Democratic Palestine : 1 (ص 11)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 1 (ص 11)
- المحتوى
-
Movement, and the July 23rd revolution in Egypt (1952).
These movements grew at this particular time to fill the
vacancy created by the demise of the former leadership.
In terms of class structure, the former leadership of the
Arab national liberation movement was replaced by the -
leadership of the petit bourgeoisie, which was more related to
the masses and their motives than the feudal lords and the
bourgeoisie. The fifties and sixties marked a new era in the
history of the Arab national liberation movement. Prior to the
crisis it is now suffering, it achieved many positive things.
The rise of the petit bourgeoisie
Concerning the crisis in the Palestinian revolution, when
we say that the Palestinian bourgeoisie has failed and can no
longer lead, we must at the same time remember that in the
previous stage, the Palestinian revolution made _ real
achievements under its leadership. The same applies to the
new stage of the Arab national liberation movement, which
was led by the July 23rd revolution in particular. Before
exhausting its role, the new leadership achieved many things.
Why were our masses so enthusiastic in their support of
Nasser’s leadership? Because many aims were fulfilled. In
Egypt, the slogans were no longer only independence and
dignity; they acquired a social touch. There was the law on
land reform, distribution of land to the peasants, the start of
cooperatives, nationalization of banks and foreign trade, the
national battle to liberate Egypt from British colonialism,
nationalization of the Suez Canal, the beginning of links with
the socialist countries. There was Nasser’s’ role in the
nonaligned movement, which at that time was clearly anti-
imperialist.
Moreover, the atmosphere generated by Nasserism
affected all the Arab world. We saw the start of armed
liberation struggles in Algeria) Yemen and Oman, all
supported by Nasser’s Egypt. There was Egypt’s unity with
Syria, which was fully supported by the Arab masses. There
was the downfall of the monarchy in Iraq and later Libya, and
the defeat of the feudalist-subordinate capitalist coalition in
Syria, etc.
Class Roots of the Crisis
Now, let us follow this petit bourgeoisie after its rise to
power, remembering that things are dynamic; nothing is
static. When it came to power, the petit bourgeoisie wanted to
achieve the aims of the masses that were related to its own.
Then, after a few years of struggle against imperialism, when.
this petit bourgeoisie started to acquire its own national
market, a change occurred in its class interests. Through the
public sector, the interests of this class grew. It obtained
| facilities and many privileges, and was able to accumulate
capital. At the same time, the old system was not completely
destroyed. Sectors of agriculture and manufacture were still
based on private ownership. So this capital, that came into the
hands of the bureaucratic petit bourgeoisie, was invested in
partnership with the bourgeois and feudal classes that had
been removed from power. Thus a link was forged between
the petit bourgeoisie and the classes it had removed from
power. This led to suppression of the masses, hesitancy in
continuing thenational democraticrevolution, and diminishing
the anti-imperialist trend.
This is what paved the way for the crisis that became
apparent in 1967. Instead of the Arab regimes winning the war
in 1967, or making it a prolonged war which could uproot —
imperialism and Zionism, the war and its aftermath deepened
the trend to the right. After 1967, at the time when the masses
demanded that Nasser remain in his position, he had the
chance to radicalize the Arab national liberation movement.
However, the class and economic structure of the regime was
stronger than Nasser’s wishes. What happened in Sadat’s era
signified that the Arab national liberation movement, as led by
the petit bourgeoisie, will come to an end. It will eventually
reconcile its interests with those of Arab reaction, imperialism
and even Zionism. The results of the 1967 war were a much
deeper set-back for the Arab national liberation movement
than that of 1948. In 1948, the Arab rulers were not able to
liberate Palestine, but at least they refused to grant Zionism the
legal right to occupy Palestine. Sadat, on the other hand,
initiated cooperation not only with Arab reaction and
imperialism, but also with Zionism.
Of course, other branches of the petit bourgeois Arab
national liberation movement remained anti-imperialist to a
certain extent. Yet what happened to the Egyptian regime is
sé } i : ai
*
® ee
_s Sa >
The October Revolution gave a new incentive...
very likely to happen to the other national regimes which have
the same class and ideological structure. What happened with
the petit bourgeoisie which gained power in Iraq? It began as
anti-imperialist in 1968, and did many things for the national
and popular interests. Now it is taking the same path.
There is only one exception to this rule, and that is
Democratic Yemen. Here there was also a nationalist
revolution led by a petit bourgeoisie. The experience of
Democratic Yemen shows that if there are a certain set of
conditions, this class can achieve the aims of the national
democratic revolution and embark on socialist construction.
The required conditions include: developing a party based.on
Marxism-Leninism and democratic centralism, having real
11 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 1
- تاريخ
- يناير ١٩٨٤
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed