Which Way Nigeria?

IN LIEU OF AN INTRODUCTION:

There is no such thing as a perfect revolution, no such thing as a crystal cut class struggle which is devoid of inert and intra class skirmishes and battles.

To see class struggle something pure, and not to see and understand it as a process of inter and intra class antagonisms and battles, is to be unable to understand and appreciate the complexity of social life, of social exploitation, of the nature of the tensions generated by the exploitation and oppression, inherent in, and which informs the nature and character of the social relations of production.

And the Libyan moment in the Arab uprising, has unfortunately been grappled with in this manner, even by many on the left.

To see in the unfolding situation in Libya only the opportunistic intervention of NATO, and the devious manoeuvring of imperialism; without at the same time being able to see the uprising of hundreds of thousands in across the country, but particularly in Benghazi which inaugurated the Libyan revolution; and the uprising of hundreds of thousands inside Tripoli in the past few days, which is the culmination of that uprising; is not to be a dialectician. To prioritise the imperialist the manoeuvres of imperialism over the uprising and resistance of the people; is essentially to be stuck in a frame of mind, and a praxis that views history as capable being made only by rulers and the powerful, and not by the powerless and the ordinary peoples, the victims of exploitation and oppression of the system.

On this note it is important to welcome and to recognize as an event of worldwide significance, the Libyan uprising as it culminates in its tentative victory.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LIBYAN UPRISING:

Why is the Libyan uprising significant in the context of the uprising of the working class and other exploited classes and strata of society in the Middle East and North Africa [MENA]? Why does the Libyan uprising have significance beyond the Arab world?

The regimes in Tunisia and Egypt which fell before the Libyan regime could not be mistaken for revolutionary, and or anti-imperialist regimes, even if they had had their origins decades ago in the ferment of the first Arab revolutionary upheavals in the post second world war period.

In the case of the Libyan regime, it is not just that the regime had its origins in that period of revolutionary fervour  it is also the case that the leadership of the revolution has remained constantly symbolized and personalized in the person of the historic leader of the revolution. Furthermore, it is also the case that the regime, has maintained greater consistency in its anti-imperialist posturing as a manoeuvre to negotiate its survival within the global capitalist system. A system which it might be added the revolutionary regime did not detach itself from, or take steps to detach itself from; particularly with reference to capitalist production relations, the property relations of capitalism.

But this anti-imperialist rhetoric as well as its fervour for supporting rebellions of against existing regimes, including rebellions of a popular social character, has all combined to create the impression of a still revolutionary regime, presiding over a still ongoing process of revolutionary transformation of society.

Here in lies one of the main factors in the attempt by some on the left to exceptionalise Libya from the rest of the uprising in the MENA region.

The second factor lies in the opportunistic intervention of Imperialism, with NATO as the striking arm. The imperialist intervention, welcomed as it is by the rebellion’s acknowledged leadership, then became a basis to oppose the rebellion’s leadership as stooges of imperialism, illegitimise the uprising, and oppose the Libyan revolution under the banner of anti imperialism.

For this reason it is important once again to try to identify the contradictory moments embedded within and characterizing the Libyan uprising.

First, is the uprising of the people; the uprising of hundreds of thousands and tens of millions of ordinary people, that has transformed jobless youths, under employed workers, impoverished artisans and peasants, as well as unfulfilled middle class members into an army of resisters, brazenly and bravely facing a trained and disciplined armed force, using all the weapons at its disposal, in unequal ground combats.

Even if the myth thrown around and widely believed were to be true, that Libya is the most perfect welfare state, with all the basic necessities of all the population taken care of; the uprising would still retain its legitimacy, if the only reasons were political, the exclusion of the vast and overwhelming majority from actual governance and exercise of state power; the concentration of such powers in the hands of the maximum leader, his sons, and his immediate family, as well as the unequal distribution of wealth that has also seen the bulk of the nation’s wealth concentrated in the hands of the same tiny elite at the summit of power.

Because if we insist that economic exploitation, and not including political oppression and exclusion, is the only legitimate basis for revolution; then we would be saying that even in the context of a socialist revolution, in the period of transition from capitalism to communism, that is in the period of build socialism, on a global scale; there will be no need for different tendencies of socialism to co-exist, there will be no need for contestation between these tendencies for the mandate of the people; and that therefore in such a period of revolutionary transition, it will be self sufficient to have a single monolithic party of the revolution, and a maximum leader of the party, who is also the maximum leader of the state and revolution; and a context in which both internal and external dissent will be treasonable.

If this is the perception aiding this characterization of the Libyan regime as revolutionary, and the uprising as illegitimate, then, we have not learned anything from history. We have learnt neither the positive lessons inherent in the Paris Commune of 1871, nor those inherent in the Russian revolution of 1917, the German revolution of 1923 and then again 1956, nor the Hungarian revolution of 1919 and of 1956/7 among others.

Nor would the negative lessons inherent in the degeneration of the Russian revolution leading ultimately to the collapse under legitimate and popular uprisings, of the Soviet Bloc of countries in the last decade of the last century have been taken to heart.

For the avoidance of doubt, a people have a right to rebel against not only economic exploitation, but also political oppression. And this is because there can be no political exclusion and oppression/repression without economic exploitation: The one rests on the other. And it is important to add that there can be no socialism, no socialist transformation, and no workers state, if it is not based on the self emancipatory activities of the working and oppressed classes, and if it excludes the working class from political power.

The second is the fact of a regime that has come to be built on the basis of political exclusion, and repression, as well as economic exploitation, even if it has also exhibited benevolent philanthropy towards its people. It is clear that the regime has a relationship of patronage and paternalism with the people, and clearly expects gratitude from the subjects.

And in the context of the uprising of the majority of the oppressed classes and strata of the Libyan people that began in its current phase in February 2011; this regime, and the state it has created, demonstrated in its response to the initial shoots of the uprising, its inherently repressive and murderous character.

It was not the first Arab regime to attempt to use and deploy the armed forces against the people; Tunisia and Egypt before it had tried to; but it was the first regime, to show that it was ready to go all the way with the use of force; and the first in which the identification between the state, the regime, the armed forces and the maximum leader was so total, as to make the armed forces command a ready and willing accomplice in the brutal repression of the initially unarmed uprising. The regime was not the first to deploy fighter jets, but it was the first to actually use them, and threaten to use them against the city of Benghazi at the expiration of an ultimatum to surrender which the regime had issued.

The third element in the crisis is imperialism, and its consequent opportunistic intervention. It is true that imperialism, is motivated more by Oil and revenge, than it is by humanitarian concerns; nevertheless, it was the regime’s ultimatum to Benghazi, its mobilisation of its armed forces to the end of brutally crushing the uprising, its threat to bomb Benghazi from the air, and smother it from the ground with tanks; and its actual use of fighter jets to bomb other locations in demonstration of its intent on Benghazi, which created the surge of resisters fleeing repression elsewhere into Benghazi, and therefore laid the foundation for the impending genocide of Benghazi. And it was this which then created the pretence for imperialist intervention, and launch and execution of NATO’s war on Libya.

And although the emergent leadership of the rebellion issued a call for international help to protect Benghazi, and then went on to accept and welcome NATO’s, and by implication, imperialism’s intervention; it was the inhuman and unconscionable response of the regime to the legitimate uprising of the people that invited imperialist intervention.

Without the massive and unrestrained use of force, without the siege of Benghazi, without the ultimatum to Benghazi, and the threat of an impending catastrophe, it would have been more difficult for imperialism to find a reason, or means to intervene militarily.

And of all these elements, the most decisive in defining the response and international solidarity of the left, is the uprising itself.

So our anti-imperialism in this instance ought to and should be rooted within the context of mobilising active  international solidarity with the Libyan uprising, while condemning imperialism’s manoeuvres  exposing them, and mobilising against such manoeuvres.

FROM BENGHAZI TO TRIPOLI:

So now it has taken six months to get from Benghazi as a symbol of the uprising, a symbol of its determination and courage; to get from there to Tripoli, the internal uprising in Tripoli, coordinated with a march on Tripoli led by the Tripoli Brigade of the emergent Rebel army; symbolizing the culmination of the revolution in its state overthrow phase.

In the interim period between the liberation of Benghazi and establishment of the incipient organ of state power of the rebellion; the period between then and now, the seizure and liberation of Tripoli, and the final unravelling of the regime; corresponds to a period of effective manifestation of dual power. And although this particular revolution is far from being a socialist revolution; this period can be compared in political terms to that which existed between February and October of 1917 in the Russian socialist revolution which shook the world to its very foundations.

Between February and October there was a dual power situation, in which power was divided up between the incipient organs of workers power, the Soviets, and the transitional government representing the capitalist ruling class. The victory of the October revolution, and supplanting of the transitional government by the soviet power,; and the overthrow of a state based on bourgeois democracy, and its replacement by one based on workers democracy marked the end of the dual power period; and the beginning of the revolutionary socialist transformation of society.

REVOLUTION IN THE REVOLUTION?

What is the significance of the Libyan revolution in all its processes culminating in the unravelling of the regime, the liberation of Tripoli?

Now other regimes, in the MENA region, who have adopted the tactics and the strategy of the Libyan regime, and that have been emboldened by the intransigence of the Libyan regime in waging an armed struggle against the uprising in their own countries, will understand that ultimately the army can be defeated by the people. This will cause some disquiet within their ranks, but it may also engender a more brutal response. Nevertheless, the uprisings in those countries, in particular Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, as well as across the MENA will be further emboldened by the Libyan victory.

The Libyan victory is much more likely to hasten the conclusion of the processes in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain; and may likely force other regimes, to actually more seriously offer and negotiate real reforms with the uprisings.

The victory will also increase the pressure on the transitions in Tunisia and Egypt, further reinvigorating the resistance in those countries.

To conclude this preliminary analysis of an unfolding revolution, it is important to pose the question: is this the final scene in the Libyan revolution? The answer will have to be NO. While the liberation of Tripoli and the unravelling of the regime, marks a significant victory, it is instructively, only the beginning of a new moment in the class struggle that shaken Libya and the other countries of the MENA region.

BY

JAYE GASKIA

AUGUST 22^ND 2011