Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African News Wire, speaking in Clark Park on October 12, 2007 at a rally in solidarity with the immigrant rights movement in the United States. (Photo: Alan Pollock)
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos
Implications for the anti-imperialist struggle in Africa, the Middle East and around the world
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Editor's Note: The following address was delivered at a public meeting on Saturday, Feb. 5, 2011 on the political uprisings in North Africa. The event was sponsored by the Detroit offices of Workers World and the Harriet Tubman School located near Wayne State University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass demonstrations, rebellions, and programmatic actions aimed at overthrowing neo-colonial regimes that are allied with U.S. imperialism have arose with fury throughout various states in North Africa and the Middle East. In Tunisia on December 17, a 26-year-old university graduate who had been unable to find professional employment eked out an existence as a market trader while still living with his parents.
This young man was set upon by the authorities and forced to close down his stand because ostensibly he did not have proper papers to work as a street vendor in the southern and most underdeveloped region of Tunisia. He fell into despair--and as an act of protest to the neo-colonial society that does not provide an opportunity for youth to earn a decent living--set his self on fire.
The youth would languish for several weeks in hospital and eventually died from his wounds. Nonetheless, the incident would serve as a galvanizing moment to not only the people in the south of Tunisia but throughout the country. Soon enough large protests and clashes with the authorities ensued.
By the second week in January a pre-revolutionary situation was in existence throughout Tunisia. On Jan. 14 tens of thousands of youth and workers stormed the ministry of the interior and other government buildings demanding that the ruling Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) ruling party step down and that President Ben Ali follow suit.
There were reports that two prisons had experienced revolts where the inmates had overpowered the guards, set the buildings on fire and fled into the countryside and cities. Assessing the situation, Ben Ali, along with his imperialist backers in France and the United States, decided to cut their losses and flee to Saudi Arabia.
Yet the masses of workers, through their trade union federation, the UGTT, and the various professional and political organizations, began to say that this was not nearly enough. To replace the Ben Ali leadership with that of Ghannouchi would be analogous to maintaining the status-quo. A strike ensured on Jan. 18 which kept the schools closed for a longer period and brought thousands into the streets demanding the creation of a new social order.
Some of the main forces involved in the Tunisian struggle consists of the UGTT, which having been under the influence and control of the ruling RCD, during the upsurge began to act independently of the government. Over the last several years affiliates of the trade union federation have taken action against the state and private interests such as the strikes that took place in the Mafsa mines in the south during 2008.
The Worker's Communist Party (PCOT) leader was interviewed by the BBC and stated that it wanted the establishment of a national democratic transitional government that would consist of all the major political forces inside the country. The Islamic-oriented Al-Nadr (Renaissance) Party was unbaned and its leader was allowed to return from exile.
Nonetheless, developments in Egypt beginning Jan. 25 would also draw the attention of the international community. A coalition of organizations called for mass demonstrations demanding an end to the regime of Hosni Mubarak. This was a bold move for the Egyptian youth, workers and professional sectors of the population who flooded the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other cities in the country.
Over thirty years of the repressive and authoritarian control of the state and society by the National Democratic Party (NDP) had not broken the will to struggle by the Egyptian people. Demonstrations took place every day and by Jan. 28, a "million man march", which encompassed women, men, youth and children throughout Cairo and other cities, illustrated to the world that the people of Egypt were engaged in a revolutionary movement of historical significance.
The U.S. imperialists were taken a back by the developments in Tunisia and later Egypt. On Jan. 25, President Obama said in his "State of the Union" address that the United States supported the democratic aspirations of the people. Yet it was not mentioned that President Ben Ali had been a close ally of both the U.S. and France in the so-called "war on terrorism," which has further militarized the region.
The Battle for Tahrir Square
Perhaps one of the most fierst political struggles of the current period took place in downtown Cairo on Feb. 2-3 when the counter-revolution struck back. Thousands of pro-Mubarak operatives invaded Tahrir Square on Feb. 2 on horse and camel back. Others were on foot when they all attacked the progressive forces resulting in scores of injuries and later deaths.
The anti-Mubarak forces were able to capture and arrest some of the attackers who welded deadly weapons including petrol bombs and pistols. According to eyewitness reports the counter-revolutionary gangs had police identification cards and government checks made out to them. The pro-Mubarak forces were set up on rooftops surrounding the Cairo Museum leading into the square where they tossed petrol bombs, stones and fired weapons down into the area of the square where tens of thousands of people were holding court.
It was reported during the morning hours of Feb. 3 that five people were killed in the clashes the day and night before. On Feb. 4, another day of mass action where millions more came into the streets, the Ministry of Health announced that 13 people had lost their lives and 800 were injured. Scenes from CNN and Al Jazeera showed people with serious wounds lying in make shift hospitals set up by the democratic forces.
Injuries sustained by the pro-democracy forces included gunshot wounds, lacerations and deep cuts from stones, sticks, matchets and knives. There were people shown who literally had their heads split open with the weapons used by the counter-revolutionary thugs. Yet these same injured people remained in Liberation Square to participate in the demonstrations on Feb. 4.
All the while that these attacks were being carried out by the pro-Mubarak forces the army sat idly by and allowed not only these thugs to enter the area of the pro-democracy demonstrators but to mount buildings and toss petrol bombs and fire weapons for hours unimpeded. Those who experienced and witnessed these events are hard pressed to bear any illusions about the role of the military.
In addition, pro-democracy activists were attacked on the streets by the counter-revolutionary forces and detained. These attacks extended to members of the media including correspondents and camara people for Al Jazeera, CNN and other news agencies. On the night of Feb. 3, CNN reporter Anderson Cooper was reporting from an undisclosed location.
On Feb. 4 the people demonstrated tremendous courage by re-entering the square in great numbers. Although the army kept the pro-Mubarak gangs away from this area in downtown Cairo, they reiterated their call for the people to go home. The people have remained and they say that the demonstrations will continue until Mubarak has resigned.
The Politics of Egyptian History
Egypt is considered by most historians as the cradle of world civilization. Various societies and settlements in the region along the Nile can be traced back tens of thousands of years.
Over the last century or more there has been serious attention and consideration in regard to the actual origins of what is known as Egyptian civilization. According to the outline developed by the Briitsh historian E.A. Wallis Budge in 1925, he dates the end of the Paleolithic Age to approximately 10,000 B.C.
The Late Neolithic Kingdom is dated between 5000-4500 B.C. Budge asserts that the 1st Dynasty grew out of the union between Upper and Lower Egypt under Narmer and Aha Mena (Menes). During this period higher forms of art and writing were introduced utilizing pitographs. There was also the development of religious texts that were composed and chronological tablets created.
By 3500 B.C. the Old Kingdom had expanded its influence to areas in the Sinai and Libya. Two of the major capitals of the period were Tarkhan and Memphis. Budge states that "The high state of Egyptian civilization under the early kings of the 1st Dynasty is well illustrated by the monuments which have been recovered from the tombs of Narmer and Aha, either of whom may have been the Menes of Manetho, for each adopted 'Men' or 'Mena' as one of his strong names. The sculptured green stone palette or Narmer in Cairo (there is a cast of it in the British Museum) proves that the workers in stone had brought their craft to a high pitch of perfection."(The Dwellers on the Nile, E.A. Wallis Budge, 1925)
It is claimed that a succession of Dynastic Kingdoms ruled throughout the region from 4500 B.C. to around 2600 B.C. The Middle Kingdom began with the 12th Dynastic Kingdom which lasted approximately six centuries.
In approximately 1800 B.C. the Hyskos, a tribe of nomads from Palestine and Syria, who were supported by the Hittites and other groups, launched an invasion of Egypt utilizing chariots and horses. The Hyskos were eventually defeated and the exact length of their rule is not definitively known.
The New Kingdom arose after the expulsion of the Hyskos and the rule of the Egyptian kings extended into Palestine and Syria which became provinces of the Dynastic ruler Aahmes I. According to Budge, "under Aahmes, a truly military dictator, Egypt becomes a warlike power with horses and chariots and a large army. Wars erupt in Libya and Syria; Nubia is conquered as far as the foot of the Fourth Cataract." (Budge, p. 9)
Budge continues by pointing out that the "Wars in Western Asia, the country conquered as far north as the Upper Euphrates, Egyptian colonies were made and governors of all important towns and cities were appointed by the Pharaoh. Western Asia and the Sudan poured tribute to Egypt, which becomes the richest country in the world." (Budge, p. 9)
This dominance resulted in "All trade routes being seized by the Egyptians; trade with Punt, Arabia, Syria, Palestine and many islands in the Mediterranean quickly developed." Egypt through a series of treaties and royal marriages maintains its Asiatic empire until approximately 1350 B.C.
In 721 B.C. the Nubians conquered all of Egypt under Pianki. As a result of rebellions within the Delta the Assyrians invade the country take over Memphis and Thebes, plundering and destroying the cities.
It was after this period that Egypt developed an alliance with the Greeks against the Persians. The Persians invaded and conquered the country around 525 B.C. There were continual conflicts with the Persians for nearly two centuries and later in 323 B.C. Alexander the Great conquered Egypt resulting in Greek rule for nearly three centuries. However, by 30 B.C. Egypt had become an outpost of the Roman Empire.
The point of giving this brief and simplified chronology of Egyptian history during the ancient period is to illustrate that the region has been a gateway for various peoples from Africa, Western Asia and the Mediterrenean. Centuries prior to the intervention of the Arabs and Muslims in 639 A.D., Egypt had built great civilizations whose remnants are still in evidence today.
One other significant note is the central role of Egypt in the development of Christianity. Even in the New Testament of the Bible it is claimed that Jesus came out of Egypt when he re-entered Palestine under the Roman Empire. After the death of Jesus, it was in Egypt that the Coptic Church was formed starting around 70 A.D. under the leadership of St. Mark. The Copitc Church predates the intervention of Islam by six centuries and there is a substantial Christian community in Egypt today with large churches in Alexandria and other cities.
Egypt also fell under the Ottoman Turkish Empire in the 16th Century. Later at the conclusion of the 19th Century the British and French colonialists controlled regions of the country and the Suez Canal was built and controlled by the imperialists.
Egypt in Modern History
The anti-colonial history of Eygpt is quite formidable as well with the advent of resistance movements and political parties during the late 19th and early 20 centuries. The masses demanded the independence of the country, an alliance with Sudan and the return of the Suez Canal to the control of a free Egypt.
The country was largely controlled by a British-imposed monarchy after the 1920s. In 1952 a rebellion by the workers and youth resulted in the Free Officers Coup where Gamal Abdel Nassar eventually took control. In 1956, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal prompting the intervention of Britain, France and Israel in an effort to overthrow the Nasser government.
Britain sought to use this crisis to reassert its colonial system that had been severely damaged in the aftermath of World War II. The United States, which had became the dominate imperialist power after World War II, threatened Britain with a termination of financial aid if it did not withdraw from Egypt. The U.S. used this crisis to strengthen its relations with Egypt and to prevent an even greater alliance with the Soviet Union and China.
Revolutionary uprisings in Lebanon and Iraq in 1958 resulted in the so-called Eisenhower Doctrine where the U.S. would dispatch troops to Lebanon to prevent the coming to power of a government that would be hostile to its interests. In Iraq in 1958, the British-imposed monarch was overthrown and a secular nationalist government was established.
Egypt under Nasser was an anti-imperialist country that participated seriously in the Arab League, the Conference of Independent African States, the Nonaligned Movement and the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The national liberation movements of Africa and the Arab world were given sanctuary and support by the Nasser government. Radio Cairo was a voice of revolution throughout the African continent and the Arab region.
Malcolm X visited Egypt in 1959 while still a member of the Nation of Islam. After Malcolm's departure from the NOI, he made Hajj in April 1964 and would later visit Egypt again. He developed a working relationship with the Nasser government and when he returned to Africa between July and November of 1964, he spent the most time in Egypt where he was recognized as a freedom fighter and Muslim leader.
In 1967, the so-called Six Day War with Israel resulted in the defeat of Egypt and the occupation of greater territories by Tel Aviv in the Sinai, the West Bank and Gaza in Palestine and the Golan Heights in Syria. It was after this defeat that Nasser and other states in the region began to supply more direct aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Nasser died of natural causes in 1970 leading to the ascendancy of Anwar Sadat. Egypt launched an attack on Israeli forces in the Sinai in October 1973 that nearly resulted in the further internationalization of the war. Nonetheless, the Egyptian government under Sadat would move further away from the Soviet Union and closer to the United States.
A series of negotiations in 1977-78 resulted in the signing of a separate peace treaty between Egypt and Israel under the aegis of the United States under the Carter administration. The action taken by Sadat on behalf of the Egyptian people was condemned by liberation movements and progressive forces throughout the region. Egypt was even suspended from the Conference of Islamic States.
In 1981, Sadat was assassinated by some members of his own military forces. Hosni Mubarak took control of the Egyptian state and remains in control up until the period of the national uprising of January 2011.
Over the course of the years, Egypt has become even more dependent upon U.S. imperialism in regard to shaping both its domestic and foreign policy. Objectively the Mubarak regime works in conjunction with the U.S. and Israel in stifling the Palestinian national liberation struggle by maintaining the closure of the border with Gaza.
Despite the talks that took place on Feb. 6 between Vice-President Omar Sulieman and leaders of various opposition organizations and parties, the Egyptian state and government has not made the substantial changes that the masses of youth and workers want to see occur with immediate effect.
From Revolutionary Upsurge to the Revolutionary Seizure of Power by the People
The attacks on the people at Tahrir Square and the courageous defense waged by the coalition of progressive forces, is a great victory for the Egyptian revolutionary struggle. The ultimate aim of any revolution is to seize power on behalf of the popular classes, the workers, farmers and the unemployed and marginalized youth. This is a task that requires organization and a program for the overturning of the government, the state and the replacement of the neo-colonial regime with one that is representative of the workers and the youth.
This current escalation in the struggle to topple Mubarak in Egypt did not arise out of a vacuum. The trade union movement and workers in general have waged consistent organized efforts to win political and economic rights.
The conditions in Egypt related to high unemployment and the rising cost of living are indicative of the world economic crisis which began in the western industrialized states, particularly the U.S., nearly four years ago. As structural unemployment rises inside the U.S., the conditions for workers, farmers and youth inside the developing and post-colonial societies are also becoming acute.
Since 2008, there have been perennial crises involving the rising price and scarcity of food, the escalating cost of fuel and the failure of various governments throughout Europe, Africa and the United States to adequately address the needs of the people most impacted by the global recession.
Nonetheless, it is often in times of economic distress and imperialist war that the contradictions within capitalist society sparks a social response that can transform the balance of forces. In Tunisia and Egypt, the neo-colonial puppets of U.S. and French imperialism have been shaken and forced to seriously contemplate their future within a new set of political circumstances.
These struggles in Tunisia and Egypt will inevitably go through various phases. The masses will be the final determinants of the character and pace of the uprisings which are ultimately aimed at transforming the governments of both these North African states.
Whether it will take class warfare or civil war to bring about that change will also be influenced by the role of the Mubarak regime and its supporters within the United States and Israel. If the Egyptian state backed up by the U.S. and Israel chooses to suppress the popular uprising of the people, it could very well usher in a conflict that would have not only regional but international implications.
The Significance of Revolutions in History to the Current Situation
One of the early lessons in the seizure of power and the establishment of a state of the people took place in 1870-1871 in Paris, when the workers refused to surrender in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. This gallant lesson in working class struggle can serve as an inspiration to the people of Egypt as well.
Karl Marx spoke and wrote extensively on what is known in history as the Paris Commune of 1871. The interest of revolutionaries in this early example of an attempt to not only seize territory on behalf of the working class but to develop and implement a political program to establish a socialist state, extended to the time of V.I. Lenin leading
up to the period of the Russian Revolution in 1917.
After Marx's death in 1883, his close collaborator and comrade, Frederick Engels, would write an introduction in 1891 to the book entitled "The Civil War in France," saying “I did not anticipate that I would be asked to prepare a new edition of the Address of the General Council of the International on The Civil War in France, and to write an introduction to it.” (The Civil War in France, Engels introduction, 1891)
Engels later writes that “From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once coming to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment.” (p. 20)
The question is then asked by Engels “What had been the characteristic attribute of the former state? Society had created its own organs to look after its common interests, originally through simple divisions of labor. But these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time, in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the servants of society into the masters of society, as can be seen, for example, not only in the hereditary monarch, but equally also in the democratic republic.” (p. 20)
The writer then goes on to point out the character of the political culture in the United States noting that “Nowhere do ‘politicians’ form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions.” (p. 20)
Not only has the Marxist analysis of the Paris Commune addressed this contradiction, the actual experience of the African revolutionary struggle for national independence and unity confirms these assertions. African revolutionary thinkers and practitioners such as Kwame Nkrumah and Frantz Fanon have written in detail on neo-colonialism with specific reference to the continent.
Engels notes the special example of the Paris Commune during its brief period of existence that “Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from the servants of society into masters of society—an inevitable transformation in all previous states—the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In the first place, it filled all posts—administrative, judicial and educational—by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion.” (p. 21)
Then Engels concludes the introduction to "The Civil War in France" by saying emphatically that “the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap.” (p. 22)
Lenin over two decades later faced the monumental historical task along with the Bolshevik Party of carrying out the first socialist revolution. Leading up to the Russian Revolution of October 1917, Lenin paid special attention to the lessons of the Paris Commune and Engels writings on the nature of the capitalist state.
Assessing the lessons from the Paris Commune, Lenin points out in "State and Revolution" that “Although the socialist proletariat was split up into numerous sects, the Commune was a splendid example of the unanimity with which the proletariat was able to accomplish the democratic tasks which the bourgeoisie could only proclaim. Without any particularly complex legislation, in a simple, straightforward manner, the proletariat, which had seized power, carried out the democratization of the social system, abolished the bureaucracy, and made all official posts elective.”
However, Lenin points out the factors that led to the dissolution of the first experience within European capitalist society where the workers were able to seize power in a given area it their own name. The leader of the Russian Revolution, although praising the accomplishment of the Commune, said that “two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. “
He continues by noting that “The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about ‘expropriating the expropriators,’ it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the county united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a ‘just exchange,’ etc., still prevailed among the socialists.”
Lenin goes on to state as well that “The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the bloodsoaked week of May.”
Learning the lessons of the Commune, Lenin and the Bolsheviks went on to launch the Russian Revolution and build the first socialist state. Later in 1948, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was formed to be followed by the triumph of the Chinese Revolution in October 1949.
In response to both the Korean and Chinese Revolutions, the United States imperialists invaded the Korean Peninsula in June of 1950 launching a three year war which resulted in the deaths of millions of Koreans and over 16,000 U.S. troops and the wounding of 100,000 others. The division of the Korean Peninsula by U.S. imperialism is still a source of conflict to this day.
Nearby Vietnam had declared its independence in August 1945 from both Japan and France. The French sought after the conclusion of World War II to re-assert its colonial influence in both North Africa, in Algeria, and in Southeast Asia, in Vietnam. France suffered defeat in both geo-political regions, in Vietnam in 1954 and in Algeria in 1961, leading to the independence of Algeria in 1962.
U.S. imperialism would then set out to prevent the unification of Vietnam under the leadership of the Vietnamese Workers’ Party. Between 1961-1975 one of the most heroic battles on behalf of proletariat and the peasantry was waged in Southeast Asia. In 1975 U.S. imperialism was defeated in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. That same year, the People’s Republic of Angola was founded under the leadership of the Popular Movement for the Liberation Angola (MPLA) after a 14-year armed revolutionary struggle against Portuguese colonialism backed by NATO.
Nonetheless, it would take the intervention of 55,000 Cuban internationalist troops to defeat an attempted counter-revolution by the then racist settler state of the Republic of South Africa that was occupying that country as well as neighboring Namibia. This struggle against the racist apartheid state that was supported and funded by U.S. and British imperialism along with the Zionist Israeli state, would continue for another 14 years when in 1989 the stage was set for the independence of Namibia and the eventually defeat of apartheid in 1994 in South Africa.
One of the leading tacticians and theoreticians of the Vietnamese Revolution was Le Duan and in a book entitled “The Vietnamese Revolution” he outlined the prerequisites for a successful political and military struggle against imperialism. In chapter 2, under the heading of “Principles and Methods of Revolutionary Action,” Le Duan says that “The victory of the revolution depends primarily on a correct determination of the general orientation and strategic objective, as well as the specific orientation and objective for each period.” (Le Duan, p. 25)
The Vietnamese leader continues stressing that “just as important as defining the orientation and objective is the problem of how to carry them into effect once such decisions have been made. What road should be followed? What forms should be adopted? What measures should be used? Experience has shown that a revolutionary movement may mark time, or even fail, not for lack of clearly defined orientation and objectives, but essentially because there have been no appropriate principles and methods of revolutionary action.”
In carrying forward a revolutionary struggle to total victory Le Duan points out that “Methods of revolutionary action are devised to defeat the enemy of the revolution, and in the most advantageous way, so that the revolution may attain its ends as quickly as possible. Here one also needs wisdom as well as courage; it is not only a science, but also an art.”
Le Duan continues by saying that “Decisions over methods of revolutionary action require, more than in any other field, that the revolutionary maintain the highest creative spirit. Revolution is creation; it cannot succeed without imagination and ingenuity. There has never been nor will there ever be a unique formula for making a revolution that is suited to all situations. One given method may be adaptable to a certain country but unsuitable in another. A correct method in certain times and circumstances may be erroneous in other situations. Everything depends on the concrete historical conditions.“(p. 26)
The Vietnamese revolutionary leader then goes on to quote Lenin: “Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism…To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given moment at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position.” (p. 26)
With specific reference to Tunisia, Egypt and the African continent, Kwame Nkrumah in his classic work entitled “Class Struggle in Africa,” published in 1970, notes that Africa has not been immune from class exploitation and division. He states that “much of our history has been written in terms of socio-anthropological and historical theories as though Africa had no history prior to the colonial period. One of these distortions has been the suggestion that the class structures which exist in other parts of the world do not exist in Africa.” (Nkrumah, p. 10)
According to Nkrumah “nothing is further from the truth. A fierce class struggle has been raging in Africa. The evidence is all around us. In essence it is, as in the rest of the world, a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed.”
Nkrumah emphasizes that “The African Revolution is an integral part of the world socialist revolution, and just as the class struggle is basic to world revolutionary processes, so also is it fundamental to the struggle of the workers and peasants of Africa.”
As the situation may develop in Egypt and Tunisia and other states throughout the region, Nkrumah says that “The basis of a revolution is created when the organic structure and conditions within a given society have aroused mass consent and mass desire for positive action to change or transform that society. While there is no hard and fast dogma for socialist revolution, because no two set of historical conditions and circumstances are exactly alike, experience has shown that under conditions of class struggle, socialist revolution is impossible without the use of force. Revolutionary violence is a fundamental law in revolutionary struggles. The privileged will not, unless compelled, surrender power. They may grant reforms, but will not yield an inch when basic pillars of their entrenched positions are threatened. They can only be overthrown by violent revolutionary action.” (Nkrumah, p. 80)
These observations by Nkrumah and other revolutionary leaders of the 20th Century are still applicable today in light recent developments in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The outcome of the struggles against neo-colonialism and imperialism in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan and Palestine will have a profound impact on the working class and national liberation movements inside the industrialized capitalist states.
The struggles of the last two months in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula has provided great inspiration to the masses of workers and oppressed in North America who also suffer essentially the same social ills as the peoples of other regions of the world. Those victories won in either the capitalist states or the oppressed countries will inevitably lead toward the total collapse of the imperialist system creating the conditions for the realization of more just and egalitarian societies all over world.
No comments:
Post a Comment