Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Visitors or Conspirators?

                                                                          Ajith Keshakambali

India was one of the most important destinations of the Heads of the states of a number of powerful countries of the world at the end of 2010.
US President Obama was followed by his French counterpart Nicholas Sarkozy. Then came Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to be followed by Russian President Putin.
Obama visit was publicised by the media with such an awestruck manner that it resembled the visit of an imperial monarch to a subject country. His entourage consisted of even a huge army of security personnel who took up almost the whole of Mumbai under their control, Visits of the three other dignitaries did not have that amount of media euphoria, but enough of coverage.
Trade treaties were inked as usual. While Lockeed Martin and Boeing could grab big contracts while Obama was in India, French competitor Air bagged a bigger deal few months after Sarkozy left India. Obama boasted his visit to India will create 75000 jobs in the USA. The power generation project by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance at Samalkot, a small town in Andhra Pradesh will create 1600 jobs in G.E. USA. Similarly in defence supplies, oil exploration, civil aircrafts and above all, nuclear power generation the USA stuck deals with India. Obama also broke the ice on American assistance, read attempt to control, in the defence research and development sectors, such as DR Do.
But what was of much more importance was Obama’s continued harangue on "terrorism" and "fight against terrorism". It was nothing but big leaf to align India with the global interest of America, especially its geo-politics in the Middle-East.India has already been a partner of America’s war on Iraq and Afganistan in the guise of working for the development of those countries. It is now known to the world that one of the most important engineering arm of Indian military, Border Roads Organisation (BRO), famous for its expertise in building roads and bridges in the mountainous terrains, has been deployed to build up roads for the NATO forces in Afganistan, Indians are being used for transporting military necessities and supplies in both Iraq and Afganistan. Now Iran is embarrassing the USA by not complying with its dictate. So it has become all the more necessary to get India as ally in its military adventure in this region. In this score Obama’s problem to minimise the age old enmity between two neighboring countries India and Pakistan. Obama had to deal with a number of adversaries-the forces in both Indian and Pakistani establishment who are opposed to building up friendly relationship between the two countries, forces in the Pakistani establishment which are acting for an Islamic brotherhood and reluctant to fight the Afghans, forces in the Indian establishment which are allied to adverse imperialist powers etc. He had to use both carrots and sticks to deal with them. In that effort ‘terrorism’ was his handy tool, but he was extra-cautious in not connecting Pakistan with ‘terrorist’ activities in India. He was also very much cautious in not promising clearly a security council seat for India, but at the same time very diplomatically promising support to changes in UN regulation.
Obama thus had his tasks clearly formulated. It was explicitly to develop trade and business such that on the one hand it can be used to create employments in the USA, and on the other hand, and that was more important, to turn India more dependent on US in its infrastructure development, especially energy sectors, and to penetrate more deeply in the military establishment of India. But the implicit task was to force India serve the US geo-political interest.
For the visitors who followed Obama the latter was far more important than the former. So how they reacted was very interesting and important for India and its people.
Sarkozy, the Frech President, again outwardly emphasized trade and business. He also eyed of the energy sector. Being the highest producer of nuclear power in the world, Sarkozy promised supply of nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants in India. Arrangements were made for supply of huge number of Airbus civil aviation aeroplanes. He was just short of promising India a US Security Council Seat. But his implicit task was to take India away from acting at the dictate of US imperialist on Iran. The present dispensation is not as adverse to French oil interests in Iran as that to US civil interests. Being a part of NATO, France is in an unenviable position to carry on its policy on Iran. So Surkozy had a tight rope walking on this issue.
Then came Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao. The most interesting part of his visit was that he had to convince the Indian government for advancing his visit more than one month. Indian media reported it with due importance, but never ever tried to bring before the Indian people the real reason behind it. Outwardly it was for enhancing trade between the two countries. China also came up with its expertise in building up thermal power plant in India again a stress on the energy sector. For the umpteenth time both sides agreed for peaceful solution to border disputes.
Then why was so much haste on the part of China for this visit? It is to be noted that the US is in a big trade deficit with China. It has been continuously pressing China for revaluation of its currency, yuan in respect of dollar, China has been opposing it. Chinese President was to visit the USA in January, 2011. So, China wanted to go to the USA with a strong message that even if, the USA tries to restrict trade with China to enforce revaluation of yuan, it has already developed an alternative market.
This tactics of China pinched where it really wanted could be seen from the actions of political and media stockholders of the US imperialism in India. They started crying foul against the quality of Chinese goods and raised a big storm on granting ‘paper visa’ or stapled visa’ [meaning visa separately stamped in piece of paper] to two weight lifters of Arunachal Pradesh, which had been a long practice of the Chinese government from when it changed its policy of granting no ‘visa’ to Indian passport holders of Arunachal Pradesh because they felt that was a Chinese territory. Rather it was shift towards peaceful solution to the border dispute.
Just after the Chinese Premier had left India, came the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia has somehow come out of the brink to total economic collapse. With a more stable economy than that of nineties, this military superpower has been trying to gain its old position as the USSR in the global geo-politics. India had been its one of important allies in Yesteryears. Though India shifted its position in favour of the US, till 2008, it was the biggest supplier of Indian military. Israel pushed it to the second position very recently. Putin’s first aim was to regain that position and he achieved it. Moreover, Russians know very well that the comprador bourgeoisie in India always dream of advancing its expansionism. It is difficult for the US to fan it up. Because it may not help US global interest. Russia has been planning to develop a Russia-China-India axis. Putin did everything possible at this moment to fan up Indian expansionism. He promised to support India’s claim to permanent membership in UN security Council knowing very well it could not be achieved without reform of UN regulation. He once more announced that Kashmir was an integral part of India, which is a policy from the days of Khruschev. Implicitly it advised India to refrain from falling in line with the USA in its Iran policy and promised to supply oil.
Thus India has become an important territory for global players for their own geo-political interest thanks to the geographical position and the big market.
In the near future Indian people will find the contradiction amongst the ruling cliques sharpening. It has already started, but far sharper developments are awaiting. With the assembly elections in different states, these contradictions are hotting up. As the contradiction will develop, more skeletons like scam on 2G spectrum, from cupboard will be unearthed. Each imperialist power will try its best to put its adverseries to the mat.
Such development of contradictions amongst the ruling cliques will surely be advantageous for the people to strengthen themselves for a total change in the structure of the Indian state, to put an end with this semi-colonial semi-feudal state. The proletariat will have to unite itself and its allies to get ready for the final battle.

On Telengana

Resolution of The Central Committe
In an earlier resolution, the CC in its call to the people of Telengana "called upon the people that Telengana or no Talengana, all the toiling masses of present Andhra Pradesh will have to keep their unity and fight for their democratic rights, fight against imperialism, big bourgeoisie and feudalism." In that call the central committee did not put forward its own opinion on Telengana. Because at that point the central Home Minister P.Chidambaram had announced the formation of a separate state i.e, Telengana. So, the CC felt "rationality of forming such a state and arguements for or against such formation has become redundant" At the same time, the CC observed the way it has been announced has created lot of resentment among the people of Andhra Pradesh." At that particular juncture the CC felt that to keep the unity of the people was the task of the day. But the resentments were so deep, movements developed in both parts of Andhra Pradesh- one region asking for separating Telengala without delay and the other opposing division of Andhra Pradesh.
P. Chidambaram had to go back on his words and a commission headed by Justice Sri Krishna was installed. On January 6, 2011, the Report of the SriKrishna Commission had been made public by the central government.
The complex nature of the probelm of a separate state of Telengana is clear from the Sri Krishna Commission Report. Studying opinions of representatives of different cross section of the people of present day Andhra Pradesh, the report could not come to a clear cut and concrete solution. Though the commission felt that a united Andhra Pradesh was the "most workable option in the given circumstances and in the best interests of the social and economic welfare of the people of all the regions", but also said that "separation is recommended only in case it is unavoidable and if the dicision can be reached amicably amongst all three regions" The latter observation created the ground for further agitations both for and against formation of a separate Telengana state.
In the report six different options are put forward. They are:
1. Maintaining status quo
2. Bifurcation into Seemandhra and Telengana with Hyderabad as a union Territory and both states developing their own capitals.
3. Bifurcation of state into Rayala-Telengana and coastal Andhra regions with Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telengana.
4. Bifurcation into Seemandhra and Telengana with enlarged Hyderabad metropolis as a separate union Territory. The Union Terrritory will have geographical linkage and contiguity via Nalgonda district in the southeast to Guntur in coastal Andhra via Mehboobnagar district in the south to Kurnool district in Rayalseema.
5. Bifurcation of the state into Telengana and Seemandhra as per existing bounderies with Hyderabad as the capital of Telengana and Seemandhra to have a new capital.
6. Keeping the state united by the simultaneously providing certain definite constitutional and statutory measures for socio-economic development and political empowerment of Telengana region as well as creation of a statutorily empowered Telengana Regional Board.
Of these six options, first one presents no solution, the Report itself admitted that it "favoured the least."
The second one i.e., bifurcation into Seemandhra and Telengana with Hyderbad given a Union Territory status is a solution which would satisfy only a few, commission also found it as "not practicable."
Commissions opinion on the third option of bifurcation into Rayala-Telengana and Coastal Andhra with Hyderabad as integral part of Rayala- Telengana is that "it is not likely to be accepted either by pro-Telengana or pro-United Andhra Protagonists. While this option may have economic justification, the Committee believes that this option may not offer a resolution which would be acceptable to people of all three regions."
Fourth option of dividing present Andhra Pradesh into two state, Seemandhra and Telengana and a Union of Territory of enlarged Hyderabad cannot be a practical solution and would satisfy only very few and cause stiff opposition from many was clear to the commission.
Finally, out of the six option the commission had only two options left and it preferred the sixth or the last option.
Now let us see whether this will really resolve the issue. To arrive at a conclusion as a proletarian party we will have to look at history of the problem and class forces that are active for and against Telengana, general aspiration of the people and unity of the people should also be considered.
Historical Background.
Post 1947, the princely state of Hyderabad ruled by the Nizam wanted to remain out of India. At that time the territory under his control was simmering with a great peasant struggle, well known all over India and abroad as the Telengana Struggle. Indian government led by Jawaharlal Nehru sent armed forces to bring the Nizam state under it, but the real intent was to suppress the Telengana struggle under the jackboot of India military forces. Nizam was forced to join India. Telengana struggle was betrayed by the all India leadership of the then CPI. At the same time another movement also developed. The aim of that movement was to separate the Telugu speaking territory of the then Madras Presidency to form a state with Madras as its capital. Hyderabad state was formed with Hyderabad as capital. During the first general election of 1952, a state government was also formed. But movement to curve out Telugu speaking area from Madras Presidency was continuing. Finally after the death of Potti Sreeramalu while carrying on hunger strike and militatnt struggle developed to realise a separate Telugu speaking state, a separate state of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953 with the coastal Andhra Pradesh and Rayalseema regions of present day A.P. with Kurnool as capital. The demand of Madras as capital was not met.
In 1952, another movement developed in Hyderabad state, this movement was known as Mulki Movement. The demand was jobs for the local people of the Telengana region in Hyderabad state. Reason behind this was after Nizam’s rule was over the Telengana region with Hyderabad as capital was being administered by a military- civilian rule directly under the centre. So far in the Nizam’s rule the administration was carried on with the Urdu-knowing persons, but during this period administration needed English-Telugu-knowing people. So, there was an influx of people from adjoining Madras Presidency for different jobs from top to bottom. Telengana people started opposing it. Mulki movement yielded certain results-preference to the persons of Telengana region was accorded. It was popularly known as Mulki rules.
But throughout India people at different regions started movements demanding separate states on the basis of language. Finally states reorganisation committee was formed. In Andhra and Hyderabad a movement started for a Telugu state which was called ‘vishalandhra movement’. There was an appeal of linguistic state among the people in both Andhra and Hyderabad state. But the people of Hyderabad state were also afraid of being out-manouvred by the Andhra elites. It was a tricky situation. The observation of the commission was that the people of Telengana region were afraid of surplus revenues of that region might be diverted to Andhra region, they were also afraid that distribution of waters of Krishna and Godawari will be in favour of Andhra. But at the same time the commission felt that merger of two states would be justified on the principle of linguistic state and also the problem of a capital for the then Andhra State could be solved by making Hyderabad as capital for the united state. So keeping the resistence of the Telengana region the commission recommend that a unified Andhra state could be formed if a 2/3 majority of Hyderabad state assembly resolved for it in 1962. But suddenly in 1956 a unified Andhra Predesh was formed. Congress leaders of Hyderabad opted for it, with only an assurence of a resolution moved by the Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra, Neelam Sanjeev Reddy that the development of Telengana would be a pre-condition for such a united state.
But very soon it was found that development of the people and land of Telegana region was being neglected. The fourteen point guaranties during merger were just on paper. Preference to local people in employment in Telengana area; distribution of irrigation waters beneficial to the underdeveloped Telengana region were violated. Telengana Regional Board became defunct. So in 1969 an agitation developed in Telengana region for separation. Agitators were mainly the students and unemployed youth. At that particular time another movement was brewing throughout Andhra Pradesh. It was the struggle of the peasantry inspired by the great Naxalbari movement and with the tradition of Telengana peasants uprising. So it remained mainly a movement of one section of ruling elite against the dominant section, utilising the dissent of students and unemployed youth. In fact, at that time, the leaders of the Telengana separate state movement were die-hard suppressers of peasant struggles. However, the movement ended with an agreement to fullfil the aspirations of the Telengana region. An Eight point formula was announced by Indira Gandhi. Mulki rules were reaffirmed.
But the leaders of Andhra region very soon challenged the Mulki Rules in the High Court and it was strukdown, only to be upheld by the Supreme court later. Following that in the coastal Andhra a movement called "Jai Andhra" started. Finally with a six point formula and certain government orders the Mulki Rules were abolished.
From then on discrimination against the Telengana region went on unchallenged. Revenues of Telengana region were diverted for development of other regions. Development of people and land of Telengana region except the twin cities of Hyderabad and secenderabad were neglected.
The present agitation for a separate Telengana state has developed in that background. Now let us discuss the present agitation.
Present Agiatation and Its Specific Feature.
This time also the mainstay of the Separate Telengana movement is the students, unemployed youth and professionals. One can easily find out proof of this by looking at the major centres of agitation-the universities. But this time peasantry also have come out strongly. The real leaders are the regional small and medium capitalists and businessmen.
Each of these classes or strata has its own logic for a separate Telengana. Students of Telengana region are finding that after education they are not getting jobs. There are only a few goverment jobs, but most of them are cornered by the people of other region.
Though there are some of the best universities and Engineering colleges in the Telengana region, very small part of the government funds for development of primary and high schools are spent in the Telengana region. Same is true for health programmes. Telengana people do not get the fruits of Godavari and Krishna river projects. Peasantry feel that they are being deprived of their legitimate right on water.
But under all these talks of development, the reality remains masked. Througout India centre and state governments are clamouring for ‘development.’ But when the real face of ‘development’ comes before the people they find it is not the development of the people, or for the people, but development of a small section for the interest of the imperialists and big bourgeoisie. Were the people in Sonepeta being killed by the police to serve the interest of Nagarjuna Construction Co. found that Andhra government forces were more friendly and more concerned for the development of coastal people?
The small and middle capitalists contractors and businessmen of Telengana region feel that with a separate state they can avoid competetors from other regions who have been historically poised in a firmer ground and thrive on government funds for so-called development work.
But the real underdevelopment of the region and lack of development of the people have not been because of discrimination by the people or elites of the other two regions alone. That is only a small part. The main reason is the development process followed by the ruling cliques in the Centre and the states. The process is dictated by the imperialists. So many cotton growers did not die because of the discrimination, but because of policy of the government as a whole in India. People are starving due to sky-rocketting prices of food not because of discrimination, but because of the policy of the ruling classes. Their few jobs for the educated youth not because of discrimination, but because of an imperialist oriented policy. True, whatever little jobs are there are mostly cornered by the people of other regions. So, separate Telengana might help to solve a few problems but basic problems can be solved by a Telengana that the revolutionaries in 1940s dreamt, a Telengana for that matter in India that is free from shackles of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capital and feudalism.
If one looks at the problem on the basis of linguistic unity and cultural affinity, there are many complexities. All the three regions viz, Telengana, Rayalseema and coastal Andhra are Telugu speaking areas. In that sense they have a solid basis for a united state. The three regions have certain differences in culture. But those are to be found everywhere, even variations exists from district to district. But here one will find complexity once coming down to Hyderabad. Hyderabad being seat of power of Muslim rulers for centuries had, and even in many areas still have, dominance of non-Telugu speaking people and a different culture. But both pro-Telengana and anti-Telengana forces feel that it is a part and parcel of their own state. The demand and talk of forming the twin cities and areas around it to be a separate Union Territory or a state has developed in that backdrop. But it is clear that at present such a solution will only complicate matters than solving it.
So it comes down to the question of whether a separate state of Telengana does have enough basis. True, that in present India linguistic unity has been taken as a basis for separate states. But this cannot be an end-all, especially where people of a big region feels that they are being discriminated and their development being neglected in such unified state, their aspirations should be honoured. One argument is there that if such demands are honoured then many other states in India might have to be conceded. This is no argument at all. If such other states are conceded will it be harmful? Rather once such aspirations of people of regions are fulfilled, then they will find that the real problem of the people are not in the formation of a separate state. Students and unemployed youth, peasants and workers will find that regional discrimination is only a small part of their problem, the basic and major reason of their non-development is the imperiealist-dictacted development policy of India as a whole.
What should we do?
We still feel that ‘Telengana or no Telengana’ people will have to fight against imperialist-comprador bereaucratic capitalist-feudal nexus for their ultimate development. Even the present unemployment, price rise, problem of irrigational facility, right to land, water and forest produce etc; will not be solved by forming a separate state.
But when vast majority of a region aspires for a separate state, and there is enough reasons behind it because of decades long discrimination and histrorical separation for centuries before forming a united state as the representative of the proletariat we should rather stand by their side than opposing it or remaining mere spectators. But we will fail in our proletarian duty if even while stading by their side we not caution them that the final solution of the under development does not lie in the formation of a separate state but fighting out the alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism. Real development of the people of Telengana will only be possible in a really democrative Telengana within really independent, self-reliant, democratic India.

Democracy Under Socialism

                                                                                                                                Dhruba Chowdhary

Democracy Under Socialism
Dhruba Chowdhary
Globalisation has been completed in one aspect. Throughout the world the imperialist forces and their well-groomed intelligentia have been successful in creating an atmosphere that communism has failed and capitalism is the end of civilisation. They are successful in the sense Jean Paul Sartre in his famous introduction to Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth observed that the intelligensia in the colonies and semi colonies echo the words taught by their masters. Sartre in a sarcastic manner said that when the metropolis cries "Parthenon", echo reverberates in the colonies and semicolonies "...thenon". Now after the failure of socialism in the USSR and China, imperialist powers have been professing socialism is dead. They are thundering with great joy that socialism meant dictatership, that there was no democracy in the socialist states. The intelligensia, the state sponsored intelligensia, in colonies and semicolonies have been repeating the same.
But the problem is not the propaganda of the imperialists. They have been demonising and acting with great impunity to destroy socialism and socialist states from the inception. The problem is that Marxist-Leninists in many countries getting overwhelmed by the imperialist propaganda and the failure of socialism in the USSR and China have also started believing that if not a dictatorship of Hitler type fascism, socialist states also lacked democracy, which was some sort of dictatorship. Being Marxist-Leninists they know that communists disdain to conceal their aims and communists had always been defining socialism as dictatorship of the proletariat, but they argue that even proletariat and people did not have democracy. It was a dictatorship of the communist party in the name of the proletariat or the people. Their problem is that they do not take recourse to analyse the real practice of socialism and develop a scientific outlook of where were the real problems that finally developed into the failure. They start of the Utopean idea of withering away of the state". Some of them develop an anarchist theory of development, and some of them reach a self contradictory position of arguing for a ‘multiparty democracy’ which in no way have any coherrence with their own position of ‘withering away of state’ from the beginning. This is not to say or prove that everything was all right in the practice of socialism in the USSR or China, but to assert that we will have to find out in a scientific manner where did it actually ignored the background that should have to be taken into cognizance. It will not be out of context to quote J.B.S. Halden this scientific outlook. Haiden said - "We study some thing or some process in isolation, we produce a theory and we find the theory is unsatisfactory because we have ignored the background. Now afterwards it is very easy for any critic to say, "well, your original theory was just a piece of absurdity. Anyone could tell that it was not going to work!. Unfortunately, in practice we find that until we had produced a theory which worked up to a point and then broke down, we could not tell what elemenets we have ignored and should not have ignored."
One scientific example can be given here. Newton started the corpuscular theory of light and Laplace after establishing the corpuscles of light travelling in straight line declared that he has banished God from system of nature. But within a century while observing distant light through Maslin or passing light through minute parallel obstacles that theory was discarded and Huyghen came out with the wave theory. But at the end of nineteenth century it was proved that light has mass and which acts on reflector. After the discovery of Plants constant and Einstein’s theory, quantum theory of light has been established.
Does that mean Laplace’s theory was absurd or his assertion of banishing God from the system of nature was absurd? Any scientific critic will assertively declare that it was nothing like that, rather it was a revolutionary step forward, though certain aspects were not, may be was not possible till then to be, taken into consideration. At the same time only persons having no scientific understanding but bragging to pass themselves as scientists, will still claim that whatever laplace said was the final in the theory of light.
Similarly while trying to findout the reasons of failure of socialism, we will have to find the objective background where socialism was practised and also find out what were the objective reasons which were not or could not be considered in the practice of development of socialism. At the same time claiming that everything was allright and just because the death of Stalin or Mao, socialism failed in the USSR or China repectively is nothing but attempt of posing oneself as scientific Marxist-Leninists which the person is not.
With this introduction let us attempt to find out the developments of the USSR, how far democratic was the socialism practised there, was there any lacking at any point of development, if so then what were reasons, why was that not corrected, where were the lacunal in the theory of practice of socialism and so on. Our discussion will be concentrated on the developments of the USSR for brevity’s sake, but at times references to socialist China will also be there. We shall try to limit ourselves on the democracy practised in the USSR, not the other aspects like economic developments under socialism, development of science, planning, transport and communication and so on. We shall also not delve into the development of education, culture, languages under socialism. Except in cases of necessity foreign relation and relations with fraternal parties will also not be discussed. It is true that all these from development of industry and agriculture to development of foreign relations have connection with the internal democracy of a society, yet going into details of them may abfuscate the focus of discussion, so unless in extreme necessity those will not be touched.
1917 October (November) Revolution and Constituent Assembly
Lenin’s April Thesis and developments after that is known to all. While putting forward his thesis for a revolution in a backward capitalist country where bourgeois democracy could not find its root after overthrowing tsarist autocracy Lenin characterised the situation existing in April 1917 as- "The peculiar feature of the present situation in Russia is the transition at a dizzy speed from the first method (method of violent oppression practised by Nicholas Romanov I and Nicholas II) to the second (The mehod of deception flattery, fine phrases, promises by the million, petty sops, and concessions of the unessential while retaining the essential), from violent oppression of the people to flattering and decieving the people by promises" [Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, selected works, vol-2, P-43). The basic call was to overthrow the bourgeois rule carried on by the provisional government by "all power to soviets", From April to October, there was a turmoil in Russia, - First world war was going on, people were starving, soldiers were dissenting, workers were restless, the goverment was acting at the behest of capitalists. Bolsheviks had to patiently work to rally the workers, soldiers, agricultural workers for assuming power through the soviets. Those who question the democratic nature of the Russian revolution (democratic in the sense, active pupular support) forget that for the preparation of the insurrection as the Bolsheviks had been fighting against so called ‘social democrats’ (mensheviks) and socialist revolutionaries, they have been fighting against the wavers within the party. Yet the leadership patiently and perseveringly tried to convince the opposition why it was the only progressive step forward in the Russian society. One may recall that just on the eve of 25 October, on October 10, the central committee of the Bolsheviks decided to prepare for an insurrection on the basis of a majority vote and appointed a ‘political bureau’ to carryout the decision. In that political bureau of seven persons (Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin, Sokolnikov and Bubnov) two (Zinoviev and Kamenev) voted against the resolution. On 16 December a military-revolutionary centre consisting of Sverdlov, Stalin, Bubnov, Uritsky and Dzerzhinsky was formed. Kamenev resigned from the Central Committee and on 18 October published a letter by him as well as Zinoviev, in a non-party Left journal, Novaya Zhizn against the decision. It was not only a breach of party discipline but also betrayal. True, at that time "in the state of disorganisation and impotence into which the Provisional Government had fallen the disclosure of preparations for an insurrection against it was perhaps likely to intensify panic as to provoke effective counter-measures" [E.H. Carr, History of Soviet Russia, Bolshevik Revolution I, P 107]. Even after that they were not expelled from the party, although Lenin wanted them to be expelled and Kamenev’s resignation from Central Committee was accepted and both were warned. Moreover both of them were present when the Central Committee gave final touches to the insurrectionary move. On 25 October/7 November 1917, power was seized by almost a bloodless insurrection by the Bolsheviks, but very soon the Bolsheviks started an open negotiation with the Mensheviks and S.Rs for a coalition government of all parties represented in the soviets.
One of the first acts of the Sovnarkom (Soviet Narodnykh Komissarov, Counsil of People’s Commisions) was to hold the election for the constituent Assembly in which of the 707 members 410 were SR’s, 175 were Bolsheviks, ‘national groups’ had 84 of which Ukrainins were largest) Kadets, the bourgeois party won 17, and Mensheviks only 16. But S.R’s were not a homogenous group. Left S.Rs who represented the poor peasantry and agricultural workers supported the Bolsheviks and joined Sovnarkom. This created a most contradictory situation in the Consituent Assembly. The ratio of representatives in the constituent Assembly was 370 Right SRs to only 40 left SRs. The SRs fought the election as a party with a single list of candidates. The manifesto was prepared before the revolution, so it did not present a definite attitude towards revolution. Now after the election larger section had split away to form a coalition with the Bolsheviks while a smaller section was bitterly fighting not only the Bolsheviks but were conspiring for a counter-revolution. According to E.H.Carr, "The proportion between right and left SRs in the constituent assembly was fortuitous. It was entirely different from the corresponding proportion in the membership of the peasant’s congress and did not necessarily represent the views of electors on a vital point which had not been before them" [Ibid, P121] Lenin described the situation as- ‘The people voted for a party which no longer existed.’ [Quoted by E.H. Carr, Ibid P121]
After the constituent Assembly elections, the reactionary forces getting encouraged by the result, started open counter-revolutionary moves. Kadets started acting as ‘legal cover’ for the Kadet-Kaledin counter revolutionary insurrections. At that point sovnarcom, not the Bolsheviks alone, declared Kadet’s a party of enemies of the people. Even though the Right SRs and many Mensheviks had been supporting the Kadets, no measures were taken against them. The Russian capitalists aided by the British and French imperialists dreamt of return to power utilising the Constituent Assembly though the party representing them, Kadets, was a miniscule minority. They relied on the support of the petty bourgeois waveres like Right SRs and Mensheviks. Sovnarkom’s effort was to win over these latter forces.
The question to be answered was whether "all power to the soviets" will be recognised by the Constituent Assembly. If it conceded that point, it would mean abdication of its position as the governing body of the state, which the bourgeoisie wanted to force as democracy. While the real representatives of the people- workers, soldiers and peasants’ deputies- will lose power, bourgeoisie will be back into power. Mensheviks thought it was proper because a prolonged bourgeois democracy was a necessary condition. With this theory they started opposing the rule of the soviets. Yet efforts were made to avoid dissolution of the constituent Assembly. On January 18, 1918, All Russian Central Executive Committee drafted a Declaration of Rights of the Toiling and Exploited people which announced:
(1) "Russia is declared a Republic of soviets of workers" Soldiers’ and peasants’ deputies. All power in the centre and local belong to these soviets.
(2) The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of national soviet republics"
The ARCEC sent this declaration along with a resolution to be accepted by the Constituent Assembly. The resolution read- "Being elected on the basis of party lists compiled before the October Revoluton when the people could not yet rise in its masses against the exploiters and, not having yet experienced the full force of the resistance of the exploiters in defence of their class privileges, had not yet undertaken the practical form of building a socialist society, the Constituent Assembly would think it fundamentally incorrect, even from formed standpoint, to set itself against the soviet power....
"Supportting the soviet power and the decrees of the council of People’s Commissars, the Constituent Assembly recognises that its tasks are confined to the general working out of the fundamental principles of the socialist reconstruction of society."
Thus the question was whether the constituent Assembly would act as an agent of the Soviet power or the Soviet power would abdicate itself of the tasks of revolution and hand over power to counter-revolution.
The Constituent Assembly with its majority with the Right SRs and Mensheviks went on evading the question and unabated speech making went on for nearly twelve hours ignoring the soviet declaration. Then through a majority decision (237-138) The constituent Assembly rejected to discuss the declaration in favour of a motion of Right SRs to discuss current questions of policy. Even then debate continued, but the more the debate went on more unmasked was the counter-revolutionary position of the majority in the constituent Assembly. Then first the Bolshevik representatives, then Left SRs left. Finally the Assembly was closed because "the guard was tired" That was the end of Contituent Assembly.
From then on till today the imperialist world has been talking about the undermocratic dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. Their Class interest was to undo the seizure of power by the soviets and return of the capitalist rule through the Constituent Assembly. But when today Marxist-Leninist almost echo the same sentiment in the name of ‘democracy’, in the name of "multi-party democracy" based on adult suffrage, it is difficult to understand what they really mean? Do they feel that the seeds of future failure of socialism in the USSR was sown in the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly? If so, then do they really stand for the October Revolution with is call for "all power to the soviets" Do they mean the Constituent Assembly was more democratic than the elected representation or deputies of the Soviets?
Here we must add that the historical account given above is almost a summary even to the point of plagianism of E.H. Carr’s account of the situation. We may quote his observation on the dissolution also- ".... the act of dissolution passed almost without protest" [Ibid, P130]. So those who claim that Bolsheviks usurped state power in the name of the people are grossly ill-informed about the situation at that time.
At that situation Lenin’s comment was the real democratic as well as marxist voice, it was the voice of the people. Lenin said- "Every direct or indirect attempt to consider the question of the Constituent Assembly from a formal, legal point of view, within the framework of ordinary bourgeois democracy and disregarding class struggle and civil war, would be a betrayal of the proletariat’s cause, and adoption of bourgeois standpoint" [Lenin, Thesis on the Constituent Assembly, .......]

Arab People Against their Autocratie rulers

For revolutionaries, freedom fighters and justice loving people all over the world, the popular struggles being waged by the Arab masses against their autocratic rulers over the past ten weeks, beginning in Tunisia and rapidly breaking out and spreading throughout the entire Middle east, have been a tremendous source of inspiration. Quite dramatic has been the popular uprising and workers’ strike wave, spreading across to the European side of the Mediterranean- to Italy, Greece, and Albania, shaking these reactionary regimes, and even spreading across the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the USA, where U.S. workers have consciously taken a more militant stance against the reactionary state governments of Wisconsin, Indiana and other states in the Midwest.
As the moth of March 2011 begins, U.S. imperialist President Barack Obama has ordered Moumar Gadhafi, the forty-two year leader of the country of Libya to leave his country so as to allow a regime acceptable to U.S. imperlialism to take control of this oil rich sparsely populated land. On Friday, February 25
On saturday, February 26
Simultaneously, U.S. imperialism began moving warships toward Libya and secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that "all options are on the table." This includes a U.S. enforced "no fly zone" over Libya which, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates explained, would require the USA to unilaterally attack Libya and destroy its defence capabilities.
U.S. imperialism has taken these drastic actions on the basis of the filmsiest of pretexts. It is using media "reports" from Libya, Egypt and elsewhere packaged by the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), established in 1981 and trained and financed by the U.S. CIA ever since. The NSFL and other such organizations are being used to "document" that the Gadhafi government is killing Libyan protesters, allegedly in greater number than the U.S. client governments all over the rest of the Middle East are doing.
The U.S. imperialist government is responsible for virtually all of the secular military dictatorships and Muslim monarchies in the Middle East that have kept their people repressed with the most barbaric police state methods and are currently in danger of being overthrown by the aroused Arab masses. The U.S. imperialist-led invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in over one million civilian deaths. Yet this same shameless U.S. imperiaist state apparatus now claims to be "concerned" about the killing of people in Libya by the Gadhafi government only. And the Libyan military situation is marked by the fact that a number of military units weapons of war against the Gadhafi regime in what has become a civil war based on tribal loyalties and U.S. imperialist machinations.
The first reported street protests in Libya occured on February 14th, a few days after Mubarak’s ouster, not a month earlier when other neighbors of Tunisia (Egypth ad Algeria with their oppressed and downtrodden masses) experienced their first street protests following the ouster of Ben Ali. Also, from the first day of Libyan protest, alleged representative of the Libyan "protesters" (NFSL, the Libyan Revolutionary Council et al.) unlike protesters in any of the other Arab countries, called on the "international community" to intervene against Gadhafi.
In fact, there are sincere Libyan protesters who have ligitimate grievances against the Gadhafi Regime. And these real protesters are opposed to open military intervention by U.S. imperialism and the other imperialist powers, especially after seeing the fate of Iraq, still occupied by the U.S. military. These protesters are currently providing a political problem for the Obama Regime interventionists.
As Filipino revolutionary leader Jose Maria Sison points out: "To stave off attacks against Libya similar to those against Iraq, he (Gadhafi) has made compromises with the imperialist powers and allowed them increased investment privileges in Libya. He opened the door to foreign banks and corporations. He submitted to IMF demands for ‘structural adjustment’. He privatized state-owned enterprises and cut stae subsidies on necessities like food and fuel." ("ILPS Condemns US and NATO Preparations for Military Intervention against Libya," 3/4/11)
Imperialist Agenda
Why is the Obama Regime mobilizing and organizing for an unprovoked attack on Libya, for an expansion of its imperialist war in the Middle East?! In brief, the once unchallenged hegemonic imperialist power is now the biggest debtor country in the world. Its ecomonic clout has been diminished at a rapid rate under the impetus of the U.S. economy initiated world capitalist economic crisis of the past several years. So it has to keep China and its other creditors at bay. For now it still has the most powerful military machine on earth, with more annual military spending thant the rest of the worl combined, as well as its long standing global diplimatic, political and intelligence operations.
And it continues to control the vast majority of the world oil supply and reserves, still the very lifeblood of the global capitalist economy. But the Arab masses are threatening to liberate their countries and seize control of the oil in their own national territory. This is turn would render U.S. imperialism a second or third rate power. Thus the need for U.S. imperialism to establish a military beachhead in Libya and a smokescreen behind which to incrase its military protection for U.S. possession of the Middle East’s vast oil wealth. And U.S. imperialism, having bullied Gadhafi into cooperation with international capital with its "shock and awe" campaign against Iraq in 2003 thought Liby would be "easy pickings;" all the more so after seven years of Gadhafi’s compromised stand in relation to international imperialism, including his repression of the Libyan people at the insistence of the International Monetary Fund.
As comrade Fiden asserts: "the fundamental concern of the United States and NATO is not Libya, but the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, which they wish to prevent at all costs." (ibid)
The Arab people are making history
Beginning on December 18, 2010, with the tragic self immolation of a twenty-six year old unemployed youth, the Tunisian masses, experiencing rising food prices and shortages and massive joblesseness (deepended by the world wode capitalist economic crisis), and clearly recognizing the corrupt character of the Ben Ali regime, quickly built up a strong protest movement.
Under the strong pressure from his U.S. imperialist sponsors, President Zine EI Abidine Ben Ali tried frist to attack then to compromise with the protesters. But neither "the carrot nor the stick" slowed down their growing demonstrations adamantly demanding his ouster. The General Union of Tunisian Workers, a key organizer of the protests, led a workers general strike on January 14, 2011. On that day Ben Ali hastily departed for neighboring Saudi Arabia, ending his twenty-three year kleptocratic reign. The toppling of such a wealthy, corrupt and long standing dictator as Ben Ali, immediately inspired the Arab masses int he neighboring countries of Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Yemen to swing into street action. The Egyptian people, in particular, suffering under the thirty year repressive U.S. sponsored military dictartorship of Hosni Mubarak, consciously emulated their Tunisian brothers and sisters.
Mubarak’s final act of desperatio, lifting the curfew and allowing the economy to get back to work, an attempt to get things back to "normal," was met by a massive and growing working class strike wave. Unlike the Tunisian workers, the Egyptian working class had to strike against the opposition of the "legal" Egyptian Trade Union Federation,as an arm of Mubarak’s repressive state, as well as against the national police, the army, etc. It was this Egyptian independent union and wildcat strike wave that convinced U.S. imperialism and Mubarak’s military colleagues to push him out on February 11th.
In this situation, Obama/Clinton and U.S. imperialism were really worried. They had already tried and failed to keep Ben Ali and especially Mubarak at the helm by paying lip service to sympathy for the protestors, while counseling the despots to keep their repressive apparatus from spilling too much blood and offering their peoples some limited sops. Nevertheless, both Ben Ali and Mubarak were now gone.
As well Wall Street Journal reported on February 14th, Mubarak’s fall boosted the momentum of the mass movements in countries where their rulers had already tried to defuse the protests by granting some concessions. "Yemen, Algeria, Bahrian and Jordan all were sites of new protests and clashes. The Palestinian Authority leadership in the west Bank ordered the dismissal of its cabinet.. [and announced].. they would hold long-stalled parliamentary and presidential elections by Septomber, after the resignation of Mr. Mubarak, the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s strongest regional supporter." (Note: Mubarak was also the strongest supporter of the settler state of Israel!)
In Yemen, the poorest country in the region, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a close U.S. imperialist ally in the so-called "war on terror", had already canceled a trip to the USA and promised not to run again in 2013. But massive economic impoverishment has kept the mass movement of the Yemeni people at a high pitch. In Iran, long-quiet opposition leaders stated their support for protests that already had the backing of labor unions and student activist groups. In Jordan, whose long-serving late king, Hussein, had been exposed decades ago as a paid CIA agent, mass protests emerged as King Abdullah II met with U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiran Mike Mullen.
Meanwhile, in Algeria, the goernment of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika deployed thousands of security forces to disperse crowds mobilized by a coalition of opposition leaders, trade unionists and human rights activists. Similar to the Tunisian and Egyptian demands, the Algerian protesters shouted "Power Qut" and $155 billion and we’re still poor," the latter a reference to the major oil producing country’s estimated foreign exchange reserve.
The protests also spread to the city-state of Djibouti, across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen. Djibouti hosts the only U.S. base on the African continent and the client U.S. President Ismail Oman Guelleh whose second term expires in April is part of the family that has been in pwer for more than three decades.
Even more important, is the emergence of a widespread protest movement in U.S-occupied Iraq. Influehnced by the strong role of the working class in Egypt and Tunisia, more workers in Iraq are engaging in political activism. There have been strikes in a large textile factory, oil companies, the leather industry, electric utility and others. (At the textile factory in Kut, U.S. occupation troops came directly to the factory and surrounded it!) Umemployed workers and students have demonstrated in Kut, Baghdad, Basra, and Nasiriyah demanding jobs, and for freedom of expression and and end to repression.
The Arab peoples’ mass motion has been penetrated the rich principalities in the Persian Gulf region. The first place the protest movement hit there was in the tiny kingdom of Bahrain, separated from Saudi Arabia by a causeway. Not surprisingly, the Gulf Cooperation Council, made up of the six Arab States circling the Gulf (the Sunni Muslim sheiks, king and royals heading up the oil-laden states of Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, etc.) strongly supported the initial repressive policies of the Khalifa royal family. However, this tactic backfired as the repression only strengthened he resolve of the Bahraini masses. They hae become more steadfast in the insistence that the Khalifa reign be ended. Since then, under U.S. imperialist guidance, Bahrain’s ruling family has ordered the army off the streets, trying to "wait out" or exhaust for protesters. On February 28th", US President Obama again called for dialogue in Bahrain. But so far, the mostly Shiite protesters have insisted, they will participate in no dialogue until the 200 year old Sunni dynasty of the Khalifa family is gone.
Impressively, after Kig Hamad bin Isa Khalifa had pledged to ease media restrictions, had released 250 political prisoners, and promised each Bahraini family a special grant of about $2650, the Shite majority-led protests against the minority Sunni Muslim rulers intensified. The protests in Bahrain are extremely significant for several reasons: Bahrain sits in a strategic position in the Persian Gulf, through which a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. Accordingly, the U.S. 5th Fleet is based there, standing guard for U.S. imperialism over the largest concentration of the world’s oil. It includes a base that is home to 3,000 military personnell who oversee the 30 naval ships and some 30,000 sailors that patrol the Persian Gulf and Arabian and Red seas. Bahrain is also the banking and commercial center for the vast oil business in the Persian Gulf.
Indeed, protests against the Persian Gulf rulers have widened in recent days. Oman shares with Iran the strategic oil tanker route through the Strait of Hormouz, through which about 40% of the world’s tanker traffic passes. Sultan Qaboos bin Said has already tried to quell the unrest in Oman by replacing six Cabinet members, providing higher student grants and boosting the minimum wage by more than 40 percent! The Sulthan has also ordered the government to create 50,000 new jobs. But even with the concessions, opposition forces continue to show great resolve in challenging the absolute rule of the Sultan of Oman.
Meanwhile, demonstrations where scheduled for March 8th in Kuwait, a rare Gulf state kingdom with an elected parliament and organized political opposition.
Finally, in Saudi Arabia, the most important oil producing country in the world, King Abdullah has ordered an action plan to "help" lower and middle-income people among the 18 million Saudi nationalists. The $36 billion plan of concessionary measures includes: pay raises to offset unflation, unemployment benefits, affordable housing and interest free loans for marriage expenses, starting a business or buying furniture. On February 27th, King Abdullah ordered that government sector workers employed under temporary contracts be offered permanent jobs with benefits. But the king announced no political reforms, and Saudi Arabia continues to have no elected parliament or parties and allows little public dissent. A key test for the Saudi ruling family will come on March 11 when protest rallies have been called for there.
Road ahead for Tunisian People
The hated Ben Ali government was supported by the United States for his maintaining ‘political stability’ and as an ‘ally and partner’ in the fight against terrorism. The Obama government’s words of ‘support’ for the ‘new’ Tunisian coalition government are an effort to co-opt and stop the movement in its tracks, limiting it to a change of government faces and players and minor reforms.
"However there are a number of positive developments that give hope that this initial peoples’ rebellion has the potential to lead to deeper and more fundamental changes in Tunisia and beyond:
"The General Union of Tunisian Workers was a key organizer of the anti-regime protests, so the organized working class played a leading role in the general people’s revolt. The day Ben Ali fled the country the union had led a successful general strike! Yet, even after the leadership of the union (and other opposition parties) supported the ‘new’ interim coalition (which still contained many leaders of Ben Alis party, the RCD), protests continued in the streets demandeing a thorough ousting of the RCD government. The people wanted no part of a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’
"The union leadership had to reverse its decision and withdraw its support for the ‘new’ coalition government when, at a meeting of union workers, the members voted to overturn their leader’s political decision! The workers are more politically advanced and determined than their union officers!" ("Tunisian Masses Rising Up," Statement of the Revolutionary Organization of Labor, USA, 1-23-11)
On January 14th, as former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali hastily departed for neighboring Saudi Arabia, the Tunisian working class was engaged in their General Strike.
Since then, the Tunisian parliament has provided government emergency powers to interim President Fouad Mebazaa. In response, there is great popular pressure from the Tunsian people, protesting in the streets for the dissolution of the Tunisian Parliament, currently dominated by Ben Ali’s Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) Party, The Tunisian people are demanding an early presidential and legislative election, at a minimum. As February has given way to March, Tunisian Prime Minister Gannochi, a Ben Ali appointee, has just been ousted and the Tunisian people are still in the streets.
The Egypian Working Class Rises Up
During the protest, the Mubarak Regime attempted to restore normalcy by eliminating the night curfew and having businesses reopen. The result was a powerful strike wave of the Egyptian working class all across the country. The New York Times reported: Labor strikes and worker protests that flared across Egypt affected post officers, textile factories and even the government’s flagship newspaper, as protesters recaptured the initiative in their battle for the resignation of President Hisni Mubarak. While workers had individually participated in the protests during the first two weeks, later it was the collective power of the working class sealed Mubarak’s fate.
A 2/10/11 Democracy Now Interview with Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East history at Stanford and former director of Middle East Studies at the American University in Cairo, focused on the topic, "Striking Egyptian Workers Fuel the Uprising After 10 years of Labor Organizing"
Beinin pointed out: "This is huge, because there has been for the last 10 years an enormous wave of labor protests in Egypt that’s includd over two million people participating in perhaps 3,300 strikes, sit-ins and other forms of protest. So that has been the background to this whole revolutionary upsurge of the last several weeks.... But in the last few day what you’ve seen is tens of thousands of workers linking their economic demands to the political demand that the Mubarak regime step aside."
Beinin continued: "The workers in Suez, and the city of Suez in partiular, have probably been the most militant in confronting the Mubarak regime since this revolutionary upsurge began on January 25th. On January 25th there were two deaths in Suez. The protests were extremely militant there, attacking the local headquarters of the National Democratic Party, attacking the police station.... The fact the Suez Canal workers are going on strike means that one of the most important economic institutions of the country is being idled.. but there are also Suez steelworkers at Suez Canal who have gone on strike and ship repair workers and textile workers around the city of Suez, because there is a speacial industrial zone there. So Suez, in particular, has emerged as one of the militant sites of confrontation in this last period."
Beinin explains that, "The Egyptian Trade Union Federation was established in 1957 under the Nasser regime, and since then it has been essentially an arm of the state. And it has not participated at all in the labor upsurge of the last decade. In fact, most often it’s acted in opposition to it. So, over the last 10 years or more, workers have- when they have gone on strike or otherwise taken collective action, they have either elected strike committees.. or local committees have split and some members of them have supported insurgent workers... But in no case strikes or sit-ins or any other kind of collective action over the last decade been led by the official trade union structures."
The Post-Mubarak Situatio in Egypt
Since Mubarak’s ouster, a military council, selected by Vice President Suleiman (and U.S. imperialism), has been in power. It is composed of virtually all the top officials of the Mubarak regime except Mubarak and is led by Field Marshall Tantawi, the minister of defense and military production. This military clique has closed down the pariament and dispersed the National Democratic Party, Mubarak’s political party, in partial response to the demands of the protesters. The Military Council has promised to restructure the country’s constitution, including the laws governing elections. The Council has also promised "fair" election within the next six months.
But protesters want the army to dissolve the caretaker government headed by Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, which was appointed by Mubarak in his final weeks and contains many of his stalwarts. They also want the lifting of emergency laws that give police nearly unlimited powers of arrest and they are demanding the release of thousands of political prisoners. The military government has acceded to none of these demands. Under the aegis of U.S. imperialism. Tantawi and the military council are attempitng to concede to the minimum extent possible that will allow them to persuade the protest movement to disperse and allow them to remain in power.
Toward this aim, the Obama regime has tried to keep the Egyptian masses focused on "national celebration" of their ouster of Mubarak, rather than on finishing the rebellion that they have begun. But the Egyptian working class, in particular, has thus far kept its eye on the prize.
On February 19th, the Egyptian independent trade unionists’ declaration was presented under the title, "Revolution-Freedom-Social Justice." Among the excellent just and democratic demands of the Egyptian workers are: raising the national minimum wage, narrowing the gap between the poorest and richest wage, decent unemployment compensation, freedom to organize trade unions and protection for the union and their leaders, making the huge number of temporary contract workers in factory, field, office and professional jobs, permanent and abolishing temporary contracts, stopping the privatization program and undertaking renatioaliszation of all privatized enterprises, removal of corrupt managers, establishing price controls on necessities so as not to burden the poor and the right of Egyptian workers to strike, organize sit-ins, other provisions that will lead toward "the fair distribution of wealth," decent health care, and for the dissolution and seizure of financial assets and documents and seizure of the assets of the corrupt and repressive Egyptian Trade Union Federation.
These are excellent demands for the independent mass working class organization to have as its platform; and together they constitute a large part os a national democratic revolutionary program under current Egyptian conditions. These demands will not, indeed cannot, be met by the U.S. imperialist-dominated military council government ow in power in Egypt. For the Egyptian military elite represents its own comprador interests, including its vast corporate holdings of close to half the Egyptian economy, as well as those of its sponsor, U.S. imperialism.
For these working class demands to be met, at a minimum, the Egyptian national democratic revolution against the Egyptian comprador bourgeoisie and imperialism, headed by U.S. imperialism, must be won through a working class-led national liberation front that unites all the toiling masses of the urban and rural areas and all the patriotic classes of Egypt.
th, Obama signed an executive order calling for the seizure of all assets controlled by coloneal Gadhafi and four of his children. According to U.S. Treasury officials, some of these assets belong to Libya’s central bank and its sovereign wealth fund, the Libyan Investment Authority. The U.S. government justified its freezing of these assets on the basis that they were directly controlled by the Gadhafi family and insisting that the assets would be turned over to a new Libyan, the day after Obama’s executive order, the United Nations (UN) Security Council followed suit, passing its own sanctions resolution on Libya. And on Monday, February 28th, the European Union (EU) voted to impose its own sanctions regime against the Gadhafi family and its coterie of senior Libyan officials.