Socialist Resistance has expressed its unconditional solidarity with the revolutionary peoples of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya and across the region since the beginning of their uprisings against the brutal pro-imperialist dictatorships and we continue to do so. We do this despite the limited democratic character of all these revolutions in their initial phases.
We recognise that the Libyan revolution is part of the broader movement for democracy, social justice and real national liberation, that we have seen erupt elsewhere, referred to as the 'Arab Spring.' At the same time as building solidarity with these revolutions, we have opposed any intervention by the imperialist powers in the region, including opposing the 'so called' NATO/UN 'No Fly Zone' in Libya.
The intervention into Libya, ostensibly in support of the democratic revolution there, is in reality an attempt to manage and take control of the unfolding revolutionary process in the interests of 'oil imperialism' and in defence of private property. Behind imperialism's planes stand the oil cartels, the big banks and the IMF. Ultimately the aim is to broker a cease-fire and settlement between the democratic forces and the old regime - without Gadaffi. The statements from the Fourth International of March 3 (http://socialistresistance.org/1643/) and 23 (http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2044) in solidarity with the people of Libya, which we support, also spell out this approach.
The escalating imperialist intervention into Libya has changed the dynamics of revolution, and has caused much confusion on the left. Whilst opposition to the UN/NATO intervention is a widely held view, full or 'unconditional' support for the rebellion (the position of Socialist Resistance) is not. There are even sections of the left who support Gadaffi and want to see the rebellion defeated.
Many on the left profess support for the Libyan revolution but are not prepared to call for them to be armed or even oppose this. In fact to deny them arms is precisely to push them into the arms of NATO. The most important source for such arms (although the rebellion has the right to get them from where it can) should be the other revolutionary Arab countries, Egypt and Tunisia in particular.
After Gaddafi's brutal counter-revolutionary assault against the democratic revolution, we recognised the real possibility of massacre in Benghazi, Ajdabiya and Misrata, and therefore supported the right of those under extreme threat to call for aid, including military assistance - but not from imperialism but from the neighbouring revolutionary Arab states, especially Tunisia and Egypt.
We believe that calling for and continuing to support the UN so-called No-Fly zone (UNSC resolution 1973) was a wrong response by Transitional National Council (TNC) and will prove to be a dagger aimed at the heart of the revolution. The neighbouring countries are the best placed to give aid and arms, including offering volunteer revolutionary brigades to assist the revolution, but the silence of their governments has been deafening. The explanation is that the interim regimes in Tunisia and Egypt have not broken from coat tails of imperialism.
Today, Cameron's deployment of attack helicopters is just one more escalation of the imperialist intervention, an intervention that from the beginning has gone beyond the UN resolution and now threatens, if Gaddafi does not go, to escalate the blitzkrieg into a full-scale ground war. Fortunately, a threat to deploy ground forces has been greatly weakened by divisions in the imperialist camp. We demand the immediate cessation of the bombing and an end to imperialist intervention. Rather we call for arming the revolution from whatever source, but without any conditions or strings attached. Only the armed people can beat Gaddafi's war machine and at the same time defend the revolution against imperialist plans for Libya. However, in our view the unfolding revolutionary process must at all costs remain independent from imperialism.
France, Britain or the USA, do not intend to arm the revolution, or allow it independence. They continue to support the UN arms embargo imposed on both sides of the conflict. They do not want an outright victory for the revolution, but after Gaddafi has been driven out, they plan a brokered compromise that will defend imperialism's oil interests and capitalist property. Such a solution will fail to meet the demands of the revolution, in particular true self-determination and social liberation.
Worse, the already compromised interim regimes in Tunisia and Egypt that resulted from the democratic mass movements there, continue to manoeuvre to defend the essential capitalist interests of the old regimes and frustrate the demands of the masses, and have little interest in supporting and deepening revolution in the region particularly in Libya, although these neighbouring countries are the best placed to give aid and arms, including offering volunteer revolutionary brigades to assist the revolution.
Socialists cannot abstain on the revolution in Libya or the brutal siege of Misrata, the third city of Libya with a population of half a million people, now a key flashpoint in the rebellion. Unfortunately some on the left in Britain and elswehere have done just this. They either abstain, or steer very close to this, using the excuse that because the rebel leaderships have called on NATO/UN to bomb the tanks and artillery emplacements of the regime that the character of the revolution has changed, transforming the democratic and social aspirations of the mass movement, into a pro-imperialist revolution! How can we support a revolution that calls on imperialism to bomb its opponents and kill We say that it is important to make a distinction between the spontaneous mass movements, seething with political contradictions and diverse aspirations and the leaderships thrown up, often temporary, without a clear perspective and only partially corresponding to the needs of the revolution. The task for socialists is to support the movement in every way possible, while assisting in the formation of a truly revolutionary leadership where we can. This is what the Fourth International and its sections are attempting to do.
Underlying this wrong assessment by some on the left is a crude and schematic methodology, which sees the world divided into imperialist and so-called antiimperialist camps. Put simply: my enemy's enemy is my friend'. This is too simple -there are many 'camps' in any revolution. This view has historically resulted in drawing a false political division of the world into two contending camps, the imperialist and a diverse anti-imperialist camp (a method sometimes described as 'campism'). This view of world politics, originating in Moscow, has over the years seeped into many corners of the Labour and solidarity movements, but does not correspond to the actual complexity of real anti-imperialist struggles and the different class forces involved.
This approach often places popular revolutions, which are fundamentally anti-imperialist, in the same 'camp' as so-called anti-imperialist dictators like
page 24 of the scan
Gaddafi, or Assad in Syria (or even Saddam Hussein), particularly if these dictators do a bit of nationalist or antiimperialist sabre rattling, extend friendship to Moscow, or who once subscribed to pan Arab, or pan African socialism. It is a view of the world that ignores the actual class character of regimes, such as Gaddafi's, and the actual class struggles within them. In all cases these regimes including Gaddifis, have long made their accommodation to imperialism - although today the 'Arab Spring' makes Gaddafi expendable to imperialism.
Socialists should not be calling for a ceasefire and negotiations. These are also Gaddafi's demands aimed to demobilise the revolution in order better to crush it. These policies will become central to imperialism's manoeuvres to find a new settlement when Gaddafi has gone.
Along with calls to halt the bombing and against intervention, socialists must therefore continue to call for solidarity and demand the arming of the revolution with no conditions. Arming the revolution is the only alternative to outside intervention - or bloody defeat.
The armed people, together with other necessary aid, such as money, medicines and food, can beat the brutal Gaddafi regime. This would create the best conditions for carrying through to the end the legitimate demands of the mass movement. History shows us that an armed people and democratic control will be essential in dealing with the manipulations of the situation by imperialism, but also in dealing with compromisers and collaborators within their own leaderships, many of whom will be unreliable exsupporters of the Gaddafi regime.
As socialists and internationalists who are part of the Fourth International we think it is important to make our views known on the unfolding revolutionary process in the region and the limited political standpoints of the current leaderships. The political character and objectives of the new leaderships thrown up by the spontaneous mass movements, remains unclear and not just in Libya. Our approach therefore is encapsulated in the formula unconditional but critical support. This is a standpoint we believe socialists should apply to all the revolutions of the 'Arab Spring' and anywhere in the world where genuine mass movements for democracy, real national liberation and self-determination break out, but which do not have consistently socialist objectives.