Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Anatomy of Change : May 1968
The development of May 1968 was not a miraculous event — the students of Sorbonne did not declare a general strike like the angel Gabriel declared Mary’s child the Messiah. No, like all historical events of prominence, May 1968 resulted from the culmination of lesser events and in-itself was composed of a multitude of events. The process that led up to May 1968 could be traced back to the 1940s, or the 1870s, or the 1790s but for this project I will begin with January of 1968.
The lead up; On the eighth of January in the suburban commune of Nanterre, several students crashed the dedication by the Minister of Youth and Sports of a new swimming pool at the University of Nanterre. One of the students, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, confronted the Minister and said “Monsieur Minister, you’ve published a report on youth problems which is ridiculous. You don’t mention any of the real problems — for instance there’s not a single work on sexuality in it. What about that?” The Minister of youth replied “Young man, if you’ve got problems about that, may I suggest that you take a dip in the swimming pool?” The students, appalled by his reply, forced him to leave the ceremony.
This event was not unique. The month of January marked the beginning of a new form of student activism. At the University of Nanterre a radical group named ‘Les Enragés’, literally ‘The Angry Ones’ emerged. The group emphasized such tactics as sabotage of classes and university departments. Alongside the developments in student activism there was an intensification of the class conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. On the January 26 striking workers were met with violence by the police. On the February 7 a committee against the war in Vietnam organized a counter-demonstration against the supporters of the United States’ hostilities towards Vietnam, and once again the protesters were met with violence. On the fourteenth students throughout France held demonstrations and demanded their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement.
The number and intensity of protests continued to increase in the month of February until the Minister of Education announced liberalization of access to universities. The students used the announcement as an opportunity to organize a convention on the 19th of March. The following day high school and university students are arrested for a protest in downtown Paris against the Vietnam War. The arrests sparked the Movement of the 22nd of March. The Movement served as a rallying point for alienated young workers who adopted the tactics of the Les Engragés. On the March 22 at the University of Nanterre, students disrupted classes to announce that a meeting would be held. Six hundred to seven hundred students attended the meeting. The students collectively decided to occupy the administrative tower in order to establish a base of operations. From the tower the students could both disrupt the administrative repression and control the campus audio system. 140 students took the administrative tower of the school. During the occupations the students planned a day of discussion on the 29th on the topics of imperialism, alienation of students and industrial workers, and student struggles across the world. The Dean of the school in turn announced the closure of the school until 2nd of April and the discussion was put off until the reopening.
On April 2, the day before Easter break, twelve hundred students arrived at the meeting. Over the break students from the Movement of the 22nd of March initiated a demonstration at the German Embassy in Paris over the attempted assignation of the West German leader of the Socialist German Student Union by a fascist. When students returned from the Easter break on April 19 the students at Nanterre organized continuous political meetings and demonstrations. The students faced constant conflicts between leftist and rightist factions. On April 21 the right wing student movement Occident broke up a special assembly of the National Union of French Students (UNEF). The Occident threatened to “smash the Bolshevik scum” at the universities. In response the Maoists launched a defense campaign. The combat tactics of the Maoist group came from the tactics developed by the students at Peking University during the Cultural Revolution. The tactics of the Maoists conflicted with tactics of the Movement of the 22nd of March who considered the combat tactics as nonsense and disruptive. The conflict between Maoists and the Movement escalated to the point of fights in the hallways. In response to the fights the Dean of the University of Nanterre closed the school. The political tension continued to grow and on the 27th of April Daniel Cohn-Bendit was arrested on the grounds of attacking a right-wing student.
(The joys of youth!)
The rise of the movement; The Dean of the University of Nanterre closed the campus. On May 3, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and five other students were sentenced to disciplinary hearings at the University of Sorbonne. The students from Movement of the 22nd of March, along with militants from the student union and left-wing groups, attempted to shut down the disciplinary hearings. The Dean of the University of Paris, Jean Roche, ordered the campus closed and ordered in the police. The police agreed to let the students leave peacefully if they left in groups of twenty-five, men and women separated. The first group of women left without harm but when the first group of men began to leave they were attacked by the police and forced into police vans. The students rushed the vans and attempted to free the arrested students. The fighting spread into the Latin Quarter. Shouting phrases like “free our comrades” and “the Sorbonne belongs to the students”, students began to flood to the scene in order to help the other students. The police retaliated with tear gas. The police succeeded in clearing the courtyard. Over a hundred students were injured and 596 are arrested. In response to the police repression, the National Union of Higher Education and the National Union of French Students initiated national protests call for unlimited strikes. The police arrested Cohn-Bendit and the vice president of the UNEF Jacques Sauvageot and proceeded to question them for 20 hours. The special courts convict thirteen of the demonstrators and sentence four of them to jail terms.
On May 6, 20,000 demonstrators gathered at the Place Denfert-Rocherau with the chants “free our comrades” and “no to repression”. The demonstrators, surrounded by riot police, peacefully marched towards the Sorbonne. When the students rounded the Rue St. Jacques they were immediately met by the police. The police instantly pulled out their truncheons and attacked the students. The students retaliated by throwing stones 422 people are arrested, 345 police and 600 students are injured. Students across France issue a statement of solidarity. On the seventh, 40,000 demonstrators took to the streets. Not only had the quantity of demonstrators changed but a qualitative change took place as well; workers, teachers, and secondary school students joined the university students. The demonstrators marched from the Champs-Elesee to the Arc de Triomphe. The UNEF issued a declaration calling for three demands: the release of all students and all pending charges dropped; all police from the universities and university areas removed; Nanterre and Sorbonne opened.
Students under the impression that authorities had reopened the schools returned to their classes on May 9. The students discovered that the police still occupied the schools. On the preceding night, the Minister of Education had vetoed the re-opening of schools. The students once again take to the streets on the following day. The demonstrators arrived at the left bank of the Seine and attempted to cross the bridge but were met with violence by the police. The students retreated to the Latin Quarter and began to form barricades. The government attempted to start negotiations with the students. Cohn-Bendit announced over radio that the students would not retreat from the barricades until all three demands were met. At 2:15 am the police assault the sixty barricades. The police use their arsenal of smoke, tear gas, clubs, and rifle butts against the students to subdue the students. The students attempted to retaliate with bricks, stones, and Molotov cocktails but the last barricade was defeated at 6:00 am. 367 persons were hospitalised — 251 were police, 720 were hurt, and 468 were arrested. The Minister of Education says of the protestors “Ni doctrine, ni foi, ni loi.” — “Neither doctrines, nor faith, nor law.”
The attacks on the students created a pro-student atmosphere amongst the working class. On the eleventh the major labour unions — the CGT, CFDT, and FEN — meet with the student unions and call for a general strike on the thirteenth. The University of Sorbonne is reopened the same day as the strike. On the thirteenth thousands of workers and students take the streets. The schools were occupied by the students and workplaces were occupied by the workers. On the fourteenth the workers occupy Sud-Aviation in Nantes. May 15, the theatre of l’Ordéon is occupied by students and the Renault factory at Cléon is occupied by the workers. By May 16 the strikes spread to more factories and over 50 workplaces were occupied; newspapers fail to be distributed. The Sorbonne Occupation Committee issued a communiqué calling for “the immediate occupation of all the factories in France and the formation of Workers Councils.” The committee continued to make proclamations advocating the spread of slogans like “occupy the factories”, “abolish class society”, “abolition alienation”, and “death to the cops”. On the eighteenth cinema professionals occupy the Cannes Film Festival. The characteristic of the movement shifted from students rights to include workers rights and other grievances. The next day President de Gaulle proclaims “La réforme, oui; la chienlit, non.” — “Reform, yes; disorder, no.”
The strike continued and on the 20th an estimated 10 million workers were on strike. The trade union bureaucracy and Stalinist parties declared the strike a struggle for ‘better conditions’ and ‘higher wages’; however, for the workers and students the movement was something more, a revolution. On the 22nd the union confederations proclaimed that they were willing to negotiate with employer’s associations and the government. Two days later de Gaulle announced a referendum. The announcement was met with overnight rioting. In Paris alone 795 people were arrested and 456 were injured. The intensity of action is increased with an attempt to torch the Bourse, the Paris stock exchange. On the 25th of May the workers at the state radio and television, the ORTF, went on strike.
(Tag, you're it!)
The decline and death of the movement; On May 27th the unions, employer’s associations, and government reached an agreement: the minimum wage was to be raised, working hours cut, the age of retirement reduced, and the right to organize protected. The CGT leader Georges Seguy attempted to lecture the workers at Renault; he was heckled off. The working class viewed the negotiations as a copout. The occupied factories refused to work and 30,000 students and workers march from the Gobelins to the Charéty stadium. The following day Pompidou accepts the Minister of Education’s resignation. President de Gaulle addressed the nation with the message that the nation faced a ‘communist dictatorship’ and said that workers did not end their occupations a ‘state of emergency’ would be declared and the government would use ‘appropriately tough’. De Gaulle then announced that the national assembly would be dissolved an election held in June.
The Communist Party announced it would participate in the elections. They called the campaign an ‘opportunity for people to have their say’ and encouraged workers to start negotiations. In the following days the police, with the support of the trade union leaders, removed occupying workers from their workplaces. On June 12 the government announced the ban of several student unions and leftist organizations. The UNEF announced the end of street activity and on June 16 the police reclaimed the University of Sorbonne. The movement was dead.
(Yes, smashing dear, quite smashing.)
The nature of the movement; It would be a fools analysis to say that May 1968 was a students’ movement. It would be likewise foolish to say that students played an insignificant role in the movement. May 1968 began as a student movement. Students are not members of the working class; students are a temporal classification within classes. The students of France, like all students, faced a multitude of varying issues: work, income, education, sexuality, immigration, etc. Likewise May 1968 reflected a multitude of social antagonisms. The movement began as a student movement but it grew to include workers, immigrants, the sexually repressed, and other alienated elements of society. It could be said that May 1968 was a practical prelude to post-modern theory. No one fundamental antagonism was put forth in May 1968 — it wasn’t a student movement, a feminist movement, a queer movement, or a workers movement.
This is what I attribute to one of the two failures of the May 1968 movement. Because there was no one fundamental antagonism upon which all other antagonisms necessarily resolved themselves within there could be no definitive “if we do this, we’ll succeed”, no April Theses. However, we cannot deny the multitude of antagonisms — sexual, queer, ethnic, etc. As Marxists we must recognize the existence of the multitude of antagonisms and analyse their relation to fundamental antagonisms. We must also recognize that the multitude of antagonisms are not necessarily class antagonisms but are contingent to class antagonism.
The second failure of the movement was that the recognisers of class antagonism, the Communist Party and unions, failed resolve the antagonism. The PCF acted not as a vanguard party, not even as a rear-guard party, but as a force of social reaction. Rather than pushing the conflict to its breaking point and carrying it further into the formation of a workers’ state they wholeheartedly accepted a restoration of capitalist order.
The lead up; On the eighth of January in the suburban commune of Nanterre, several students crashed the dedication by the Minister of Youth and Sports of a new swimming pool at the University of Nanterre. One of the students, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, confronted the Minister and said “Monsieur Minister, you’ve published a report on youth problems which is ridiculous. You don’t mention any of the real problems — for instance there’s not a single work on sexuality in it. What about that?” The Minister of youth replied “Young man, if you’ve got problems about that, may I suggest that you take a dip in the swimming pool?” The students, appalled by his reply, forced him to leave the ceremony.
This event was not unique. The month of January marked the beginning of a new form of student activism. At the University of Nanterre a radical group named ‘Les Enragés’, literally ‘The Angry Ones’ emerged. The group emphasized such tactics as sabotage of classes and university departments. Alongside the developments in student activism there was an intensification of the class conflict between the workers and the bourgeoisie. On the January 26 striking workers were met with violence by the police. On the February 7 a committee against the war in Vietnam organized a counter-demonstration against the supporters of the United States’ hostilities towards Vietnam, and once again the protesters were met with violence. On the fourteenth students throughout France held demonstrations and demanded their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement.
The number and intensity of protests continued to increase in the month of February until the Minister of Education announced liberalization of access to universities. The students used the announcement as an opportunity to organize a convention on the 19th of March. The following day high school and university students are arrested for a protest in downtown Paris against the Vietnam War. The arrests sparked the Movement of the 22nd of March. The Movement served as a rallying point for alienated young workers who adopted the tactics of the Les Engragés. On the March 22 at the University of Nanterre, students disrupted classes to announce that a meeting would be held. Six hundred to seven hundred students attended the meeting. The students collectively decided to occupy the administrative tower in order to establish a base of operations. From the tower the students could both disrupt the administrative repression and control the campus audio system. 140 students took the administrative tower of the school. During the occupations the students planned a day of discussion on the 29th on the topics of imperialism, alienation of students and industrial workers, and student struggles across the world. The Dean of the school in turn announced the closure of the school until 2nd of April and the discussion was put off until the reopening.
On April 2, the day before Easter break, twelve hundred students arrived at the meeting. Over the break students from the Movement of the 22nd of March initiated a demonstration at the German Embassy in Paris over the attempted assignation of the West German leader of the Socialist German Student Union by a fascist. When students returned from the Easter break on April 19 the students at Nanterre organized continuous political meetings and demonstrations. The students faced constant conflicts between leftist and rightist factions. On April 21 the right wing student movement Occident broke up a special assembly of the National Union of French Students (UNEF). The Occident threatened to “smash the Bolshevik scum” at the universities. In response the Maoists launched a defense campaign. The combat tactics of the Maoist group came from the tactics developed by the students at Peking University during the Cultural Revolution. The tactics of the Maoists conflicted with tactics of the Movement of the 22nd of March who considered the combat tactics as nonsense and disruptive. The conflict between Maoists and the Movement escalated to the point of fights in the hallways. In response to the fights the Dean of the University of Nanterre closed the school. The political tension continued to grow and on the 27th of April Daniel Cohn-Bendit was arrested on the grounds of attacking a right-wing student.
(The joys of youth!)
The rise of the movement; The Dean of the University of Nanterre closed the campus. On May 3, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and five other students were sentenced to disciplinary hearings at the University of Sorbonne. The students from Movement of the 22nd of March, along with militants from the student union and left-wing groups, attempted to shut down the disciplinary hearings. The Dean of the University of Paris, Jean Roche, ordered the campus closed and ordered in the police. The police agreed to let the students leave peacefully if they left in groups of twenty-five, men and women separated. The first group of women left without harm but when the first group of men began to leave they were attacked by the police and forced into police vans. The students rushed the vans and attempted to free the arrested students. The fighting spread into the Latin Quarter. Shouting phrases like “free our comrades” and “the Sorbonne belongs to the students”, students began to flood to the scene in order to help the other students. The police retaliated with tear gas. The police succeeded in clearing the courtyard. Over a hundred students were injured and 596 are arrested. In response to the police repression, the National Union of Higher Education and the National Union of French Students initiated national protests call for unlimited strikes. The police arrested Cohn-Bendit and the vice president of the UNEF Jacques Sauvageot and proceeded to question them for 20 hours. The special courts convict thirteen of the demonstrators and sentence four of them to jail terms.
On May 6, 20,000 demonstrators gathered at the Place Denfert-Rocherau with the chants “free our comrades” and “no to repression”. The demonstrators, surrounded by riot police, peacefully marched towards the Sorbonne. When the students rounded the Rue St. Jacques they were immediately met by the police. The police instantly pulled out their truncheons and attacked the students. The students retaliated by throwing stones 422 people are arrested, 345 police and 600 students are injured. Students across France issue a statement of solidarity. On the seventh, 40,000 demonstrators took to the streets. Not only had the quantity of demonstrators changed but a qualitative change took place as well; workers, teachers, and secondary school students joined the university students. The demonstrators marched from the Champs-Elesee to the Arc de Triomphe. The UNEF issued a declaration calling for three demands: the release of all students and all pending charges dropped; all police from the universities and university areas removed; Nanterre and Sorbonne opened.
Students under the impression that authorities had reopened the schools returned to their classes on May 9. The students discovered that the police still occupied the schools. On the preceding night, the Minister of Education had vetoed the re-opening of schools. The students once again take to the streets on the following day. The demonstrators arrived at the left bank of the Seine and attempted to cross the bridge but were met with violence by the police. The students retreated to the Latin Quarter and began to form barricades. The government attempted to start negotiations with the students. Cohn-Bendit announced over radio that the students would not retreat from the barricades until all three demands were met. At 2:15 am the police assault the sixty barricades. The police use their arsenal of smoke, tear gas, clubs, and rifle butts against the students to subdue the students. The students attempted to retaliate with bricks, stones, and Molotov cocktails but the last barricade was defeated at 6:00 am. 367 persons were hospitalised — 251 were police, 720 were hurt, and 468 were arrested. The Minister of Education says of the protestors “Ni doctrine, ni foi, ni loi.” — “Neither doctrines, nor faith, nor law.”
The attacks on the students created a pro-student atmosphere amongst the working class. On the eleventh the major labour unions — the CGT, CFDT, and FEN — meet with the student unions and call for a general strike on the thirteenth. The University of Sorbonne is reopened the same day as the strike. On the thirteenth thousands of workers and students take the streets. The schools were occupied by the students and workplaces were occupied by the workers. On the fourteenth the workers occupy Sud-Aviation in Nantes. May 15, the theatre of l’Ordéon is occupied by students and the Renault factory at Cléon is occupied by the workers. By May 16 the strikes spread to more factories and over 50 workplaces were occupied; newspapers fail to be distributed. The Sorbonne Occupation Committee issued a communiqué calling for “the immediate occupation of all the factories in France and the formation of Workers Councils.” The committee continued to make proclamations advocating the spread of slogans like “occupy the factories”, “abolish class society”, “abolition alienation”, and “death to the cops”. On the eighteenth cinema professionals occupy the Cannes Film Festival. The characteristic of the movement shifted from students rights to include workers rights and other grievances. The next day President de Gaulle proclaims “La réforme, oui; la chienlit, non.” — “Reform, yes; disorder, no.”
The strike continued and on the 20th an estimated 10 million workers were on strike. The trade union bureaucracy and Stalinist parties declared the strike a struggle for ‘better conditions’ and ‘higher wages’; however, for the workers and students the movement was something more, a revolution. On the 22nd the union confederations proclaimed that they were willing to negotiate with employer’s associations and the government. Two days later de Gaulle announced a referendum. The announcement was met with overnight rioting. In Paris alone 795 people were arrested and 456 were injured. The intensity of action is increased with an attempt to torch the Bourse, the Paris stock exchange. On the 25th of May the workers at the state radio and television, the ORTF, went on strike.
(Tag, you're it!)
The decline and death of the movement; On May 27th the unions, employer’s associations, and government reached an agreement: the minimum wage was to be raised, working hours cut, the age of retirement reduced, and the right to organize protected. The CGT leader Georges Seguy attempted to lecture the workers at Renault; he was heckled off. The working class viewed the negotiations as a copout. The occupied factories refused to work and 30,000 students and workers march from the Gobelins to the Charéty stadium. The following day Pompidou accepts the Minister of Education’s resignation. President de Gaulle addressed the nation with the message that the nation faced a ‘communist dictatorship’ and said that workers did not end their occupations a ‘state of emergency’ would be declared and the government would use ‘appropriately tough’. De Gaulle then announced that the national assembly would be dissolved an election held in June.
The Communist Party announced it would participate in the elections. They called the campaign an ‘opportunity for people to have their say’ and encouraged workers to start negotiations. In the following days the police, with the support of the trade union leaders, removed occupying workers from their workplaces. On June 12 the government announced the ban of several student unions and leftist organizations. The UNEF announced the end of street activity and on June 16 the police reclaimed the University of Sorbonne. The movement was dead.
(Yes, smashing dear, quite smashing.)
The nature of the movement; It would be a fools analysis to say that May 1968 was a students’ movement. It would be likewise foolish to say that students played an insignificant role in the movement. May 1968 began as a student movement. Students are not members of the working class; students are a temporal classification within classes. The students of France, like all students, faced a multitude of varying issues: work, income, education, sexuality, immigration, etc. Likewise May 1968 reflected a multitude of social antagonisms. The movement began as a student movement but it grew to include workers, immigrants, the sexually repressed, and other alienated elements of society. It could be said that May 1968 was a practical prelude to post-modern theory. No one fundamental antagonism was put forth in May 1968 — it wasn’t a student movement, a feminist movement, a queer movement, or a workers movement.
This is what I attribute to one of the two failures of the May 1968 movement. Because there was no one fundamental antagonism upon which all other antagonisms necessarily resolved themselves within there could be no definitive “if we do this, we’ll succeed”, no April Theses. However, we cannot deny the multitude of antagonisms — sexual, queer, ethnic, etc. As Marxists we must recognize the existence of the multitude of antagonisms and analyse their relation to fundamental antagonisms. We must also recognize that the multitude of antagonisms are not necessarily class antagonisms but are contingent to class antagonism.
The second failure of the movement was that the recognisers of class antagonism, the Communist Party and unions, failed resolve the antagonism. The PCF acted not as a vanguard party, not even as a rear-guard party, but as a force of social reaction. Rather than pushing the conflict to its breaking point and carrying it further into the formation of a workers’ state they wholeheartedly accepted a restoration of capitalist order.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
I have titler's bloc, so umm...
I wrote an earlier article entitled ‘Mass Movement’ or Revolution in which I criticized left-communists who asserted that the protests in France during March of 2006 were the beginning of a revolution. The intent of ‘Mass Movement’ or Revolution was to explain that mass movements are not revolutions. I’ve decided to further this explanation and even toss in a bit of self-criticism along the way. So I’m starting a three-part project entitled Anatomy of Change. The three parts will follow:
- The concrete-historical conditions of four mass movements: May 1968, anti-globalization, the Zapatistas, and the French labor protests of 2006. Furthermore, I will be analysis the abstractions that can be made about each of these movements.
- I will be doing the same with four revolutions: the French Revolution of 1789, the Iranian Revolution, the October Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution.
- The third installment will focus on what it takes to move from a mass movement to a revolution and the nature of non-mass movement revolutions.
Al: Brother, if only we had organized a vanguard organization we might
have defeated the bourgeoisie.
Ed: ...
Friday, August 11, 2006
I-for-others & I-for-myself
I have a love-hate relationship with the autonomist left. I utterly adore situatoinsts maxims and to an extent I am influenced by autonomist political theory. Conversely, as a Trotskyist, I am theoretical opposition to autonomism and on a practical level I despise autonomist organizations like the red and anarchist network. I brought all of this up to clarify that I am not an autonomist so that there is no confusion when I use this quote: L’ennui est contre-révolutionnaire — boredom is counter-revolutionary.
I am disappointed in the situationist emphasis on the role of boredom as the main exploitative feature of capitalism but I agree that boredom through alienation is a serious issue of capitalism… What is this? I’m rambling on! To the point: I am bored with my blog as it is. I’m trying to play the game of the big boys of the blogosphere — if Victor, Snowball, or any other person comments on something I feel compelled to do so as well just because it seems the pop thing to do. Well now I’m playing my own game. I’m going to shift the emphasis to my interests: aesthetics, ethics, histography, and music. I’ll probably also write updated versions of some of my older articles like ‘Mass Movement’ or Revolution? and Critical Marxism.
I am disappointed in the situationist emphasis on the role of boredom as the main exploitative feature of capitalism but I agree that boredom through alienation is a serious issue of capitalism… What is this? I’m rambling on! To the point: I am bored with my blog as it is. I’m trying to play the game of the big boys of the blogosphere — if Victor, Snowball, or any other person comments on something I feel compelled to do so as well just because it seems the pop thing to do. Well now I’m playing my own game. I’m going to shift the emphasis to my interests: aesthetics, ethics, histography, and music. I’ll probably also write updated versions of some of my older articles like ‘Mass Movement’ or Revolution? and Critical Marxism.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Critical Notes on Lebanon
There are essentially two images of Hezbollah: the leftist image of Hezbollah as a radical anti-imperialist organization with the interests of Lebanon at heart and the right image of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization of anti-Semitic Islamo-fascist who want Syrian control of Lebanon. “The answer is the variation of old Stalin’s answer to the question ‘Which deviation is worse, the Rightist or the Leftist one?’: THEY ARE BOTH WORSE.” (Zizek)
Hezbollah, abstracted from its concrete historical condition, is a petty-bourgeois organization that advocates the Islamicization of Lebanon and the establishment of a caliphate. Hezbollah manifests this in all of its concrete actions from its resistance to Western hegemony to its Islamic-oriented community services to its crushing of workers’ and communists’ resistance.
Hezbollah is not a progressive organization of the working people and it can only offer the masses a set of national despots rather than foreign despots. The solution to the Lebanese question is not to blindly support Hezbollah. However, Lebanon lacks a significant army of progressive working class resistance. The LCP forces of Jammoul are minimal. The answer is not Hezbollah and Islam, nor is Jammoul and Defeat. Lebanon is a historical conjunction where the progressive answer must be a bloc of classes.
This bloc must be met with constant vigilance on behalf of the proletariat. The unity of the petty-bourgeois and proletariat in its anti-imperialist cause cannot permit Islamic despotism to gain ground. Essentially, “The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.” (Marx)
For those of us in the Euro-American world are message must be: Victory to the resistance! Victory to progress!
(Lebanese Communists)
Hezbollah, abstracted from its concrete historical condition, is a petty-bourgeois organization that advocates the Islamicization of Lebanon and the establishment of a caliphate. Hezbollah manifests this in all of its concrete actions from its resistance to Western hegemony to its Islamic-oriented community services to its crushing of workers’ and communists’ resistance.
Hezbollah is not a progressive organization of the working people and it can only offer the masses a set of national despots rather than foreign despots. The solution to the Lebanese question is not to blindly support Hezbollah. However, Lebanon lacks a significant army of progressive working class resistance. The LCP forces of Jammoul are minimal. The answer is not Hezbollah and Islam, nor is Jammoul and Defeat. Lebanon is a historical conjunction where the progressive answer must be a bloc of classes.
This bloc must be met with constant vigilance on behalf of the proletariat. The unity of the petty-bourgeois and proletariat in its anti-imperialist cause cannot permit Islamic despotism to gain ground. Essentially, “The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.” (Marx)
For those of us in the Euro-American world are message must be: Victory to the resistance! Victory to progress!
(Lebanese Communists)
Marx, Karl. “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” Marxists Internet Archive. March 1850. 2 August 2006.
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm>
Zizek, Slavoj. “Repeating Lenin” Marxists Internet Archive. 2001. 2 August 2006.<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
