The Case for Libyan Revolution!

The following is a rebuttal of "The Case Against the Libyan Rebellion" by Will Richardson. Link:http://redsociology101.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-case-against-the-libyan-rebellion/

Basic Premises.

LIBYA IS PART OF THE ARAB SPRING. To deny this is comically stupid. It just so happened to happen at exactly the same by total fucking coincidence? Come off it...

QADAFI IS A DICTATOR. Unelected. To say he's a figurehead w/ no power is like saying the President of the US doesn't legislate, he just executes acts of Congress. This may be true on paper, but the reality is different. Qaddafi is clearly not Hitler. Whoever said that is a jackass. Abuses in Libya under the current regime are extensively documented by Al Jazeera (one of the best independent news sources in the world). CNN is a strawman. And the kneejerk reaction of the Stalinists, to say “if the bad guys say it it's bad then it must be good” is the logic of a toddler.

Responses to Will.

“I respond by saying if Qadaffi is a dictator than so in the Queen of England seeing as they occupy the same position in their societies.” No they don't occupy even remotely similar positions in society. Again, this is picture-book reasoning. The Queen of England has very little real power anymore. Qaddafi has significant power. No comparison. Also, the standard of living is beside the point as far as being a dictator or not. One can impose x,y, and z progressive policies and still be a dictator. These are different questions.

“There’s the other minor issue of using the Libyan monarchy flag as protest flag of the rebellion.” Libya's only ever had the so-called monarchist flag and Qaddafi's flag. Before that, the Italian colonial flag flew in Libya. So the flag of the monarchy is also the flag of independence as well as the only non-Qaddafi flag Libya's ever had. In any case I'm far less concerned with the flag than the real actions of people. A working class revolution could fly the American flag for all I care so long as their actions are good.

“Because of this situation [racism by NATO forces] as far as I’m concerned their free Libya and if I was in Libya i’d have to pick a gun up for the government, at least they don’t want me dead.” This gives in to the racist divide-and-conquer. Will, do you think the Libyan govt doesn't factor oppressed african minorities into the equation of their economy? All governments/industries use racism to create an extra-low wage sector of workers to provide cheap labor and undermine the wages of all workers. Racism is never an accident. If it's there it's because it's profitable to those in charge.

“Even under much more brutal resistance by the Tunisian, Bahrianian, and Egyptian government their people largely stayed peaceful and won so what made the Libyan protesters so different?” Pro-western dictators had to blue-ball their repression to a degree because brutality on their part undermined the US et al's ability to maintain support for them, politically. There may also have been uncertainty about how the Obama administration would react (that's purely speculation, though). Qaddafi (while plenty in bed with US, UK and France) wasn't so exclusively dependent on it that repression was too risky. Plus Qaddafi's more than a little bit crazy. Remember when he said the protesters were just students tripping on LSD from Al Qaeda? Lmfao!

“Its not about the working class anymore when It comes to building socialism." THE WORKING CLASS IS SOCIALISM, by definition. Rural workers, the unemployed, and those in the informal economy are all still workers; it's not just white men in construction or steel mills. And fyi, there has been incredible success of class-based movements of these sectors throughout the 3rd world, especially in Latin America.

“In Africa and through most of the world there is no traditional working class to speak of nor do people identify themselves based on that.” I assume that by “traditional” you mean factories, hard hats, etc. See above comment. As to “nor do people identify themselves based on that,” 1) I first have to question how you could possibly know that? 2) Even if that's true it's only partly relevant. People can be part of a class without “identifying” with that class or even knowing it. Lots of Americans don't think we even have classes – doesn't make it so. Classes exist objectively. Now in order to make revolution, we need to foster class consciousness. So if you're right, then it just means further action is needed to develop that consciousness. It doesn't mean we abandon the working class.

My Analysis.

All the Arab Spring revolts have been democratic political revolution not proletarian social revolution. As such, there has been some class collaboration w/ the bourgeoisie in every single one, especially early on. The question now is whether or not the proletarian forces can continue to wage class revolution. In Egypt they seem to be doing so in a way that's very exciting. In Egypt, the working class forces realized, to some degree, that through strikes and exercising their power at the point of production they brought down a dictator. So they don't need the bourgeois elements anymore. The tragedy (not that there's only one) of NATO intervention in Libya is that 1) They've managed to keep the revolutionary forces fighting militarily instead of economically, thereby keeping the working class rebels totally dependent on bourgeois “leaders” who can secure the aid of the west. 2) They've split the popular forces to some degree. At first, it was an Arab Spring revolt and it was the people v. the dictator. But now there's the specter of western imperialism to frighten some Libyans back into the arms of Qaddafi as the supposed lesser of two evils. Same way we get tricked into voting for Democrats cause we don't want Republicans to win.

Another thing: Qaddafi may even have great, panafricanist socialist intentions in his head – I don't think he does, but that's beside the point. Even if Qaddafi had genuinely good intentions, his efforts would suffer from a fatal flaw in his methods. This is the flaw of 20th century so-called socialist regimes the world over. It's the mistake made by apologists for the “communist” tyranny of the USSR, China, N. Korea, etc. A MINORITY CADRE CANNOT IMPOSE SOCIALISM FROM ABOVE. Marx wrote, “The emancipation of the working class must be the task of the working class itself.” And he was right about that. All efforts where a party or an individual seized state power and tried to whip the population into socialism inevitably end in horror. Socialism = democratic workers control over production. And it must be gotten through the struggle of revolutionary democratic workers organizations, not party elites. 

Fight to Win @ School of the Arts

I'm writing this because I would love nothing more than to see Brizard's offensive budget defeated. I was one of the main organizers of the SOTA Budget Protests in 2009. I'd like to share what I think can be learned from the '09 campaign so that the 2011 campaign can be better and can win.

On letter-writing, etc:

There's nothing wrong with writing letters, in fact it's good to do it. But it's not enough. The problem is not that the school board don't know it's wrong. They know it's wrong, they just have other priorities than your education (especially Brizard). So we can't convince or persuade our way out of these cuts. They have to be defeated politically, forced to back down. There has to be enough public pressure on them that it's bad for them to pass the cuts. This isn't easy to do, but it is possible.

On the question of a walkout:

I was one of those in favor of this back in '09 when it was discussed, but I want to discuss the question. If it's going to be done, it's got to be done big and with student unity on deciding to do it. No sense in half-ass walkouts, in fact they're dangerous. And if a walkout is done it must be done openly, not with fire alarms or other chaotic measures, but walking out resolutely in full view of everyone. Having said that, and maintaining that I think a walkout is a decent idea, i'd like to also say that there are plenty of alternative tactics to achieve the same goals: sit-ins, occupations, in-school actions, outside protests, etc. Since it seems like the biggest concern is that walking out of classes we're trying to save sends the wrong message, then do the opposite: stay in and refuse to leave. The same effects are had: media attention, confrontation, showing students are bold and powerful.

On student organization:

In 2009, SOTA students started a movement to stop the budget cuts to our school. We ran a great campaign, but we didn't win. And the next fall, the issue was dead: no one was keeping up the fight. Now more cuts are threatening and SOTA students are little better off than we were in '09. We didn't build a student organization that could keep the fight going. Now the '09 protests did have an organization: it consisted of myself, Katy Rebholz, Megan Gilfoy, and Aleigha Spinks. Later we brought in Peter Balonon-Rosen and Chelsea DeBaise (the then-incoming Student Government Pres and VP). And we held 2 or 3 meetings where over a hundred students packed into rooms to semi-chaotically discuss plans. Now we did really great stuff with that system, but there were some problems with it:

First, it was basically run by 4 people. We had to do it this way because the alternative was to just gather everybody together and hope a plan emerged from the noise. There was no process for involving lots of students democratically and still being able to function. The choice was do it ourselves or it doesn't get done, so we did it. But what was needed was a democratic organization capable of running a large-scale, long-term campaign.

The other reason a large democratic organization is needed is to decide tactical questions like the walkout. In '09 the 4 of us had decided to do it and then 2 of us decided against it and we cancelled it. But something like that really should be decided by the whole group (or as close as possible). This would help keep students united, whatever the decision: if we all made the decision then we're all together on it.

Now the Student Government is elected by students and that's democratic in a way, but we all know that those elections are about popularity, etc. There are lots of reasons for this. I'd like to mention a few.

The Student Government isn't elected based on who can really “get the job done” because there is no job description either in writing or in practice. So without any other criteria, students just choose their generally favorite people and, as we all know, nothing happens.

SOTA Student Government consists of 4 people: President, VP, Secretary, and Treasurer. And only the Pres and VP can vote on School-Based Planning (where there's some real power). There is a structural problem here: no 2 people, no matter how committed or well-chosen could possibly represent the whole student body. Now there is a section in the Student Government Constitution that calls for a Student Congress with 4 student representatives from each grade level. To my knowledge, this Student Congress has not been a reality for some time (if ever). This is understandable, though. Said congress is given no real power and unless there is clear work to be done, then you either get nobody (like at SOTA) or some kids who like to play politician (like most college student governments).

I have some ideas to propose for discussion:

A democratic student organization is necessary to fight for the interests of students. This could mean starting one from scratch or it could mean rehabilitating the Student Congress section of Student Government; doesn't really matter – whichever works. It could be called Student Government, Student Congress, Student Union; again name doesn't matter – whatever works. What does matter is that it involve as many students as possible in the decisions affecting the school, that it make these decisions democratically, and that student decisions are final (no administration interference).

The next question then is what real power would this organization have? Well there are two kinds of power to talk about here: institutional power (getting voting seats on school-based planning, etc) and people power (the power of students protesting, writing, organizing, etc). I think that an organization like this (especially now) could be a way to channel the amazing energy of students into a way to effectively use the people power of students to fight against budget cuts (or any other future threats to students). Such an organization should also demand institutional power.

Questions about the specific structure of a Student Organization must of course be decided, not by me but by current students themselves. But i'll throw out some ideas/suggestions. The way the Congress is supposed to work (if I remember it right) is that 4 students are elected from each grade in much the same way as Pres, VP, etc. This could work, but I think I have a better idea:

• Each arts class could elect one student representative. So you'd have a Freshman Dance Representative and a Junior Tech Representative, etc. This way the elections are small scale, easy to manage, and much more specific. Each class would also be able to pick a new representative at any time.
• 4 grade levels times 7 departments makes a 28-person Congress (or whatever it's called) that can easily decide things and still keep in touch with the whole student body class-by-class.
• That 28-person body could pick 4 or 5 people to really run all the detailed stuff (like Katy, Megan, Aleigha, and I did) but they would be responsible to the decisions of the 28 and through them the whole school.

This organization, whatever its specific form, should establish a working relationship with the Rochester Teachers Association (RTA) and the Board of Education Non-Teaching Employees (BENTE) as well as other unions and community groups. Only by students uniting with teachers and workers as allies can we hope to really beat Brizard and the threat he represents.

To Victory,

Crescenzo Scipione

Class of '09