lutte de classe / class struggle / lucha de clase FRA/ENG/ESP (1972-80) #14

24 Pages·1.433 MB·English

by  Lutte Ouvriere

FOR THE REBUILDING OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIO_NAL
CONTENTS
The Middle East Conflict : Why the Revolution
aries Are Backing the Arabs.
The Extreme Left in France in the Current
of Arab Nationalism.
Labor Bureaucrats and Revolutionary Militants
in the Face of the Fight of the Lip Workers.
trat=akyiat
11aanthly Analysis and Illusions : From the Revival of
Bolshevism in the USSR to the Reconstruction
of the Fourth International.
published by ·
l u t t e
Novembre 1973
auvr1ara
CLASS STRUGGLE
CONTENTS
Page 2 The Middle East Conflict: Why the
Revolutionaries Are Backing the
Arabs.
Page 7 The Extreme Left in France in the
Current of Arab Nationalism.
Page 12 Labor Bureaucrats and Revolution
ary Militants in the Face of the
Fight of the Lip Workers.
Page 18 Analysis and Illusions : From the
Revival of Bolshevism in the USSR
to the Reconstruction of the Fourth
International.
NUMBER 14
CLASS STRUGGLE
THE MIDDLE-EAST CONFLICT:
WHY THE REVOLUTIONARIES ARE BACKING THE ARABS
It is a fact that, on the one hand, the Arab-Israeli war is a violent nationalist
conflict : Egypt and Syria were determined to win back the occupied territories
(although Sadat's actual aims were merely to reconquer a strip of land in !_he
Sinai so as to reopen the canal), and on the other hand, any conflict in that
area raises questions as to the very existence of Israel and the rights of the
Jewish community in Palestine. But these features should not conceal the
international nature of the problem.
Proletarian revolutionaries cannot take sides on the basis of conflicting
nationalist claims. Neither can they do so on the evidence of the nature of the
regimes of the states involved in the war, whether they claim to be democratic,
progressive, or socialist. Indeed in this respect, Golda Meir's Labor government
is no better than Sadat's progressive regime or Assad's pseudo-socialist rule.
The war which presently opposes the Jews of Israel to most of the Arab
countries, even if locally based, is merely the consequence and the reflection
of imperialist domination in the Middle East.
There is no other way of analyzing the situation and no other way of
choosing one's camp.
The creation of a Jewish National Home in a territory long submitted to
colonial control at a time when no country in the world -but for the USSR and
its satellites- completely escaped exploitation by the Western countries, just
could not be conceived of outside imperialist calculations and political designs.
So the creation of Israel has from the start been associated with this planetary
interplay of forces.
Israel was not created by US imperialism -it is British imperialism that was
originally involved in the «colonization» of Palestine by Zionist settlers.
Neither is the US responsible for the hatred now opposing the Zionist state
and the Arab countries. But Israel would not exist -either as a state or as a
nation- had US imperialism not benefited from its existence in the Middle East.
And only for this vefy same reason could the Jews of Palestine succeed in
2
CLASS STRUGGLE
building a fairly viable state as a result of their fight against Great Britain
and against the Palestinian Arabs. And the reason why the US benefited from
Israel's existence was that it needed to be somehow present in the Middl_e East
to serve its own interests.
The situation was all the more favorable as the decline of French and British
imperialism and the formal accession to independence of states formerly
colonized or «protected» by the old European imperialism left the field wide
open for US capital and an American presence in the Middle East. But it so
happens that the Middle East has always been of primary importance for
modern economies ; not only on account of its geographical location, and of
its importance for world trade and navigation via the Suez canal, but mainly on
account of its oil, and of the growing importance of oil in a modern economy.
The Middle East ranks first as an oil producer, far ahead of the United States :
its production and reserves are estimated to be twice those of the States.
Although Middle East oil exports do not at present exceed 5% of the imports
of the US, 80 to 95% of Europe's and Japan's oil supplies depend on the
Middle East. This is a good enough reason ; one need not mention the alleged
US shortage of oil, or its determination not to use its reserves ; be it only to
safeguard the future of the European economy, it is vital for imperialism to
keep its grip on this part of the world. Again it is vital that the oil-producing
countries should remain satellites of imperialism, economically and also
politically speaking. Consequently, it is vital to check and to restrain the wishes
for economic independence of any country in that area; imperialism must also
look out for national independence movements that would go beyond the limits
compatible with its interests, and crush them if necessary. In view of its position
as the leader of imperialism in the world, US imperialism has to assume political
responsibilities. It is its duty to maintain by force the Arab countries in relative
dependence on imperialist economies. This implies a political strategy involving
corruptions of the sheikdoms along the Persian Gulf, and support to the
reactionary monarchies of Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well as policies of
persuasion and/or coercion toward Egypt and Syria. Within this framework,
the US decided to support, among others, the ~sraeli state.
It needed an armed representative of its interests in the middle East.
Consequently, it supplied arms and money to Israel, whose hostility to the
Arab countries -a consequence of the creation by means of force of the
Jewish state- had been proved in the 48 war. Israel Zionist government
agreed to play along, and served US interests insofar as it considered they
coincided with its own interests.
From this standpoint, it is true that Israel is the best defender of imperialism
in the Middle East. Indeed if Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, for example,
have also been supplied arms and dollars for the same purpose, only in Israel
is the people as a whole engaged in the fight alongside of US imperialism,
which, the Zionists have done their utmost to obtain, appears as the sole gua
rantee of its survival. On this basis, every single Israeli action or intervention
against the Arab countries automatically becomes international and pro
imperialist. And this is not because each of Israel's actions are directly prompted
3
CLASS STRUGGLE
by US imperialism, but because imperialism is involved in every single conflict
between Israel and the Arabs. This was bluntly demonstrated in 1967 when
the six-day war brought to a halt both the development of nationalism in
Egypt and Syria and their claim for independence from US imperialism.
The same is now being demonstrated in 1973, at a time when oil supplies and
the growing demands of the oil-producing states are a crucial problem for
imperialist economies. ·
From this point of view Israel is objectively -and even subjectively because
it agrees to fill this role- a considerable means of pressure of imperialism in
the Middle East.
That does not mean that in declaring war on Israel the Arab countries had
at the same time declared war on imperialism. The policy of Sadat and Assad
is certainly not anti-imperialistic, and in any case, is certainly not revolutionary.
The anti-imperialism paraded by Assad and moderated by Sadat is nothing else
but a willingness to readjust the price that imperialism is ready to pay to the
Arab bourgeoisies for the pillage of their wealth. Genuine anti-imperialism
would be a policy envisaging the destruction of imperialism. Now who can
destroy imperialism if not French, English, American, German, etc. workers ?
And, conducting an anti-imperialist policy cannot be done without carrying
out an internationalist policy envisaging the engaging of the workers from im
perialist countries into the struggle against their own bourgeoisies. So it is not
by disillusioning itself about the anti-imperialist or revolutionary nature of the
conflict that proletarian revolutionaries must support the Arab countries. They
must support them unconditionally, despite the reactionary anti-working class
nationalist policy of the present regimes, because imperialism is in the other
camp. Because imperialism would come out reinforced by an Israeli victory.
Because Israel in defending its own interests in this part of the world at the
same time defends those of world imperialism.
For more than a century the fate of humanity has played itself out in the
fundamental conflict which opposes the proletariat as an international class,
to the world bourgeoisie whose domination is linked to an outdated mode of
production.
In the Middle-East conflict the proletariat is not engaged in the war under
its own banner, with its own organization and its own objectives, but the world
bourgeois class in its highest and most reactionary form, that of imperialism, is
present, and it is present in precisely the Israeli camp, in order to perpetuate
its domination in the Middle East. It is that which must dictate the line of
conduct of revolutionaries. The proletariat cannot remain neutral in this war
which is not its own. It must be on the side of the Arab countries against im
perialism, even to the point of being on the side of their bourgeois leaders.
And revolutionary militants of the advanced capitalist countries, that is to
say, of the countries who have participated in the pillage, and who are still
participating in the exploitation of the underdeveloped countries, have the po
litical and moral duty to support these countries when the latter find themselves
4
CLASS STRUGGLE
implicated in a conflict with imperialism -and that, no matter what leaders
people give themselves or accept. Because revolutionaries of advanced capitalist
countries ally themselves with the proletariat of the underveloped countries
in any way but in demonstrating their own internationalism, but in
agreeing to support that proletariat unconditionally in its resistance to impe
rialism, even when that proletariat is still following nationalist bourgeois lead
ers.
This internationalist stand must be very clear in the present conflict, and
those which may follow in the Middle East. But it implies for proletarian rev
olutionaries the necessity of disengaging themselves from that which should be
their poricy in the Middle East, and the solution which they should uphold
concerning the problem posed by the existence of Israel.
If proletarian revolutionaries must be resolutely for the victory of the Arab
states because a victory for Israel would reinforce imperialist domination in the
Middle East, they must not at the same time let themselves believe that the
anti-imperialist struggle necessarily includes a war against Israel, and that this
struggle can be carried out by the Arab bourgeoisies.
The struggle for the emancipation of the Middle-East countries in the present
context of imperialist domination perhaps includes war against Israel. But the
war against Israel is not a means of bringing down and destroying imperialism.
The struggle for the emancipation of the Algerians went through a war
against French imperialism -this time of necessity. But this struggle neither
allowed for the defeat of French imperialism nor tried to do so. At no time
did the leaders of the FLN attempt to mobilize French workers against their
own colonialist bourgeoisie. Today Algeria is independent, and French impe
rialism remains.
In no way can the problems posed by imperialist domination in this part of
the world, those posed by the existence of millions of Palestinian refugees,
and those posed by the aspirations of the Palestinian Jews to form a state, be
resolved by the Arab and lsraelian bourgeoisies. In developing the nationalism
in both camps, in chaining the Arab and Jewish proletariat to their own bour
geoisies through a «sacred union», the war only makes these problems more
obscure, and postpones their real solutions. That is why an alignment pure and
simple of revolutionaries with the Arab leaders, a position which is that of the
Soviet bureaucrats and the various communist parties, would be another, and
equally radical way, of betraying internationalism. The task of organizing the
proletariat and showing it that if, in the present war, imperialism is the main
enemy, that the national bourgeoisie is also a fundamental enemy, a permanent
obstacle on the road toward a genuine emancipation, and the denunciation
of all the crimes of the Arab leaderships, and of their anti-working class policy,
are part of the immediate objectives of working-class revolutionaries.
The problem of the existence of Israel is, through the will of the Zionist
leaders themselves, tied to the domination of imperialism in the Middle East.
5
CLASS STRUGGLE
But the interests of the Jewish nation of Palestine, now 25 years old and
2 1/2 million people strong, have nothing in common with those of American
imperialism. The possibility for the Jews of Israel to live in the Middle East, and
to form a nation, even a state, necessarily includes, on the contrary, a total
break with imperialism. It includes their participation in a socialist revolution
in this part of the world.
It lies in a federation of socialist states in the Middle East where the Jewish,
Palestinian, Arab, Kurd, and other peoples could coexist and cooperate in the
building of a society without classes, without exploiters, without racism, and
without war.
6
CLASS STRUGGLE
THE EXTREME LEFT IN FRANCE
IN THE CURRENT OF ARAB NATIONALISM
The war in the Middle East has once again revealed to various degrees the
political confusion and the opportunism of most of the French revolutionary
groups.
The OCI fs an exception to the rule, as regards the positions adopted by the
different revolutionary tendencies for this organization is quite happy to
declare that «on the one hand Zionism, and on the other ArabisM and the
'Arab nation' are directly tied to imperialism». (Informations Ouvrieres No 628,
October 17th), and, to all intents and purposes, to place the belligerents on the
same level, despite having aknowledged that the retrieval of the occupied
territories is a «just war-aim» for the Arab states. It is the sort of position
which is only internationalist in appearance, for the Arab states and Israel are
not equally tied to imperialism. Revolutionaries cannot place them on the
same level, for that would be to refuse to criticize the facts concerning the role
of imperialism in this region of the world.
So, apart from this exception, most of the revolutionary groups rightly chose
their side by declaring that in the fight between the state of Israel, principal
agent of imperialist interests in the Middle East, and the Arab states, under
developed countries trying to resist the pressure of imperialism, revolutionaries
support the latter.
Given the present context of the Middle East, degrees by the acceptance of the politics of the
an Israeli victory over the Arab armies can only bourgeois or even semi-feudal governments in the
mean a reinforcement of the imperialist grasp and Arab countries. Or at the very least they accept
of the pressure it exerts in th is part of the wo rid. the politics of organizations like those belonging
The revolutionaries declare that a victory of the to the Palestinian resistance, which despite their ra
Arab armies is preferable to a victory of the Israeli dical exterior, are bourgeois nationalist organiza
army. tions both from the point of view of their terminol
ogy as from that of their methods of combat.
But although most of the revolutionaries af
firmed their solidarity with the Arab peoples in the In the case of the Maoist organizations, the
fight against Israel, these statements of opinion are word <<opportunism» to describe their attitude
accompanied more often than not and to various would be improper -it is a clear and simple case of
7
CLASS STRUGGLE
bourgeois nationalism. Thus the paper Front Rouge Egyptian and Iraqi regimes who.se political convul-
engaging in a polemic discussion with Lutte sions were presented as as many moments of the
Ouvriere, accuses us of «denying the national famous «Arab revolution» whose class character
character of the present stage of the Palestinian was never pointed out.
revolution by putting forward the grossly false
slogan 'A Socialist Palestine' or 'A Socialist This more or less critical alignment with Arab
Federation of States in the Middle East'» ( Front nationalism has not even gone back on during the
Rpuge No 88, 25th October 1973). Zealous advo- recent conflict in the.Middle East.
cate of the Stalinist theory of «the revolution in
stages», Front Rouge is attacking us because we Rouge (No .226, 26th October) declares itself
substitute a revolutionary socialist policy for that «completely in agreement» with Lutte Ouvriere
of the Arab governments, and because we state that when we affirm our «support for the Arab peoples
the Arab peoples' enemies are not only the state in the fight against their own leaderS)). We point
of Israel but also their very own leaders. Needless out, in effect, that «our support for the fight of op-
to say, Front Rouge has not a word of criticism pressed peoples as it is going on and not as we wou Id
for Assad's or Sadat's government, nor for the like it to go on, does not imply at all that by the
leaders of the Palestinian resistance. same token we must abandon the accompanying
struggle to be led clearly and unambiguously
This goes in hand with the negation, on the against the established Arab leaders and regimes».
other extreme, of all rights for the Jewish communi- (Lutte Ouvriere No 269, 3rd October, 19731.
ty in Palestine to have its own existence as a nation,
and its own state if it so desires. Front Rouge We make a note of Rouge's agreement with
rejects categorically the «fact of the Jewish nation», our positions. It is simply regrettable that this
describing it as an «imperialist-Zionist mystifica affirmed agreement is accompanied in the same
tion» and proclaims in the end that «there is no issue of the paper by an article in depth entitled
other way out for the oppressed Jews I iving in «Transform the War into a Revolutionary Offen·
Palestine but to join up with the Palestinian sive» which is in complete contradiction with it.
national movement and the liberation movement Once again it demonstrates how these comrades
of the Arab peoples». The destruction of the align themselves purely and simply with nationalist
Israeli state is put forward as the prime aim for the positions.
Arab peoples. Similarly, the organization
Revolution ! assigns them the immediate task of The political premise which serves as the point
the «destruction of the Zionist state» without of departure for the author of the article and which
giving the slightest indication of what rights would enables him to define Rouge's position concerning
be granted to the Jewish community in Palestine Arab nationalism, is as follows :
as a national minority. «Any development of Arab nationalism, even
on the initiative of these bourgeois leaderships
Unfortunately, Rouge's attitude which expresses (the Sadat-Assad governments, -author's notel is
the political positions of the United Secretariat of favorable to the workers' cause in that region. In
the Fourth International in France, is hardly any effect, this new lease of Arab nationalism is the
clearer. We are already accustomed to this tend twisted expression (under the influence of the ru Ii ng
ency's unmitigated alignment with the majority of classes) of the development of the national con
the petty-bourgeois organizations in the under sciousness of the oppressed peoples of the Middle
dev11loped countries, from the NLF in Algeria East. That is essential. .. ».
to the NLF in South VietNam, in which it zealous
ly discovered «socialist» virtues in order to justify Such a conception represents an explicit capit
its support for them. Likewise, when Nasser's ulation to the problem of nationalism. If one sets
regime in Egypt put pan-Arabism into fashion, the out from the point of view that any development
United Secretariat invented the concept of the of nationalism «is favorable to the workers' cause»,
cc Arab revolution» which was just a left-wing term why criticize it, then ?
to cover up Nasser's politics and to avoid having to
denounce Arab nationalism as the ideology of the One just has to go on reading the article to see
dominating classes in the region. It all boiled down that Rouge, far from criticizing nationalism fully
to a more or less critical support of the Syrian, supports it, and by its «support to the Arab
8
CLASS STRUGGLE
peoples in the struggle against Israel, but also task of overtaking the present bourgeois leader
against their own leaders»: Rouge means some ship». These «transitional slogans are for instance :
thing entirely different to us. Rouge is in fact «No to the Coming Compromise : refuse the
criticizing these leaders in the name of a sort of Recognition of the Zionist state ;
ultra-nationalism. «Refuse the Cease-Fire;
«Call for the Autonomous Organization of the
At the launching of the October 6th offensive Masses. Prolonged War, Arms and Training, Demo
by the Syrian-Egyptian headquarters and the re cratic Freedom, Freedom of Action for Palestinian
sumption of the war, Rouge is wildly enthusiastic : Resistance».
«This warn, declares ·Rouge, «has removed all
trace of the momentary ebb of the revolution in In short the radicalism of Arab revolutionaries
the region, brought on by the defeat of the should express itself within the limits ot the
Palestinian revolution under the blows of the Arab battlefield only. Their task would be to try and
reaction. September 70, 'Black September', the demonstrate that the Arab bourgeois regimes are
crushing of the cause which focussed the aspira capable of any compromises with Zionism and im
tions of the Arab peoples as a whole, the elimina perialism; to try and overtake them «on their left»
tion of thousands of fighters ot the objective by standing for a «prolonged warn. In fact, it all
vanguard of the Arab revolution, had enabled a boils down to being even more bellicose than Sadat's
series of counter-revolutionary attacks to take and Assad's own generals.
place in the Middle East (. .. ) The war gives a new
lease of life to the masses' fight. It puts an end It is indeed sad to see a Trotskyist paper indulge
to Israel's invulnerability. It modifies the immediate in such an unbridled praise of the war proposed to
data of the political period». the Arab populations by their leaders. For revolu
«The Arab bourgeoisies have taken the road tionaries, to side with this or that opponent in the
of 'armed diplomacy' and 'peace through war' war is one thing. For them, to offer the Arab
because they could not do otherwise, without peoples struggling for their emancipation no other
seriously provoking the crisis which undermines perspective but that of a «prolonged warn against
their regimes. Cornered, they have chosen to play Israel is yet another thing -even if they add that
this last card, having played all the others long ago» such a war would only deepen the contradiction
(Rouge No 226, 26th October, 1973). between «the revolutionary impulses of the masses»
and the.reactionary Arab regimes.
To sum up, the regimes of Sadat and Assad, in
choosing to wage war against Israel (against Do revolutionaries really have nothing else to
whom ? ) would greatly reinforce the struggle of denounce with respect to the Syrian and Egyptian
the Arab masses. Better still, according to Rouge, bourgeoisies but the fact that the latter are prepar
to trying to solve their domestic crisis through war, ed to compromise with the Zionist state ? In the
those regimes would in fact deepen that crisis, since last analysis, such a compromise does not at all
their move would do away with the famous originate in the politics of the Arab bourgeoisies
«Arab revolution» (whose nature we are still not who would cleaJIY prefer to do without that; it
told about). simply is the consequence of a given balance of
power on the battlefield. Through what miracle
Because, as Rouge says, «Sadat-and Assad are could Rouge's childish slogan of a «prolonged
being confronted with the essential contradiction warn ever lead up to a modification of this balance
of Arab nationalism, especially as fashioned by of power ? And should, through some extraor·
Nasser: to oppose, however little, imperialism, dinary circumstances, such a thing· happen, should
. to sweep away some of the vestiges of exploitation, the Arab regimes redouble their zeal in the war
to develop the economic basis of the state bourgeoi against Israel and prove that they can win, would
sie, they must mobilize the masses and at the same Rouge then criticize them no more, since their
time limit their revolutionary impulses. The Syrian «transitional slogans» would have been fulfilled ?
and Egyptian leaderships are playing with fire».
Indeed, Israel is not only the problem con
The task of Arab revolutionary Marxists, as seen fronting the Arab masses. Far from it. And the
by Rouge, thus becomes clear : «Put forward fight against the Zionist state is not the central
transitional slogans corresponding to the necessary point on which these governments can be put to
9