2011 will go down in history as the
year of the Arab Spring and could yet go down as the year that also saw
widespread protest and a revolutionary mood develop in Europe, as recent
developments in Spain indicate. For revolutionary socialists this
situation presents an opportunity unlike any seen in decades. Yet such a
situation also poses difficult questions for the activists in the
emerging movements. In particular the seemingly contradictory aims of on
the one hand mobilising as many people as possible and achieving the
clear goals of the movement, and on the other, achieving a revolutionary
change in society
2011 will go down in history as the
year of the Arab Spring and could yet go down as the year that also saw
widespread protest and a revolutionary mood develop in Europe, as recent
developments in Spain indicate. For revolutionary socialists this
situation presents an opportunity unlike any seen in decades. Yet such a
situation also poses difficult questions for the activists in the
emerging movements. In particular the seemingly contradictory aims of on
the one hand mobilising as many people as possible and achieving the
clear goals of the movement, and on the other, achieving a revolutionary
change in society.
From Cairo to Wisconsin to Madrid millions of young people have been
mobilised due to discontent with the political regime in their country
and also around a wider set of social and economic issues. In particular
the mass youth unemployment that has been created by the economic
crisis has been a prime source of anger. This was nowhere more so than
in Tunisia, where the revolution was sparked off by a young unemployed
graduate who set himself on fire after being told he could no longer
sell fruit from his street stall.
At one end of the scale there are those who argue for the need for a
radical change in society, for a socialist revolution. At the other end
there are those who emphasise the ever pressing need to be “pragmatic”
and not frighten off the “middle ground” and those who may not already
have come to a revolutionary consciousness. In reality this is a false
distinction and what may seem pragmatic in reality often means the
ideological disarming of the movement and compromises that seriously
undermine the gains and mobilising power of the movement.
Revolution
Recent developments in Libya for instance show this to be the case.
The movement in Libya was originally inspired by the revolutions in
Egypt and Tunisia, which saw dictatorships overthrown due to the mass
mobilisation of millions of workers and youth. However, since then the
movement has become bogged down in a stalemate and the Libyan rebels
have come to be dominated by moderates. The self appointed “National
Transitional Council” has gone as far as to actively collaborate with
imperialist powers and exists as little more than a pawn for NATO and a
justification for its bombing campaign. This makes a farce of a people’s
revolution that demanded that the future of the nation be decided by
the people of the nation. Instead a body dominated by figures from the
old regime and wealthy exiles is surrendering the revolution to NATO,
despite the banners seen in Benghazi in February which rejected American
support and stated that the revolution was the task of the Libyan
people.
The revolution has thus stalled due to the actions of these moderates
who have appointed themselves head of the movement against Gaddafi. But
we don’t need to look as far away as Libya to see examples of a
leadership trailing behind its supporters. The experience of the British
student movement, starting from the demonstration of over 50,000 in
London in November 2010, only served to show how far the National Union
of Student (NUS) leadership were behind ordinary students. On this march
and the days of action that followed it was clear that almost all
involved were protesting for free education. Yet the NUS leadership was
only willing to go as far as opposing fees by proposing a graduate tax,
which essentially amounted to the same thing, a tax on education paid
back on completion of courses. The drive to attain “respectability” hit
whole new lows when NUS leader Aaron Porter condemned student
protesters, who were attacked by the police. All in an attempt to be
seen as “respectable”, “moderate” and “pragmatic.”
In the end as the fees were voted through parliament only around
1,000 gathered at the NUS vigil in London whilst thousands more attended
demos around the country including 30,000 at an unofficial one in
Parliament Square. If this proves anything it’s that proposing a
radical program can win support and that as people are pulled into
struggle they see the contradictions in capitalism, making them more
open to revolutionary ideas. The capitalist crisis has lain our future
on the line and only a militant campaign of resistance to the cuts can
lay the basis for the struggle for socialism. The evidence both
internationally and nationally seems to point to an increasing number of
people, especially youth, drawing this conclusion.
If we accept that socialists must resist pressures to water down
their program and be willing to call for the transformation of society
this begs the question of how we are to do this. In the Communist Manifesto Marx explained that;
“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other
working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from
those of the proletariat as a whole.“They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
“The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class
parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians
of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the
common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all
nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle
of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they
always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a
whole.”
Thus it is the task of revolutionaries to experience the class
struggle shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the class. However,
possessing the advantage of an understanding of all struggles as part of
the struggle for socialism, it is the task of Marxists to explain this
perspective. It does not mean that Marxists do not struggle alongside
those who are not yet revolutionaries; it does not mean we don’t take
part in the struggles of workers and youth for reforms. But as
participants in these struggles, we are distinguished as Marxists only
insofar as we explain the need to connect each struggle to the wider
struggle for socialism and the fact that reforms won are temporary and
will only last until the next crisis or when the bosses feel secure
enough to remove them.
Such a viewpoint will naturally start out as the position of a small
minority. The working class will test all ideas and programmes as it
struggles to improve its way of life. However by proving themselves to
be the best fighters and having the only perspective which reflects the
contradictions at the heart of society, a revolutionary party can win
the majority to its side. In Russia Lenin went from being in a small
minority in his own organisation, the Bolsheviks, which was itself a
small minority in the Russian working class in early 1917 to achieving a
majority by October 1917. This was on the basis on the one hand of
“patiently explaining” the need for the workers’ councils, Soviets, to
take power from the capitalist provisional government and for an end to
the war which was causing widespread misery and death. It was also done
through proving the superiority of the revolutionary methods of the
Bolsheviks. In particular it was the Bolsheviks who led the resistance
to the attempted coup by the reactionary general Kornilov and as such
gained respect as the only force able to resist the old Tsarist
autocracy.
The struggles emerging in Europe just now, inspired by the events in
the Middle East, demonstrate the potential for revolutionary change. Yet
they also demonstrate the absence of revolutionary leadership. History
demonstrates the necessity of this and warns against disarming the
movement through attempting to win the respect of the representatives of
the system, the very thing we are fighting against.
