more £5, £10, and so on notes. That is what Governments have done going back to the time of Moses! Individuals cannot do that without facing a long gaol sentence. And at a time of squeezed incomes and rising inflation, their ability to cover the debt charges, especially as interest rates rise is highly doubtful.
In fact, he hadn't mentioned it, but it occurred to me today that the situation is actually worse than that. The situation he was describing was the result of falling house prices, which as yet have not fallen anywhere near as much as I and other economists think they are going to fall.
Others will be forced to find the additional funds by borrowing at much less favourable rates on their credit cards, or via bank loans and overdrafts to find the lump sums. But, under current conditions that looks like sticking your finger in just one of an increasing number of holes in the dyke.
In fact, as I pointed out in my blog UK Debt The Facts although the Liberal-Tories have hyped up the issue of Public Sector debt, the real problem is not Public but Private Sector debt, the debt that individuals hold in mortgages, credit card debt, student debt, overdrafts and so on. This private Debt is twice the amount of Public Sector debt. The importance of that can be seen by looking at what happened in Ireland, and what has happened in Portugal, and what is about to happen in Spain.
The reality is that the Cajas are in a worse position, probably, than the Irish Banks. Spanish property prices are a fiction maintained by Estate Agents, Property owners, the Cajas, and the State, all of whom an interest in pretending that prices are higher than they really are or should be. If the properties on the Cajas books were realistically priced, then many of the Cajas would be bust. Yet, in a recent evaluation that no one in the financial community believed, least of all the Credit Rating Agencies, the Spanish Government proclaimed that only a minimal amount of recapitalisation of the Cajas was needed. It is like De Ja Vu all over again. It is the same ridiculous attempt to present a fiction right up until the last minute of collapse that was seen in Ireland. And when Spain goes in a few months time, the consequences will be much more important than the collapse in Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together.
But, the reality is that the massive build up in Britain of private debt, the fact that hosue prices are FOUR TIMES what they should be on an historical basis, and that collapses in house prices always go way beyond what is needed to just get back to the average, means that Britain is in at least as bad a position as Spain,
Moreover, Public Sector debt is easy to deal with. The Government can pay it down whenever it wants simply by printing more £5, £10, and so on notes. That is what Governments have done going back to the time of Moses! Individuals cannot do that without facing a long gaol sentence. And at a time of squeezed incomes and rising inflation, their ability to cover the debt charges, especially as interest rates rise is highly doubtful.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Loose Talk
There has been a lot of loose talk about Libyan “rebels” and “revolutionaries”. Precisely, because such historical events are so important, not least to those whose lives are at stake within them, Marxists have always felt a duty to not simply bandy such terms about willy nilly, but to give some kind of precision to the events and forces they are describing.
I have yet to see any kind of sociological or political i.e. Class analysis of the forces in Libya being termed “revolutionaries”, to who those who bandy this term about want to tie the fate of workers in Libya, and around the globe. Let me be clear, I do not feel in any position to provide such an analysis either, but its precisely for that reason that I feel the need to be circumspect about providing blanket support. The most I can go on is the limited information that is available.
On that basis the leadership of the “rebels” represented in the “Transitional Council” appears to be divided between essentially three groups.
Firstly, there are those leading former members of Gaddafi's regime that have set themselves up in opposition to Gaddafi. The fact that these elements only yesterday were the people butchering the Libyan people, does not fill me with confidence about their progressive nature or future intentions.
In fact, this group is similar to the Generals in Egypt who have carried out a Coup against Mubarak, but who could easily yet, as has happened so many times in history roll-back the progress made so far. They are similar to the military in Yemen that has similarly struck out on its own, and presumably also for its own purposes.
Secondly, there are the Eastern Tribal leaders. Libya has a history of tribal conflicts. It is, in fact, that area of Barbary referred to by Engels in the quote I previously gave from him in his 1848 article on “Progressive Imperialism”.
There has been a history of tribal revolt from these Eastern tribes throughout Gaddafi's rule. A number of specialists on Libya interviewed on Aljazeera have highlighted the danger of the country erupting into Civil War, once the central state of Gaddafi was removed, as different tribes seek to gain control. Once again that gives me little confidence that such elements hold out anything progressive for the Libyan workers.
Thirdly, there are Islamist elements. No one should give any credence to the crap that Gaddafi has been coming out with about Al Qaeda. It would be surprising if Al Qaeda did not have some support, and probably involved in such events. Libya will be seen by them as some kind of secular devil regime. But, they clearly are not a dominating influence within the rebellion. But, many of those doing the fighting interviewed by news teams do seem to be Islamists of varying degrees, and a British Islamist was captured in Libya, having gone there specifically for the purpose of fermenting rebellion. But, it is a Muslim country, and so finding Islamists there is hardly surprising.
In the Panorama programme the other night, most of those who were featured in Benghazi were petit-bourgeois elements – doctors, professionals of various types. Once again that is not surprising. The initially leading elements in bourgeois democratic revolutions are always the petit-bourgeois, and elements of the radical bourgeoisie. However, it should be remembered that these are the very forces, who unless the conditions are extremely favourable to the workers are the ones who will quickly turn on the workers themselves.
It is these elements who were responsible for the brutal massacre of thousands of the Paris Communards.
Marx had learned this lesson back in 1848. It was why he and Engels were very cautious about tying the fate of the workers to these elements, arguing the need for the workers to concentrate on building up their own forces, completely separate from the bourgeoisie.
They argued that within the development of Capitalism the workers should focus on building their own property via the Co-operatives, their own Trades Unions, and their Own Party, and via all these means also build their own democracy, and state organs. It is why Marx advised the Paris workers against revolt in 1871, because he believed that they were not yet ready to bid for power.
This was codified by Lenin and the Communist International in the Theses on The National And Colonial Questions. They set out the need for the workers not to get simply drawn along with these alien class forces, and to maintain strict separation from them. They could ally with some of these forces under certain conditions. The relevant parts of the Theses are:
“4) From these fundamental premises it follows that the Communist International’s entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie. This union alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible...
fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;
sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics.”
Theses On The National And Colonial Questions
The importance of the second paragraph in relation to Libya, given what I have said above ought to be obvious. But, this too also has to be taken into consideration with what Lenin had previously said in relation to the Democratic Revolution. Following on from Marx and Engels concern that workers not be hustled into such a revolution before they were ready, before they were able to act to defend their interests against those very bourgeois and petit-bourgeois forces doing the hustling Lenin once more emphasised that the workers should not get involved in bids for power before they were ready. In other words, Lenin was separating himself from the Blanquists.
“Let us take the principal and basic difference between the idea presented by the Vperyod and that presented in the resolution. The Vperyod set the revolutionary proletariat of Russia an active aim: to win the battle for democracy and to use this victory for carrying the revolution into Europe.”
Two Tactics Of Social Democracy In The Democratic Revolution
We should focus our attention on building up the working-class in Libya, and on a programme to further its particular interests. The winning of bourgeois democratic freedoms are important for workers. The right to free speech, to organise, to belong to Trades Unions, to strike etc. are basic tools that the workers need to organise and to be able to develop their own forces, their own property, their own organisations, their own democracy. The right to vote i.e. Universal Suffrage is important, but not as important as the winning of these other freedoms, which enable the workers to develop their own superior alternative to bourgeois democracy, a bourgeois democracy that is in fact only a means by which the bourgeoisie more effectively exploit and dominate the workers.
The winning of Bourgeois democracy is NOT the goal of the workers, it is the goal of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoise. No sooner it is achieved than the workers have to begin an all-out struggle against it. As Lenin says in State and Revolution,
“Another reason why the omnipotence of “wealth” is more certain in a democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the political machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell (through the Palchinskys, Chernovs, Tseretelis and Co.), it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.
We must also note that Engels is most explicit in calling universal suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage, he says, obviously taking account of the long experience of German Social-Democracy, is
“the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state."
The petty-bourgeois democrats, such as our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and also their twin brothers, all the social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe, expect just this “more” from universal suffrage. They themselves share, and instil into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage “in the present-day state" is really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and of securing its realization.”
What is most certain is that the working-class in Libya or anywhere else cannot be built up by relying upon the forces of Imperialism, of the Big Capitalist States that for over a century have sought to exert their influence around the globe either directly or indirectly. We should not pretend to the workers in Egypt that the immediate cause of their oppression and exploitation resides in some ephemeral “Imperialism”, when in fact, it is clear that their immediate enemy is the Egyptian State, and Capital in Egypt – be it home grown Egyptian Capital such as Orascom, or foreign Capital such as Vodaphone. But, nor should we pretend to the workers in Libya that this Imperialism is their friend or saviour as against Gaddafi. It is the same Imperialism that has armed him with the weapons he is now using against him. It is the same Imperialism that will arm the next tyrant or bourgeois democratic regime that replaces him, and which will in turn be used against them unless they can overthrow it, and install a Workers State.
The only forces we can rely upon are those of the working class itself in Libya, through the Middle East and North Africa, and throughout the globe. If those forces are not sufficient, as yet, if they are not organised enough yet, if they are not conscious enough yet to provide the support needed for the workers in Libya to win, then that is unfortunate. Such proved the case with the British miners in 1984.
Until we build our forces, organisation and class consciousness such defeats will be more numerous than our victories. It is all the more reason to learn those lessons to build those resources, and to keep our powder dry until such time as we are ready, not allowing ourselves to be drawn in by alien class forces to fight their battles, especially when the conditions for that are not conducive. The lesson we most certainly should NOT learn is to place our faith in our class enemies. As Lenin said in Two Tactics, our attitude to them has to be “extreme revolutionary opposition”.
Firstly, there are those leading former members of Gaddafi's regime that have set themselves up in opposition to Gaddafi. The fact that these elements only yesterday were the people butchering the Libyan people, does not fill me with confidence about their progressive nature or future intentions.
Secondly, there are the Eastern Tribal leaders. Libya has a history of tribal conflicts. It is, in fact, that area of Barbary referred to by Engels in the quote I previously gave from him in his 1848 article on “Progressive Imperialism”.
Thirdly, there are Islamist elements. No one should give any credence to the crap that Gaddafi has been coming out with about Al Qaeda. It would be surprising if Al Qaeda did not have some support, and probably involved in such events. Libya will be seen by them as some kind of secular devil regime. But, they clearly are not a dominating influence within the rebellion. But, many of those doing the fighting interviewed by news teams do seem to be Islamists of varying degrees, and a British Islamist was captured in Libya, having gone there specifically for the purpose of fermenting rebellion. But, it is a Muslim country, and so finding Islamists there is hardly surprising.
In the Panorama programme the other night, most of those who were featured in Benghazi were petit-bourgeois elements – doctors, professionals of various types. Once again that is not surprising. The initially leading elements in bourgeois democratic revolutions are always the petit-bourgeois, and elements of the radical bourgeoisie. However, it should be remembered that these are the very forces, who unless the conditions are extremely favourable to the workers are the ones who will quickly turn on the workers themselves.
Marx had learned this lesson back in 1848. It was why he and Engels were very cautious about tying the fate of the workers to these elements, arguing the need for the workers to concentrate on building up their own forces, completely separate from the bourgeoisie.
This was codified by Lenin and the Communist International in the Theses on The National And Colonial Questions. They set out the need for the workers not to get simply drawn along with these alien class forces, and to maintain strict separation from them. They could ally with some of these forces under certain conditions. The relevant parts of the Theses are:
“4) From these fundamental premises it follows that the Communist International’s entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie. This union alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible...
fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;
sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics.”
Theses On The National And Colonial Questions
The importance of the second paragraph in relation to Libya, given what I have said above ought to be obvious. But, this too also has to be taken into consideration with what Lenin had previously said in relation to the Democratic Revolution. Following on from Marx and Engels concern that workers not be hustled into such a revolution before they were ready, before they were able to act to defend their interests against those very bourgeois and petit-bourgeois forces doing the hustling Lenin once more emphasised that the workers should not get involved in bids for power before they were ready. In other words, Lenin was separating himself from the Blanquists.
“Let us take the principal and basic difference between the idea presented by the Vperyod and that presented in the resolution. The Vperyod set the revolutionary proletariat of Russia an active aim: to win the battle for democracy and to use this victory for carrying the revolution into Europe.”
Two Tactics Of Social Democracy In The Democratic Revolution
We should focus our attention on building up the working-class in Libya, and on a programme to further its particular interests. The winning of bourgeois democratic freedoms are important for workers. The right to free speech, to organise, to belong to Trades Unions, to strike etc. are basic tools that the workers need to organise and to be able to develop their own forces, their own property, their own organisations, their own democracy. The right to vote i.e. Universal Suffrage is important, but not as important as the winning of these other freedoms, which enable the workers to develop their own superior alternative to bourgeois democracy, a bourgeois democracy that is in fact only a means by which the bourgeoisie more effectively exploit and dominate the workers.
“Another reason why the omnipotence of “wealth” is more certain in a democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the political machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell (through the Palchinskys, Chernovs, Tseretelis and Co.), it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.
We must also note that Engels is most explicit in calling universal suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage, he says, obviously taking account of the long experience of German Social-Democracy, is
“the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state."
The petty-bourgeois democrats, such as our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and also their twin brothers, all the social-chauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe, expect just this “more” from universal suffrage. They themselves share, and instil into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage “in the present-day state" is really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and of securing its realization.”
What is most certain is that the working-class in Libya or anywhere else cannot be built up by relying upon the forces of Imperialism, of the Big Capitalist States that for over a century have sought to exert their influence around the globe either directly or indirectly. We should not pretend to the workers in Egypt that the immediate cause of their oppression and exploitation resides in some ephemeral “Imperialism”, when in fact, it is clear that their immediate enemy is the Egyptian State, and Capital in Egypt – be it home grown Egyptian Capital such as Orascom, or foreign Capital such as Vodaphone. But, nor should we pretend to the workers in Libya that this Imperialism is their friend or saviour as against Gaddafi. It is the same Imperialism that has armed him with the weapons he is now using against him. It is the same Imperialism that will arm the next tyrant or bourgeois democratic regime that replaces him, and which will in turn be used against them unless they can overthrow it, and install a Workers State.
The only forces we can rely upon are those of the working class itself in Libya, through the Middle East and North Africa, and throughout the globe. If those forces are not sufficient, as yet, if they are not organised enough yet, if they are not conscious enough yet to provide the support needed for the workers in Libya to win, then that is unfortunate. Such proved the case with the British miners in 1984.
Monday, 21 March 2011
What Air Strikes?
I put the following video up with very great caveats. Russia has its own axe to grind in the Middle East, and the Russian Media may not be as independent as some. Putin has today, jumped on the growing opposition to Imperialist agression in the Arab street, by talking about "Crusader mentalities" and so on. In some ways its a bit like the Suez crisis. When Britain and France invaded Suez in 1956, some say with a US nod and a wink - just as in fact Wikileaks have proved the statements made years ago by US military insiders that the US had tipped Saddam the wink to invade Kuwait - the main beneficiary was the US, which then replaced Britain and France as the most important economic power in the area, providing it with important access to oil resources. Today, its the West in general that is on the wane, and Russia, China, India and other powers that are on the rise. The position adopted by Russia and China, now facilitates them coming in to attack the bombing, lining themselves up with the same criticisms being levelled at Imperialism by the Arab League.
Whatever, the facts in relation to whether Gaddafi's jets were flying or not, there is no doubt that his forces on the ground were launching murderous attacks on the people in Benghazi and elsewhere. We have a duty to oppose that where it is disproprtional, just as we would oppose the similar disproportional and murderous attacks of the massive Imperialist backed Israeli military against its own groups of rebels in Gaza etc.
All that being said, and considering the fact that the rebels themselves had tanks and planes, the evidence provided by Russian satellites that there had in fact been NO attacks by Gaddafis airforce, is worth looking at. It should provoke the demand for an international inquiry into the claims, at the very least. After all, there have been none of Gaddafi's aircraft shot down as part of the "No Fly Zone", whilst Cruise Missiles and other munitions have been dropped on Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, and on the naval base - were these flying boats or something? - as well as on military vehicles on the road.
Whatever, the facts in relation to whether Gaddafi's jets were flying or not, there is no doubt that his forces on the ground were launching murderous attacks on the people in Benghazi and elsewhere. We have a duty to oppose that where it is disproprtional, just as we would oppose the similar disproportional and murderous attacks of the massive Imperialist backed Israeli military against its own groups of rebels in Gaza etc.
All that being said, and considering the fact that the rebels themselves had tanks and planes, the evidence provided by Russian satellites that there had in fact been NO attacks by Gaddafis airforce, is worth looking at. It should provoke the demand for an international inquiry into the claims, at the very least. After all, there have been none of Gaddafi's aircraft shot down as part of the "No Fly Zone", whilst Cruise Missiles and other munitions have been dropped on Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, and on the naval base - were these flying boats or something? - as well as on military vehicles on the road.
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Northern Soul Classics - Walking Up A One Way Street - Willie Tee
Keeping it cool and mellow. This is a Twisted Wheel classic from Willie Tee, from back in 1965. Check out the official site for some more great tracks of the same tempo like "Teasin You", and "Thank You John".
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Where Failure To Oppose Imperialist Intervention Leads You
In my blog post, a few days ago, The Politics Of Pontius Pilate, I discussed the abstentionist position of the AWL in relation to Imperialist intervention.
It examined how that was being applied by the AWL in relation to Libya, in their article Yes To Libya, Not No To USA.
The main things wrong with their position are:
1. They provide uncritical support for the Libyan "rebels" without anywhere providing any analysis of exactly who these rebels are, or what they stand for other than that they are "anti-Gaddafi", which now seems good enough for the AWL to give their support to some group!
So we have no idea of knowing whether, in fact, such support will simply hand over the workers to an even worse fate than Gaddafi.
2. They fail to oppose intervention by the US or other big powers, and the basis on which they do so, is to mislead workers into the beleif that such intervention would be in some sense "impartial".
The basic responsibility of Marxists is to demonstrate to workers that the Capitalist State is NOT neutral, but acts on behalf of the Capitalists. For that reasons, we should not in any way act or fail to act in a way, which leads the workers to beleive otherwise.
3. Socialism cannot be achieved other than by the self-activity, and self-government of the working-class. As Marx set out in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, and many other writings, in providing solutions for the working-class, we focus on precisely that point.
The solutions we propose are solutions that the workers themselves create and impose, they are solutions which require the workers not only mobilising, but mobilising in such a way that they create their own new organisations and forms, which provide an immediate solution to the particular problem. They occupy a workplace threatened with closure as a first step in taking it over, and running it as a Co-operative, for instance. They mobilise to oppose fascist attacks, or attacks by the Police on their community, or attacks by thugs employed by bosses to break strikes, and having mobilised they do not limit themselves to that mobilisation, but develop out of it, Defence Squads, Militia, Democratic forms such as Factory Committees, or Neighbourhood Committees that do not demand rights from the bosses State, but take them.
As Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto, the demands we raise are ones which not only provide the workers with an immediate and practical solution to their problems of today, but also take care of the movement of tomorrow, by building new workers power in society - new workers' property, new forms of workers' democracy, and new elements of an emergent Workers' State.
But, as usual, there is nothing in the AWL position of this basic Marxism.
They see no role for the working-class in relation to Libya outside some elementary Trade Union politics, basic Economism, and pressure group politics on "Democratic Imperialism".
4. The argument used by the AWL to justify failing to oppose Imperialist intervention would have applied perfectly to Imperialist intervention against the Bolsheviks in 1917.
At that time, the Bolsheviks had not only come to power by means of an armed insurrection, but had been decisively beaten in a Popular Democratic Election. The Bolsheviks had responded to their electoral defeat by using armed power to shut down the Assembly. Faced with opposition centres of power throughout Russia, just as Gaddafi faces such opposition centres today, they again responded by unleashing the greatest military might they could assemble against those opposition centres, and with a brutal reign of Terror, via a secret police under the leadership of Stalin, which ruthlessly rounded up opposition leaders and shot them.
A humanitarian crisis erupted, in which the economy collapsed, and all of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse stalked the land - War, Famine, Pestilence and Disease. Tens of thousands were dying as a result of this disaster, and thousands of workers left the starvation in the cities, in order to try to find food back in their villages.
It makes what is happening in Libya appear trivial. On the AWL's argument, there would have been no basis for them to have opposed Imperialist intervention against such an illegitimate Government, under such conditions.
In the debate on that initial article on their site, just where this kind of politics leads can be seen. Having begun by saying,
"Their history and their nature mandates an attitude of complete distrust to the US and British military."
The AWL, within the article itself began to show anything but complete distrust. They began to talk about why it was unlikely, actually that the US would intervene in Libya in any other form but the institution of a no fly zone.
In actual, fact, as I said at the time, and as anyone who watched TV knew, it was clear that it was impossible to impose a no fly zone without military action on a much larger scale. One of the US Military's top representatives had himself said that a No Fly Zone would constitute, a classic Declaration of War. The US Military had said that it would have to begin by bombing Libyan Air Defences, and anyone who knows anything about such military action knows that it begins with the insertion of Special Forces, who act as spotters, who laser tag those targets.
But, it was also obvious that, in fact, a No Fly Zone would be ineffective, because Gaddafi's forces are rolling Eastwards by land not by air.
As UK Ambassador, Christopher Meyer, said on TV a few days ago, if action were to be taken it would have to be much tougher including bombing Gaddafi's forces and so on. In the debate on their website over the last few days, the AWL have gone from telling us that we should have complete distrust for the US, to spending much of their time, expanding this argument about why the US either would not intervene at all, or else would have no desire to intervene other than in the form of a no fly zone. In other words they effectively turned themselves into mouthpieces of the US State.
But, Imperialism is never thankful for those who sometimes represent its interests - just ask Saddam Hussein. In fact, the US has now put a resolution to the UN, calling not just for a No Fly Zone, but for any measures necessary to remove Gaddafi.
In other words we have gone from Humanitarian Assistance to Regime Change in just a few days. That is precisely why Marxists should be clear in their opposition to intervention by powerful states. The AWL, may now make one of their famous zig-zags, swinging wildly from one position to another, swept along like so much flotsam on the sea of history, as they scramble to accommodate to the very situation they have spent a week arguing was not going to happen. But, not only will that further diminsh any credibility they have, but it will also mean that the argument they then try to make in opposing such intervention will be weakened, because as Meyer, himself has pointed out, if what you really want is "humanitarian relief", then logically you should argue for what will bring that about, not something that will not!
But, in truth, in any such wider intervention, the AWL have no idea WHO will be getting support against Gaddafi. The one thing we can say for sure is that it most certainly will not be revolutionary workers! A couple of years ago, the AWL said they had learned their lesson from supporting the anti-Shah forces in Iran in 1979, and their failure to warn against Khomeini.
But, clearly they have not, because it is just as likely that some clerical-fascist force could be the main beneficiary of such intervention in Libya!
According, to Channel Four's Lindsey Hilsum, reporting from Bahrain, Obama rang the King of Bahrain on Tuesday asking him to pull back the troops and tone down the attacks on protesters.
The King refused in no uncertain terms. It seems, she said, that the US requested support from the Arab League, and from the Gulf Co-operation Council for action against Gaddafi, before it would make such a move. The quid pro quo was that the US has to keep out of the affairs of the Gulf regimes as they unleash their own military forces against the peoples of their own countries.
And, as I have suggested previously, that applies to the Bonapartist regime in Egypt too. In recent days, it has been having negotiations with the Muslim Brotherhood, and is introducing proposals to define who can be considered an Egyptian in order to have the right to vote.
The stringent controls, which mimic some of those put forward by the BNP to define "British", will according to a spokesman on Aljazeera disenfranchise many of the new Middle Class in Egypt, i.e. precisely those forces that were out in Tahrir Square demanding democratic reform.
The job of Marxists is to look after the interests of the working-class, not just in one country, but as a whole, not just for now, but for the future. We can only do that, by at all times inisisting upon the independence of the workers from all other class forces, by insisting that it is only the solidarity, and collective action of the working-class that can be relied upon to provide solutions for workers. A failure to do that even by ommission, and the suggestion that workers can rely on other class forces to fight their battles is a betrayal of the principles of Marxism. The consequences of not opposing the intervention of the big powers in Libya, could well be the rolling back of the democratic revolution throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
The main things wrong with their position are:
1. They provide uncritical support for the Libyan "rebels" without anywhere providing any analysis of exactly who these rebels are, or what they stand for other than that they are "anti-Gaddafi", which now seems good enough for the AWL to give their support to some group!
2. They fail to oppose intervention by the US or other big powers, and the basis on which they do so, is to mislead workers into the beleif that such intervention would be in some sense "impartial".
3. Socialism cannot be achieved other than by the self-activity, and self-government of the working-class. As Marx set out in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, and many other writings, in providing solutions for the working-class, we focus on precisely that point.
But, as usual, there is nothing in the AWL position of this basic Marxism.
4. The argument used by the AWL to justify failing to oppose Imperialist intervention would have applied perfectly to Imperialist intervention against the Bolsheviks in 1917.
In the debate on that initial article on their site, just where this kind of politics leads can be seen. Having begun by saying,
"Their history and their nature mandates an attitude of complete distrust to the US and British military."
The AWL, within the article itself began to show anything but complete distrust. They began to talk about why it was unlikely, actually that the US would intervene in Libya in any other form but the institution of a no fly zone.
But, it was also obvious that, in fact, a No Fly Zone would be ineffective, because Gaddafi's forces are rolling Eastwards by land not by air.
But, Imperialism is never thankful for those who sometimes represent its interests - just ask Saddam Hussein. In fact, the US has now put a resolution to the UN, calling not just for a No Fly Zone, but for any measures necessary to remove Gaddafi.
But, in truth, in any such wider intervention, the AWL have no idea WHO will be getting support against Gaddafi. The one thing we can say for sure is that it most certainly will not be revolutionary workers! A couple of years ago, the AWL said they had learned their lesson from supporting the anti-Shah forces in Iran in 1979, and their failure to warn against Khomeini.
According, to Channel Four's Lindsey Hilsum, reporting from Bahrain, Obama rang the King of Bahrain on Tuesday asking him to pull back the troops and tone down the attacks on protesters.
The job of Marxists is to look after the interests of the working-class, not just in one country, but as a whole, not just for now, but for the future. We can only do that, by at all times inisisting upon the independence of the workers from all other class forces, by insisting that it is only the solidarity, and collective action of the working-class that can be relied upon to provide solutions for workers. A failure to do that even by ommission, and the suggestion that workers can rely on other class forces to fight their battles is a betrayal of the principles of Marxism. The consequences of not opposing the intervention of the big powers in Libya, could well be the rolling back of the democratic revolution throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Popular Revolt & Civil War
Civil War is often a consequence of popular revolt. The English Civil War, was initially a popular revolt. The Peasant War in Germany was a popular revolt that became deepened into a Civil War. The French Revolution was a popular revolt that also turned into a Civil War. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolt that ended in Civil War.
But, likewise, there can be Popular Revolts that do not end in Civil War, just as there are Civil Wars that have nothing to do with Popular Revolt. The opposition to the Poll Tax was a Popular Revolt, that ended in the abandonment of the Tax, but no Civil War. The Civil War in Rwanda had nothing to do with a Popular Revolt.
Coming on the back of Popular revolts in Tunisia, and Egypt, and the apparent spread of such revolts to Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and also some protests in Jordan, Lebanon etc. it was not surprising that the revolt against Gaddafi in Libya, should be seen to be part of a growing movement of Arab revolt. However, as I pointed out in my blog, Has Gaddafi Gone?, lumping all of these events into the same boat was a mistake.
“Care needs to be taken in lumping all of these protests together, however. In Bahrain, for example, the struggle could be complicated by the fact that the ruling group are Sunni, and the majority of the protesters are Shia.
In addition, it is clear that, in Egypt, for example, the recent economic development has created a sizeable Middle Class, and large numbers of workers. These both form the basis of the establishment of bourgeois democracy, and the latter provide the basis of effective organisation and mobilisation, particularly given their economic muscle, and potential for armed resistance. It is not clear that in a number of the other economies that this is the case, as they continue to be highly reliant on Oil, rather than having extensive economic development.”
The last week has seen the correctness of that approach. Firstly, in relation to Libya. As I pointed out in my blog The Politics Of Pontius Pilate, when the AWL write,
“We should support the people of Libya - and especially any democratic or working-class forces in the anti-Qaddafi movement. We should distrust the US government, but not let kneejerk "no to the USA" reactions dominate our thought”,
they simply reflect the crude, subjectivist nature of their politics. For them Gaddafi is bad, and so anyone opposing him is good. In the same vein, others in the “anti-imperialist” Camp see “Imperialism” as “bad”, and so anyone opposing it is “good”, which has caused them some significant problems with Gaddafi, who for years was one of their standard bearers of anti-imperialism.
Now few, other than the WRP, are prepared to stick with him, whilst the other “anti-imperialists” have had to scramble to show why really he had already gone over the the dark side, and was just as much in the “imperialist” camp as Mubarak and co.
But, in Libya, as much as in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, what was missing from any of these analyses was any consideration of CLASS, which should be the starting point for a Marxist. That is because those like the AWL are merely a mirror image of the “idiot anti-imperialists” they spend much of their time arguing against. Neither side of this coin, really concerns itself with developing a strategy for the working-class to develop its own forces – outside a debilitating and limited Economism – because neither actually believe that the working-class IS capable of fulfilling its historic mission. So they look to larger social forces – which inevitably means looking to alternative class forces – as the champion for their world vision, with the workers reduced to nothing more than walk on actors.
Compare the AWL's position, stated above, with their position in respect of Iraq, for instance. In Iraq, they did not argue for support for the people of Iraq, as they now call for support for the people of Libya. On the contrary, they opposed the formulation of such a response, precisely because a large proportion of the people of Iraq were hostile to the US/UK presence in the country.
Even for an organisation as prepared to perform the political contortions to justify its positions as the AWL, it would have been difficult to argue for support of the people of Iraq, and their opposition to the Occupation, at the same time as arguing against calls for the Occupation to be thrown out!
Of course, the AWL were right to oppose those “anti-imperialists” who were so blinded by their “anti-imperialism”, that they forgot about being socialists, forgot about the need to build the working-class as an independent force separate from those other “anti-imperialist” forces in Iraq, who were just as much the enemies of Iraqi workers as were the US/UK Occupiers.
But, having given up, in practice, on the historic role of the workers, the AWL were then left with no option but to oppose those demands which could have built the working class, and helped it take the lead in the anti-imperialist struggle, because those demands, and that strategy, meant opposing the AWL's own champion within this process – “Democratic Imperialism”.
But, the question in relation to Libya is what does it mean to call for support for the “people of Libya”, even if it is limply qualified with the phrase, “especially any democratic or working-class forces in the anti-Qaddafi movement”. Does this mean that in Libya, for instance, that the AWL are prepared to support the same class forces, the same clerical-fascist forces that they opposed in Iraq, just so long as they are, in this case, part of the “anti-Qaddafi Movement”? After all their qualification is only “especially any democratic or working-class forces”. If so, they should explain why that is the case, in this instance.
And the reality is that we do not know who the “anti-Gaddafi forces” are. Some of them, are ex-members of the Gaddafi regime, for example. And, as I said recently elsewhere, on a Channel 4 News broadcast last week, asked who their commanding officer was, some rebel forces replied, “Allah.”
That sends warning signals to my mind, about the political nature of at least some of these forces. And, as I said then, there has to be questions about the extent to which what we see in Libya is a Popular Revolt of the kind we have seen in Tunisia and Egypt. In both those cases, their nature, as Popular Revolts, was demonstrated by the fact, that their epicentre was in the main population centres, in the Capital Cities. But, we have not seen that in Libya. Even after large parts of the country had fallen to rebel forces, there was no large-scale rebellion in Tripoli where the majority of the population live. Nor can that be put down to the response of the Gaddafi regime. In fact, as my blog set out, at the time it was written, Gaddafi was clearly on the back foot, there were, indeed rumours that he had fled the country. Everyone believed his days were literally numbered, and his regime was fracturing visibly. Those are precisely the conditions where you would have expected to see a Popular Revolt break out in the Capital City, and if it had, it is likely that we would have seen the military, which has not been particularly favoured by Gaddafi, fracture, which would have dealt immediately with the question of air-power, and prevented the kind of counter-attack that is now under way. It seems clear to me that what we have in Libya is something more complicated than a Popular Revolt.
Part of the explanation for that is probably to be found in the continued role of tribal allegiances in Libya. In fact, we see something similar developing elsewhere, and a number of factors inter-relating with each other. As I'd pointed out above, one part of the situation in Bahrain, for example, that had to be taken into consideration, was the division between the Sunni rulers, and the Shia majority, who were discriminated against. The importance of that has been revealed in the last few days. The Shia majority have begun to become increasingly radicalised, no longer happy to settle for some kind of Constitutional Monarchy, but demanding an end to the Monarchy, and establishment of a Democratic Republic. Now, the Sunni rulers have called upon their brethren in Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf States, to come to their support. Saudi Arabia has sent 1,000 troops to bolster the Bahraini regime, with police and other forces coming from other Gulf States. The Shia in Bahrain, facing a clampdown and physical attacks from these forces, are now understandably declaring this an act of war. Given the tensions between the Gulf States, and the Shia regime in Iran, the consequences of this are obvious. In the meantime, although, the US and EU called on the Egyptian Generals to get rid of Mubarak, which they did, and although they told the Bahraini regime to take its troops off the streets, which they did, we are not seeing a repetition of those calls, we are not seeing overt pressure being put on these regimes to stop their attacks on their people, that we are seeing in relation to the attacks of Gaddafi's regime on its people, even taking into consideration the difference in ferocity – for now – of those attacks. As I said in my blog Egypt What Is To Be Done
“If Mubarak continues to hold on to power, and if no quick, effective move is made against him, then it is inevitable that one of two courses will develop. In one course, the movement will run out of steam, and be dissipated, to be met by an equally inevitable clamp down, arrest of protest leaders, and period of reaction to prevent the possibility of any repeat for a long time.
Those western governments who are now giving warm words to the protesters will wring their hands, proclaim their most profound indignation, and then continue to deal with Mubarak or his chosen successor.”
The situation in Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, and probably in Libya, is not the same as the situation in Egypt or Tunisia. The latter two states have over recent years developed economically, and that development is at root the material basis of the revolts that have been seen. Although, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have experienced considerable economic growth, based upon the rising price of oil, their economies remain largely rent based, relying on oil revenues, rather than having expanded into other manufacturing as has happened in Egypt.
The same is true, in large part for Libya. Political Sociologists talk about “cross-cutting cleavages” within societies. By this they mean that societies are stratified horizontally according to class and status, but, in addition, they are divided vertically along other lines such as sex, ethicity, religion, sexual orientation etc. In other words, there are people in every social class and status group who are men as well as some who are women, and so on. The extent to which these vertical divisions are important, depends upon the nature of the society, its history, and current relations. In general the more homogenous a society the less these other factors will play a significant role, and the more the horizontal divisions of class will be determinant. As Engels puts it in his letter to Bloch,
“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.
There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.
We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one. The Prussian state also arose and developed from historical, ultimately economic, causes. But it could scarcely be maintained without pedantry that among the many small states of North Germany, Brandenburg was specifically determined by economic necessity to become the great power embodying the economic, linguistic and, after the Reformation, also the religious difference between North and South, and not by other elements as well (above all by its entanglement with Poland, owing to the possession of Prussia, and hence with international political relations — which were indeed also decisive in the formation of the Austrian dynastic power). Without making oneself ridiculous it would be a difficult thing to explain in terms of economics the existence of every small state in Germany, past and present, or the origin of the High German consonant permutations, which widened the geographic partition wall formed by the mountains from the Sudetic range to the Taunus to form a regular fissure across all Germany.
In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed.”
Of course, as Engels points out, there is a relation between these things. The fact that Catholics were divided from Protestants in the North of Ireland, was not solely a question of a vertical cleavage along the lines of religion. The division also rested upon a material foundation of the unequal treatment of Catholics, economically and politically within the society, and these real material divisions also act to harden the ideological/religious differences too. Something similar can be seen in relation to the situation of Shia in Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. If we were to dig enough in Libya, we might find some similar division, which provides a material basis for the opposition to Gaddafi in the East of the country, and his relative support in Tripoli.
It is, as Engels makes clear above, a crude determinist version of Marxism, which seeks to reduce everything down to a matter of economics, or economic class divisions, and it is frequently these other divisions, which can have powerful ideological and motivational force, which often explain the eruption of Civil Wars, and also inter state wars, that do not represent what would normally be termed popular revolts in that they do not represent a clear class based uprising across all segments of the oppressed masses. It should be clear that in these instances, Marxists have no responsibility for choosing sides within such disputes outside the basic requirement to oppose oppression of minority groups. Our task is not to pick sides, but to present a solution to the oppression of the Minority on the basis of building working-class unity across those divisions.
The one thing that does apply across all of these societies from Libya to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia is the need for Marxists to focus their activity on building up the working-class within, and across these societies, and pushing forward its class interests as primary within any of the struggles taking place.
In fact, what we have seen in the last week shows the importance of that. In the same way that the revolt in Tunisia, acted to spur on the revolt in Egypt, and so on, we appear now to be seeing the same thing in reverse. Gaddafi, has used the resources available to him, and the support he still appeared able to mobilise in Tripoli, to bring to a halt the rebellion based largely in the East. Having done that, he now seems to be in the process of rolling up the revolt, only part of which can be attributed to his access to air power. Seeing his ability to do that, without the US or EU intervening to stop him, it appears that the feudal and Bonapartist regimes elsewhere have learned from him. First Saudi Arabia launched attacks on Shia protesters the day before its proposed “Day of Rage”, and used its media, the religious clerics etc. to warn any potential protesters of what would befall them if they came on to the streets. Having achieved that, and having seen that the Shia in Bahrain were becoming more radical, it has also moved to roll-up the opposition in Bahrain too. We are likely to see a similar development in relation to Egypt and Tunisia, unless the Egyptian masses, and in particular the Egyptian workers continue to develop their organisation, and to build their own defence to quickly remove the Egyptian Bonapartists. At the time of the downfall of Mubarak, I pointed out that this move should be seen as a Military Coup, by those General, not a decisive victory of the protests. In Military Coup As Egyptian Workers Appear On The Stage, I argued,
“The celebrations in Tahir Square are understandable as the events of the day are seen in the positive light of Mubarak standing down, but in reality the Military that have now pushed him aside, possibly on the back of heavy prompting from the US, are the same Military top brass from which Mubarak himself came, and which supported Sadat before him, and which supported Nasser before him. In reality Egypt has merely swapped the political regime of a Bonapartist leader resting on a military-bureaucratic elite, for the open rule of that same military-bureaucratic elite.”
So long as the political regime remains in the grip of these military/bureaucratic elements, or in the hands of feudal rulers such as those in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, any gains made by the workers or the middle classes will be extremely fragile. More than ever, we need to build the strength of the working class on all fronts.
Coming on the back of Popular revolts in Tunisia, and Egypt, and the apparent spread of such revolts to Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and also some protests in Jordan, Lebanon etc. it was not surprising that the revolt against Gaddafi in Libya, should be seen to be part of a growing movement of Arab revolt. However, as I pointed out in my blog, Has Gaddafi Gone?, lumping all of these events into the same boat was a mistake.
“Care needs to be taken in lumping all of these protests together, however. In Bahrain, for example, the struggle could be complicated by the fact that the ruling group are Sunni, and the majority of the protesters are Shia.
The last week has seen the correctness of that approach. Firstly, in relation to Libya. As I pointed out in my blog The Politics Of Pontius Pilate, when the AWL write,
“We should support the people of Libya - and especially any democratic or working-class forces in the anti-Qaddafi movement. We should distrust the US government, but not let kneejerk "no to the USA" reactions dominate our thought”,
they simply reflect the crude, subjectivist nature of their politics. For them Gaddafi is bad, and so anyone opposing him is good. In the same vein, others in the “anti-imperialist” Camp see “Imperialism” as “bad”, and so anyone opposing it is “good”, which has caused them some significant problems with Gaddafi, who for years was one of their standard bearers of anti-imperialism.
But, in Libya, as much as in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, what was missing from any of these analyses was any consideration of CLASS, which should be the starting point for a Marxist. That is because those like the AWL are merely a mirror image of the “idiot anti-imperialists” they spend much of their time arguing against. Neither side of this coin, really concerns itself with developing a strategy for the working-class to develop its own forces – outside a debilitating and limited Economism – because neither actually believe that the working-class IS capable of fulfilling its historic mission. So they look to larger social forces – which inevitably means looking to alternative class forces – as the champion for their world vision, with the workers reduced to nothing more than walk on actors.
Compare the AWL's position, stated above, with their position in respect of Iraq, for instance. In Iraq, they did not argue for support for the people of Iraq, as they now call for support for the people of Libya. On the contrary, they opposed the formulation of such a response, precisely because a large proportion of the people of Iraq were hostile to the US/UK presence in the country.
Of course, the AWL were right to oppose those “anti-imperialists” who were so blinded by their “anti-imperialism”, that they forgot about being socialists, forgot about the need to build the working-class as an independent force separate from those other “anti-imperialist” forces in Iraq, who were just as much the enemies of Iraqi workers as were the US/UK Occupiers.
But, the question in relation to Libya is what does it mean to call for support for the “people of Libya”, even if it is limply qualified with the phrase, “especially any democratic or working-class forces in the anti-Qaddafi movement”. Does this mean that in Libya, for instance, that the AWL are prepared to support the same class forces, the same clerical-fascist forces that they opposed in Iraq, just so long as they are, in this case, part of the “anti-Qaddafi Movement”? After all their qualification is only “especially any democratic or working-class forces”. If so, they should explain why that is the case, in this instance.
And the reality is that we do not know who the “anti-Gaddafi forces” are. Some of them, are ex-members of the Gaddafi regime, for example. And, as I said recently elsewhere, on a Channel 4 News broadcast last week, asked who their commanding officer was, some rebel forces replied, “Allah.”
Part of the explanation for that is probably to be found in the continued role of tribal allegiances in Libya. In fact, we see something similar developing elsewhere, and a number of factors inter-relating with each other. As I'd pointed out above, one part of the situation in Bahrain, for example, that had to be taken into consideration, was the division between the Sunni rulers, and the Shia majority, who were discriminated against. The importance of that has been revealed in the last few days. The Shia majority have begun to become increasingly radicalised, no longer happy to settle for some kind of Constitutional Monarchy, but demanding an end to the Monarchy, and establishment of a Democratic Republic. Now, the Sunni rulers have called upon their brethren in Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf States, to come to their support. Saudi Arabia has sent 1,000 troops to bolster the Bahraini regime, with police and other forces coming from other Gulf States. The Shia in Bahrain, facing a clampdown and physical attacks from these forces, are now understandably declaring this an act of war. Given the tensions between the Gulf States, and the Shia regime in Iran, the consequences of this are obvious. In the meantime, although, the US and EU called on the Egyptian Generals to get rid of Mubarak, which they did, and although they told the Bahraini regime to take its troops off the streets, which they did, we are not seeing a repetition of those calls, we are not seeing overt pressure being put on these regimes to stop their attacks on their people, that we are seeing in relation to the attacks of Gaddafi's regime on its people, even taking into consideration the difference in ferocity – for now – of those attacks. As I said in my blog Egypt What Is To Be Done
“If Mubarak continues to hold on to power, and if no quick, effective move is made against him, then it is inevitable that one of two courses will develop. In one course, the movement will run out of steam, and be dissipated, to be met by an equally inevitable clamp down, arrest of protest leaders, and period of reaction to prevent the possibility of any repeat for a long time.
Those western governments who are now giving warm words to the protesters will wring their hands, proclaim their most profound indignation, and then continue to deal with Mubarak or his chosen successor.”
The situation in Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, and probably in Libya, is not the same as the situation in Egypt or Tunisia. The latter two states have over recent years developed economically, and that development is at root the material basis of the revolts that have been seen. Although, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have experienced considerable economic growth, based upon the rising price of oil, their economies remain largely rent based, relying on oil revenues, rather than having expanded into other manufacturing as has happened in Egypt.
“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.
We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one. The Prussian state also arose and developed from historical, ultimately economic, causes. But it could scarcely be maintained without pedantry that among the many small states of North Germany, Brandenburg was specifically determined by economic necessity to become the great power embodying the economic, linguistic and, after the Reformation, also the religious difference between North and South, and not by other elements as well (above all by its entanglement with Poland, owing to the possession of Prussia, and hence with international political relations — which were indeed also decisive in the formation of the Austrian dynastic power). Without making oneself ridiculous it would be a difficult thing to explain in terms of economics the existence of every small state in Germany, past and present, or the origin of the High German consonant permutations, which widened the geographic partition wall formed by the mountains from the Sudetic range to the Taunus to form a regular fissure across all Germany.
In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed.”
Of course, as Engels points out, there is a relation between these things. The fact that Catholics were divided from Protestants in the North of Ireland, was not solely a question of a vertical cleavage along the lines of religion. The division also rested upon a material foundation of the unequal treatment of Catholics, economically and politically within the society, and these real material divisions also act to harden the ideological/religious differences too. Something similar can be seen in relation to the situation of Shia in Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. If we were to dig enough in Libya, we might find some similar division, which provides a material basis for the opposition to Gaddafi in the East of the country, and his relative support in Tripoli.
It is, as Engels makes clear above, a crude determinist version of Marxism, which seeks to reduce everything down to a matter of economics, or economic class divisions, and it is frequently these other divisions, which can have powerful ideological and motivational force, which often explain the eruption of Civil Wars, and also inter state wars, that do not represent what would normally be termed popular revolts in that they do not represent a clear class based uprising across all segments of the oppressed masses. It should be clear that in these instances, Marxists have no responsibility for choosing sides within such disputes outside the basic requirement to oppose oppression of minority groups. Our task is not to pick sides, but to present a solution to the oppression of the Minority on the basis of building working-class unity across those divisions.
The one thing that does apply across all of these societies from Libya to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia is the need for Marxists to focus their activity on building up the working-class within, and across these societies, and pushing forward its class interests as primary within any of the struggles taking place.
“The celebrations in Tahir Square are understandable as the events of the day are seen in the positive light of Mubarak standing down, but in reality the Military that have now pushed him aside, possibly on the back of heavy prompting from the US, are the same Military top brass from which Mubarak himself came, and which supported Sadat before him, and which supported Nasser before him. In reality Egypt has merely swapped the political regime of a Bonapartist leader resting on a military-bureaucratic elite, for the open rule of that same military-bureaucratic elite.”
So long as the political regime remains in the grip of these military/bureaucratic elements, or in the hands of feudal rulers such as those in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, any gains made by the workers or the middle classes will be extremely fragile. More than ever, we need to build the strength of the working class on all fronts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)