(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have
turned Justice Mute)

Ibrahim Alloush

In remembering the hallowed place in revolutionary history that is rightfully accorded to the Paris Commune of 1871, leftists frequently disengage the most crucial catalyst out of which the Paris Commune was born: the Franco-Prussian war, and the betrayal of French national rights by the government of big capitalists of Thiers. 

Unlike Marx, who dedicated three out of six chapters in his book on the Paris Commune(1) to the struggle between France and Germany, including one whole chapter on the CAPITULATION of the French bourgeoisie before Bismarck’s Germany as a direct cause for the revolution in Paris(2), Marxists today seem content in focusing solely on the Proletarian nature of that revolution without regard for the NATIONAL incubator out of which it stepped into the fore of history.  Marx, unlike modern-day “Marxists”, was given to a historical mode of analysis, not a metaphysical one.  Hence, he didn’t just assume that the Proletarian revolution in Paris had somehow fallen from the sky!  It took place in a national context, specifically a context in which the government of the French bourgeoisie betrayed France, and the representatives of the French working class took the most principled stances in the defense of their country.

In fact, Germany had invaded France and imposed upon it a humiliating treaty that involved the ceding of territory and the payment of billions of Francs in indemnities.  When the armed workers of Paris did not accept this, the capitulationist government of big French capitalists that signed the treaty with the German aggressors, as Marx calls them, collaborated with the Prussian army to disarm and crush French workers.  It was thus that the Paris Commune was born: in the heat of the national struggle, the bourgeoisie took unprincipled capitulationist stands while the representatives of the French working class took the most principled ones.  As a result, the working class, having long marched behind the bourgeoisie, obtained independent representation.  That raised the ire, not just of the French bourgeoisie, but also of bourgeois classes across all Europe.  And from its nationalistic background, the Paris Commune became a beacon for the oppressed worldwide, not just in Europe, and not just in the 19^th Century.  It is clear then from the shining example of the Paris Commune that:

1)    Class antagonism was detonated by different class positions (and interests) on the national rights, where

2)    big capitalists sought to jeopardize those national rights to preserve their own narrow interests, while the workers and the peasants came out as the most ardent defenders of national rights. And when the workers became an obstacle, the capitalists went beyond dishonorable compromises to direct collaboration with foreign invaders against the people.

3)    Workers, in obtaining independent representation for themselves, and territory upon which to exercise this representation, instituted not just a government that caters to the best interest of their country, but to the best interest of the oppressed worldwide, by virtue of its being a true worker’s government.  It is in this sense that the Paris Commune became an example for the oppressed worldwide.

Note how Marx puts the matter: “A victory of Paris over the Prussian aggressor would have been a victory of the French workmen over the French capitalist and his state parasites. In this conflict between national duty and class interest, the Government of National Defense [of Thiers – FAV] did not hesitate one moment to turn into a Government of National Defection”.(3) 

Then Marx goes on in a line that reveals his attitude towards French capitulations before Bismarck: “The population could not but feel that the terms of the armistice [between France and Germany – FAV] rendered the continuation of the war impossible, and that for sanctioning the peace imposed by Bismarck, the worst men in France were the best”. (4)

Thus, Engels writes in the introduction to the 1891 edition of the Civil War in France: “During the war the Paris workers had confined themselves to demanding the vigorous prosecution of the fight [with Prussia – FAV]. But now, when peace had come after the capitulation of Paris, now, Thiers, the new head of government, was compelled to realize that the supremacy of the propertied classes — large landowners and capitalists — was in constant danger so long as the workers of Paris had arms in their hands. His first action was to attempt to disarm them”. (5)

How Marx and Engels were able to see so clearly the crucial connection between the national struggle and class affiliation, long before capitalism had grown into imperialism for Lenin to tackle the national question in that context, only testifies to their insightfulness and genius.  However, the Leninist position itself on the national question did not fall from the sky either.  It can be found in Marx and Engels in at least two respects:

1)    that the right to national self-determination is to be upheld universally EXCEPT where it runs contrary to the interest of historical development, and to the interest of the revolutionary movement worldwide.  See, for example, Engels’ adversarial attitude towards Pan-Slavism in Europe(6).  

2)    that in the defense of national rights, workers in oppressed nations should be the foremost defenders of these rights, while workers in oppressor nations should be the foremost opponents to national chauvinism, where the latter is typically the banner under which the oppression of other nations take place.  Hence, there is NO CONTRADICTION whatsoever here between nationalism and internationalism.  In both cases, the stand is against national oppression, by the workers in both the oppressor and the oppressed nations.  That is why on the same page from which the references above by Marx on Thiers were taken, Marx finds no difficulty in supporting German unity while opposing the German occupation of France SIMULTANEOUSLY. 

Reading Marxist text this way, it would NOT have been difficult for an intellectual powerhouse like Lenin to evolve those same practical positions by Marx and Engels into theoretically justified arguments for the age of imperialism.  But what is on the table here is but one aspect of this broad dialectic of nation and class: the socio-economic map of radicalism in the defense of national rights, that was laid out most eloquently AS A CASE-STUDY in Marx’s tract The Civil War in France.

----------------------------------------------------------  

In the case of the Palestinian Intifada today, there are three predominant stances on the continuation of the armed struggle against the Zionist occupation.  These three positions are:

1)    the position that calls for ending the armed struggle

2)    the position that calls for continuing the armed struggle

3)    the position that oscillates between the two, calling mainly for “rationing” the armed struggle and tying it to limited (allegedly, “realistic”) political objectives.

If we look beyond the crust of spokespersons and media declarations on the questions of the continuation and

ultimate goal of the armed struggle, and examine how and where positions of different strata in Palestinian society

vary, we should not be surprised to find that class background plays a significant part in determining attitudes towards

carrying on the Intifada through to its utmost end.  Despite the fact that class dimension is often missing from the literature

of Palestinian “leftists” on the subject, this dimension would have been the logical starting point for tackling this matter.

In this context, note that the northern West Bank, with small peasant towns like Toul Karem, Qalqilyah, and Jenin have

put up much stiffer MILITARY resistance to the Zionist occupation than the southern West Bank towns which

have a much larger percentage of merchants, professionals, and Palestinian Authority bureaucrats.  Note as well, when

the Zionists blow up the West Bank homes of families of alleged Human Bombs (otherwise

mistaken for “suicide attackers” in the mainstream media), that a much larger proportion of these houses

are located in the northern West Bank.  Where in the southern West Bank there has been stiff resistance, as in Balata Refugee Camp near Nablus, for example, it is obvious that this resistance has been mostly concentrated in or around refugee camps, or in the poorer sections of larger West Bank towns, like the Old Town in Nablus, which was completely destroyed by the Zionist occupation.  Paradoxically, the West Bank capital of the Palestinian Authority, Ramallah, fell to the Zionists in less than an hour despite the fact that it was supposed to be the best defended in all of the West Bank(7).  Conclusion:  IT IS THE POOR OF PALESTINE WHO CARRY THE BULK OF THE INTIFADA ON THEIR SHOULDERS, yet it is they who uphold the most radical positions for the continuation of the armed struggle against Zionists to the end. 

Note how Engels puts this matter with respect to the Paris Commune: “As a result of this, only a weak resistance was put up in the western half of Paris, in the luxury city proper; it grew stronger and more tenacious the nearer the incoming troops approached the eastern half, the real working class city” (8).    

The example of the West Bank could probably be applied by others to other parts of occupied Palestine, be it in Gaza, or in the land occupied in 1948.  For example, there is no question that the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, which graduate a disproportionate percentage of human bombs, represent a formidable obstacle in the face of Zionist intrusions there, so much so that Zionists during the first Intifada (1987 – 1993) wanted to withdraw from it unilaterally.  In fact, they just wished Gaza would vanish into the sea. 

Again, note the parallel in Engels description of the fight against the invading Prussian army which did not dare enter Paris in triumph: “Such was the respect which the Paris workers inspired in the army before which all the armies of the empire had laid down their arms; and the Prussian Junkers, who had come to take revenge at the very centre of the revolution, were compelled to stand by respectfully, and salute just precisely this armed revolution!” (9).

On the other hand, if you look at the class identity of those demanding an end to what they call the «militarization» of the Intifada, you’d find that they are typically Palestinian compradore elements, who are tied to the “peace process” and “Israel” with considerations of economic interest or political status.  In the Palestinian and Arab context, of course, compradore has assumed a new meaning, and is not limited to the economic function that compradore used to perform.  That is, a new breed of mediators between imperialism and Zionism, on one hand, and the Arab people, on the other hand, has emerged which performs NON-economic functions.  This breed includes all those Palestinians and Arabs who undertake political and intellectual roles in their societies for the benefit of imperialism and Zionism, including politicians and intellectuals who push the “peace process”, “coexistence between the two peoples”, “IMF and World Bank economic reform programs”, etc… and get amply rewarded for it with money, power, status, a piece of the pie, or whatever you want to call it.

In Palestinian politics specifically, this group of assorted compradores has seen its power in the West Bank and Gaza greatly diminished by the Intifada, with the prospect of being closed down completely if they are not able to deliver to the Zionists and the Americans the surrender, a la Thiers’ government, of the Palestinian people.  Hence, they dress their opposition to the continuation of the Intifada with the cloak of “ending the suffering of the Palestinian people”.  This group includes, in fact, all the Palestinian intellectuals who prostituted themselves in a petition calling for ending the “militarization” of the Intifada, as well as people like Abu Mazen, Nabil Shaath, Saeb Arikat, and kindred specimens, and the tycoons who have seen their commissions and brokerage fees suffer gravely as a result of the escalation of the Intifada.  In general, though, we find this defeatist group spread, socio-economically speaking, between the Palestinian compradore, the high-officials of the Palestinian Authority, and the liberals and “leftists” affiliated with different international programs, such as certain officials and beneficiaries of foreign-financed Non-governmental organizations, in Palestine.  All these can be considered a pure deadweight around the neck of the Intifada!

Mind you, there is no question that ALL strata of Palestinian society suffer under the occupation.  However, the reason

why the different strata take various positions on the continuation of the Intifada, (just as the different social classes

in France took various positions on the continuation of the Franco-Prussian War) lies partially in this micro-level fact:

The comparative drop in the standard of living and the comparative increase in suffering under the Intifada are much GREATER for the compradore than they are for the toilers.  In other words, under war, the already oppressed are reduced from subsistence to sub-subsistence levels.  The relative deterioration there is much less than it is for those who are reduced from thriving to slightly above subsistence levels.  If you add to this the political element, namely, that in a revolution, even a revolution against foreign invaders such as one against the Jews in Palestine, the whole status quo is upset, you would have panic even amongst those elements in Palestinian society which suffer somehow from the occupation but are more terrified that the basis of their FUTURE control is threatened.  That is the political basis for the oscillation of any national bourgeoisie in any country against a triumphant foreign invasion, never mind those elements of the bourgeoisie whose economic and other interests are tied to the occupation to begin with, as is the case with the strata calling for ending the “militarization’ of the Intifada.

On the other hand, you find the bulk of the people, that is, the toilers of Palestinian society, supporting those groups which stand for and actually practice the armed struggle against Zionists.  This includes Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Brigades, the current within the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine represented by Ahmad Saadat (but not the other currents within the PFLP), and some of the Palestinian organizations based in Syria.  These organizations need not adopt the program or rhetoric of a working class organization.  However, their insistence on the continuation of the armed struggle against the Jewish (no need to veneer it in any other terms) occupation of Palestine to the end, makes that broad current the bloc of true resistance in Palestinian politics that draws to it the toiling masses without qualification.  That is, this block becomes objectively the Paris Commune of Palestinian politics.  Palestinian toilers embrace it because it represents best their long-term interest in the total and complete destruction of the Jewish occupation of Palestine.  That is, they are the most ardent defenders of Palestinian and Arab national rights.

Whether based on first hand knowledge or on opinion surveys, there is no escaping the conclusion that if you combine together the supporters of different groups within the bloc of Palestinian resistance mentioned above, that you will have the majority of Palestinians there; and there is no escaping the corollary that if you have the majority of Palestinians there, then you already have the majority of the supporters of that bloc made up by toilers: the workers, the peasants, the unemployed, the refugee camp dwellers, the youth with bleak future prospects, and all those adopting  uncompromising stances on the national question from other social strata, including truly revolutionary intellectuals and activists. 

It is only with unmitigated pride and unqualified determination that the volunteers of the Free Arab Voice take it upon themselves to do their small part in promoting the line of the bloc of Palestinian resistance and in exposing the futility and the opportunism, or treachery, of the other two currents in Palestinian politics.  After all is said and done, it does not matter whether you sound off Marxist terminology or leftist rhetoric or not.  What matters is this: does your political stance serve or hinder the long-term interest of the oppressed or not?  There is the analytical guillotine which can separate political substance from rhetorical scraps. 

It is not the fault of the toiling masses that they have elected nominally (and sometimes expressly) “less than leftist” organizations and figures for leadership, but the fault of the “leftists”.  When Palestinian “leftist” organizations and figures take stances in the Arab-Zionist struggle that are liberal at best, and when they start promoting the recognition of and coexistence with the Jewish invaders of Palestine as “internationalism”, an “internationalism” that runs contrary to the true internationalism promulgated as shown above by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the toiling masses owe it to themselves NOT to follow “leftists” blindly to the demise of their national rights.  On the contrary, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban communists, to name a few examples, were able to EARN the support of their peoples precisely because they proved to be the best and most ardent defenders of national rights, which as said before, bears no conflict with true internationalism.  By contrast, the organizations of the Palestinian left have CHOSEN to remain marginal by setting up their political camp in a socio-economic zone that lies somewhere in the middle of region that stretches between the elements of the Palestinian compradore, on one hand, and Palestinian toilers, on the other hand.  Thus, as counterintuitive as this may sound, Palestinian “leftists”, with their refusal to take the struggle against the Jewish occupation of Palestine to its brutal end, have turned objectively into a focal point for some of the strata of the petit bourgeoisie: some students, some professionals, and what have you.  Of course all over the world mainstream “leftist” movements have followed a similar course, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  For all their “leftist” rhetoric, though, they have essentially become sincere representatives of that amorphous class, with all its hesitation, discrepancies, pedantic interpretation of text, including Marxist text, and less-than-revolutionary tendencies, except that even the petit bourgeoisie can find better representatives for itself in most cases than leftist-sounding liberals.  Even in the middle zone, the “leftists” cannot compete with Fateh or Hamas.  Hence, they have found themselves in the company of liberal intellectuals as they relegated themselves into a shrinking shell of their imagined revolutionary self, except of course where European and other financing of non-governmental organizations push characters like Dr. Mustafa Barghouti to the fore. 

This is the wretched political strategy of the representatives of the petit bourgeoisie in the Intifada in Palestine: Let’s fight in the land occupied in 1967, but not in “Israel” (as if all of “Israel” is not built on occupied Palestinian land)!  Let’s avoid attacking “Israeli civilians” (as if this particular type of occupation brought along only armies to uproot Palestinians from their land)!   Let’s work on winning over public opinion within the “enemy camp” and in imperialist countries to our side (as if that is possible without inflicting ever-increasing losses on the enemy camp)!

Undecided, wavering, and unable to find themselves completely here or there, the different strata in this class adopt a line, on the average, that is directly proportional to its half-hearted opposition to occupation.  This is not to say that this class likes the occupation, but only that it would like half a revolution to attain half a liberation, so it would only have to pay half the price in blood and tears that suits its midway position between the compradore and the toilers just fine!!!  Unfortunately, this also happens to be the political line of the largest parts of the Palestinian “left”: the Palestinian People’s Party (formerly the Communist Party), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and SOME sections of the PFLP. 

The petit bourgeoisie, of course, has its own representatives, including anarchists, populists, and sincere patriots who happen to fight for sincere compromises with the enemy (serious!  These want compromises that achieve some national goals in exchange for recognizing and accepting “Israel”).  In fact, this latter group describes the petit bourgeoisie the best.  However, the danger of “leftist” representatives of the petit bourgeoisie over its other, non-leftist representatives, is that the “leftists” justify their compromises in ideological terms, whereas the non-leftists justify their compromises in political terms.  The dangers of ideological over political justifications for compromises with the enemy loom large here. Where contradictions are irresolvable EXCEPT through the use of violent force, as with a foreign invasion such as the Jewish occupation of Palestine, political justifications can be easily overturned by changing political reality, say when Zionists make it clear through their practices that they don’t want to have any compromises of any kind, but want capitulation, pure and simple.  On the other hand, those given to ideological justifications of “coexistence”, “Israel”, “wooing the enemy camp”, under pretexts of “internationalism” and what have you, will keep on chanting “we are the world” and telling Jewish invaders of their land that they “have nothing against them as Jews” as the latter go about killing, jailing, blowing up houses, confiscating land, and doing what an occupation does!!  Thus, the ideological syphilis of “compromise with Israel” is much harder to cure than the debilitating political fracture of compromise with “Israel”.

In summary then, there are three class-based positions on the question of the continuation of the armed struggle in all its forms against the Jewish invaders of Palestine:

1)    the position of compradore elements and their allies calling for ending the armed struggle completely,

2)    the position of different strata of the petit bourgeoisie calling for restricting the armed struggle to this or that extent depending on the strata in question,

3)    the position of the large bulk of the toiling masses and their allies calling for the prosecution to the end of the battle to pulverize and tear the occupation to smithereens.

The first camp covers its own sordid narrow interests in the cloak of “ending the militarization of the Intifada in order to alleviate the suffering of the people”.  In fact, these are the ones who suffer least during the Intifada.  The successful attainment of national goals depends on doing away altogether with their power and leadership in the Palestinian liberation movement.

The second camp is very confused, with one leg in each camp.  It is, in fact, the most heterogeneous camp of all.  Yet, as a bulk, it can have revolutionary potential provided the leadership of the liberation movement as a whole is NOT in the hands of its representatives.

The third camp: does not hide any of its true objectives.  But goes for the objective of the total liberation of Palestine by all necessary means without apologies to anyone.  It may have its problems, though, especially with regard to its lack of a coherent strategy based on a scientific understanding of the revolutionary potential it can garner in Palestine and the Arab World, which only a scientific method of analysis and an unwavering leadership can provide.  But at least as far as the long-term objective is concerned, it sticks to principle.  As far as the struggle on the ground is concerned, it constitutes an obstacle to political plans to liquidate the Palestinian cause HERE AND NOW.  At the same time, it keeps bleeding the invader until the larger issues are resolved within the context of the Arab liberation movement as a whole.  

As a side note, some might wonder where the “nationalistic bourgeoisie” has gone in this picture.  But there is NO national bourgeoisie in Palestine or the Arab World, even though there might be national bourgeois elements that do not necessarily constitute a class for itself.  The bourgeoisie, by definition, is the class that owns modern industry.  Third world societies whose industrial revolutions have been preempted by imperialism, therefore, cannot possibly have a bourgeoisie, or a proletariat, in the same sense that a bourgeoisie or a proletariat is discussed in advanced countries.  This doesn’t eliminate class struggle of course.  It just makes this struggle take a different form, a form that is characteristic of dependent and semi-dependent countries that are no longer feudalistic societies, but which are not industrial, or post-industrial, states either.  Of course, as the world economy becomes more globalized, the toilers of the Third World can think of their class struggle more and more as a struggle against the globalized economic elites of the New World Order, one of which happens to be the Jewish elite which happens to be over-represented in the towering heights of the media, finance, and other industries.  But that is a discussion for another article.

Notes:

(1)   For Marx’s book on the Civil War in France, please go to http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/intro.htm

(2)   In fact, that particular chapter on the capitulation of the government of Thiers was the first chapter in the edition on the Civil War in France prepared by Marx a year or so after the defeat of the Paris Commune.  Twenty years later, that is, in 1891, Engels put together another edition of the book that was prefaced with two additional chapters, the first of those was an address by Marx on the Franco-Prussian War, and the second was his address on the Prussian Occupation of France.  Hence, it is obvious that Engels was too of the view that the Paris Commune could only be seen in the historical context of the Franco-Prussian War.

(3)   http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch03.htm

(4)   Ibid

(5)   http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/intro.htm

(6)   http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/neue-rz/nrz60.htm

(7)   Please note that the writer of these lines is originally from BirZeit, in the District of Ramallah. 

(8)   http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/intro.htm

(9)   Ibid