Revolution in the Middle East
The beginning of the new decade is marked by the beginning
of the new upsurge of revolutions in the world, which have pleased us,
proletarians. Naturally, it is only the beginning. What are the prospects of
the revolution in Arab world? What sort of a revolution is this? What is the
role of Islamic factor?
This revolution was brewing
for a long time, for several decades, as many analysts recognized. As a result
of the last revolution, which took place at 1950s in Arab world and overthrew
colonial rule of Britain and
France,
the military officers came to power. The military officers were the first
intelligentsia in the 3rd world generally. They often studied in
European countries (later in USSR
too) and adopted European ideas, including revolutionary ones the ideas of
national liberation, Marxism-Leninism etc. However, those military officers
were far from the masses of indigenous population from the outset, they adopted
European prejudices about progressive role and civilizing mission of
advanced nations in culturing of indigenes.
But in general at that time the
military, which came to power in the course of those revolutions and proclaimed
Arab socialism as their goal, was the progressive force. However, they began
to transform into the puppets of USSR
and USA
already in a short time. The influence of the old lords - Britain and France also remained
in many respects. The overthrowing of the old colonialism didnt yield the
independence to Arab peoples; colonialism was replaced by neocolonialism, i.e.
colonialism under the mask of the independence. Imperialist powers could no
longer rule over colonies directly, and they began to do this through the new
military elite, which was more or less obedient, predictable, although
sometimes it could contradict its lords and maneuver between USSR,
USA etc.
Economically those countries
reached some advance at that time, but in general their economy remained
dependent on superpowers. Heavy industry, which is the necessary condition of
the real independence, was never built. Friendly aid from USSR and the
West turned out to be the extraction of super-profits. Imperialists developed
mainly the extractive industry there, and plundered the oil, the gas from there
in return for the aid. Of the manufacturing industry only the assemblage
developed mostly.
The military regimes increasingly
detached from the masses, corrupted, the bureaucratic machinery was swelled.
The size of armies of those countries was inflated strongly, which didnt
conform to the level of external threat. Why the regimes did so? The answer is
evident: for the suppression of their own peoples.
Naturally, already since
1950s, since the beginning of the independence, dissatisfaction of the
masses with the military power began to rise. Regimes of Arab socialism from
the very outset Nasser in Egypt,
as well as Baath in Iraq etc. punished cruelly the opposition, even moderate
one: Islamists and communists were imprisoned, tortured and killed. In spite of
this fact, Brezhnevs USSR
considered those regimes as friendly ones and asserted that they build
socialism it is clear, why Brezhnevs USSR did this. As a consequence,
official communist parties in those countries, which were the agents of Soviet
influence in many respects, supported those corrupted regimes, even if in
critical manner. This fact discredited communism and Marxism-Leninism among
masses. People became to turn to Islamists, which were thoroughgoing in the
struggle against regime. For example, in 1992 Islamists have won the
parliamentary election in Algeria,
but the military (which was armed by Soviet armament practically by 100%)
perpetrated coup détat and massacred any opposition.
At 1990s, after the collapse
of USSR, Russian bourgeoisie
has temporarily retreated from foreign policy, including Middle
East, because of its interior problems. However, since the
beginning of 2000s, it restored itself after the crisis and began to recover
lost time with redoubled efforts. Russian corporations plunged into absorbing
of the economy of Middle East: Lukoil, Gazprom, Tatneft and other oil-and-gas
corporations took possession of oil and gas fields; AvtoVAZ and KamAZ began to
create affiliated assembling plants there; Russia began to buy up fixed property
and the facilities of tourist industry there. If we look at the geography of
modern Russian foreign investments, we would see that North
Africa represents the area of strategic interests for Russian
capital. The conquering policy of Russian business was reinforced by the
craftsmanship of the insidious Kremlin diplomacy, which set elites of the Middle East against the West and inclined them to Russian
side. Parallel with Russia,
young Chinese imperialism strengthened its influence in Africa
sharply. As a result, leaders of those Arab countries became to turn to Russia and the
East imperialist bloc in general again. Let us consider Egypt, for
instance. At 1960s, under Nasser, it was more attracted by USSR. At 1970s, under Sadat, it have
grown cool towards USSR and
began to developed relations with USA. Under Mubarak and especially
since the beginning of 2000s Egypt,
didnt breaking relations with the West, became in fact to incline to Russia in many
respects. At those years Mubarak met with Putin (and then with Medvedev)
practically every year.
Another example is Libya. The
leader of Libyan revolution of 1969 Muammar Kaddafi, also the representative of
the army, had sharply anti-West position, but he established friendly
relations with USSR (then
with Russia)
very quickly. About ten years ago he said that Chechnya
cant live without Russia
(similarly Saddam Hussein said that Islamic world needs strong Russia). At
last decade Kaddafi also met with Putin, and many Libyan oil fields were passed
into the hands of Russian corporations. Today, when Kaddafis regime shoots at
demonstrators by practice cartridges (not by rubber bullets!), Medvedev
together with representatives of Gazprom negotiate with Berlusconi, and Gazprom
buys the half of Italian share in one of the large Libyan oil fields (Libyan
people today are shot for what they share!). After that redistribution one
third of that oil field belongs to Italy,
another third to Russia,
and the rest to South Korea
and Libya, i.e. Libya has
less than one third (contrary to cries of our patriots, that the West have
conquer Russia, Russian imperialism never allow such thing towards the West
Siberia, for example). Moreover, Medvedevs visit to Berlusconi took place at
the moment of scandal on Berlusconis orgies with juveniles, at the moment of
anti-government demonstrations. Italy
is in crisis today, and, evidently, Berlusconi needs money in order to win over
the people, in order to keep a whole skin, and Russian bourgeoisie made use of
that fact cunningly. But although Medvedev and Russian bourgeoisie in general
have acted there as sly dogs from the commercial point of view, they have
discredited themselves both in the opinion of Italian people and Libyan people
(I nearly said of Russian people too, but I foresee, that many readers will object
that Medvedev have already discredited himself so heavily, thats the limit).
What is the class structure of
people in North Africa? Firstly, as I said,
that countries relatively developed in comparison with other countries of 3rd
world (for example, in comparison with Africa
to the South of Sahara, excluding South African Republic). The percentage of
urban population is comparatively high there. At one of discussions at the
TV-channel Russia-24
on the latest developments in the Middle East some specialist in the Middle
East, wishing to slander Marxism-Leninism once more, said: we studied that
revolutions occur in the weakest link, however the events in the Middle East
refute that, because those countries are not the poorest (similarly bourgeois
specialists on Islamic extremism in Central Asia said about Uzbekistan which
is the most developed country in Central Asia and the center of Islamism of
that region at the same time). But Russia
in 1917 was not the poorest country of the world, there were more poor
countries China,
India etc. Bourgeois analysts confused notions the poorest country and the
weakest link in the chain of the world imperialism. Certainly, the necessary
condition for the revolution is the presence of vast proletarian and
semi-proletarian masses. But proletariat is not simply the poor (the poor can
be also rural, but it is backward in many respects), it is the urban poor, and
proletarianization is not simply the process of impoverishment, it includes
urbanization, concentration of proletarians in the cities.
In the Middle
East there was the rapid growth of the urban poor (which is the
social base of radical Islamism) during last decades because of the rapid
growth of urban population, but also there was the growth of middle classes,
which must be taken into account. Urban middle classes introduce their
interests into revolution (as the peasantry too).
So, what occurs in North Africa?
What have already happened,
i.e. the overthrowing Ben Ali in Tunisia
and Mubarak in Egypt, is
similar to February revolution in Russia in 1917. This is bourgeois,
national-wide revolution against despotic regime, when proletariat goes in
alliance with middle classes against corrupt leaders, and the contradictions within
that united front yet imperceptible.
However, the overthrowing of
those dictators in itself gives nothing (as the overthrowing of tsar in February
of 1917). The military, which is linked with imperialists, remains in power as
before, and it will be more difficult to crush it. It will be the split in the
ranks of opposition naturally: one part (middle classes) will be satisfied with
the achieved results, while another part (proletariat) will go on.
It is interesting to look at
the attitude of the ruling circles of superpowers towards those events.
Capitalists, if they are not too pig-headed, understand perfectly the old
truth, which was expressed already in 19th century, that it is
silly to oppose the revolution, because it would crush you; one should adapt to
it. In this case their behavior is similar. Bourgeois plan is simple: to
sacrifice dictatorial persons in order to pacify people, thereby providing
safety of the system. Such was the point of view of western rulers in general
especially because Middle East dictators became to incline to Russia and China last years. The response of
Russian capital to those events owing to aforesaid was more contradictory. On
the one hand, there were lying official assurances that we dont interfere in
the internal affairs of other countries (and sent diplomats on a mission there
at the same time!). On the other hand, the part of our bourgeoisie grumbles
discontentedly that those events were plotted by the West (in fact the West is
in crisis today and is occupied with its internal problems), that it was
incorrectly to stir up the wasp nest, and now the situation is beyond
control, and radical Islamists can come to power. It is noteworthy, how
Medvedev responded to those events: one day before Mubaraks retirement
Medvedev WISHED him a peaceful adjustment of the conflict, understanding, that
the violent use in that case is plucking the tiger at its whiskers; after his
retirement Medvedev wished Egyptian people quickest RETURN to democratic
standards as if that standards existed under Mubarak!
It is also noteworthy, how
Russian communists responded to the events in Egypt. In his interview for
TV-channel Russia-24
the representative of parliamentary group of Communist Party of Russian
Federation, self-confident youth in white brand-new suit (really typical dandy!),
was anxious only about Russian tourists in Egypt he said that they dont
return from there because they are poor, and they grudge money they paid for
ticket (although in fact English tourists didnt return from there at all, even
when Russian ones returned, furthermore, the situation in resorts was quiet).
Certainly, those tourists are not magnates mostly, they are middle class (but
not proletariat!); certainly, communists must take an interest in conditions of
middle class too. But first of all real
communists must take an interest in conditions of proletariat, moreover, not
only their own proletariat, but the world proletariat in general, otherwise
they are simple nationalists. The most ridiculous was the fact that this
communist stated at the end of his speech: Mubarak will hold his post till
the end of the term of his office the
events have showed that our communists have shamed themselves once again
and have demonstrated their disbelief in masses.
The majority of left activists
in rich nations support that revolution in such manner: It is well, if only
Islamists dont come to power.
In February 1917 world
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois community was delighted with February revolution
in Russia.
But then, when Bolsheviks came to power, that community has greeted them with
rabid anger. Today there is similar case: the majority of left activists in
rich nations, due to their privileged labor-aristocratic condition, unable to
understand, that Islamists are representatives of revolutionary lower classes
in the East today, like Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917.
Of course, there are different
currents among Islamists (the majority of left activists dont distinguish
those currents). For example, Tunisian En-Nahdha, which was banned under Ben
Ali, is ordinary liberal party in the name of Islam. Egypt
Muslim Brotherhood, which was also banned as early as under Nasser,
is not radical party too, although it is named so by mass media today; it is
enough moderate opposition - the fact, which was recognized by bourgeois
analysts many times. Also in Egypt there is Al-Jihad petty-bourgeois party,
which advocates individual terror, just as esers
(socialists-revolutionaries) in Russia 100 years ago; there is Takfir wal
Hijra, which position in fact is similar to Marxism-Leninism, even if it is
expressed by Islamic language (see my work The development of Islamism
,
2009, last chapter); at pro-imperialist sites, which try to discredit Takfirists
in the opinion of common Muslims, there is written: How can anybody call them
Muslims? They are followers of atheistic Jews Marx and Lenin, which oppose
private ownership.
There are different currents
among Marxists in the Middle East too. As I
mentioned above, official communist parties, which act according to the
principle The dictatorship of the military is better than Islamists,
discredited Marxism strongly in the opinion of the people. On the other hand,
many honest communists broke with official communist parties and became to
cooperate with Islamists within Islamist organizations. For example, it was
mentioned about some Trotskyite group in Egypt that it acts according to the
principle Sometimes with Islamists, but never with regime.
We shall not make assumptions
about the prospects of this revolution, because many factors play a role there,
and it is impossible to take all of them into account. But it is clearly, that the process, which begins today in the Middle East (I emphasize: begins, no matter how
capitalists want to stop it at this stage), will influence profoundly the whole
world economically, politically and, above all, morally, inspiriting hundreds
millions poor, oppressed and abused throughout the world to revolutionary
struggle.
February 21st,
2011
A. G.
