As we pointed out in an earlier article this week, the working class and the masses in general throughout the Middle East are beginning to stir. The most striking example of this is what we witnessed last week in the Lebanon. On Friday, May 21, 200,000 had already protested against US barbarism in Iraq, a clear indication that a process of deep and widespread radicalisation is taking place in Lebanon. This was followed last Thursday by the General Confederation of Labour and Trade Unions protesting against the government's economic policies, demanding a reduction in petrol prices and calling for a general strike.
The state of the economy of the Lebanon is shown by its huge public debt which stands at 34 billion dollars, or 185 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. This fact is used by the government to justify its austerity policies, and an increase in the price of fuel is an indication of this policy.
The Unions called the general strike in support of their demand that the government reduce the price of 20 litres of petrol from 25,000 Lebanese pounds ($16.60) to 15,000 Lebanese pounds (US$10). The government refused to back off, first trying to blame the fuel marketers, as if the increase was not its responsibility and then tried to placate the workers with a token reduction. But this was not enough for the workers and it enraged the masses even further, leading to massive support for last Thursday's strike, with some estimating half a million protesters across the country may have taken part.
Most trade unions and other labour associations had announced their support for the strike call. These included the public and private school teachers, bank employees, transport workers, the workers of the national electricity company, Electricite du Liban, Lebanese University staff, farmers, agricultural workers, the water authority workers in Beirut and the North, construction workers, the workers of Trans Mediterranean Airlines and the civil servants who held a 5-minute solidarity strike.
On the day of the strike all over Lebanon there were anti-government demonstrations against the high cost of petrol. Already early on Thursday morning, the taxi service and van drivers had started their strike action. Taxi drivers blocked the road to the southeast of Beirut. The same situation was reported at Nabatieh, in Tripoli, in Sidon, and other cities. Schools and public transport were paralysed nationwide.
Beirut airport was brought to a total standstill for at least three hours.
Outside the cabinet headquarters, there was a sit-in, again with banners against the high petrol prices, but also against corruption, government fiscal policies and the high levels of unemployment.
The Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, was actually travelling back from a state visit to Syria, but was blocked by the protests and had to find an alternative route.
A day of brutal and open terror
However, in spite of the call by the trade union leaders for a "peaceful" demonstration, Thursday, May 27, will be remembered by the Lebanese workers as a day of brutal and open terror on the part of the state. The brutality of the Lebanese ruling class was made apparent to all, when the army opened fire on protesters. Initially the reports were that two workers had died from wounds to the neck while the third victim was shot in the stomach. By the end of the day it was clear that the army had killed at least five people and wounded more than 30 demonstrators, in the skirmishes around the mainly Shia Muslim Hay al-Sellom suburb.
The army claimed that troops were forced to shoot after protesters attempted to seize military vehicles. they also claimed that some protestors had hurled a hand grenade at the soldiers. In reality the violence erupted when soldiers fired warning shots to disperse protesters in Hay al-Sellom, a poor southern Beirut suburb, security officials were later forced to admit. Soldiers were seen firing automatic weapons into the crowds. Two military vehicles were also damaged by stones. Enraged by the killings of civilians, the protesters stormed the Labour Ministry and set it on fire.
Witnesses on the scene said that the violence erupted when soldiers arrested three demonstrators for setting tyres on fire. Demonstrators threw stones and surrounded military vehicles. Soldiers, who first fired into the air and then into the crowd, chased protesters and were seen beating several young men as they arrested them. Among the wounded there were also some soldiers. Dozens of demonstrators were also rounded up, and soldiers were seen beating protesters to the ground.
The following day, on Friday, the clashes continued with hundreds of demonstrators taking control of the streets in the same southern Beirut suburb of Hay al-Sellom and blocked roads for a second day in Beirut. Sporadic demonstrations, mostly by taxi and van drivers, blocked some roads, including the Beirut International Airport highway and the main road out of the capital toward Syria, by burning tyres.
Schools, universities and many businesses were closed. But on the second day of protests the government ordered the army to keep a lower profile. They were told to keep their distance from the demonstrators and not to shoot. Again the protests spread to many other cities of Lebanon, including Tyre, Nabatieh and the eastern city of Baalbek. This time there were no reports of army shooting.
By the end of the day the situation had been defused. The army had been ordered to withdraw, a clear sign that the authorities were afraid of provoking an even more explosive situation.
What caused the confrontation?
This violent confrontation between the masses on the streets and the armed forces has now sparked off a debate among government circles, politicians and bourgeois analysts as to the reasons behind this sudden turn of events.
The President of the Lebanon, Emile Lahoud – using the old and tested methods - demanded a judicial investigation into "the rioting and resulting human and material losses." Its role, as usual will be to whitewash the crime.
The Daily Star, the English language mouthpiece of the Lebanese ruling class, on May 29, 2004 explained that "some suspected a political 'plot' behind the confrontations between the army and civilians." Some obtuse bourgeois commentators cannot bring themselves to believing that the protest had a real material basis, i.e. the poverty of the masses! This is even understood by the writers in the Daily Star: "indications were that the episode was simply a demonstration that go out of hand and acquired major political proportions."
The same journal, having looked at the general situation had to admit that, "Given all of this, Thursday's developments may have occurred 'naturally,' as a result of suffocating political tension and serious socioeconomic problems."
That is precisely the point. There is no plot here. Yes, different political factions, inside and outside the government, may try to exploit the protest to their advantage, but the reason for the strike is a concrete one and it is embedded in the social and economic conditions that have matured inside the Lebanon. It should also not come as a surprise to anyone. We already reported on last October's general strike. (See Lebanon: A successful 24-hour general strike against the government's cuts)
When the protest reaches such levels of confrontation then it reveals that there is a far deeper and widespread crisis developing within the system as a whole. It is worth reporting an interesting piece that appeared in the Daly Star (June 1, 2004):
"Kabbara [a political analyst] said that last week's riots - which were in protest of the hike in gasoline prices and resulted in six deaths, over 50 injuries in the neighborhood of Hay al-Sellom and turned the streets of the capital's southern suburbs into a battlefront after the army opened fire on stone throwers - are proof that 'our institutions have absolutely no legitimacy anymore… If the riots were spontaneous, then this shows that the government is in serious trouble. It shows that people are sick and tired…"
In an earlier article published on May 28, the same Daily Star, referring to the possibility that the protest was some kind of plot to remove the Prime Minister Hariri from office had the following to say:
"If it [the plot] succeeds and Hariri leaves office, what then? Nothing would have changed at the fundamental level required to put the country on a more sustainable socioeconomic road. Nothing would have been done to address the waste and corruption which characterize the Lebanese state and the unethical links between politicians and a select few in the private sector: a truly appalling situation that has been overseen by the country's trio of leading politicians - President Emile Lahoud, Speaker Nabih Berri, and Hariri - together with Syrian political manipulation, over the last five to six years.
"Lebanese from all sociopolitical backgrounds complain about the country's political players and the impasse they have created in perverse partnership since the end of the civil war. It is time for change, not for more destruction and loss of life."
We can see the cynicism of the Lebanese bourgeois. If the prime minister goes nothing will change. At the same time they demand change. But the kind of change the bosses want is to see a government more directly under their control, carrying out even more anti-working class policies.
It is time to change
We say that indeed it is time to change! But not along the lines the bosses are mapping out for the Lebanese workers. What we are facing in the Lebanon is not merely a momentary crisis, it is a generalised crisis of the whole system. The level of confrontation reached last week leaves all the institutions of the Lebanese state exposed. It is a crisis that goes beyond the borders of this small country. A real struggle of the working class supported by the poor masses has begun.
However to win the struggle a well organized general strike and not a symbolic one is necessary. According to the Daily Star (May 28, 2004), reporting on the future steps of the trade union leaders, "A source within the GLC said the organization had no plans to expand the strike past Thursday…" Thus it is clear that they are not serious about building up the movement. Faced with such rage on the part of the masses their main concern was to see the workers back at work and to re-establish order.
The leadership of the General Confederation if they were serious would now be calling for a real general strike of at least 24 hours, not a token strike of a few hours. If they are not prepared to do this, then they should step down and allow others who want to struggle against the government and the capitalist system to replace them.
The task now is to build up and prepare the workers' movement for another offensive and another general strike. But to organize an effective general strike, committees of actions should be organized in every factory, office, school, working class and poor neighbourhoods. The movement should link up with the poor peasants.
The next general strike and other mass actions will also need serious protection from the army generals. These have shown that they are prepared to use the most brutal methods to hold down the workers, and they can use the soldiers against the masses once again. Therefore workers' self-defence measures will have to be developed. But such measures alone would not be sufficient. At the same time it is necessary to work with the soldiers against the high command that protect the capitalist system. The rank and file soldiers' – the workers in uniform – are not the enemy. It is the high command that serves the Lebanese bosses in ordering such attacks that are the real enemy. The labour leaders should send out an appeal to the rank and file soldiers not to shoot at the workers but to turn against any officers who order them to shoot on their class brothers and sisters. This is the most effective way of disarming the state.
But for this to be possible we need real fighting trade union leaders, real representatives of the working class. Unfortunately we do not have these at the top of the General Labour Confederation (GLC). Again the Daily Star reports some very interesting comments of the political analyst, Kabbara.
"According to Kabbara, both parliament and the government's 'mediocre reactions' are proof that they have no legitimacy anymore. It is also proof that labor organizations such as the General Labor Confederation (GLC) are completely alien to the average people.
"…as to the protests in Hay al-Sellom, it [the GLC] was not able to reign them in. Where is its authority? Why is no one listening to it?" he asked. The GLC has been repeatedly denounced as a tool in the government's hands rather than a defender of the workforce, with several of its members being closely affiliated with top politicians."
It also added the following interesting comment on Kabbara's analysis: "If the last municipal elections proved anything, it is that the people voted both against the government and the opposition. In one word, it means that people voted against politics. That they are tired of politics," he said, implying that politicians, opposition parties, labor institutions and civil institutions had become equally far off from the woes of regular citizens and of the troubles that are crippling the country. (Daily Star, June 1, 2004)
Tasks facing the left in Lebanon
What this shows is that not only are the state and all its institutions exposed in the eyes of the masses, but also the present trade union leaders have lost he authority they had, for they do not represent the real aspirations of the masses. This indicates that the moment is ripe for the building of a genuine workers' opposition inside the trade unions. But what is also lacking is a genuine mass party of the working class. Therefore those left groups that do exist within the Lebanon have a big responsibility on their shoulders.
Now is the time for the working class left groups to unite in action with the perspective of building a mass force based on the trade union movement with the aim of bringing down this government and replacing it with a workers' and peasants' government based on the expropriation of the banks and factories under workers' democratic control.
Therefore the left must adopt a socialist perspective. A capitalist Lebanon cannot solve the problems of the workers. Under capitalism the huge debt will fall onto the shoulders of the workers and poor. So long as power remains in the hands of the present corrupt ruling class the logic of capitalism will prevail and the workers and poor in general will have to pay. Thus the task is to go into the workplaces, into the trade unions, into the working class neighbourhoods and explain patiently to the workers that a fundamental change in the regime is necessary, that it is necessary to break the power of the capitalist class.
However, changing the class nature of the Lebanon – i.e. overthrowing the capitalists and introducing genuine workers' democracy ‑ cannot be done in isolation. A genuine workers' government in the Lebanon would be seen as a threat to the vital interests of all the surrounding regimes. A workers' Lebanon would become a pole of attraction for the downtrodden masses of the Middle East. It would also have an immediate impact inside Israel. That is why it would come under attack from the Israeli and the Arab ruling classes backed by the US and European imperialists. The struggle for socialism could begin in the Lebanon, but in order to survive a genuine socialist Lebanon would have to spread the revolutionary struggle to the surrounding countries.
That is why an internationalist perspective is necessary. A revolutionary leadership in the Lebanon would turn to the workers and poor of the cities and the countryside in the entire region. Its perspective would be the Socialist Federation of the Middle East where all the nations including the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Kurds would have their own national territorial autonomies.
In the Lebanon there is a long-standing historical Communist tradition. Over the years we have seen the development of the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP), the Organization of Communist Action, Popular Democratic Party Hizb al-Dimuqrati al-Sha'bi / Parti Démocratique Populaire a split from Arab Socialist Action Party. It is unfortunate that over a long period these parties have bent under the pressures of either opportunism or sectarianism.
However, the new situation that is opening up in Lebanon is providing the left with an opportunity to make up for lost time. If lessons are drawn from the mistakes of the past then they could turn themselves into a genuine revolutionary leadership of the working class.
As we said there is a long tradition of the Communist movement in the Lebanon. The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) was formed in 1924 by a group of intellectuals. Unfortunately it had very little impact on Lebanese politics. This can be explained in part by its unwavering support for the Stalinists in Moscow over a period of decades. Prior to 1944 there was one united Communist organisation of Syria and the Lebanon, but then two separate parties were established in each country.
In the first period of independence, the first twenty years or so, the LCP had little success in developing its forces. Apart from its allegiance to Stalinism, it made its worst mistake by supporting the partition of Palestine. This was because it was carrying out the dictates of Stalin, who backed the creation of Israel at the time. Like many Communist parties this had the effect of discrediting them in the eyes of many of the Arab peoples. This continued during the 1950s, when the party's inconsistent policies on pan-Arabism and the Nasserite movement cost it support and eventually isolated it.
In 1965 it came out of the underground, when it attempted to break out of its isolation and become a member of the Front for Progressive Parties and National Forces, a popular front formation which later became the Lebanese National Movement under Kamal Jumblatt. This tendency to mix its banners with bourgeois (so-called "progressive" bourgeois) and petit bourgeois forces limited its ability to emerge as a genuine working class opposition force.
However, in spite of all this the 1970s witnessed a process of radicalisation among the Lebanese workers and youth, part of the same process that was taking place internationally. On the back of this wave of left radicalisation there was somewhat of a resurgence of the LCP. In 1970 the Minister of the Interior Kamal Jumblatt legalized the party. This allowed many LCP leaders, including Secretary General Niqula Shawi, to run for election in 1972. They polled several thousand votes, but unfortunately not enough to win a seat. In the mid-1970s we saw the development of civil unrest, which brought a new layer of activists towards the party. The LCP, which by then had established a well-trained militia, participated actively in the fighting of the civil war in 1975 and 1976. This was to its credit and raised its profile and authority among an important layer of militants.
However, because of its popular frontist position and its adherence to the two stages theory (i.e. first an alliance with the so-called progressive bourgeoisie to complete the "democratic" revolution and only later the direct struggle for socialism) it ended up by raising the authority of these forces in the eyes of the workers and poor. This led to it later decline.
A process of decline of the party's fortunes started in the 1980s, and this has continued until the present day. Taking advantage of the ebb of the movement of the working class and the mistakes of the LCP the reactionary forces started to move against the LCP. In 1983 the Sunni fundamentalist movement in Tripoli, Tawhid (Islamic Unification Movement), reportedly executed fifty Communists. In 1987, in union with the PSP, the LCP fought a weeklong battle with Amal militants in West Beirut, a conflict that was eventually stopped by Syrian troops.
In fact the Syrian regime had a large say in the internal developments of the LCP. The Syrian regime, modelled on that of Russia, played a reactionary role, in holding back the genuine movement towards revolution. Murrawwah, one of the party leaders was probably the most powerful member of the LCP and was on good terms with Shia groups in West Beirut. This did not stop the Islamic fundamentalists from attacking them. In fact between 1984 and 1987 many party leaders and members were assassinated, reportedly by Islamic fundamentalists.
The past has shown that the two stages theory, the desperate search for some so-called "progressive" wing of the Lebanese bourgeoisie, has failed. The Lebanese Communists must learn the lessons of the past. Their role is not to back a non-existent "democratic" wing of the ruling class. Their role is to stand out as a genuine workers' opposition, to build up their forces among the working class, inside the trade unions and offer the workers a revolutionary perspective of the overthrow of the rotten Lebanese ruling class. If they do this, then the LCP could take advantage of the present situation to build a genuine mass revolutionary party of the working class.
The fact that layers of the Lebanese workers and youth have sought out a revolutionary path can be demonstrated by the existence of other left groups. In 1970 two smaller left groups, the Organization of Socialist Lebanon and the Movement of Lebanese Socialists, merged to form the Organization of Communist Action (OCA). The organization, led by Muhsin Ibrahim, incorporated former cells of the Arab Nationalist Movement, which ceased to exist in the late 1960s. The OCA presented itself as an independent, revolutionary communist party and, in the early 1970s, strongly criticized the LCP, accusing its leaders of "reformist" tendencies. If the OCA had developed into a genuine Marxist organisation it could have played an important role in pushing the LCP, or at least a large layer of its ranks, towards the ideas of genuine socialism. This would have transformed the whole situation and could have led to a mass movement under the leadership of the working class, instead of the terrible civil war and defeat that ensued.
Unfortunately the OCA also succumbed to the pressures and instead of moving towards a genuine revolutionary position it started to drift closer to the positions of the LCP by the mid-1970s. There was in fact talk of unity between the LCP and the OCA, but such a union never materialized. The OCA leader Ibrahim played an important role in the 1975 Civil War by virtue of his position as the executive secretary of the Lebanese National Movement and because his organization participated in the fighting. But by 1987, the OCA was forced to operate underground because Ibrahim refused to go along with the Syrian policy of opposition to PLO head Yasir Arafat.
Now we have a situation where there are several left groups, apart from the LCP, in the Lebanon. Particularly among the youth there is a thirst for Marxist ideas. What is needed is an appraisal of the past. The lessons of past experience must be drawn. But then we need to move forward. The working class in the Lebanon is emerging once more as a force. In spite of the ethnic divisions the class issues are once more coming to the surface. This gives Marxists the opportunity to intervene in the situation and build an alternative within the labour movement. These left forces should come together and beginning a process of discussions with the aim of establishing a genuine force of Marxism.
The Permanent Revolution
There is no solution to the problems of Lebanon within the framework of capitalism, nor within its artificial borders created by the imperialists. The rulers of Lebanon promised independence, national unification, and economic progress. However, their history is the history of creating economic backwardness, dependency on imperialism and civil wars. The capitalist class is a parasite with no right to rule society. The only solution can come from the workers in alliance with the poor peasants struggling for the socialist transformation of Lebanon as part of a socialist federation of the Middle East. The reasons for this were explained by Leon Trotsky many years ago in the theory of the Permanent Revolution:
"The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism."
The same applies today to the Lebanon. Although small, the Lebanon could become a beacon to the masses of the Middle East. Either that or, in the long run, more of the same: defeats, ethnic conflict and a general worsening of the situation for the working people. Thus the task facing the Lebanese Marxists is a big one, but not an impossible one.
June 3, 2004