ICC's summary and general assessment of the Arab revolts

[JazzRemington]

The ICC has issued the following assessment of the Arab world revolts. While not an expert on the subject, I think it's pretty good and figure it's worth sharing here. The article is fairly long, so I'm going to have to just post the link.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/04/middle-east-libya-egypt-class-struggle-and-civil-war

[Os Cangaceiros]

man, the ICC are such debby downers.

[Thirsty Crow]

While I agree with the overall assessment of the Lybian civil war, I wish the author(s) of the article researched in depth the actual history of the Gaddaffi regime. If I didn't miss something, then it seems to me that the question of the possible political outcomes was left out.

[Threetune]

The ICC has issued the following assessment of the Arab world revolts. While not an expert on the subject, I think it's pretty good and figure it's worth sharing here. The article is fairly long, so I'm going to have to just post the link.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/04/middle-east-libya-egypt-class-struggle-and-civil-war

"The working class is still to week to assert itself. The road to rebuilding the lost experience and class consciousness will be long. Yet there are reasons to hope... ”

The effect on morale of the article is the same as that of a graveside oration given by some sad clergyman, quietly contemplating his own shortcomings and mortality, while struggling to console the grieving relatives with “hope” in an afterlife. Useless.

[Thirsty Crow]

The effect on morale of the article is the same as that of a graveside oration given by some sad clergyman, quietly contemplating his own shortcomings and mortality, while struggling to console the grieving relatives with “hope” in an afterlife. Useless.
So, you'd be more satisfied with odes to the current situation when it comes to working class power, despite the situation in Lybia and elsewhere (consider the wave of strikes and demonstrations in France for instance - which were beaten and the retirement legislation was passed)? You'd prefer ideological pat on the shoulder instead of concrete analysis capable of producing valuable insights (that is not to say that I think the ICC have made the best possible attempt at such an analysis)?
Pathetic.

[ZeroNowhere]

Theorizing is inherently useless. Everything else is, however, more useless. In any case, the ICC aren't attempting to engage in morale-boosting rhetoric. Sobriety isn't inherently fun, but hangovers are generally less fun.

[Devrim]

While I agree with the overall assessment of the Lybian civil war, I wish the author(s) of the article researched in depth the actual history of the Gaddaffi regime. If I didn't miss something, then it seems to me that the question of the possible political outcomes was left out.

It is not actually a statement of the ICC, but the position of the ICC in Turkey, as a member of which I take collective responsibility for its deficiencies.

I'm not quite sure if this is really a valid criticism though. The article attempts to give a grand overview of the events of recent months, and to put them in a historical context. Could we have gone deeper into the history of the Libyan state? Certainly yes, but then where are the limits to the article. I know that there have been criticisms made within the ICC in Turkey that it doesn't go into enough detail on the events in Tunisia. You have to stop somewhere, and it is an article for our printed press, which of course poses limits.

Devrim

[Devrim]

"The working class is still to week to assert itself. The road to rebuilding the lost experience and class consciousness will be long. Yet there are reasons to hope... ”

The effect on morale of the article is the same as that of a graveside oration given by some sad clergyman, quietly contemplating his own shortcomings and mortality, while struggling to console the grieving relatives with “hope” in an afterlife. Useless.

Of course we could have behaved like much of the left, and shouted 'revolution now' from the beginning.

It is interesting that you don't suggest that anything in our analysis is wrong, but that it is 'bad for morale'. If we think that this is the reality of the situation do you think we should hide our opinions because they may be 'bad for morale'.

Personally I think that all of the immediatism promoted by many left groups ends up demoralising people utterly when the predicted workers' revolutions don't happen.

Devrim

[Threetune]

So, you'd be more satisfied with odes to the current situation when it comes to working class power, despite the situation in Lybia and elsewhere (consider the wave of strikes and demonstrations in France for instance - which were beaten and the retirement legislation was passed)? You'd prefer ideological pat on the shoulder instead of concrete analysis capable of producing valuable insights (that is not to say that I think the ICC have made the best possible attempt at such an analysis)?
Pathetic.




Missed, was the opportunity of a political report that gives a comprehensive exposure of the “current” terminal crisis of fascist capitalist imperialism and its desperation to overcome its crises with yet more war, not simply for material gain as so often claimed, but as an attempted ‘solution’ to its crisis. And there’s more to come yet.

Missed, was the opportunity to explain the weakness of the international communist movement leadership itself! About why it has been so badly prepared for any of the growing revolutions, being too busy “condemning” every bit of resistance that didn’t fit the dominant idealist academic whining that passes for revolutionism around the ‘left’ who have been denying the crisis and writing off the working class for decades.

So there’s nothing new in this article we just get more of the same: “The working class is still to week to assert itself.”

Wrong! The Reformist, Revisionist, Trotskyist ‘leadership' is to week!

[Gorilla]

Wrong! The Reformist, Revisionist, Trotskyist ‘leadership' is to week!

lol "advance arab revolution, smash trotskyism"

although that's actually a more effective revolutionary slogan than the one advanced by icc (essentially, "everything sux")

[Threetune]

lol "advance arab revolution, smash trotskyism"

although that's actually a more effective revolutionary slogan than the one advanced by icc (essentially, "everything sux")

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, my criticism was aimed at all ‘tendencies’ reformist second, revisionist third and Trotskyist forth internationals etc, etc. Leninism has been wilfully distorted in opportunist pursuit of ‘electoral popularity’ in capitalist parliaments, ‘peaceful coexistence’ in international relations and economist tail-ending and enterism in the unions etc.

Serious study of Marx and Lenin’s works has been all but abandoned unless to serve as a platform, for trashing the revolutionary essence of communist proletarian dictatorship. And you wonder why the Muslim workers look for the alleviation of their oppression in Islam.

[JazzRemington]

It is not actually a statement of the ICC, but the position of the ICC in Turkey, as a member of which I take collective responsibility for its deficiencies.

I saw it was from the Middle East section of the group, but I was under the impression it was adopted by the ICC in general because it was shared on the site. I figured as much because I've seen other stuff they've written about Egypt that was along relatively similar lines.

[Android]

I saw it was from the Middle East section of the group, but I was under the impression it was adopted by the ICC in general because it was shared on the site. I figured as much because I've seen other stuff they've written about Egypt that was along relatively similar lines.

The introduction to the text on the ICC's website, states clearly that it is a statement of their section in Turkey and how it differs from previous statement published by the ICC on this subject.


We are publishing here an analytical text from the ICC’s section in Turkey on the current wave of revolts and protests in North Africa and the Middle East. The text aims to provide a general overview of these movements, as did the text ‘What is happening in the Middle East: Reference points for a discussion on the events in North Africa and the Middle East’. The text by the Turkish comrades offers a somewhat different analysis on certain points, particularly regarding the level attained by the class struggle in Egypt, and whether or not the current inter-bourgeois ‘civil war’ in Libya was preceded by a form of social revolt from below. Since the situation is still very fluid and is still raising a lot of questions, it is all the more important to develop the discussion about the significance and perspectives contained in these events.

Also, I find the bit in bold bizarre. I agree with the perspective put forward in the text that in Tunisia and Egypt there was a clear working class content to what occurred even if the working class was not the leading force in those events. Whereas in Libya I don't think this was the case at all, the most striking aspect when it erupted was the nature of the working class in Libya being largely composed of migrant labourers who fled when it kicked off. So while it maybe have been slightly more plausible to argue that situation was "very fluid" at the outset I do not see how that can be credibly maintained today.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The articles offered an interesting analysis with a great deal of truth but it did offer not a way forward for the working class. What are workers in the Middle East supposed to take from that, what is the way forward? The article is intelligently written but seems like its oriented towards an academic audience.

What does the ICC believe workers in those countries need to do in the coming period? A socialist revolution may not be imminent but to quote the article “The day before a revolution nothing seems more unlikely. The day after the revolution nothing seems less likely”, paraphrasing Rosa Luxemburg. The world may very well may be entering a period like that of post-WWI. The article seems way too pessimistic.

[black magick hustla]

what is there to be but pessimistic. to be a communist is to be insane

[Threetune]

what is there to be but pessimistic. to be a communist is to be insane

No, capitalism is insane.

[Devrim]

So while it maybe have been slightly more plausible to argue that situation was "very fluid" at the outset I do not see how that can be credibly maintained today.

Looking at that quotation I think that it is possible to read it in two ways. Either the situation in Libya is 'still fluid' or the situation as a whole is. We think that neither is the case, but the latter would seem more 'reasonable' than your reading that seems to apply it to the situation in Libya.

Devrim

[Android]

Looking at that quotation I think that it is possible to read it in two ways. Either the situation in Libya is 'still fluid' or the situation as a whole is. We think that neither is the case, but the latter would seem more 'reasonable' than your reading that seems to apply it to the situation in Libya

Having read over again the quotation I think it is referring to the more general situation in the Arab world rather then the situation in Libya as I interpreted it first time round. However I agree with you that in both cases it is still an inaccurate description, but more reasonable as you say when applied to the general situation in the Arab world.

[Martin Blank]

for us as communists, a revolution is not just the change in management of the current system. It means a fundamental change of the system and the overthrow of the capitalist class, not just a change of faces. That is why we completely reject the idea that what is happening today in the arab world and iran are in any way revolutions.
Theory Fail.

[Thirsty Crow]

Theory Fail.
Explanation?
(I'm asking since I haven't seen massive expropriation of the capitalists by organized workers...but it might just be that I wasn't paying attention, wouldn't you say?)

[Zanthorus]

He's referring to the fact that there's a difference between social and political revolutions. If anything short of the complete overthrow of capitalism by the working-class didn't count as a revolution, that would render much of the content of Marx's writings on the 1848-50 period somewhat incoherent.

[Leo]

He's referring to the fact that there's a difference between social and political revolutions. If anything short of the complete overthrow of capitalism by the working-class didn't count as a revolution, that would render much of the content of Marx's writings on the 1848-50 period somewhat incoherent.

So the revolutions of 1848-50 were not bourgeois revolutions but "political" revolutions without a social background?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Arab revolt so far hasn't changed the control over the means of production but that certainly doesn't mean its not a revolution or represent limited victories for the working class.Revolution is a process and the Arab Revolution is just at the beginning.

The ICC seems to have an all or nothing approach.Its like rejecting the overthow of the Czar because the Russian landlord class and French capital are still controlling things

[Zanthorus]

So the revolutions of 1848-50 were not bourgeois revolutions but "political" revolutions without a social background?

My point here is not to argue that it is possible to have a revolution which does not have a 'social background', but to point out that in Marx's terms a revolution which does not replace one mode of production by another, but which replaces one state-form with another, is still a revolution, and the ICC's point here basically amounts to quibbling over words. Certainly in the case of France, Marx noted that French society was already subjugated to the rule of the bourgeoisie in the guise of the 'finance aristocracy' during the July Monarchy. The February revolution was not a case of overthrowing a class of Feudal landlords in favour of the political rule of the bourgeoisie, but expanding political representation to better accomodate the interests of other factions of the bourgeoisie, although this was thwarted somewhat by the interference of the workers' and the democratic petty bourgeoisie.

[Leo]

but to point out that in Marx's terms a revolution which does not replace one mode of production by another, but which replaces one state-form with another, is still a revolution

A bourgeois revolution of the 19th century type, perhaps? Bourgeois revolutions could not happen without a strong bourgeoisie, which couldn't happen before the development of the capitalist mode of production in a given country at least to a certain extent. Accordingly, bourgeois revolutions tended to be aimed at removing obstacles of the old regimes in order to further its economic development and for doing which, replacing the state-form was very instrumental. Even though the immediate end results of the bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century was a replacement of the state-form, it was nevertheless one class replacing another within the state (I do admit that there were a few exceptional cases which were a bit hard to classify, however even in such cases it was one class overthrowing another, in this or that way).

And do you honestly think that the North African events can be compared to bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century? Were people such as Ben Ali or Mubarek monarchs or did they represent a feudal class? Do their successors in any way represent different class interests? Can you even claim that one form of state-structure was replaced with another?


The February revolution was not a case of overthrowing a class of Feudal landlords in favour of the political rule of the bourgeoisie, but expanding political representation to better accomodate the interests of other factions of the bourgeoisie, although this was thwarted somewhat by the interference of the workers' and the democratic petty bourgeoisie.

The February revolution which in turn created a dual power situation in which the working class as well as the bourgeoisie created their political organizations, and in which the old monarchy was overthrown was not a class-based revolution? This is certainly an interesting thesis.

[Zanthorus]

And do you honestly think that the North African events can be compared to bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century? Were people such as Ben Ali or Mubarek monarchs or did they represent a feudal class? Do their successors in any way represent different class interests? Can you even claim that one form of state-structure was replaced with another?

These are all fair points I suppose.


The February revolution which in turn created a dual power situation in which the working class as well as the bourgeoisie created their political organizations, and in which the old monarchy was overthrown was not a class-based revolution?

I didn't argue that it wasn't, I argued that it was an example of an event which fell short of the abolition of wage-labour but which could nonetheless be classified as a 'revolution'.

[Gorilla]

I thought Bordiga's line was no support for national-democratic revolution after 1871 in the West???

[bricolage]

I'd imagine the article is saying that as capitalism is now globally totalising the only possible future revolution is a workers one. If a revolution is the overthrow of one class by another and if there exist no more feudal rulers (or anything else for that matter) the only option is that the working class overthrows the capitalist class. That's how I interpreted it anyway, I can't imagine the ICC are saying there was never such a thing as a bourgeois revolution. But I'll say; "[revolution] means a fundamental change of the system and the overthrow of the capitalist class" could be interpreted that way.

[sister harb]

I was one of those making revolution in Egypt via internet.

http://vadrouilles.moto.free.fr/smileys/nerdylaff.gif

We continue it still but let people whose write history decide what kind of revolution it was. Lets see.
:D

[Jose Gracchus]

I think is the single best lucid and authentically socialist piece I have read on the revolt. No fevered hallucinations of a non-existent workers' socialist alternative to drum up the local recruits [Trots], and no unprincipled praise and defense of Third Positionist strongmen who formerly resisted neoliberalism [Brezhenvite ML "anti-imperialists"] in order to pat oneself on the back for having spited the USA by any means available.

I think the "what is a revolution?" distinction is semantic here. No one here thinks this is a socialist revolution, while still distinguishing between the concept of revolution and the socialist revolution. However, I would dispute that even any sort of bourgeois democratic revolution has truly been consolidated in most cases. Egypt remains under military rule, Tunisia under a caretaker government, and Libya squabbled over between neoliberal imperialist-backed Eastern tribes and pro-Gaddafi patronage-favored Western tribes.

[Zanthorus]

I thought Bordiga's line was no support for national-democratic revolution after 1871 in the West???

The International Communist Current is not a Bordigist organisation. Nevertheless, it would appear evident from the International Communist Party (Il Programma Comunista)'s text on 'Marxism and the National Issue (http://www.internationalcommunistparty.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:marxism-and-the-national-issue-nd13-2006&catid=35:internationalist-papers-2006&Itemid=55)' that they believe that the era of 'national-democratic revolution' ended for the 'east' sometime in the mid-70's after what they call the "phase of anti-colonial uprisings." So even the real 'Bordigists' (It should be noted that Programma never refer to themselves as 'Bordigist', nor do I think they would particularly appreciate it given their opposition to personalism) no longer support 'national-democratic revolution' anywhere.

[bricolage]

However, I would dispute that even any sort of bourgeois democratic revolution has truly been consolidated in most cases. Egypt remains under military rule, Tunisia under a caretaker government, and Libya squabbled over between neoliberal imperialist-backed Eastern tribes and pro-Gaddafi patronage-favored Western tribes.
This is a good point.

[Devrim]

If a revolution is the overthrow of one class by another and if there exist no more feudal rulers (or anything else for that matter) the only option is that the working class overthrows the capitalist class. That's how I interpreted it anyway, I can't imagine the ICC are saying there was never such a thing as a bourgeois revolution. But I'll say; "[revolution] means a fundamental change of the system and the overthrow of the capitalist class" could be interpreted that way.

Yes, maybe it could have been clearer there with something like "and today that means the overthrow of the capitalist class".


I think the "what is a revolution?" distinction is semantic here. No one here thinks this is a socialist revolution, while still distinguishing between the concept of revolution and the socialist revolution. However, I would dispute that even any sort of bourgeois democratic revolution has truly been consolidated in most cases. Egypt remains under military rule, Tunisia under a caretaker government, and Libya squabbled over between neoliberal imperialist-backed Eastern tribes and pro-Gaddafi patronage-favored Western tribes.

This raises fundamental points about whether a bourgeois democratic revolution is possible today. I think though that at the start of the events there were people talking about socialist revolution.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The articles offered an interesting analysis with a great deal of truth but it did offer not a way forward for the working class. What are workers in the Middle East supposed to take from that, what is the way forward? The article is intelligently written but seems like its oriented towards an academic audience.

I am not sure what you mean by 'orientated towards an academic audience'. It is an analytical article, not an agitational one yes, but that doesn't make it 'academic'.


What does the ICC believe workers in those countries need to do in the coming period? A socialist revolution may not be imminent but to quote the article “The day before a revolution nothing seems more unlikely. The day after the revolution nothing seems less likely”, paraphrasing Rosa Luxemburg. The world may very well may be entering a period like that of post-WWI. The article seems way too pessimistic.

Then again it may not, which is the prognosis that this article puts forward. I don't think that it was overtly pessimistic. It talks about a recovery of class consciousness and combativeness. It just recognizes that this is a slow process.


The Arab revolt so far hasn't changed the control over the means of production but that certainly doesn't mean its not a revolution or represent limited victories for the working class.Revolution is a process and the Arab Revolution is just at the beginning.

What 'limited victories' does it represent to the working class? True it temporarily reversed attacks on the standard of living in some places, and in others the working class gained experience and consciousness, which will be vital in the years to come. The article discusses this. In other places though workers got pulled behind reactionary bourgeois factions mobilized against other workers.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, my criticism was aimed at all ‘tendencies’ reformist second, revisionist third and Trotskyist forth internationals etc, etc. Leninism has been wilfully distorted in opportunist pursuit of ‘electoral popularity’ in capitalist parliaments, ‘peaceful coexistence’ in international relations and economist tail-ending and enterism in the unions etc.


Incidentally the ICC is in none of those tendencies, and doesn't support electoralism, or 'economist tail-ending and enterism in the unions '.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Theory Fail.

Sometimes I don't like it when you beat me to the punch, comrade. ;)

Just to make things clear, there are at least three levels of political change, not counting social revolution:

1) Typical electoral change at the ballot box or inside "the palace"
2) "Regime change"
3) Political revolution

The ICC article fails to consider the recent events in Africa and the Mideast as part of at least "regime change."

[Savage]

The ICC article fails to consider the recent events in Africa and the Mideast as part of at least "regime change."

But if a ''regime change'' doesn't constitute a bourgeois revolution do you think that they would bother going down that path?

[Martin Blank]

Explanation?

I should have elaborated more at the time I posted that, but I was in the process of being discharged from the hospital after three days and didn't really have the opportunity. Anyway....

The failure is in the definition of revolution being offered by the ICC. It defines social revolution as the only kind of revolution, which is not only narrow and wooden, but ahistorical and anti-materialist. Marx and Engels saw revolution more broadly, as a "transformation of existing conditions" or an "overthrow of the existing state of affairs" (The German Ideology). Yes, the overthrow of one class by another is a revolution, but it is one kind among many. There can also be the overthrow of one section of a class by another section that fundamentally transforms the existing conditions. Because the definition of revolution is broad, we use modifiers to clarify what kind of revolution we are witnessing, such as "political", "industrial", "social", etc.

The definition offered by the ICC comrades turns its back on this and declares that there is only social revolution. It is convenient for them to do so, since the narrowing of the definition allows them to dismiss the contention that what occurred in Tunisia and Egypt might be revolutions. Certainly, what we saw in these countries were not social revolutions; I cannot fathom anyone attempting to make such an argument. But were they political revolutions -- an overthrow of existing political affairs; a transformation of existing political conditions? On this question, the ICC says no, not because they can demonstrate, using a materialist analysis, why the events in Tunis or Cairo did not transform or overthrow existing affairs, but because they do not consider such revolutions to even exist.

One could simply put this down to being a theoretical short-cut for the sake of brevity. However, the ICC has not historically been known to be that intellectually lazy. It is true that all things change over time, so the ICC comrades will have to tell us whether this definition was simply a short-cut, or if it was a conscious revision moving away from Marx and Engels.

[zimmerwald1915]

The ICC article fails to consider the recent events in Africa and the Mideast as part of at least "regime change."
In order for there to be regime change the regime has to, you know, change. It's hard to argue that the regime has changed when most of the major figures are still in positions of power.

[Devrim]

Because the definition of revolution is broad, we use modifiers to clarify what kind of revolution we are witnessing, such as "political", "industrial", "social", etc.

One the subject of adjectives before revolutions, I think that it is quite clear to everyone that the events being referred to were not 'technological revolutions! in the way that the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution were.

Of the two alternatives offered then we see 'political' and 'social'. The whole idea of a political revolution was one introduced by Trotskyism due to its idea that the Soviet Union already had 'socialist property relations', and therefore didn't need a 'social' revolution.


Certainly, what we saw in these countries were not social revolutions; I cannot fathom anyone attempting to make such an argument.

TIC raised a similar point earlier in the thread. It seems that people's memories seem rather short because I can remember many people a few months ago who were talking not only of a 'social revolution', but even of a 'socialist revolution'. See Alan Woods here (http://www.marxist.com/uprising-in-egypt-revolution-spreading.htm) for example.


But were they political revolutions -- an overthrow of existing political affairs; a transformation of existing political conditions? On this question, the ICC says no, not because they can demonstrate, using a materialist analysis, why the events in Tunis or Cairo did not transform or overthrow existing affairs, but because they do not consider such revolutions to even exist.

The term 'political revolution' here is essentially shown up for its utter meaninglessness, what it seems to mean is a change of bosses. Has that happened in Egypt, well the majority of them are still there, so no. In Tunisia there has been a bit more of a clear out. Is part of your 'materialist analysis' a percentile figure on how many cabinet members the state has to change for something to be a political revolution?

Devrim

[bricolage]

Ok so reading this again it's interesting that it pinpoints the movement in Algeria as being class based, mentioning that there, like Tunisia, the working class "has made a step towards recovering its experience of how to struggle". Yet the struggle there is described as "large scale rioting" and then goes on to say;

The first country to follow Tunisia’s lead was neighbouring Algeria. Protests started there on 3rd January in response to increases in the price of basic foodstuffs.
Whilst isolated riots have been common in Algeria over the past few years, these were different in that they spread over the entire country within a week.However the ICC critique of the movements in Libya and, to an extent, Egypt has been as the absence of the working class acting as a class. To measure this examples of strikes are normally given. Returning to Algeria though there is no mention of this, only protests and riots. Yet at the same time is says;


The protests were virtually entirely around class demands, and were beaten back by a mixture of repression and concessions.So if it is a class movement by virtue of the demands raised why can the same not be said of Greece 2008 which undeniably raised class demands in itself?

What this then raises is the question of forms of action beyond striking. Clearly, especially in this day and age, it is the strongest and most collective form of class activity yet there has to be more to struggle than strikes... surely? With this in mind how can you judge the class basis of movements (especially those highly concentrated outside of the workplace), by deeds or by demands?

[Leo]

This is a very interesting question and I will try to come back to it in more detail, but for now I will simply say that although the article did not cover the Algerian events in detail, there actually were strikes going on there and to my knowledge a strong public workers strike started this month. For more info:

http://signalfire.org/?tag=algeria

[Jose Gracchus]

The most important thing here is that there hasn't even been a substantial change in institutions and personnel, especially in Egypt. As someone else said, where's the 'revolution', if the cabinet still is over half-full of the same lackeys?

[Martin Blank]

One the subject of adjectives before revolutions, I think that it is quite clear to everyone that the events being referred to were not 'technological revolutions! in the way that the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution were.

Of the two alternatives offered then we see 'political' and 'social'. The whole idea of a political revolution was one introduced by Trotskyism due to its idea that the Soviet Union already had 'socialist property relations', and therefore didn't need a 'social' revolution.

Actually, the term "political revolution" did not spring into existence with Trotskyism, although it is commonly associated with that trend because it is central to their doctrine. In fact, a cursory search for the phrase in the Marxists Internet Archive shows the term being used by Luxemburg in 1905, Kautsky in 1902, Anton Pannekoek in 1910, John Reed in 1919, Plekhanov in 1895 and Mikhail Bakunin in 1866. That's just Page 1 of the search. Indeed, Trotsky himself does not show up in the search until the next page.

The point here is that speaking of a political revolution is not resorting to Trotskyist jargon, but using a term that has been a part of our theory and politics since before Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto.


TIC raised a similar point earlier in the thread. It seems that people's memories seem rather short because I can remember many people a few months ago who were talking not only of a 'social revolution', but even of a 'socialist revolution'. See Alan Woods here (http://www.marxist.com/uprising-in-egypt-revolution-spreading.htm) for example.

That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do that I was not one of these people, so that well-stuffed strawman is not needed here. The farthest I've went is to call them emerging or unfolding (i.e., incomplete) democratic revolutions. In hindsight, even that might have been overstating it; one can effectively argue that they did not even reach that stage, and simply remained mass popular upsurges or uprisings. Those who spoke of them as being "social revolutions" or even "socialist revolutions" either were letting themselves get carried away or were deceiving the working class.


The term 'political revolution' here is essentially shown up for its utter meaninglessness, what it seems to mean is a change of bosses. Has that happened in Egypt, well the majority of them are still there, so no. In Tunisia there has been a bit more of a clear out. Is part of your 'materialist analysis' a percentile figure on how many cabinet members the state has to change for something to be a political revolution?

I find this statement utterly fascinating, coming from you. Do you really think this is about degrees of separation within the forms of the political system? Or is this merely your famous cynicism talking for you, again?

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, if they can be called such, are by no means complete. Indeed, the relative disorganization and disorientation of the popular uprising, in relation to the existing capitalist state, threatens to completely wipe out any potential gains that have been made. As is the case with any kind of revolution, it would require a victory over the state forces -- especially in the case of Egypt, where the military is the very linchpin of capitalist rule -- to move forward. This occurred partially in Egypt, with the scattering of the police and security forces, but the failure to effectively splinter and disarm the military allowed them to take over and depose Mubarak. Any revolutionary development in Egypt is currently being strangled by military rule. And while the events in Tunisia managed to send Ben Ali packing, the failure to break the power of the state there resulted in little more than a reshuffling of politicians.

A political revolution in Tunisia or Egypt would require at least a splintering and partial break-up of the state forces in order to succeed. It would require a new political compact, in the form of a new constitution (or the old one fundamentally altered through amendment), new political parties and organizations, new institutions and agencies, etc. It would be a wholesale transformation of the existing political order. Some of the forms may appear outwardly to be similar or the same, but they would have a qualitatively different content driving them (akin to how the Paris Commune held on to the forms it inherited from the Second Empire and Third Republic).

Having said the above, it seems to me your point in all of this is to say that communists are not in the business of promoting revolutions that do not have a social character. On this, we do agree. I think, however, that we can acknowledge when a political revolution is taking place, and should intervene in it with the expressed intent of educating, agitating and organizing to transform it from a political to a social revolution. Simply rejecting such intervention out of hand because it isn't exactly what we envision is inviting disaster. Now, I'm not saying the ICC did that or would do that (only you comrades can say that for certain), but I am concerned that you might.

Look, I'll be honest with you, Dev. I've come to have a lot of respect for the ICC and its views. The reason I raised the criticism about the article was because I was disappointed by what I saw as a theoretical failure. I expected better from you all. I'm not looking for a sectarian slagfest, but an honest, comradely debate. So there's no need for strawmen, cynicism or falsifications. Convince me I'm wrong -- that's all I ask of you.

[black magick hustla]

That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do that I was not one of these people, so that well-stuffed strawman is not needed here. The farthest I've went is to call them emerging or unfolding (i.e., incomplete) democratic revolutions. In hindsight, even that might have been overstating it; one can effectively argue that they did not even reach that stage, and simply remained mass popular upsurges or uprisings. Those who spoke of them as being "social revolutions" or even "socialist revolutions" either were letting themselves get carried away or were deceiving the working class.

well idk it has to do with the idea whether democratic revolutions are possible today. decadence blahblahblahblahblah, but i imagine thats a concept hard to agree with

[Martin Blank]

well idk it has to do with the idea whether democratic revolutions are possible today. decadence blahblahblahblahblah, but i imagine thats a concept hard to agree with

Actually, looking at the ICC's conclusions on decadence, I would think that they make political revolutions more likely. If we agree that we are in a phase of decadence, as described by the ICC, then we accept three important points: 1) "the permanent exacerbation of antagonisms between factions of the ruling class", 2) "the appearance of world crises and world wars on an unprecedented scale, which get worse with each outburst", and 3) "the development of class antagonisms and the outbreak of proletarian revolutionary movements calling into question the system on a world scale".

Taken together, these three point to an overall breakdown in the ability of capitalism to maintain a measure of "social peace", even within the ranks of its own ruling classes. Factions within the exploiting and oppressing classes will crystalize and, over time, harden. Even within countries that have a long tradition of bourgeois democracy, these factions will emerge, and they will look to both parliamentary and extraparliamentary means to gain advantage over their opponents (e.g., the Tea Party in the U.S.). In countries where that tradition is tenuous, nascent or non-existent, the development of domestic crises and civil conflict, akin to the "world crises and world wars" mentioned above, will emerge and "get worse with each outburst".

In the absence of a well-organized proletarian revolutionary movement that can focus the class antagonisms experienced by the proletariat into a program that "[calls] into question the system on a world scale", the product of these antagonisms will be social explosions that do not break out of the boundaries of the capitalist system. When combined with the "permanent exacerbation of antagonisms between factions" of the ruling classes, the likelihood of seeing domestic conflict ranging from coups d'état to civil wars to political revolutions only increases. In this sense, what we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Cote d'Ivoire, Yemen, etc., are as much a product of decadence as they may potentially be a break with it -- a break in the sense that, as a proletarian movement coalesces, even in the context of political events dominated by the exploiting and oppressing classes, it begins to look and act beyond the limits set for it by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie.

The contradictions that have moved the events of the last few months both vindicate elements of the decadence theory, as well as expose the limits of its current elaboration. I would think that now would be a good time for comrades to revisit the decadence theory, to see what might need to added or amended in the light of recent events.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The contradictions that have moved the events of the last few months both vindicate elements of the decadence theory, as well as expose the limits of its current elaboration. I would think that now would be a good time for comrades to revisit the decadence theory, to see what might need to added or amended in the light of recent events.

I don't see how current events have vindicated in any way, shape, or form, some sort of decadence hypothesis. It's a slippery slope to fetishes for Final Collapse.

[Luís Henrique]

The most important thing here is that there hasn't even been a substantial change in institutions and personnel, especially in Egypt. As someone else said, where's the 'revolution', if the cabinet still is over half-full of the same lackeys?

The problem with this view is that it only allows us to call those things "revolutions" if they succeed. If they are appeased, or repressed, then they are not "revolutions"? There is no such thing as a "defeated revolution"?

If this view is conflated with the usual "if it is not a revolution we should take no part of it" widespread view, then we must come to the conclusion that revolutionaries should wait to see if a movement is successful - and thence a revolution - before joining it. Which, to say the least, doesn't sound as a revolutionary position at all.

Clearly the events in Egypt haven't yet unfolded to a point when we can safely state the new cabinet isn't going to fall. So it can be argued that the revolution is still ongoing.

Luís Henrique

[Kiev Communard]

I agree with Luís Henrique on that point. There has passed only two months after the fall of Mubarak, it is not too long period to expect some immediate change. It seems that the Egyptian popular classes are slowly awakening to the real character of the military rule, and, as they are still awash with a newly found confidence, it will be easier fro them to contemplate new ways to future.

[Devrim]

If this view is conflated with the usual "if it is not a revolution we should take no part of it" widespread view, then we must come to the conclusion that revolutionaries should wait to see if a movement is successful - and thence a revolution - before joining it. Which, to say the least, doesn't sound as a revolutionary position at all.

But I don't think that is what were are saying, Luís. What we are saying is that there was a class movement, but that it manage to assert itself. Clearly we see that revolutionaries should be involved in class movements. They should also stress the need for political independence of these movements.


the events in Egypt haven't yet unfolded to a point when we can safely state the new cabinet isn't going to fall.

We rather think they have.


I agree with Luís Henrique on that point. There has passed only two months after the fall of Mubarak, it is not too long period to expect some immediate change. It seems that the Egyptian popular classes are slowly awakening to the real character of the military rule, and, as they are still awash with a newly found confidence, it will be easier fro them to contemplate new ways to future.

What are 'popular classes'?

Certainly the working class has gained some experience which will hold well for the future, but we don't see a mass workers' movement emerging now.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

But I don't think that is what were are saying, Luís. What we are saying is that there was a class movement, but that it manage to assert itself. Clearly we see that revolutionaries should be involved in class movements. They should also stress the need for political independence of these movements.

I was referring to The Inform Candidate's post, not to the ICC paper.


We rather think they have.

Maybe. We will soon see.


What are 'popular classes'?

Well, I know this was used by another poster, but it is common to use the expression 'popular classes' to refer to the whole set of non-rulling classes: proletariat, petty bourgoisie, peasantry, lumpen-proletariat.


Certainly the working class has gained some experience which will hold well for the future, but we don't see a mass workers' movement emerging now.

Nor we saw it a few days before it actually erupted to topple Mubarak.

Evidently we can't predict the future, but it seems clear that a broad wave of dissatisfaction is sweeping a few regions of the world, and that such dissatisfaction is intimately linked to the economic crisis started in 2008 and its reflections in countries problematically placed in the world market and/or in the world politics of imperialism.

Luís Henrique

[Threetune]

Evidently we can't predict the future, but it seems clear that a broad wave of dissatisfaction is sweeping a few regions of the world, and that such dissatisfaction is intimately linked to the economic crisis started in 2008 and its reflections in countries problematically placed in the world market and/or in the world politics of imperialism.

Luís Henrique

At long last this understanding is beginning to penetrate even the most resistant thinking.
Being determines consciousness and our being is in the dominant crisis ridden imperialist system. It's acute crisis nature is affecting the consciousness of every brain cell on the planet. = Revolutionary consciousness, how could it be otherwise?