Marxist-Leninist politician assassinated - Tunisia

Heard a rumour that the ruling party's headquarters in Tunis was torched. Anyone got any reliable info on that?

I saw this on a couple of sites

www.breakingnews.com/.../leader-of-tunisias-ennahda-party-confirms-hq-attacked-and-set-on-fire

www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110206-polcei-hq-set-fire-tunisian-town

Not sure how reliable

Links are old or dead. :/

Belaid Assassination: Targeting the Tunisian Left


http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/d...42-01-08_0.jpg
Tunisian protestors chant slogans behind barbed wire outside the Interior Ministry in Tunis, on 7 February 2013 during a demonstration against the killing of opposition figure and human rights lawyer Chokri Belaid. (Photo: AFP - Khalil)


Published Thursday, February 7, 2013


After the Wednesday assassination of Tunisian leftist leader Chokri Belaid, opposition leaders are seeking to unify their ranks to stem a tide of violence targeting the country’s left.

On Tuesday evening, Chokri Belaid, a 49-year-old Tunisian opposition leader, appeared on the Nessma TV channel, engaging in a discussion on violence and political assassinations.
At 8 AM the next day, 6 February 2013, Belaid was shot three times outside his home. He is the second victim of politically motivated murders after Lotfi Nakhd, who was assassinated in October 2012 by members of the National League for the Protection of the Revolution (LNPR) in Tataouine.
Belaid became a political activist at a young age. Born in the poor suburb Jebel Jalloud near downtown Tunis, he engaged in secret political action with one of the most famous leftist Tunisian factions, the Movement of Patriotic Democrats (known in Arabic as al-Watad).
He quickly became a rising star during Tunisia’s students’ protests in the early 1980s. After enrolling in university, Belaid became one of the senior leaders of the MPD.
As a young activist, the slain leader was wanted by security services, prompting his retreat underground. In the mid-80s, he was arrested during clashes between students and the authorities. He was then forcibly conscripted with a group of students to serve in the remote Tunisian desert region of Rjim Maatoug.
Belaid was released after General Ben Ali took power, in a move that was intended to achieve a kind of a political détente.
Belaid continued his activism up until 1992, becoming one of the historic leaders of the Tunisian student movement. In the same year, he traveled to Iraq to finish his law degree, and then to France for his postgraduate studies.
In the late ‘90s, he returned to Tunisia where he began his law practice. As a progressive human rights activist and lawyer, he engaged in issues of freedom of expression and trade union advocacy.


In a clip that has made the rounds online, a group of Salafis appear to be calling for his assassination.
The leftist lawyer did not hesitate to defend even the Salafis who were arrested under the Ben Ali regime. Belaid also strongly defended the Gafsa Mining Basin prisoners in 2008, and took part in the protests that began on 17 December 2010. He was arrested a day before Ben Ali fled the country.



Post-Revolution Political Ascendancy

After the fall of the former regime Belaid founded an official party for the MPD. At the party’s first general conference last autumn, Belaid was elected secretary general.
He succeeded in resurrecting the Unified Democratic Nationalist party, of which he was secretary general, and was also among the leaders who founded the Popular Front, a union of leftist and Baathist parties.
Belaid would often give public speeches throughout cities and villages in Tunisia. Recently, al-Nahda, along with Minister of Interior Ali al-Arid, accused him of instigating protests in the cities of Sidi Bouzid, Gafsa, Kasserine, and Siliana.
Since al-Nahda’s rise to power, Belaid has repeatedly come under attack on social media platforms given his rise as a prominent opposition figure. In a clip that has made the rounds online, a group of Salafis appear to be calling for his assassination.
In addition to his house being broken into last Ramadan, his wife and a number of his friends and associates at the Popular Front confirmed that he had received death threats.
Belaid had famously described the government as subservient to “Qatari neo-colonialism.” He also accused al-Nahda of abetting terrorism to create a climate of fear among the Tunisian public.

This political alliance would not have seen the light of day were it not for the assassination of Belaid.On the day before his assassination, he called for holding a national dialogue to discuss violence, and demanded that the government act against outlaw groups that have been targeting freedoms in the country.




A Popular Front Without Belaid

Belaid’s death leaves big question marks for the future of the Popular Front, particularly the Patriotic Democrats. Despite the fact that he was not the oldest of the MPD leaders, he had managed to become one of their most senior.
With his death, the left will lose Belaid’s passion for turning the Popular Front into a major political force that was poised to have a strong showing in the next election. Many polls had confirmed that the front was quickly gaining ground.
Nevertheless, the assassination may push other leftist factions to join the Popular Front. Following the slaying of Belaid, the Front joined forces with the Nida Tunis, or Tunisia’s Call party, to create an opposition coalition.
This coalition, which will bring together many democratic parties, is expected to represent a political force to be reckoned with. The government, specifically al-Nahda, will find itself facing a broad front that combines the radical and center left with liberals.
This political alliance would not have seen the light of day were it not for the assassination of Belaid. To be sure, the Popular Front and the slain leader refused to join forces with Nida Tunis in the past. Yet the murder has unified opposition voices against the government and al-Nahda, which is being held politically responsible by all parties for the current climate of violence.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.




http://english.al-akhbar.com/content...-tunisian-left

Tunisia rocked by clashes as general strike called


http://english.al-akhbar.com/sites/d...T-_0207_11.JPG
Police fire tear gas at anti-government demonstrators in Tunis on 7 February 2013. (Photo: Reuters - Anis Mili)


Published Thursday, February 7, 2013




Updated 4:12pm: Police on Thursday fired tear gas at demonstrators marching in central Tunis to protest the assassination of Chokri Belaid, a prominent opposition figure who was gunned down in broad daylight one day before.
The country's main trade union called a general strike on Friday to coincide with the funeral of Belaid, a lawyer and vocal critic of the ruling Nahda party who was shot dead outside his home by a lone gunman.
Clashes erupted between police and anti-government protesters who approached the interior ministry on Habib Bourguiba Avenue, epicenter of the 2011 revolution which toppled ex-dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's regime.
"The people want the fall of the regime!" the protesters chanted as they headed towards the interior ministry.
Hundreds of others battled police outside the governor's office in the central Tunisian town of Gafsa.
The protesters, who were observing a symbolic funeral for the slain opposition leader, threw petrol bombs at the police, who fired large quantities of tear gas in a bid to disperse them, according to an AFP journalist.

The demonstration in Gafsa, a central mining region, was organized by the Popular Front, an alliance of leftist parties to which Belaid belonged.
Thursday's unrest follows violence the day before that left one policeman dead in Tunis and saw protesters torch and ransack offices of al-Nahda in a number of towns, including Gafsa.
Tunisian lawyers, judges and some teachers began a strike on Thursday while the General Union of Tunisian Workers (UGTT) announced on its website it had called a general strike on Friday.
Tunisia's governing Islamists meanwhile Thursday rejected a plan by their party chief and prime minister to dismiss the government after Belaid's assassination, whose death has sparked the biggest street protests since a revolution two years ago.
Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali of al-Nahda announced late on Wednesday he would replace the government led by his Islamist party with a non-partisan cabinet until elections could be held as soon as possible.

But a senior Nahda official said Jebali had not consulted the party, suggesting the Islamist group was deeply divided over the move to replace the governing coalition and that could prolong the political crisis.
"The prime minister did not ask the opinion of his party," said Abdelhamid Jelassi, Nahda's vice-president.
"We in al-Nahda believe Tunisia needs a political government now. We will continue discussions with other parties about forming a coalition government," he said.
Jebali announced he was dissolving the government on Wednesday after Belaid was gunned down, sending protesters onto the streets across the country.
"I have decided to form a government of competent nationals without political affiliation, which will have a mandate limited to managing the affairs of the country until elections are held in the shortest possible time," he said Wednesday, without setting a date for the reshuffling.

President Moncef Marzouki denounced the killing of Belaid, an outspoken critic of his government, as an "odious assassination."
The Nahda party, which Belaid's family accused of being behind the killing, rejected any involvement.
Nahda chief Rached Ghannouchi said that the "cowardly" murder was the result of a settling of political scores. The killers "want a bloodbath but they won't succeed," he told AFP.
The four opposition groups blamed Interior Minister Ali Laraydeh from Nahda for Belaid's murder and demanded his sacking "because he knew he was threatened and he did nothing," according to Nejib Chebbi, leader of one of the blocs.

The violent scenes triggered by Belaid's murder were reminiscent of the uprising that ousted veteran dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali just over two years ago, with thousands protesting outside the interior ministry.
Belaid's brother, Abdelmajid, bluntly accused the Nahda chief of the murder of the 48-year-old leftist leader, who headed the Party of Democratic Patriots, part of the Popular Front.
"I accuse Rached Ghannouchi of assassinating my brother," Abdelmajid told AFP.
The slain politician's wife said her husband had received daily death threats and was murdered before her eyes.
"I saw his blood flowing, I saw his little smile. I saw that they want to kill democracy," Basma Belaid told France's Europe 1 radio.

(Reuters, AFP, Al-Akhbar)


http://english.al-akhbar.com/content...g-deadly-riots

Please explain this sweeping generalization. Marxist-Leninist's do believe in national liberation but so do many other types of Socialists. It appears you are just flaming so i don't really expect a intelligent response here.

The radical Islamist's don't exactly get along well with Socialists of any type as it does not fit into their imperialist Islamic-fascist ideology so it's hardly surprising they are trying to take out the left in the country. They want total blind obedience to their faith not anything approaching a democracy.

Hopefully the left will start hitting back and give them a taste of their own medicine. One can only talk to people in the language they understand and the only language that people who believe in radical Islam can understand is violence. Trying to talk peace with them is like trying to talk Greek to someone who only understands Mandarin.

Do Marxist-Leninists not accept in Socialism in One Country? There's your answer.

As it turns out i was not disappointed :rolleyes:

Since the very first communist party was formed.

A very large portion of the left considers Marxism-Leninism and and its offshoot Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, to be entirely bourgeois ideologies; so I wouldn't expect many fruitful exchanges with them.

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...27639631_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...99469958_n.jpg

One million people on streets #Tunisia today

When Syria falls it will probably be a very very bad thing. I suspect that we will get the various groups fighting for control of Syria and the Islamist's will probably win which is all we need right now :rolleyes: . Just look at what is happening in Egypt and Libya. The growing threat of Islamic-fascism needs to be addressed now. The west helping Islamist's just because they are fighting a common enemy is certainly not helping. I am not fan of Assad by any means but he is certainly better then radical Islamist's.

That doesn't make sense. Lenin was in nappies when the first communist party was formed. Or do you think communism somehow begins with Bolshevikism?

Marxist-Leninism is a particular brand of communism that advocates violent revolution and a vanguard totalitarian Party to ensure the Revolution is successful. I highly doubt the Tunisian guy was a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, otherwise he wouldn't receive many votes.

Well, since the first "Marxist-Leninist" party was formed, then.

Lenin was the guy who wrote about "Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder", remember? Where he fiercely chastises abstentionism (or otzovism, as he calls it in Russian)?

I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't match the facts. Plenty of self-described "Marxist-Leninists" have been reformist, pacifists, and democratists, and have participated in electoral games. Indeed, that was practically the rule up to 1990 (The "Communist Parties" worldwide, such as the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the Portuguese, the German, the Rumanian, the Hungarian, the Czech, the Brazilian, the Japanese, etc., have always participated in elections whenever possible); it is the fall of the Soviet Union that prompts small minorities among the "Marxist-Leninists" to make a U-turn in their policies and ideas and go into some kind of "third-period" ultra-left fantasy. (Of course, neither their position then nor their position now have much to do with Lenin, but that's a different issue.)

Possibly not, and possibly yes. It is not how you describe yourself, it is what relevance you have in everyday politics. The Greek KKE, which describes itself as "Marxist-Leninist" traditionally makes between 5 and 10% of the vote. The PCF in its best times earned between 15 and 20% of the French vote, and the PCI often reached 30% of the Italian vote - both self-declaring "Marxist-Leninist" while doing so.

And how many votes did Belaid receive? His party got two seats in an assembly of 217 members - hardly an overwhelming performance.

Luís Henrique

I see what you mean by Communist now.


Just because you express support for Marxist-Leninist regimes does not mean you are a Marxist-Leninist. Even before the "third period" ultra-left fantasy, the parties you describe were glorified social democrats who were committed to radical reforms and revolution, but they never, ever were Marxist-Leninist. At best they were Luxemburgist.

The problem was when they did get into power (1930s France and Spain), the Marxist-Leninist "Comintern" that they worshipped like a God told them to postpone any kind of revolution and pursue imperialist interest. Stalin actively told the Spanish Republicans to stop Catalonia's push for social and economic revolution.

So no, they were not Marxist-Leninist, they were just tools of the Comintern.

And look at Syriza, who by distancing themselves from Marxist-Leninism now have 35% poll ratings. The high scores for the PCF and PCI were just after WW2 when the communists were (rightfully) getting the credit for the Resistance in those countries. As soon as people realised they were supporting Marxist-Leninist regimes, they deserted them, not taking them seriously, particularly after the collapse of the USSR and the dismal failure of Marxist-Leninist regimes.

Where are the PCF and PCI now?

This would pose a problem: apparently none of the people who self-identified as "Marxist-Leninist" between 1922 and 1991 were ever Marxist-Leninist, and those who actually were Marxist-Leninist either didn't identify as such, or didn't exist. So it seems that "Marxism-Leninism" is some abstract essence, that was floating in the Platonic realm of Universal Ideas, until the fall of the Soviet Union first allowed it to materialise in the form of small sects that nobody, except themselves (and indeed, not even themselves whe we consider the opinion they have of each others), would seriously consider "Marxist-Leninist".

This, of course, I can't believe in. Nor I think it can be considered Marxist, or even Leninist.

Well, no. That's the thing they were not. They were Stalinists, social-democrats, liberals, conservatives, fascists, or even Marxist-Leninists, perhaps, but Spartakists they were not.

They are not getting such figures because they have distanced from Marxism-Leninism, they are getting such figures because what they say and do seems to make more sence in the Greek conjuncture (and the KKE is not loosing its historic level of support because it is "Marxist-Leninist", but because what it says and does (trying to make a revolution by winning elections, and trying to win elections by saying that elections don't matter at all, and speaking of revolution in abstract) doesn't seem to make any sence at all.

That's not true. The PCF had indeed a good score in 1948 (26.1%), but it maintained such levels of support for a long time (26.7% in 1951, 25.3% in 1956, 20.6% in 1958, 20.9% in 1962, 22,5% in 1967, 20.14% in 1968, 21.2% in 1969, 21.3% in 1973, 20.55% in 1978, 16.1% in 1981, 9.7% in 1986). So it took forty years to the French electorate actually abandon the PCF; this obviously cannot be attributed to they "realisng they were supporting Marxist-Leninist regimes"; it doesn't take 40 years to people realise things like that.]

The PCI case is even less likely to support your argument. The party won "only" 18.9% in 1946, finishing third, behind the Socialist Party, and then went on to 22.6% (and second place) in 1953, 22.7% in 1958, 25.3% in 1963, 26.9% in 1968, 27.1% in 1972, 34.4% in 1976, 30.4% in 1979, 29.9% in 1983, 26.6% in 1987, which was its last election, for it then dissolved into the Democratic Left Party (PDS). So it actually increased its vote systematically up to 1976, more than 30 years after the war - and when it started loosing votes it seems to have to do with other phenomena - the problem posed by the Brigate Rosse, at first, and their turning into "Eurocommunism" a bit later.

(And you have to decide; was the Soviet Union a "Marxist-Leninist" regime? Because if it was, then how do you describe the PCF as "glorified social-democrats"? And if it wasn't, then how was the failure of the PCF related to its supposed support for a "Marxist-Leninist" regime?)

The PCF no longer defines itself as "Marxist-Leninist", and struggles to survive. The PCI morphed into the PDS, then into the PD, which is essentially a (very moderate, third-wayish) social-democratic party, but has far more electoral success, though, of course, the oncoming crisis of the Italian economy might very well destroy it - they don't seem to have absolutely any clue on what is happening and how to change the course of events, so they will probably rise to government with the collapse of Berlusconism, and take full responsibility for the tenebra apropinquante and dive headfirst into the dustbin of History.

Luís Henrique

They called themselves Marxist-Leninists because they wanted to be Marxist-Leninists, not because they were. They were still hanging on to this quasi-mythical Comintern and singing the praises of Lenin and Stalin because they wanted the USSR to succeed. If you look at their (rather shambolic) policies, there is no suggestion that they actually want to copy what Lenin did, they just want to cling on to the myth of Lenin and Stalin and the October Revolution. It hurt them considerably...

Using democracy to advance the socialist revolution is not Spartakist? That is in essence what their policies have always promoted, while they waffle on about Leninist Revolution?


But don't you see that KKE would actually be more popular in Greece if it weren't for their fervent commitment to supposed (pseudo)Marxism-Leninism, and that it is the Marxist-Leninist bullshit they spout out that is the nonsense? Syriza is accused by many of being to weak and liberal for Greece, and too globalist. Syriza was a tiny party dwarfed by the KKE yet now it has overtaken it. If the KKE had just abandoned their out of context proposals and Marxist-Leninism then they'd have made huge gains. Particularly as they command the respect of many for their role in the Civil War and were always seen as a Third Way alternative even by moderates.

As you point out though, they advocate a democratic revolution, but its their apologist view of the USSR that seems to put Greeks off.


Interesting figures, I stand partly corrected. However, its no coincidence that the PCF and PCI lost most of their support after the fall of the USSR. The "failure" of Marxism-Leninism was confirmed and they paid the price for licking the backside of Lenin and Stalin.


It was officially. Obviously not many had known that Stalin and co had fucked it up. But a lot of them were quite proud of their support for Marxist-Leninist regimes like Cuba and Venezuela too, which drew criticism.

In which case we are back to the conception of "Marxism-Leninism" as an ineffable essence that existed, but didn't materialise...

No, it is not. It is Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Marxism, etc., etc., etc... indeed it is leftist politics in general, and it has been so from 1848 to our days. Movements who refuse to do it are very minoritary. So no. While Spartakists would certainly use democracy to advance the socialist revolution, that is not what singles them as a different tendency within the left. They were truly committed to a proletarian revolution - something the Stalinist "communist" parties were not - and they starkly rejected the authoritarianism of Stalinism - again something the "communist" parties never did nor dreamt of.

Look, Spartakism has been dead as an active political current since at least the late 30's; it cannot be blamed for the absurds, capitulations, outright treasons, incompetence, ineptitude, servilism, personality cults, abandonment of Marxist analysis, etc., of the Stalinist parties. They were not influential on these parties (though the East German party did try to set up a cult of Rosa Luxemburg, mostly for "nationalist" reasons, to give a local flavour to their particularly stupid form of Stalinism) at all.

No, I don't think the line of the KKE is any more, or less, "Marxist-Leninist" than the PCF in the 60's or the KPD in the 30's. The nonsence resides on their complete inability to design a credible strategy (anyone can see that their magical recipe of quitting the EU and reverting to an autarchic economy is suicidal) and a tactic that somehow subordinates to their strategy (their tactics is to win elections, their strategy is to refuse elections as useless, which obviously gets their voters wondering).

And it was not "Marxist-Leninist" when it was small - so it was not an abandonment of "Marxism-Leninism" that allowed it to grow.

Probably not. They would most probably just lost their old, traditional base quicklier, while failing to attract a new constituence.

Their apologist views of the USSR were far more relevant when the SU actually existed, but this coincided, on the contrary, with their apogee as a political force in Greece. What puts Greeks off is their lack of understandable policies that can be seen to actually address the crisis.

The PCF however crumbled in 1986, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. No, the reason is elsewhere: in the global conservative bourgeois offencive of the 70s and 80s. The only problem their "licking" of Lenin and Stalin posed is that it substituted for real politics.

So, what the hell is "Marxism-Leninism", besides a spectre that apparently never haunted either Europe or anywhere else? It has nothing to do with Marx, it has nothing to do with Lenin, it was not the ideology of the Stalinist parties, and now, it seems, it was not the ideology of the Soviet Union. So to what does one have to compare the ideas of a given party to decide if they are "Marxist-Leninist" or not? To peculiar movements that only came into being much after the global failure of "Marxism-Leninism"?

And, please. Venezuela is a liberal democracy with a populist left government. If they are a "Marxist-Leninist" regime, then why not France under Mitterrand?

Luís Henrique

Marxist-Leninism is what Lenin preached, but what he and his successors never put in to practise. It is the "official" ideology of the Comintern and its successors. People like Castro, Chavez, CCP and most of the Bolsheviks and USSR stooges can be described as Marxist-Leninist. However, parties such as the PCF (and Front Populaire/de Gauche with it), PCI and most Western Communist parties (even most eurocommunists) were always Marxist-Leninist apologists and worshippers, but were never Marxist-Leninist in ideology.

Instead, they hang on to the Luxemburgist proposal that they will one day defeat the liberal bourgeoisie with liberal democracy, something Lenin did not put into effect in Russia, since he ousted a social democrat of all people.


Mitterand is incomparable to Chavez on the political spectrum. He is a right-wing Pétainist who ran on a socialist ticket because he was a nationalist socialist (don't play the nazi card).

Chavez divides opinion, but he is admittedly more similar to the glorified social democrats/Luxemburgists we talked about. See that is what would happen if they came to power. Licking Castro's and China's behind while continuing liberal democracy and populist lies, nationalising capital. That isn't, by your admission, Marxist-Leninist. It certainly isn't communist.

And please use Communist with a capital C if we're talking about the Marxist-Leninist and their sympathisers. I do not believe Marxist-Leninists to be communists.

Well, no. It is an invention of Zinoviev, then further corrupted by Stalin.

If so, it cannot be what Lenin preached, because there is an evident chasm between what Lenin wrote (and did) and what the mythology of the Comintern is.

As in adhering to the mythology of the Comintern yes, as in adhering to what Lenin preached no.

They adhered to the mythology of the Comintern, too; how were they never Marxist-Leninist?

This is not the Spartakist proposal.

And what is Chávez if not a nationalist?

Er, no. Absolutely not. Chávez is a nationalist populist; the Spartakists were solidly internationalist and anti-populist. Chávez is a petty bourgeois leader coming from the Venezolan army with a somewhat putschist mentality; the Spartakists were a very active working class tendency in Germany, and had nothing to do with putschism.

You seem to use the term "Marxist-Leninist" to denote two very different, even mutually exclusive, things: "what Lenin preached" and "the 'official' ideology of the Comintern". Neither conform with your idea that "Marxism-Leninism" implies a rejection of electoral politics; Lenin often wrote about the necessity of communists engaging in elections, and the Comintern systematically supported electoral participation of its members (and, on the contrary, would expell those who rejected that).

But I can't figure out what you are talking about here: what would happen if who came to power?

I normally put it into quotes, "communists", or just call them Stalinists.

Luís Henrique