Socialism is a system that is often misrepresented on purpose and accidentily by various groups of people.
If you’re a capitalist or a person who supports capitalism you will look for any way at all to discredit Marxism and socialism that it cannot work and is doomed to failure.
I thought I’d look at some of the most common attacks that are made on socialists and others who see a future in a alternative system of socialism.
People tend to accept as true the things they hear over and over again. But repetition doesn't make things true. Because the truth and the facts often contradict "common knowledge", socialists have to show that "common knowledge" is wrong. That takes more words than just accepting the status quo.
How would a socialist economy work?
Under capitalism, institutions where immense wealth is concentrated (corporations) run the economy, exploiting working people to increase their own concentrated wealth. The essence of a socialist economy is to flip this relationship upside-down, with working people running the economy, utilizing the enormous wealth and productivity of society to enrich their lives. To do this, we would have to take over all the biggest banks and corporations and put their resources into public ownership and democratic control.
Employing those out of work and reallocating investment and jobs towards social priorities – healthcare, education, clean energy, etc. – would give a huge boost to productivity and wealth in society. Democratic planning of the economy would allow us to make sure everyone had a good-paying job, high-quality health care, free education at all levels, and, of course, basic physical necessities like food and housing. It wouldn’t be limited to just the basics, though; we could choose to invest in empowering people to make music, art, writing, film, fashion, and all sorts of other forms of cultural development.
This type of economic system would require conscious planning, but this is already true to a large extent under capitalism. Corporations, with economies larger than entire countries are able to plan out their levels of production, spread of distribution, pricing schemes and so on without falling to pieces, so there’s no reason working people shouldn’t be able to do the same.
The difference is that planning under capitalism is fractured, incomplete and undemocratic, with the goal of maximizing profit for the individual firm. Under socialism, we could structure investment of the world’s wealth with a big picture, bird’s eye view of the whole economy, with the goal of fulfilling human needs, sustaining the environment and enabling a liberated human existence.
A socialist economic system would have to be globally integrated. This is also the case already under capitalism, where we live in a globally interdependent world. Right now globalization on a capitalist basis means brutal exploitation of the weaker economies, and a race to the bottom for workers everywhere. Under socialism, global economic integration would be part of the plan to enrich people’s lives on a global scale.
A socialist economy would handle the environment very differently. Today, companies don’t care about environmental costs because they are able to externalize them onto the public. The costs associated with contaminated air and drinking water are real, but they don’t show up as a red number on Monsanto’s balance sheet. That is why no corporation will ever undertake the necessary steps to save the environment on the basis of “free market” principles.
Democratic planning of the economy would eliminate the profit motive behind externalizing the costs of pollution. Instead, efficiency, environmental sustainability and meeting the basic needs of all would form the core principles of economic decision-making. Instead of inadequate measures like energy-efficient light bulbs and recycling-awareness programs, a socialist economy could invest in completely overhauling the way everything is produced, utilizing all the latest green technologies for maximum sustainability and creating millions of jobs in the process.
How would a socialist democracy work?
As most of us currently experience it, “democracy” boils down to voting once every couple years for which wealthy career politician will make all the decisions for us. Of course, there’s nothing democratic about this at all, especially when the whole process is corrupted by corporate money.
In contrast, socialist democracy would take place day to day, week to week, in every workplace, school and community. Workers would rotate management tasks, and elected managers would be subject to recall and replacement whenever the workers saw fit. All decisions could be overturned by majority vote.
School curriculum and policy would be jointly agreed upon by parents, teachers and students, rather than imposed by distant administrators and bureaucrats. Neighborhood assemblies would decide who is and is not empowered with policing authority and instruct elected officers how to prioritize their efforts.
All investment and economic decisions should be made democratically. Workplace and neighborhood assemblies would elect representatives to massively expanded local and regional councils, which in turn would elect national representatives. Elected representatives should have no special privileges or pay above their electorate, and they should be subject to instant recall.
In order to facilitate this process of democratic decision-making, there should be space roped off in regular work and school schedules for decision-making meetings and discussions. With the increased wealth created, the work-week could be shortened without loss of pay to allow people time and energy to become engaged politically, and to pursue their other life goals outside work and school.
Wouldn’t a bureaucratic elite just take over?
Undoubtedly, in the first stages of a socialist society, a struggle against careerists and corruption within the system would be necessary. The poisonous ideological baggage inherited from centuries of class rule would not just fade away overnight. However, by establishing public ownership of society’s productive resources, eliminating privileges, and creating bottom-up structures of democratic management and control, the obstacles to prevent aspiring bureaucrats seizing power would be immense.
The main example driving fear of a bureaucratic takeover is Stalin seizing power in the Soviet Union only a few years after Russia’s working-class revolution in 1917. This tragic degeneration of the Russian Revolution is something Marxists have grappled with in numerous books. The basic conclusion supported by a serious historical analysis is that this degeneration was neither natural nor inevitable, but the result of particular circumstances.
Russia was among the poorest countries in the world at the time of its revolution, and it was even further devastated when the deposed capitalist rulers, backed by 21 foreign armies, tried to violently retake power from the democratic workers’ movement, resulting in a bloody civil war. Though revolutions took place elsewhere across Europe, most notably Germany, they were all defeated, leaving Russia poor, broken and alone.
This was not a healthy ground upon which socialism could be built. The whole basis of socialism is having enough to go around, but Russia didn’t have that. In this context, the democratic structures in the Soviets (workers’ assemblies) ceased to function. Who wants to go to political meetings when you’re worried about where your next meal is going to come from?
It was this vacuum of workers’ power from below, fueled by the isolation and economic starvation of the country, that spawned the bureaucratization of Russian society and the rise of Stalin as this bureaucracy’s dictatorial figurehead. Even then, it was not a natural progression. Stalin had to jail, murder, exile, or otherwise force into submission literally millions of people whose only crime was adherence to the democratic principles of the 1917 revolution.
This experience shows the importance of building the fight for socialism as a global movement. Because of imperialist plundering of resources around the world, some countries may lack a stable economic basis for socialism, and will need to trade with and get help from the richer countries. If Russia had been joined by a successful revolution in even one other country, such as Germany, history would have turned out very differently.
Wouldn’t it be easier to reform capitalism?
Unfortunately, contrary to official accounts, the history of capitalism is not one of consistent progress towards ever loftier heights of democracy and prosperity. Rather, every serious reform has required mass struggle, often shaking the system to its core.
Reforms are not granted out of the kind hearts of well-meaning politicians, but are concessions grudgingly granted to appease or distract rising movements of working people hungry for real change. Whether we’re talking about civil rights, the weekend off, or the right to organize a union, every one of these required an all-out fight against the profit-driven logic of capitalism, where countless innocents were murdered by elites desperate to put down their struggles.
Under capitalism, even these partial reforms are not permanent, not a foothold or new baseline to work from. As we have seen in the last few decades, the capitalists and their politicians will roll back reforms as soon as they think they can get away with it.
Social programs that people fought tooth and nail for in the past are being dismantled or undermined via budget cuts. After almost destroying unions in the private sector already – where less than 7% of workers in the US are in a union – corporate politicians in state after state are now going after the public sector, where over a third of workers are still unionized.
A stable basis for ongoing reforms will require working people to take political power out of the hands of the capitalists and wield it themselves – that is, overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. There’s no way around it; the fight for reforms and the struggle for socialist transformation are one and the same.
Socialism sounds great on paper, but is it realistic?
The only constant in history is uninterrupted change. From ancient slave states to the feudal landowner lordships to the global capitalist system of today, people have repeatedly overthrown old systems after they became a brake on progressive development. The truly unrealistic and utopian idea is that problems like war, poverty and environmental devastation will be solved on the basis of capitalism.
Though socialism is realistic, it’s not inevitable. Again and again, crisis-ridden capitalism has forced workers and the oppressed into revolutionary uprisings. Several have happened in the last year, most prominently in Egypt and Tunisia. But while many revolutions succeed in toppling governments, few have achieved system change. Capitalism will always find a way out on the backs of workers, youth and the poor if we fail to replace it with something better.
That’s where socialists come in: We take seriously the study of history, learning from both defeats and successes of revolutions and mass movements. We aim to spread these lessons widely so that future revolutions succeed in establishing socialism. That doesn’t just mean reading a lot of books. It means actively building and engaging with the movements that exist right now, boldly bringing in socialist ideas while learning from others in struggle, working out the way forward together.
If you agree with these ideas, consider joining the Socialist Party today.
subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label counter revolutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label counter revolutions. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Saturday, 26 November 2011
Tunisia : what has changed since the revolution, elections helping ?
This excellent piece examining how things have changed for ordinary people in Tunisia reveals some stark revlations. From the CWI who have reporters in Tunisia who have fed this back to the outside world reveal not much has changed at all.
Is the revolution over?
CWI reporter in Tunis
Elections for the Constituent Assembly held in Tunisia on 23 October was a hard-won reform following a mass struggle earlier this year and a second, determined occupation of Kasbah square, in the capital Tunis.
Yet the vast majority of the new politicians elected in this Assembly did not play any role in the revolution and only stopped opposing it at the last minute.
Compared to the rigged elections over the last decades these elections were more transparent, which is not really difficult. However, the power of money, support from big business circles, vote-buying practices, activity by networks of the old ruling party, the RCD, and a media still in the hands of people close to the former regime, accompanied the electoral campaign.
These elections were a propaganda opportunity for the Western media about the supposed “spectacular” participation of the electorate. The imperialist rulers - who earlier this year were uncritical of the deadly crackdown against Tunisian protesters, even in some cases offering their services to the dictator Ben Ali - all applauded what they called ‘a model of democracy’. Exagerated numbers of “over 90%” voter turnout was circulated.
All this propaganda had a clear purpose: to present the election as the episode closing for good the revolutionary chapter and paving the way for a ‘legitimate’ and ‘democratic’ power. And, it is argued, now that the masses have supposedly got what they wanted, everyone should go back to work.
A participation not so “spectacular”
In reality, while a significant number of voters decided to go to the polls to reclaim a basic democratic right, which they had always been denied, a serious analysis of the results shows that an equally important part of population abstained.
The overall turnout, based on the whole electorate, is only of 52%. Of those who voted, 31.8% (almost 1,300,000 persons), ‘lost’ their votes because they voted for lists which didn’t get a vote high enough to win a seat. Also, given the highly volatile mood of many amongst those who voted – which was reflected in a number of opinion polls published preceding the elections - it seriously limits the social support for the new Assembly, and consequently the government that will soon emerge from it.
The closer you get to the people who have been at the heart of the revolutionary struggles (the youth and in the poorer interior regions, in particular), the bigger the abstention rate was, reflecting a deep defiance of the political establishment.
Who does this new power really represent?
Indications of this mood of defiance were present on the very day of the opening session of the new Constituent Assembly on 22 November, when thousands of people demonstrated in front of the parliament building - protected by a heavy police presence - to make their numerous grievances heard.
Those present included: families of martyrs killed in the revolution, left and human rights groups, angry youth and workers calling for a “new revolution” and targeting imperialist interference in the country, and also many women worried about the threats on their rights following Ennahda’s (the Islamist party) victory. The protesters did not want the revolution to be hijacked by the new political class.
‘New’ is a relative term as important figures from the old regime were present inside the building to celebrate this so-called ‘historic’ day, including the hated prime minister Caïd Essebsi, and Rachid Ammar, chief of staff of the Tunisian armed forces. The session was opened by the old president Fouad Mebazaâ –a dinosaur of the RCD and of the old Tunisian dictatorship, president of the chamber of deputies during 14 years of Ben Ali’s rule. The presence of these figures from the old regime symbolised the ‘continuity of the state’.
This ‘continuity of the state’, so cherished by many politicians and media, is nothing else than the continuity of the capitalist state machine, with its army, police, bureaucracy and judicial system, all there to preserve the interests of the rich.
The level of the salaries and other advantages of the new politicians will convince even the most reluctant ones that this is their main job. The president of the republic will earn 30,000 dinars (*) the prime minister 8,000, the other ministers 4,500 dinars, the secretaries of state 3,400 dinars, while each member of the Constituent Assembly will receive 2,500 dinars a month. This does not include, in addition to their salaries, a free phone line, a car with a driver and petrol bills covered, free access to public transport, a hotel room, and so on…
This means that the new president, Moncef Marzouki, also leader of the ‘Congress of the Republic’ (CPR), the second largest party in the assembly, despite declaring that he will “not change but will remain a son of the people”, will earn a salary equivalent to the income of about 40 working class families!
In a country where the minimum wage is just above 200 dinars, with the growing difficulties experienced by many, the exorbitant rise in prices and the number of unemployed increasing by the day, these large salaries increases people’s resentment. It shows the class-motivated policy of the new rulers and their disconnection with the social reality and aspirations of the mass of the people.
During the inaugural ceremony in the assembly, the names of people killed in the revolution were read out. But some of the victims’ names from Kasserine - a town 300 kilometres southwest of the capital, which suffered the highest number of martyrs and casualties - were omitted.
On the following day, more than 3,000 protesters took to the streets in Kasserine, because they refuse to remain marginalised and feel that the country’s new authorities fail to recognise local people’s contribution to the revolution. The demonstration started peacefully but turned violent following an attempt by the military to suppress the movement by using tear gas and live ammunition shot in the air.
This electric atmosphere continues to dominate the situation, with a growing resentment at the fact that it is not those who have carried out the revolution, the poor people, the workers and the unemployed, who are getting the benefits of all their sacrifices.
Women’s rights under threat
This is also the case in relation to the position of Tunisian women, who played an instrumental role in the revolution, and who are now fearful that the ground gained during their struggle might be stolen from under their feet.
Women did not make the revolution to see their gains being reversed and their rights being undermined. Nevertheless, the rise to power of the Islamist party Ennahda, combining a neo-liberal approach in the economic field with a conservative approach on morals and culture, could actually mean exactly this.
Outside the Constituent Assembly, one of the female leading figure of Ennahda, Souad Abderrahim, was targeted by a group of demonstrators, who shouted at her the now famous slogan “dégage” (= "leave").
The reason for this was that a few days before, she had made a public speech in the media declaring that “it is inconceivable to draft a law on the protection of single mothers in an Arab-Muslim society, except in cases where the birth of the child has occurred as a result of rape”, adding that single mothers are “an infamy for Tunisian society”, and “ethically speaking, they don’t have the right to exist”.
As the only woman of Ennahda’s 42 elected female representatives not wearing a veil, Abderrahim had become the public face for Ennahda’s ‘moderate’ image and its supposed tolerance of women. Before the elections Abderrahim said: “choosing me as a candidate is a commitment by Ennahda that it supports modernism. …If Ennahda goes back on them (all commitments to defend women rights), I will be the first to oppose it”. This highlights the dangers ahead and shows that Ennahda’s pledges cannot be trusted.
Although the party leadership is now engaged in a ‘charm offensive’ vis-à-vis the major imperialist powers, displaying a moderate line for their policy in terms of moral and religious values, Ennahda remains made up of, and pressurised by, ultra-conservative layers who, encouraged by the election victory of the party, have increased their reactionary activities in the recent period. This includes verbal and physical assaults on women who do not wear the veil or do not conform to a certain dress code, blaming working women as a cause of high unemployment, or arguing for the segregation of schools or other public spaces based on gender.
In early November, a strike by staff and students from a university faculty in Tunis was held to protest against the harassment some teachers and students have been subjected to for similar reasons.
Such protests should be the response whenever women rights are the target of religious bigots.
The UGTT union and the workers movement in particular, who played historically a very important role in fighting for women rights and gender equality, should put boldly its stamp on the situation, engaging a mass campaign on this issue, by linking up the necessary defensive struggle to protect the existing women rights, with an offensive battle to push them further forward.
As women are the hardest hit by mass unemployment, and working women are the first to be found in insecure and very low paid jobs, such a struggle should be linked with a general struggle for mass jobs creation, better wages and working conditions for all, and against economic insecurity that puts women in an even more vulnerable position.
“Capital is welcome”
It is increasingly clear that Ennahda leaders will be drawn into acting on different playing fields. While Rached Ghannouchi, president of Ennahda, recently launched a diatribe against the French language describing it as “a pollution”, the party leaders are cosying-up to the French capitalists and government. On the one hand, the party profiles itself as a ‘party of the people’, on the other its economic policy is inspired by the ultra-neoliberal Turkish ‘model’, ie mass privatisations and systematic attacks on the democratic and social rights of the working class.
It is one thing to win elections, it is another to satisfy the demands of people who have just made a revolution. The main concern of Ennahda party leaders since 23 October has only been to circulate their pledges of allegiance to the market, in an attempt to demonstrate that political Islam and big business can go well together. “Domestic and foreign capital is welcome” insisted Abdelhamid Jelassi, director of Ennahda’s executive office.
This concern for the interests of the capitalist class cannot but conflict with the desire for social change that continues to animate broad sections of the population.
Nothing has really changed
Popular anger is apparant everywhere, as nearly one year after the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, [whose tragic protest against unemployment detonated the revolution] the social situation has only deteriorated for the majority of the population. Bouazizi has been posthumously awarded the “Sakharov prize for freedom” in the European Parliament; but the imperialist powers, who have been quick to make Bouazizi into a helpless icon, remain silent over the situation of despair for most young Tunisians that drove Bouazizi to set himself on fire.
“Jobs or death” was for example the slogan of a recent sit-in at the Bizerte (in the north) oil refinery. Tens of thousands of jobs have actually been destroyed since the beginning of the year, sharpening an already critical social situation for many poor families. And the economic crisis hitting the eurozone, the main commercial outlet of Tunisian production, means that things will not get better. As long as production is based on the profits for a few private big shareholders and speculators, and not on meeting human needs, then nothing will fundamentally change.
Many of the objective reasons which prompted the Tunisian population to make the revolution are still present in their daily lives. The refrain “nothing has changed” is more and more audible. The demand for a “second revolution”, played down in the recent elections - which have brought a certain hope among some sections of the population - is not on the same level as in Egypt right now. However, it can come back quickly onto the agenda.
Democratic freedoms remain precarious, and are regularly challenged by bouts of violence by security forces. The huge police apparatus continues to hang like a sword of Damocles over the revolution. The ‘Occupy Tunis’ protest, which took place on 11 November, which saw the largest demonstration in the streets of Tunis since August, was violently attacked by the police, for no apparent reason except the desire to intimidate all those people who still want to protest.
And protests are numerous, as anticipated in our last article. Since the election, a new series of strikes and social protests have erupted onto the scene. Workers in the tourism sector, iron miners in Le Kef (in the north west), workers of the brewery ‘Celtia’, employees of the social security, railway workers, pharmaceutical workers in Sfax (on the eastern coast), and many others, have experienced successive solid strike actions. Despite the incessant propaganda of the strikers being “irresponsible”, the recent report by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in September 2011 has confirmed that “wages in Tunisia remain low despite rising profits.”
These social movements, however, continue to suffer from a lack of coordination, due to the refusal of the leadership of the UGTT (the main trade union federation) to give these struggles any concrete support and a more generalised character. The union bureaucrats, former friends of the dictator Ben Ali, have been involved in all the petty manoeuvres of the transitional government to make workers and poor pay for the economic crisis and for the old regime’s debt, and to try to restore the situation in favour of the capitalists, multinationals and banks.
The Congress of the UGTT, which will take place on 2 December, should be fully transparent, with publicity of the debates, and full accountability of the new elected leadership. It must also be seen by unionised workers as the beginning of a massive purge, at all levels of the trade union, of all the "leaders" who have collaborated with the bosses and with the old regime in the past period, and have attempted to block the aspirations of the working class.
A well prepared one-day general strike, for example on the date of the anniversary of Bouazizi’ self immolation that sparked the revolution (17 December), and supported by local strike committees, democratically elected by the rank-and-file, could be a positive way to re-start the social battle on a healthier basis, and give a boost to the confidence of all workers.
Such a campaign should include the following demands:
•A plan of large scale public investment in the interior regions
•A massive programme of decent jobs creation for young people
•For the reduction of the working week without loss of pay
•For the bringing into public ownership and workers’ control of all Ben Ali and Trabelsi’s wealth
•An end to police brutality
•For the unconditional defence of women rights
•For a refusal to pay the old regime’s debt
•For workers’ control on industry and banks
•For a government of the workers and the poor
Any party relying on the continuation of the rotten capitalist system, ie on the submission of the Tunisian economy to the benefit of large private companies and banks, and on the payment of the debt to financial institutions, will not have any solution to all those who sleep hungry at night, who survive on low wages, or to the endless queues of young people who have never been given the chance to know what is a real job.
None of the parties involved in talks to form the new government (Ennahda, the Congress for the Republic, and Ettakatol) address this question. All are preparing to continue with the same disastrous economic policy of the old regime. There is an urgent need to build a mass party of the workers and poor to fight for their interests.
The combination of crises facing the country, and the experiences of the masses in the last year - the most important of which being the break in the ‘wall of fear’ - will inevitably crystallise into new outbreaks of mass struggle. These struggles must have their own political extension, through a mass party that fights for a revolutionary government of working people, the poor and the youth.
Instead of offering the companies and shares previously owned by the mafia families to the stock exchanges, as suggested by Ennahda, such a government would take immediate action to nationalise them, under the democratic control of workers and the wider public, as a starting point towards a broader plan to shift production and the economy as a whole to develop the country and improve the living standards of the masses.
The seeds of such a society - a democratic socialist society, based on the cooperation and solidarity of working people, instead of profit, corruption and exploitation of labour - have been asserted through the great Tunisian revolutionary movement. A further, decisive, mass struggle by the majority in society will have to be fulfilled to make these seeds germinate, and to make the revolution succeed, permanently.
*1 Dinar is worth 0.51 Euro/ 0.44 Pound/ 0.68 US Dollar
Is the revolution over?
CWI reporter in Tunis
Elections for the Constituent Assembly held in Tunisia on 23 October was a hard-won reform following a mass struggle earlier this year and a second, determined occupation of Kasbah square, in the capital Tunis.
Yet the vast majority of the new politicians elected in this Assembly did not play any role in the revolution and only stopped opposing it at the last minute.
Compared to the rigged elections over the last decades these elections were more transparent, which is not really difficult. However, the power of money, support from big business circles, vote-buying practices, activity by networks of the old ruling party, the RCD, and a media still in the hands of people close to the former regime, accompanied the electoral campaign.
These elections were a propaganda opportunity for the Western media about the supposed “spectacular” participation of the electorate. The imperialist rulers - who earlier this year were uncritical of the deadly crackdown against Tunisian protesters, even in some cases offering their services to the dictator Ben Ali - all applauded what they called ‘a model of democracy’. Exagerated numbers of “over 90%” voter turnout was circulated.
All this propaganda had a clear purpose: to present the election as the episode closing for good the revolutionary chapter and paving the way for a ‘legitimate’ and ‘democratic’ power. And, it is argued, now that the masses have supposedly got what they wanted, everyone should go back to work.
A participation not so “spectacular”
In reality, while a significant number of voters decided to go to the polls to reclaim a basic democratic right, which they had always been denied, a serious analysis of the results shows that an equally important part of population abstained.
The overall turnout, based on the whole electorate, is only of 52%. Of those who voted, 31.8% (almost 1,300,000 persons), ‘lost’ their votes because they voted for lists which didn’t get a vote high enough to win a seat. Also, given the highly volatile mood of many amongst those who voted – which was reflected in a number of opinion polls published preceding the elections - it seriously limits the social support for the new Assembly, and consequently the government that will soon emerge from it.
The closer you get to the people who have been at the heart of the revolutionary struggles (the youth and in the poorer interior regions, in particular), the bigger the abstention rate was, reflecting a deep defiance of the political establishment.
Who does this new power really represent?
Indications of this mood of defiance were present on the very day of the opening session of the new Constituent Assembly on 22 November, when thousands of people demonstrated in front of the parliament building - protected by a heavy police presence - to make their numerous grievances heard.
Those present included: families of martyrs killed in the revolution, left and human rights groups, angry youth and workers calling for a “new revolution” and targeting imperialist interference in the country, and also many women worried about the threats on their rights following Ennahda’s (the Islamist party) victory. The protesters did not want the revolution to be hijacked by the new political class.
‘New’ is a relative term as important figures from the old regime were present inside the building to celebrate this so-called ‘historic’ day, including the hated prime minister Caïd Essebsi, and Rachid Ammar, chief of staff of the Tunisian armed forces. The session was opened by the old president Fouad Mebazaâ –a dinosaur of the RCD and of the old Tunisian dictatorship, president of the chamber of deputies during 14 years of Ben Ali’s rule. The presence of these figures from the old regime symbolised the ‘continuity of the state’.
This ‘continuity of the state’, so cherished by many politicians and media, is nothing else than the continuity of the capitalist state machine, with its army, police, bureaucracy and judicial system, all there to preserve the interests of the rich.
The level of the salaries and other advantages of the new politicians will convince even the most reluctant ones that this is their main job. The president of the republic will earn 30,000 dinars (*) the prime minister 8,000, the other ministers 4,500 dinars, the secretaries of state 3,400 dinars, while each member of the Constituent Assembly will receive 2,500 dinars a month. This does not include, in addition to their salaries, a free phone line, a car with a driver and petrol bills covered, free access to public transport, a hotel room, and so on…
This means that the new president, Moncef Marzouki, also leader of the ‘Congress of the Republic’ (CPR), the second largest party in the assembly, despite declaring that he will “not change but will remain a son of the people”, will earn a salary equivalent to the income of about 40 working class families!
In a country where the minimum wage is just above 200 dinars, with the growing difficulties experienced by many, the exorbitant rise in prices and the number of unemployed increasing by the day, these large salaries increases people’s resentment. It shows the class-motivated policy of the new rulers and their disconnection with the social reality and aspirations of the mass of the people.
During the inaugural ceremony in the assembly, the names of people killed in the revolution were read out. But some of the victims’ names from Kasserine - a town 300 kilometres southwest of the capital, which suffered the highest number of martyrs and casualties - were omitted.
On the following day, more than 3,000 protesters took to the streets in Kasserine, because they refuse to remain marginalised and feel that the country’s new authorities fail to recognise local people’s contribution to the revolution. The demonstration started peacefully but turned violent following an attempt by the military to suppress the movement by using tear gas and live ammunition shot in the air.
This electric atmosphere continues to dominate the situation, with a growing resentment at the fact that it is not those who have carried out the revolution, the poor people, the workers and the unemployed, who are getting the benefits of all their sacrifices.
Women’s rights under threat
This is also the case in relation to the position of Tunisian women, who played an instrumental role in the revolution, and who are now fearful that the ground gained during their struggle might be stolen from under their feet.
Women did not make the revolution to see their gains being reversed and their rights being undermined. Nevertheless, the rise to power of the Islamist party Ennahda, combining a neo-liberal approach in the economic field with a conservative approach on morals and culture, could actually mean exactly this.
Outside the Constituent Assembly, one of the female leading figure of Ennahda, Souad Abderrahim, was targeted by a group of demonstrators, who shouted at her the now famous slogan “dégage” (= "leave").
The reason for this was that a few days before, she had made a public speech in the media declaring that “it is inconceivable to draft a law on the protection of single mothers in an Arab-Muslim society, except in cases where the birth of the child has occurred as a result of rape”, adding that single mothers are “an infamy for Tunisian society”, and “ethically speaking, they don’t have the right to exist”.
As the only woman of Ennahda’s 42 elected female representatives not wearing a veil, Abderrahim had become the public face for Ennahda’s ‘moderate’ image and its supposed tolerance of women. Before the elections Abderrahim said: “choosing me as a candidate is a commitment by Ennahda that it supports modernism. …If Ennahda goes back on them (all commitments to defend women rights), I will be the first to oppose it”. This highlights the dangers ahead and shows that Ennahda’s pledges cannot be trusted.
Although the party leadership is now engaged in a ‘charm offensive’ vis-à-vis the major imperialist powers, displaying a moderate line for their policy in terms of moral and religious values, Ennahda remains made up of, and pressurised by, ultra-conservative layers who, encouraged by the election victory of the party, have increased their reactionary activities in the recent period. This includes verbal and physical assaults on women who do not wear the veil or do not conform to a certain dress code, blaming working women as a cause of high unemployment, or arguing for the segregation of schools or other public spaces based on gender.
In early November, a strike by staff and students from a university faculty in Tunis was held to protest against the harassment some teachers and students have been subjected to for similar reasons.
Such protests should be the response whenever women rights are the target of religious bigots.
The UGTT union and the workers movement in particular, who played historically a very important role in fighting for women rights and gender equality, should put boldly its stamp on the situation, engaging a mass campaign on this issue, by linking up the necessary defensive struggle to protect the existing women rights, with an offensive battle to push them further forward.
As women are the hardest hit by mass unemployment, and working women are the first to be found in insecure and very low paid jobs, such a struggle should be linked with a general struggle for mass jobs creation, better wages and working conditions for all, and against economic insecurity that puts women in an even more vulnerable position.
“Capital is welcome”
It is increasingly clear that Ennahda leaders will be drawn into acting on different playing fields. While Rached Ghannouchi, president of Ennahda, recently launched a diatribe against the French language describing it as “a pollution”, the party leaders are cosying-up to the French capitalists and government. On the one hand, the party profiles itself as a ‘party of the people’, on the other its economic policy is inspired by the ultra-neoliberal Turkish ‘model’, ie mass privatisations and systematic attacks on the democratic and social rights of the working class.
It is one thing to win elections, it is another to satisfy the demands of people who have just made a revolution. The main concern of Ennahda party leaders since 23 October has only been to circulate their pledges of allegiance to the market, in an attempt to demonstrate that political Islam and big business can go well together. “Domestic and foreign capital is welcome” insisted Abdelhamid Jelassi, director of Ennahda’s executive office.
This concern for the interests of the capitalist class cannot but conflict with the desire for social change that continues to animate broad sections of the population.
Nothing has really changed
Popular anger is apparant everywhere, as nearly one year after the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, [whose tragic protest against unemployment detonated the revolution] the social situation has only deteriorated for the majority of the population. Bouazizi has been posthumously awarded the “Sakharov prize for freedom” in the European Parliament; but the imperialist powers, who have been quick to make Bouazizi into a helpless icon, remain silent over the situation of despair for most young Tunisians that drove Bouazizi to set himself on fire.
“Jobs or death” was for example the slogan of a recent sit-in at the Bizerte (in the north) oil refinery. Tens of thousands of jobs have actually been destroyed since the beginning of the year, sharpening an already critical social situation for many poor families. And the economic crisis hitting the eurozone, the main commercial outlet of Tunisian production, means that things will not get better. As long as production is based on the profits for a few private big shareholders and speculators, and not on meeting human needs, then nothing will fundamentally change.
Many of the objective reasons which prompted the Tunisian population to make the revolution are still present in their daily lives. The refrain “nothing has changed” is more and more audible. The demand for a “second revolution”, played down in the recent elections - which have brought a certain hope among some sections of the population - is not on the same level as in Egypt right now. However, it can come back quickly onto the agenda.
Democratic freedoms remain precarious, and are regularly challenged by bouts of violence by security forces. The huge police apparatus continues to hang like a sword of Damocles over the revolution. The ‘Occupy Tunis’ protest, which took place on 11 November, which saw the largest demonstration in the streets of Tunis since August, was violently attacked by the police, for no apparent reason except the desire to intimidate all those people who still want to protest.
And protests are numerous, as anticipated in our last article. Since the election, a new series of strikes and social protests have erupted onto the scene. Workers in the tourism sector, iron miners in Le Kef (in the north west), workers of the brewery ‘Celtia’, employees of the social security, railway workers, pharmaceutical workers in Sfax (on the eastern coast), and many others, have experienced successive solid strike actions. Despite the incessant propaganda of the strikers being “irresponsible”, the recent report by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in September 2011 has confirmed that “wages in Tunisia remain low despite rising profits.”
These social movements, however, continue to suffer from a lack of coordination, due to the refusal of the leadership of the UGTT (the main trade union federation) to give these struggles any concrete support and a more generalised character. The union bureaucrats, former friends of the dictator Ben Ali, have been involved in all the petty manoeuvres of the transitional government to make workers and poor pay for the economic crisis and for the old regime’s debt, and to try to restore the situation in favour of the capitalists, multinationals and banks.
The Congress of the UGTT, which will take place on 2 December, should be fully transparent, with publicity of the debates, and full accountability of the new elected leadership. It must also be seen by unionised workers as the beginning of a massive purge, at all levels of the trade union, of all the "leaders" who have collaborated with the bosses and with the old regime in the past period, and have attempted to block the aspirations of the working class.
A well prepared one-day general strike, for example on the date of the anniversary of Bouazizi’ self immolation that sparked the revolution (17 December), and supported by local strike committees, democratically elected by the rank-and-file, could be a positive way to re-start the social battle on a healthier basis, and give a boost to the confidence of all workers.
Such a campaign should include the following demands:
•A plan of large scale public investment in the interior regions
•A massive programme of decent jobs creation for young people
•For the reduction of the working week without loss of pay
•For the bringing into public ownership and workers’ control of all Ben Ali and Trabelsi’s wealth
•An end to police brutality
•For the unconditional defence of women rights
•For a refusal to pay the old regime’s debt
•For workers’ control on industry and banks
•For a government of the workers and the poor
Any party relying on the continuation of the rotten capitalist system, ie on the submission of the Tunisian economy to the benefit of large private companies and banks, and on the payment of the debt to financial institutions, will not have any solution to all those who sleep hungry at night, who survive on low wages, or to the endless queues of young people who have never been given the chance to know what is a real job.
None of the parties involved in talks to form the new government (Ennahda, the Congress for the Republic, and Ettakatol) address this question. All are preparing to continue with the same disastrous economic policy of the old regime. There is an urgent need to build a mass party of the workers and poor to fight for their interests.
The combination of crises facing the country, and the experiences of the masses in the last year - the most important of which being the break in the ‘wall of fear’ - will inevitably crystallise into new outbreaks of mass struggle. These struggles must have their own political extension, through a mass party that fights for a revolutionary government of working people, the poor and the youth.
Instead of offering the companies and shares previously owned by the mafia families to the stock exchanges, as suggested by Ennahda, such a government would take immediate action to nationalise them, under the democratic control of workers and the wider public, as a starting point towards a broader plan to shift production and the economy as a whole to develop the country and improve the living standards of the masses.
The seeds of such a society - a democratic socialist society, based on the cooperation and solidarity of working people, instead of profit, corruption and exploitation of labour - have been asserted through the great Tunisian revolutionary movement. A further, decisive, mass struggle by the majority in society will have to be fulfilled to make these seeds germinate, and to make the revolution succeed, permanently.
*1 Dinar is worth 0.51 Euro/ 0.44 Pound/ 0.68 US Dollar
Monday, 5 September 2011
10 years on from 9/11, how the world changed for workers
This week sees the 10th year since the terrible disaster that was the 9/11 terrorits attacks in the United States. Where sadly 3000 maybe more we will never know for sure sadly lost their lives.
As marxists we do not condone individual terroism for our ends. We are against it in every way. Leon trotsky wrote many a good piece on marxists views on terrorism and how we oppose it based on its anti working class sentiment.
But the world changed that day no one can deny that fact. Even as socialists this posed interesting questions at the time. We of course opposed the attacks yet also opposed the imperialist attacks that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq as the "war or terror".
The bloody terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001 in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington were one of the defining moments in recent history. The deaths of thousands of people allowed capitalist reaction – led by George W Bush and the now discredited British prime minister of the time, Tony Blair – the excuse to initiate a new era of terrible imperialist war and foster the poisonous fumes of ethnic division and racism, directed particularly against those of the Islamic faith. This resulted in a colossal number of deaths and destruction which inflicted further untold misery and suffering on millions of working people and the poor, particularly in the neo-colonial world.
The Socialist Party, at the time and since, unequivocally condemned al-Qa’ida, which was behind these attacks, describing its methods as those “of small groups employing mass terrorism”. At the same time, we gave not a shadow of support to Bush or Blair and the cacophony of the capitalist media calling for a worldwide ‘war against terrorism’. In reality, they used 9/11 to justify state terror against defenceless and innocent people throughout the world, symbolised by the torture chambers of Guantánamo Bay and the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
However, this political standpoint was not shared even by some socialist groups, who were equivocal and refused to condemn these attacks. This was a profoundly mistaken approach which risked alienating a majority of working-class people who were repelled by the carnage in New York and Washington. Moreover, this opened up the possibility of driving them into the arms of Bush and Blair in the war preparations for invading Afghanistan and later Iraq.
Historically, Marxism has always opposed terroristic methods. In Russia, Marxism was compelled from the outset to oppose these methods in the struggle against the tsar’s brutal, dictatorial regime. Marxists counterposed the mass struggles of the working class which, by linking up with the peasants, particularly the poor rural masses, was the only force that could lead a successful struggle against tsarism. Not the assassination of even the most repressive government ministers but mass action, the general strike, a mass uprising to overthrow dictatorial regimes, could lay the basis for lasting success.
Leon Trotsky compared terrorism to capitalist liberalism, but with bombs. This seems strange to us today. It is inconceivable, for instance, that Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain and deputy prime minister, would be associated with terroristic methods! But Trotsky’s idea remains valid. Liberals believe that the removal of this or that minister or even a government can introduce fundamental change. The terrorist has the same approach but with violent methods. The replacement of a minister or government is insufficient to bring about real social change. Would the removal of the present government in Britain, for instance, and the coming to power of Ed Miliband and his New Labour party fundamentally change the situation? Merely to pose the question is to answer it. Because a Miliband government would be rooted within the framework of capitalism there would be no dramatic change, particularly in the social conditions of the mass of the people.
Al-Qa’ida, however, was an entirely different kind of terrorist outfit. Despite the attempts of some left groups to prettify the image of Islamic terrorists, al-Qa’ida was rooted in the doctrines of Wahhabism, a medieval version of Sunni Islam and the dominant creed of the theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. In the past, terrorist groups which based themselves, at least in theory, on furthering the social interests of the masses, engaged in the assassination of particular reactionary figures, governments, etc. The origins of al-Qa’ida, with its messianic non-class opposition to the ‘infidel’ and the ‘great Satan’, the US, meant that it was indiscriminate in employing mass terror. Not only did it attack the US and its allies, it also struck down innocent workers and the poor. This was evident on 9/11 but also in its other terrorist acts before and since.
Embracing mass struggle
In the magnificent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, beginning with Tunisia then Egypt, al-Qa’ida was of little or no consequence. As we predicted – against many left-wing groups, like the Socialist Workers Party in Britain, which adapted to organisations based upon right-wing political Islam and exaggerated their importance – youth and workers rejected the failed terrorist model and embraced the methods of mass struggle. Mass occupations of the public squares, strikes and demonstrations were the political weapons for the Tunisian and Egyptian masses to overthrow Ben Ali and Mubarak.
True, the trigger for the Tunisian revolution was the self-immolation of the street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. But this individual act had nothing in common with the methods of indiscriminate mass terror of suicide bombers that marks out al-Qa’ida. Moreover, the conditions for revolution would have had to be prepared by the whole preceding period for an accidental trigger to set in motion a mass movement in Tunisia and Egypt, a feature of all real revolutions.
Where religion still retains a certain base and an attraction to the masses, particularly in the neo-colonial world, it partly arises from the conditions of dictatorship or in the underdeveloped economic character of some countries with a large agricultural population. In the Stalinist dictatorship in Poland before 1989, it was Catholicism through the churches which provided the means of organising resistance on the part of Polish workers. Therefore, the rising had a pronounced religious colouration. This did not lead them, however, to draw pro-capitalist conclusions, in the first instance, from their opposition to Stalinism. In 1980-81, the Solidarity movement, with mass committees and participation, represented at bottom the movement for political revolution to replace the undemocratic Stalinist state structures. At the same time, it sought to retain the elements of a planned economy, nationalisation, etc. In the Iranian revolution of 1979, we witnessed a form of ‘radical Islam’ which appealed to the working class and poor for a time. It cannot be excluded that such phenomena can rise again in the neo-colonial world.
In Egypt, initially, the masses were able to concentrate their forces in opposition to the Mubarak regime around the mosques and, to some extent, the underground independent trade unions. But the Muslim Brotherhood was the only organisation which was allowed to function in a semi-political fashion, and also as a charitable, social self-help organisation. Naturally, therefore, for some sections these are the organisations to which they first turned in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Egyptian dictatorship. While Islamist groups and parties exist in Tunisia they do not have, it seems, the same roots as in Egypt at this stage. Post-Gadaffi Libya, on the other hand, could see a fracturing of the country and the growth of Islamist groups. But it is not clear that this will be the dominant trend. In Egypt, despite the recent sizeable mobilisation of Islamists in Tahrir Square, they are by no means guaranteed to win an absolute majority even in the hastily organised early elections which would favour them. Moreover, it is not certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will remain a cohesive, unified force. There are splits, partly reflecting divisions of a class character. There is talk of at least four different political parties being formed from the Brotherhood.
At the same time, the forces opposed to right-wing political Islam, secularists as well as socialists, are finding an echo among newly politically aroused sections of the working class in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the region. Even in Yemen, which is “widely assumed to have bought into the al-Qa’ida franchise” (The Guardian), the February uprising led to the creation of revolutionary committees where discussion raged about non-sectarian strategies for change. Everywhere in the Middle East and North Africa the initial impulse in the revolutions was for a non-sectarian approach with a clear direction towards class conclusions on the part of the masses. In the unspeakable social conditions in Yemen, a country of seven million people where one third of the population is deemed to be ‘food insecure’ and 10% are malnourished, it will take more than religion to satisfy the demands of the masses.
Liberated from the yoke of dictatorship, they have poured onto the political arena and, as the example of Egypt shows, will be not silenced by the edicts of the discredited military elite. They will push on to advance their demands for drastically improved living conditions, democratic rights, trade union organisation, etc. The vital ingredient which is missing to guarantee success in the struggle is the existence of mass organisations, of powerful trade unions and independent working-class parties. But the convulsive movements experienced and even greater ones to come will be great teachers of the masses that only through their own independent banner will they be able to conquer a position where they can begin to realise their aspirations for jobs, shelter and tolerable living standards.
As marxists we do not condone individual terroism for our ends. We are against it in every way. Leon trotsky wrote many a good piece on marxists views on terrorism and how we oppose it based on its anti working class sentiment.
But the world changed that day no one can deny that fact. Even as socialists this posed interesting questions at the time. We of course opposed the attacks yet also opposed the imperialist attacks that followed in Afghanistan and Iraq as the "war or terror".
The bloody terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001 in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington were one of the defining moments in recent history. The deaths of thousands of people allowed capitalist reaction – led by George W Bush and the now discredited British prime minister of the time, Tony Blair – the excuse to initiate a new era of terrible imperialist war and foster the poisonous fumes of ethnic division and racism, directed particularly against those of the Islamic faith. This resulted in a colossal number of deaths and destruction which inflicted further untold misery and suffering on millions of working people and the poor, particularly in the neo-colonial world.
The Socialist Party, at the time and since, unequivocally condemned al-Qa’ida, which was behind these attacks, describing its methods as those “of small groups employing mass terrorism”. At the same time, we gave not a shadow of support to Bush or Blair and the cacophony of the capitalist media calling for a worldwide ‘war against terrorism’. In reality, they used 9/11 to justify state terror against defenceless and innocent people throughout the world, symbolised by the torture chambers of Guantánamo Bay and the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
However, this political standpoint was not shared even by some socialist groups, who were equivocal and refused to condemn these attacks. This was a profoundly mistaken approach which risked alienating a majority of working-class people who were repelled by the carnage in New York and Washington. Moreover, this opened up the possibility of driving them into the arms of Bush and Blair in the war preparations for invading Afghanistan and later Iraq.
Historically, Marxism has always opposed terroristic methods. In Russia, Marxism was compelled from the outset to oppose these methods in the struggle against the tsar’s brutal, dictatorial regime. Marxists counterposed the mass struggles of the working class which, by linking up with the peasants, particularly the poor rural masses, was the only force that could lead a successful struggle against tsarism. Not the assassination of even the most repressive government ministers but mass action, the general strike, a mass uprising to overthrow dictatorial regimes, could lay the basis for lasting success.
Leon Trotsky compared terrorism to capitalist liberalism, but with bombs. This seems strange to us today. It is inconceivable, for instance, that Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain and deputy prime minister, would be associated with terroristic methods! But Trotsky’s idea remains valid. Liberals believe that the removal of this or that minister or even a government can introduce fundamental change. The terrorist has the same approach but with violent methods. The replacement of a minister or government is insufficient to bring about real social change. Would the removal of the present government in Britain, for instance, and the coming to power of Ed Miliband and his New Labour party fundamentally change the situation? Merely to pose the question is to answer it. Because a Miliband government would be rooted within the framework of capitalism there would be no dramatic change, particularly in the social conditions of the mass of the people.
Al-Qa’ida, however, was an entirely different kind of terrorist outfit. Despite the attempts of some left groups to prettify the image of Islamic terrorists, al-Qa’ida was rooted in the doctrines of Wahhabism, a medieval version of Sunni Islam and the dominant creed of the theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. In the past, terrorist groups which based themselves, at least in theory, on furthering the social interests of the masses, engaged in the assassination of particular reactionary figures, governments, etc. The origins of al-Qa’ida, with its messianic non-class opposition to the ‘infidel’ and the ‘great Satan’, the US, meant that it was indiscriminate in employing mass terror. Not only did it attack the US and its allies, it also struck down innocent workers and the poor. This was evident on 9/11 but also in its other terrorist acts before and since.
Embracing mass struggle
In the magnificent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, beginning with Tunisia then Egypt, al-Qa’ida was of little or no consequence. As we predicted – against many left-wing groups, like the Socialist Workers Party in Britain, which adapted to organisations based upon right-wing political Islam and exaggerated their importance – youth and workers rejected the failed terrorist model and embraced the methods of mass struggle. Mass occupations of the public squares, strikes and demonstrations were the political weapons for the Tunisian and Egyptian masses to overthrow Ben Ali and Mubarak.
True, the trigger for the Tunisian revolution was the self-immolation of the street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. But this individual act had nothing in common with the methods of indiscriminate mass terror of suicide bombers that marks out al-Qa’ida. Moreover, the conditions for revolution would have had to be prepared by the whole preceding period for an accidental trigger to set in motion a mass movement in Tunisia and Egypt, a feature of all real revolutions.
Where religion still retains a certain base and an attraction to the masses, particularly in the neo-colonial world, it partly arises from the conditions of dictatorship or in the underdeveloped economic character of some countries with a large agricultural population. In the Stalinist dictatorship in Poland before 1989, it was Catholicism through the churches which provided the means of organising resistance on the part of Polish workers. Therefore, the rising had a pronounced religious colouration. This did not lead them, however, to draw pro-capitalist conclusions, in the first instance, from their opposition to Stalinism. In 1980-81, the Solidarity movement, with mass committees and participation, represented at bottom the movement for political revolution to replace the undemocratic Stalinist state structures. At the same time, it sought to retain the elements of a planned economy, nationalisation, etc. In the Iranian revolution of 1979, we witnessed a form of ‘radical Islam’ which appealed to the working class and poor for a time. It cannot be excluded that such phenomena can rise again in the neo-colonial world.
In Egypt, initially, the masses were able to concentrate their forces in opposition to the Mubarak regime around the mosques and, to some extent, the underground independent trade unions. But the Muslim Brotherhood was the only organisation which was allowed to function in a semi-political fashion, and also as a charitable, social self-help organisation. Naturally, therefore, for some sections these are the organisations to which they first turned in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Egyptian dictatorship. While Islamist groups and parties exist in Tunisia they do not have, it seems, the same roots as in Egypt at this stage. Post-Gadaffi Libya, on the other hand, could see a fracturing of the country and the growth of Islamist groups. But it is not clear that this will be the dominant trend. In Egypt, despite the recent sizeable mobilisation of Islamists in Tahrir Square, they are by no means guaranteed to win an absolute majority even in the hastily organised early elections which would favour them. Moreover, it is not certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will remain a cohesive, unified force. There are splits, partly reflecting divisions of a class character. There is talk of at least four different political parties being formed from the Brotherhood.
At the same time, the forces opposed to right-wing political Islam, secularists as well as socialists, are finding an echo among newly politically aroused sections of the working class in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the region. Even in Yemen, which is “widely assumed to have bought into the al-Qa’ida franchise” (The Guardian), the February uprising led to the creation of revolutionary committees where discussion raged about non-sectarian strategies for change. Everywhere in the Middle East and North Africa the initial impulse in the revolutions was for a non-sectarian approach with a clear direction towards class conclusions on the part of the masses. In the unspeakable social conditions in Yemen, a country of seven million people where one third of the population is deemed to be ‘food insecure’ and 10% are malnourished, it will take more than religion to satisfy the demands of the masses.
Liberated from the yoke of dictatorship, they have poured onto the political arena and, as the example of Egypt shows, will be not silenced by the edicts of the discredited military elite. They will push on to advance their demands for drastically improved living conditions, democratic rights, trade union organisation, etc. The vital ingredient which is missing to guarantee success in the struggle is the existence of mass organisations, of powerful trade unions and independent working-class parties. But the convulsive movements experienced and even greater ones to come will be great teachers of the masses that only through their own independent banner will they be able to conquer a position where they can begin to realise their aspirations for jobs, shelter and tolerable living standards.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Egypt and Tunisian revolutions at a crossroads
Starting in Tunisia, a wave of revolutions and protests swept the Middle East and North Africa followed Mohamed Bouazizi's desperate act of self-immolation against poverty and oppression. These movements have now reached turning points.
As protesters in Egypt call for a 'second revolution', ROBERT BECHERT from the Committee for a Workers' International, the socialist world organisation to which the Socialist Party is affiliated, looks at the latest revolutionary, and counter-revolutionary, reverberations. Following Robert's article is an eye-witness report from Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the heroic mass revolts it seems that in Tunisia and Egypt, notwithstanding the ousting of the old dictators, the bulk of the old elite are still in power, while in other countries the regimes are holding on.
Spiegel, the German news weekly, summed this up: "The Arab revolution has come to a standstill, and all the signs point to the restoration of the status quo".
At the same time, under a 'humanitarian' banner, the US and the European powers are directly intervening, whether it be to help install a pro-western regime in Libya or to help their friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc, avoid revolutionary upheavals.
Real revolutions are marked by the entry of the broad masses onto the stage of struggle and mass activity. This is certainly what we have seen in country after country. Revolutions do not develop in a straight line; there are ups and downs, advances and retreats.
But through events and experiences the broad masses learn and draw conclusions, something seen already in the growing opposition to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that took power in Egypt after Mubarak resigned.
A vivid sign of the continuing radicalisation in Egypt was seen on 27 May. Just over four months since the first mass protest against Mubarak on 25 January, tens of thousands gathered in cities across the country in a "Second Day of Rage" to call for a "second revolution". Despite opposition and warnings from Egypt's military rulers and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)and other Islamic forces, around 100,000 gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
The demands were varied and included quick trials of Mubarak, release of all political detainees arrested since Mubarak's fall and the replacement of the military SCAF by a presidential council to run the country until elections are held.
Above all there was a feeling that the old elite was still in power, summed up by some protesters saying that they "haven't felt the change" since Mubarak had gone.
Two-sided victories
On the one hand there have been big changes, especially the experience of mass movements undermining dictators and the confidence this has given to many workers and youth.
However the big initial victories, Ben Ali's flight from Tunisia and Mubarak's forced resignation, had two, contrasting, sides. They were great victories for the mass movements but at the same time they were also sacrifices made by the Tunisian and Egyptian ruling classes so that they could continue in control. Egypt's military tops made this abundantly clear when they, in reality, put themselves in power by staging a 'cold coup'.
The SCAF made some gestures, formally charging Mubarak and allowing a limited opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, just before 27 May. But at the same time one of its advisers was arguing that the military should have a "special status" in the new constitution and parliament should not openly discuss military matters.
Initially, the generals' cold coup was not clear to the millions who celebrated Mubarak's departure. Since then, many have begun to understand that, despite the welcome changes, the fundamental structure of Egypt has not fundamentally altered. This is the background to the 27 May protests.
Corrupt regimes
In practically all North African and Middle Eastern countries, overwhelmingly young populations face corrupt dictatorial, or at best authoritarian, regimes presiding over large-scale unemployment and poverty, now being worsened by inflation. The revolution was made not simply to remove such cliques but to open the way to transform lives.
Inevitably the ruling class, and especially those associated with the old regimes, attempted to stabilise their position, seeking to control mass protests and limit movements.
In these revolutions there was the potential to fundamentally change society, there was a tremendous desire to sweep away the old order, but there was no clarity on what should replace it and what concretely could be done.
A combination of decades of repression, limited independent workers' organisations and the weakness of genuine socialist forces meant that there was no sizeable organisation that could argue for concrete action to implement a programme to secure democratic rights, break the local elite's power and begin the transformation of society.
This is why the huge elemental movements in Tunisia and Egypt have not, so far, resulted in the overthrow of the old ruling class. This is despite the fact that, at their initial peak, these revolutionary struggles of workers and youth could potentially have swept aside all obstacles to transforming society if they had been fully aware of their power.
Especially in Tunisia the leadership of the official trade unions, most of whom were tied to the previous regime, played an important role in helping to hold back the revolution's scope. While in Egypt the old official trade unions had far less standing among workers, already before the revolution, pro-capitalist trade union leaders from Europe and the USA were attempting to influence the leaders of the newly emerging independent trade unions.
While sections of workers and others are using the new, more open situation to press forward their demands there is a growing understanding that elements of the old order are reasserting themselves. This has produced the repeated protests in Tunisia as workers and youth try to resist attempts to 'end' the revolution before all their demands are met, something seen previously in many other revolutions.
Objectively, in today's world dominated by imperialism, these societies cannot develop on the basis of capitalism. In fact, given the relative weakness of capitalism in many of these countries, the ruling classes cannot tolerate for long the existence of real democratic rights, especially the right to organise and struggle.
This is why the question of building a movement that can bring to power a workers' and poor farmers' government is so essential. Only on this basis can the grip of capitalism and landlordism be broken, democratic rights guaranteed and a start made to the democratic planning of the use of society's resources.
Unfortunately, many of the emerging left forces in these countries either do not agree with this analysis or fail to make this idea the basis of their day-to-day activity.
Instead, pointing to the current consciousness of many of the workers and youth, they limit their programme to one that fundamentally attempts to work within capitalism. Not arguing that the government which is needed to complete the revolution is one formed by workers and the poor, opens the door to supporting, directly or indirectly, a pro-capitalist government.
It was through this kind of transitional approach that the Bolsheviks were able to link together immediate slogans like "Bread, Peace, Land" with the idea of overthrowing capitalism in Russia. They were able to build the mass movement that led to the 1917 October revolution when workers took power. Today this means building a movement that fights on both the immediate economic, social and political issues and for the overthrow of capitalism.
Inevitably there is a competition to build support and in both Tunisia and Egypt Islamic forces have also been gaining. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood leadership has striven to gain the confidence of the military rulers, opposing the 27 May rally and praising the generals' role.
Partly this growth stems from their roots in society and existing organisation as well as the relative weakness of genuine socialist forces. They also campaign on the questions of poverty and corruption while exploiting the disappointment with the failure of other more secular nationalist and left forces, some of which once had mass support, to develop society and their subsequent degeneration.
Divisions
But these Islamic forces are not immune from broader developments. Immediately after the 27 May protests the MB leadership attacked their youth wing for participating in the protests and at the same time sacked the editor of the MB's website for writing, amongst other things, that there was a "low turnout" at the protests. A skilful and principled approach by the workers' movement could win over many of those currently looking towards the MB and other such forces.
However, the recent religious clashes in Egypt between Salafist mobilised Muslims and Coptic Christians are a warning of how deep sectarian divisions could develop in the absence of a strong united workers' movement able to defend minorities while showing a socialist way out of society's crisis.
The current weakness of socialist forces has also shaped the development of the revolution more generally. The situations that have unfolded in Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen, while all having their own individual features, have shown the limits of simply demonstrating or occupying open spaces.
Working class
It should be recalled that there were moments in Egypt before Mubarak's departure when it was not clear whether or not the revolution had lost momentum and vital questions of what to do next, including appealing to the armed forces' rank and file and taking initiatives to oust the Mubarak regime, were posed. The mobilisation of the working class hastened the international and military pressure on Mubarak to go.
Events will not develop in a straight line, as already seen in many countries. But they will test all political forces, including those of political Islam, and provide opportunities for socialists to build support for the programme of breaking with capitalism.
If, on this basis, the working class is able to build sizeable forces of its own, especially a mass party, it will have the opportunity to reach out to the rest of the oppressed and also those seeking fundamental change to create a workers' and poor farmers' government.
Then there would be the opportunity for the revolution in North Africa and the Middle East to not only set an example of struggle but start to create a socialist model that can inspire working people around the world that there is an alternative to oppression and the dictates of capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tunisia: Decisive working class action urgently needed
CWI reporter
Four months after former president Ben Ali was ousted there is still an atmosphere of revolution and mass politicisation in Tunisia. Suspicious moves from remnants of the old elite face immediate reaction from the streets. But the joy and optimism of the initial stages have partially been overshadowed by growing dissatisfaction that little has actually changed in the country.
At first, the revolutionary heat was powerful enough to bring down two transitional governments; to topple a number of local 'bosses' in Ben Ali's RCD party as well as corrupt bosses in the private and state sectors; to impose the dismantling of the RCD; and to organise the first elections for a Constituent Assembly. Thanks to a surge in social protests and strike action, some important social gains, such as wage rises, were also conceded.
However, the revolution did not bring down the backbone of the dictatorship's powerful state apparatus. Nor did it change the economic relations upon which the old hated regime flourished.
In the first weeks of May, a brutal police crackdown reminded many Tunisians that the counter-revolution is determined not to give up without a merciless fight.
Despite the official claims, the political police, as well as its networks of snitches, spies, plain clothes cops and provocateurs have not disappeared from the scene.
Tension
Some ex-high ranking RCD officials have been organising through new political parties, registered legally under new names. Meanwhile there has been no serious effort to judge Ben Ali, along with his family and cronies, for their crimes, or to seize their colossal fortunes.
No moves have been taken against most of the torturers or those who opened fire on demonstrators during the uprising. Acts of violence are being encouraged by police thugs and counter-revolutionary militias. Their aim is to create tension that could 'justify' the return to authoritarian methods.
For weeks the government has been campaigning to restore the confidence in the 'profitability' of Tunisia among imperialist countries. The daily demonstrations, strikes and sit-ins are increasingly targeted as an obstacle to the country's development and a threat to national security.
The provisional government of Caïd Essebsi is increasingly exploiting the weaknesses of the revolutionary camp to reaffirm the authority of the state and capitalist rule over the economy. While the majority of the population is struggling to keep its head above water, the government continues to pay back the billions of external debt contracted by Ben Ali's ruling clan. At the same time Essebsi has threatened to withhold civil servants' wages if strikes and sit-ins continue.
United struggle needed
In a situation of mounting social marginalisation and explosive levels of unemployment, all sorts of divisions can develop. Reactionary forces will try to capitalise on this. Deadly tribal clashes have taken place in the region of Gafsa. Elsewhere some unemployed, in desperation, are invading workplaces to dislodge workers and take their place.
These are warning examples of what could develop if a bold lead is not given to unify the different layers of the working and downtrodden masses in a common struggle against capitalism, imperialism and landlordism.
Ennahda, the Islamist party, although it did not take any active part in the revolution, enjoys rising popularity and organisational strength. Its convoys of humanitarian aid sent to the poorest regions of the country contribute to this process.
This is of growing concern to many left activists. However, it is only by building working class unity around a programme addressing the deep social needs of the masses, as well as the aspirations for real democratic rights, and by unveiling the real increasingly pro-big business and divisive character of Ennahda and other Islamist forces, that their impact can be seriously undermined.
A recent initiative, a broad Front of the Forces of Progress and Modernity adds further confusion and obfuscation. Worryingly this initiative involves large parts of the left in an alliance with discredited pro-capitalist forces. It is supposedly aimed at challenging Ennahda's growing influence. However, disconnected from the social and economic concerns of the majority, it instead contributes only in polarising the whole debate around the place of religion in society, and is used by right wing forces to mask their pro-capitalist agenda.
A new political party called the Party of Tunisian Work (PTT) has recently been launched by some trade union leaders. However, the PTT's programme seems to be weak. Indeed, businessmen and notoriously corrupt high-ranking UGTT union bureaucrats are part of the PTT leadership.
The CWI is in favour of resurrecting the idea of a mass party fighting for the interests of the working class and all the poor masses. But such a party should be democratically built from below, bringing together all the genuine revolutionary activists. It must openly challenge the compromised leadership of the UGTT trade union congress to avoid becoming a 'left refuge' for union careerists and for bosses 'praising the virtue of class collaboration'.
What direction?
As long as the revolution has not accomplished its fundamental aims, and the counter-revolutionary threat remains alive, all the local rank-and-file revolutionary committees and collective bodies of defence, that emerged in the initial stage of the revolution, must be maintained.
They must also be consolidated, structured, and extended in all workplaces and communities. This is vital to prevent the dislocation of the revolutionary movement, and to coordinate discussions and actions on a mass scale.
Such committees could also discuss the contents of the new constitution and the future of the country, exercising a real control over the electoral process.
The majority of ordinary Tunisian people share common objectives: to clear out the spectre of the dictatorship once and for all, to get rid of poverty and unemployment, and to achieve real social and democratic freedom for all.
To fulfil these tasks, the revolutionary movement will have to break the power of the minority of rich capitalists and foreign imperialist vultures who perpetuate their control over Tunisia's major companies, banks and big land properties. It must bring these resources into public ownership, to be run democratically by and for the majority.
As the international repercussions of the Tunisian revolution have already shown, such a decisive breakthrough would soon be emulated by millions across the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See socialistworld.net for a longer version of these articles and www.paulmurphymep.eu for reports from the Irish Socialist Party MEP's recent visit to Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As protesters in Egypt call for a 'second revolution', ROBERT BECHERT from the Committee for a Workers' International, the socialist world organisation to which the Socialist Party is affiliated, looks at the latest revolutionary, and counter-revolutionary, reverberations. Following Robert's article is an eye-witness report from Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the heroic mass revolts it seems that in Tunisia and Egypt, notwithstanding the ousting of the old dictators, the bulk of the old elite are still in power, while in other countries the regimes are holding on.
Spiegel, the German news weekly, summed this up: "The Arab revolution has come to a standstill, and all the signs point to the restoration of the status quo".
At the same time, under a 'humanitarian' banner, the US and the European powers are directly intervening, whether it be to help install a pro-western regime in Libya or to help their friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc, avoid revolutionary upheavals.
Real revolutions are marked by the entry of the broad masses onto the stage of struggle and mass activity. This is certainly what we have seen in country after country. Revolutions do not develop in a straight line; there are ups and downs, advances and retreats.
But through events and experiences the broad masses learn and draw conclusions, something seen already in the growing opposition to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that took power in Egypt after Mubarak resigned.
A vivid sign of the continuing radicalisation in Egypt was seen on 27 May. Just over four months since the first mass protest against Mubarak on 25 January, tens of thousands gathered in cities across the country in a "Second Day of Rage" to call for a "second revolution". Despite opposition and warnings from Egypt's military rulers and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)and other Islamic forces, around 100,000 gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
The demands were varied and included quick trials of Mubarak, release of all political detainees arrested since Mubarak's fall and the replacement of the military SCAF by a presidential council to run the country until elections are held.
Above all there was a feeling that the old elite was still in power, summed up by some protesters saying that they "haven't felt the change" since Mubarak had gone.
Two-sided victories
On the one hand there have been big changes, especially the experience of mass movements undermining dictators and the confidence this has given to many workers and youth.
However the big initial victories, Ben Ali's flight from Tunisia and Mubarak's forced resignation, had two, contrasting, sides. They were great victories for the mass movements but at the same time they were also sacrifices made by the Tunisian and Egyptian ruling classes so that they could continue in control. Egypt's military tops made this abundantly clear when they, in reality, put themselves in power by staging a 'cold coup'.
The SCAF made some gestures, formally charging Mubarak and allowing a limited opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, just before 27 May. But at the same time one of its advisers was arguing that the military should have a "special status" in the new constitution and parliament should not openly discuss military matters.
Initially, the generals' cold coup was not clear to the millions who celebrated Mubarak's departure. Since then, many have begun to understand that, despite the welcome changes, the fundamental structure of Egypt has not fundamentally altered. This is the background to the 27 May protests.
Corrupt regimes
In practically all North African and Middle Eastern countries, overwhelmingly young populations face corrupt dictatorial, or at best authoritarian, regimes presiding over large-scale unemployment and poverty, now being worsened by inflation. The revolution was made not simply to remove such cliques but to open the way to transform lives.
Inevitably the ruling class, and especially those associated with the old regimes, attempted to stabilise their position, seeking to control mass protests and limit movements.
In these revolutions there was the potential to fundamentally change society, there was a tremendous desire to sweep away the old order, but there was no clarity on what should replace it and what concretely could be done.
A combination of decades of repression, limited independent workers' organisations and the weakness of genuine socialist forces meant that there was no sizeable organisation that could argue for concrete action to implement a programme to secure democratic rights, break the local elite's power and begin the transformation of society.
This is why the huge elemental movements in Tunisia and Egypt have not, so far, resulted in the overthrow of the old ruling class. This is despite the fact that, at their initial peak, these revolutionary struggles of workers and youth could potentially have swept aside all obstacles to transforming society if they had been fully aware of their power.
Especially in Tunisia the leadership of the official trade unions, most of whom were tied to the previous regime, played an important role in helping to hold back the revolution's scope. While in Egypt the old official trade unions had far less standing among workers, already before the revolution, pro-capitalist trade union leaders from Europe and the USA were attempting to influence the leaders of the newly emerging independent trade unions.
While sections of workers and others are using the new, more open situation to press forward their demands there is a growing understanding that elements of the old order are reasserting themselves. This has produced the repeated protests in Tunisia as workers and youth try to resist attempts to 'end' the revolution before all their demands are met, something seen previously in many other revolutions.
Objectively, in today's world dominated by imperialism, these societies cannot develop on the basis of capitalism. In fact, given the relative weakness of capitalism in many of these countries, the ruling classes cannot tolerate for long the existence of real democratic rights, especially the right to organise and struggle.
This is why the question of building a movement that can bring to power a workers' and poor farmers' government is so essential. Only on this basis can the grip of capitalism and landlordism be broken, democratic rights guaranteed and a start made to the democratic planning of the use of society's resources.
Unfortunately, many of the emerging left forces in these countries either do not agree with this analysis or fail to make this idea the basis of their day-to-day activity.
Instead, pointing to the current consciousness of many of the workers and youth, they limit their programme to one that fundamentally attempts to work within capitalism. Not arguing that the government which is needed to complete the revolution is one formed by workers and the poor, opens the door to supporting, directly or indirectly, a pro-capitalist government.
It was through this kind of transitional approach that the Bolsheviks were able to link together immediate slogans like "Bread, Peace, Land" with the idea of overthrowing capitalism in Russia. They were able to build the mass movement that led to the 1917 October revolution when workers took power. Today this means building a movement that fights on both the immediate economic, social and political issues and for the overthrow of capitalism.
Inevitably there is a competition to build support and in both Tunisia and Egypt Islamic forces have also been gaining. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood leadership has striven to gain the confidence of the military rulers, opposing the 27 May rally and praising the generals' role.
Partly this growth stems from their roots in society and existing organisation as well as the relative weakness of genuine socialist forces. They also campaign on the questions of poverty and corruption while exploiting the disappointment with the failure of other more secular nationalist and left forces, some of which once had mass support, to develop society and their subsequent degeneration.
Divisions
But these Islamic forces are not immune from broader developments. Immediately after the 27 May protests the MB leadership attacked their youth wing for participating in the protests and at the same time sacked the editor of the MB's website for writing, amongst other things, that there was a "low turnout" at the protests. A skilful and principled approach by the workers' movement could win over many of those currently looking towards the MB and other such forces.
However, the recent religious clashes in Egypt between Salafist mobilised Muslims and Coptic Christians are a warning of how deep sectarian divisions could develop in the absence of a strong united workers' movement able to defend minorities while showing a socialist way out of society's crisis.
The current weakness of socialist forces has also shaped the development of the revolution more generally. The situations that have unfolded in Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen, while all having their own individual features, have shown the limits of simply demonstrating or occupying open spaces.
Working class
It should be recalled that there were moments in Egypt before Mubarak's departure when it was not clear whether or not the revolution had lost momentum and vital questions of what to do next, including appealing to the armed forces' rank and file and taking initiatives to oust the Mubarak regime, were posed. The mobilisation of the working class hastened the international and military pressure on Mubarak to go.
Events will not develop in a straight line, as already seen in many countries. But they will test all political forces, including those of political Islam, and provide opportunities for socialists to build support for the programme of breaking with capitalism.
If, on this basis, the working class is able to build sizeable forces of its own, especially a mass party, it will have the opportunity to reach out to the rest of the oppressed and also those seeking fundamental change to create a workers' and poor farmers' government.
Then there would be the opportunity for the revolution in North Africa and the Middle East to not only set an example of struggle but start to create a socialist model that can inspire working people around the world that there is an alternative to oppression and the dictates of capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tunisia: Decisive working class action urgently needed
CWI reporter
Four months after former president Ben Ali was ousted there is still an atmosphere of revolution and mass politicisation in Tunisia. Suspicious moves from remnants of the old elite face immediate reaction from the streets. But the joy and optimism of the initial stages have partially been overshadowed by growing dissatisfaction that little has actually changed in the country.
At first, the revolutionary heat was powerful enough to bring down two transitional governments; to topple a number of local 'bosses' in Ben Ali's RCD party as well as corrupt bosses in the private and state sectors; to impose the dismantling of the RCD; and to organise the first elections for a Constituent Assembly. Thanks to a surge in social protests and strike action, some important social gains, such as wage rises, were also conceded.
However, the revolution did not bring down the backbone of the dictatorship's powerful state apparatus. Nor did it change the economic relations upon which the old hated regime flourished.
In the first weeks of May, a brutal police crackdown reminded many Tunisians that the counter-revolution is determined not to give up without a merciless fight.
Despite the official claims, the political police, as well as its networks of snitches, spies, plain clothes cops and provocateurs have not disappeared from the scene.
Tension
Some ex-high ranking RCD officials have been organising through new political parties, registered legally under new names. Meanwhile there has been no serious effort to judge Ben Ali, along with his family and cronies, for their crimes, or to seize their colossal fortunes.
No moves have been taken against most of the torturers or those who opened fire on demonstrators during the uprising. Acts of violence are being encouraged by police thugs and counter-revolutionary militias. Their aim is to create tension that could 'justify' the return to authoritarian methods.
For weeks the government has been campaigning to restore the confidence in the 'profitability' of Tunisia among imperialist countries. The daily demonstrations, strikes and sit-ins are increasingly targeted as an obstacle to the country's development and a threat to national security.
The provisional government of Caïd Essebsi is increasingly exploiting the weaknesses of the revolutionary camp to reaffirm the authority of the state and capitalist rule over the economy. While the majority of the population is struggling to keep its head above water, the government continues to pay back the billions of external debt contracted by Ben Ali's ruling clan. At the same time Essebsi has threatened to withhold civil servants' wages if strikes and sit-ins continue.
United struggle needed
In a situation of mounting social marginalisation and explosive levels of unemployment, all sorts of divisions can develop. Reactionary forces will try to capitalise on this. Deadly tribal clashes have taken place in the region of Gafsa. Elsewhere some unemployed, in desperation, are invading workplaces to dislodge workers and take their place.
These are warning examples of what could develop if a bold lead is not given to unify the different layers of the working and downtrodden masses in a common struggle against capitalism, imperialism and landlordism.
Ennahda, the Islamist party, although it did not take any active part in the revolution, enjoys rising popularity and organisational strength. Its convoys of humanitarian aid sent to the poorest regions of the country contribute to this process.
This is of growing concern to many left activists. However, it is only by building working class unity around a programme addressing the deep social needs of the masses, as well as the aspirations for real democratic rights, and by unveiling the real increasingly pro-big business and divisive character of Ennahda and other Islamist forces, that their impact can be seriously undermined.
A recent initiative, a broad Front of the Forces of Progress and Modernity adds further confusion and obfuscation. Worryingly this initiative involves large parts of the left in an alliance with discredited pro-capitalist forces. It is supposedly aimed at challenging Ennahda's growing influence. However, disconnected from the social and economic concerns of the majority, it instead contributes only in polarising the whole debate around the place of religion in society, and is used by right wing forces to mask their pro-capitalist agenda.
A new political party called the Party of Tunisian Work (PTT) has recently been launched by some trade union leaders. However, the PTT's programme seems to be weak. Indeed, businessmen and notoriously corrupt high-ranking UGTT union bureaucrats are part of the PTT leadership.
The CWI is in favour of resurrecting the idea of a mass party fighting for the interests of the working class and all the poor masses. But such a party should be democratically built from below, bringing together all the genuine revolutionary activists. It must openly challenge the compromised leadership of the UGTT trade union congress to avoid becoming a 'left refuge' for union careerists and for bosses 'praising the virtue of class collaboration'.
What direction?
As long as the revolution has not accomplished its fundamental aims, and the counter-revolutionary threat remains alive, all the local rank-and-file revolutionary committees and collective bodies of defence, that emerged in the initial stage of the revolution, must be maintained.
They must also be consolidated, structured, and extended in all workplaces and communities. This is vital to prevent the dislocation of the revolutionary movement, and to coordinate discussions and actions on a mass scale.
Such committees could also discuss the contents of the new constitution and the future of the country, exercising a real control over the electoral process.
The majority of ordinary Tunisian people share common objectives: to clear out the spectre of the dictatorship once and for all, to get rid of poverty and unemployment, and to achieve real social and democratic freedom for all.
To fulfil these tasks, the revolutionary movement will have to break the power of the minority of rich capitalists and foreign imperialist vultures who perpetuate their control over Tunisia's major companies, banks and big land properties. It must bring these resources into public ownership, to be run democratically by and for the majority.
As the international repercussions of the Tunisian revolution have already shown, such a decisive breakthrough would soon be emulated by millions across the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See socialistworld.net for a longer version of these articles and www.paulmurphymep.eu for reports from the Irish Socialist Party MEP's recent visit to Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)