Structural defects that excluded the left from regime change

0
68


The dramatic explosion of Beirut Port has cast a black shadow over the Lebanese political and social scene, with its unfortunate and negative repercussions that led, in what led to it, to the resignation of Hassan Diab’s government, and Lebanon plunged into the most severe and worst crisis in its modern history at all levels.This tragedy, with its multifaceted reality, pushed me to extrapolate and evoke historical and present joints about the entirety of the political components of the Lebanese society, which brought the material and moral system to its intractable dilemma and solutions. Here, I find myself presenting and reviewing the complexity of the Lebanese political conflict, in light of my belief that what is happening in Lebanon is happening like it, even in different forms and manifestations, in international regions and societies that are witnessing bloody and peaceful conflicts at times.
The essence of these conflicts and confrontations lies in the growing severity of the crises of the global capitalist system, with its wings and components that produce themselves and re-export them to their societies.
What is prevalent over the course of the dynamics of the world, the escalation of social and economic crises, including the intensification of the paths of class struggles with their alignments and contradictions, which are the focus of all this: the societal division in politics and economics. In a past time, in the days of the Cold War between East and West, all of this was expressed with tools and means of conflict that manifested according to the foundations of the divisions that exist between the forces of the left and the right, and the branches and alignments between them: the center right, the center left, the far right and left …
I see that the essence of the political scene in the world has not changed, even if it has taken on different forms and methods – there are left, right and center with various parties and nomenclatures that continued their divisions, and in many cases, they took on new names, while many of them kept their old names.
In Lebanon, and here is the bottom line, the political scene is still repeated and hereditary. But it differs from societal developments in other international theaters. It is worth noting that his societal forces confronted globalization, and the ensuing disappearance of the eastern and western camps, with shifting class tools. The princes of the civil war and the repercussions of this war, from what was called the right and the left, entered the core of the emerging class formations. Here, things got mixed up and transformed. The elements of these forces included agents of companies and Fabark, arms dealers, political middlemen during the cessation of the fighting, middlemen, new family political fiefdoms, mafias, bosses and bank middlemen, neighborhood leaders and militia detachments, etc.
The Old Left and the Reality of Transformations
The observation of the development of affairs in the forces of the Lebanese left, with its branches and groupings, leads me to ask: Are all or some of these forces the same that resulted from the historicism of the experience of domination and rule of the national movement before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and after? The answer may of course be no, and of course yes! It is an “uncle.”

Modern Lebanon has been in crisis since its inception, and it is currently undergoing a turbulent popular uprising

There is no doubt that many waterfalls have flowed and flowed since that date on our political and societal reality. Some of them plunged into the land and disappeared, and some floated to the surface of events, revealing flowers, roses and interests, which spread to Lebanon and the rest of the world.
Returning to the topic of the article … Why was the left unable to lead it, or play an influential role in the process of seeking to change the clientelistic sectarian system in Lebanon? Another legitimate question is why were the configurations that called themselves left-wing, or are really left-wing in their starting points and actions, to frame themselves in a change movement with a clear and understandable program, and to address it to a part of the people who have an interest in that? As for the more realistic and logical question: Why did the Lebanese Communist Party not play, while it still kept its name and did not change it, this role, which is qualified because of its history and continuity to perform this task? This question is also true for parties and movements that, in their recent history, during and after the national movement, were Nasserite, nationalist and even Marxist, and we do not see them at present present or have an effective influence within the movement and formations of the dominant or secular leftist groups as a whole.
minimum. The answer to these questions requires a brief dive into the explanation of the structural defects that led to what led to it to exclude or hinder the work of these parties in the struggle and fruitful mobility. Here, I highlight two organizations, the Communist Party and the Organization for Communist Action. Note that there are many branches that emerged from them in different organizational forms, but they disappeared or wanted to retreat … then they disappear. The activism of these two organizations, in the uprising of October 17, 2019, seemed limited. The Communist Party may be the most active of them, but the other leftist factions, which are widespread in abundance, may have acquired some of its movement.

Glitches and obstacles
We can, here, notice that the unpopularity of these two parties with other left-wing forces has its causes, and of course its consequences. In the forefront of this matter is the historical flaw that the Lebanese Communist Party faced in its struggle. It was never revolutionary, but rather it oscillated, in varying and frequent degrees, between reform and populism. In its old history full of lost positions, given the political mistakes committed, it was obscured by its secret struggles that did not prevent a mass flourishing, except with the onset of the civil war. Although the political climate that prevailed in a period of eras was an incitement to uprising in preparation for revolutionary action, the party, under its historical leadership at the time of the martyr George Hawi, did not follow this path, but rather ventured into it to the point of retreat and contentment, and defeat. It is true that he called for resistance to Israel, and this is a wonderful position, but this resistance did not continue. That is an issue that I will talk about. When Martyr George left the party’s secretariat, in the early 1990s, things looked like a captain leaving a ship that was about to sink. Thus, the party faced the post-“Taif” era. Conflicts and scattering of powers, ambiguity in strategy, despair, opportunism, etc …
I will not dwell on the stage of the national movement and the losses of the sectarian war camouflaged by disappointed populist and liberation slogans. It is a phase that has passed. The Communist Party, the Organization, and the many adventurous and childish forces of Marxism were struck to the core.
After that, the Communist Party has been experiencing one crisis after another, and there is no return to any serious assessment or accountability to review what happened, and the possibility of correcting matters and following the compass, as a historical party that was supposed to lead the country to its salvation. As for the resistance against the Israeli occupier, it is here that the fatal damage is inflicted on him. He called for resistance and fought in it just as other Marxist and nationalist forces did, but after it was consumed by the era of the civil war, which took a lot from its ideological, political and material assets. This is what led, due to his internal structural obstacles, as well as external ones, to his inability to continue with them, which would have been if the tree of his salvation had continued, he would rise and renew himself: with promising masses and revolutionary visions. It turned out later that liberating the land was the people’s wish.
These obstacles, and let us admit that they came as a result of the lack of planning and anticipation for the greatest, and the waging of harmful side wars, which afflicted it with something like rickets, which gave the opportunistic current within it, which has been present in the international communist movement since its foundation, an opportunity and possibility to exploit the crisis and jump towards the bid and turn to the right, and join the axes Arab and foreign. The Lebanese Communist Party, as well as the Communist Action Organization, were not able to exploit their struggle against the Zionist occupier. This is because their dilapidated structure and weakness, and their practical and strategic political line based on lost assumptions and fluctuations, made them almost absent from a society transforming with new standards and contents, and new forces within the framework of a remarkable and rapid growth of Islamic currents, and the restraint of Arab regimes in their mobility.
The capabilities of the party, as well as the organization, and other national forces resisting Israel, would not have allowed it to play the role of a permanent fighter in its resistance to a usurper enemy within a long-term plan. On the other hand, in a suitable atmosphere and climates, it was natural for the Islamic forces to escalate the resistance. And especially here, Hezbollah, which was organized, was young, and by its call, it attracted hundreds of resistance fighters, but thousands of them. This party, and with it, the Amal Movement, managed to secure a place for them in the leadership of a broad current and played a decisive and decisive role the day after liberation, and even before it.
As for the Communist Party, with its current reality, it has lost this very important historical lever, which is the resistance, and its effects, which will remain decisive in the framework of renewing the Lebanese system and resisting the ambitions of Israel and the roles of the brutal imperialist capitalist forces externally and internally, have been removed from it, with their pivotal regional and international effects.
The Communist Party and the remaining embryonic or old leftist groupings have been isolated from the mechanisms of effective and influential political action in a globalized country with brutal economic foundations based on establishing the avarice of the owners of capital with their technical, informational, cultural, educational and social tributaries. In a new reality like this, sects and sects shared power and governance, as part of a political quota system, and the Communist Party and the Left lost, due to the weakness of their structure and capabilities, any serious effectiveness in influencing the change or even modification of what exists.
It is not surprising that groups that call themselves civil society, some of them real, others fake, suspicious and paid, have taken the lead in the struggle after the October 17 uprising, to lead change. This is the utmost irony in an ongoing historical reality of conflict.
Modern Lebanon has been in crisis since its inception, and it is currently experiencing a turbulent popular uprising. Many are working to cook its movement and have diversified in terms of intentions, purposes and belonging, and it suffers from a crisis of program and credibility of leadership outside opportunistic frameworks. But the pain is great and the crisis is old, the basis of which is the misery of formation and development.
The old colonialism, the British as well as the French, is undoubtedly responsible for this fate, and the United States of America is the “head of imperialism” that is smoking poison in fat. They are the most responsible in our time for corruption and protection for those who have an economic and political role. Within its confinement, the misdeeds and damages of a parasitic class of “brokers”, under the rubric of free economy and in its name, were established.
In the basis of the formation and formation of Lebanon, the French mandate in 1926 sponsored the sorting of a parliamentary committee that prepared the constitution, and was directly inspired by the constitution of the French Third Republic that emanated from some of the principles of the French Revolution. But before that, it worked, with colonial motives, to establish the conspiracy of the British colonial ministers, Sykes, and Pico of France, to divide the region according to the interests of their respective countries.
It is true that this constitution guaranteed the equality of the Lebanese before the law in civil and political rights and personal freedoms, as well as belief, but upon implementation it overlooked some restrictions, thus establishing sectarianism instead of the civil state, and it was subject to the opposition of religious groups in the consecration of Articles 9 and 10 and Article 95, and the latter. It provided for the fair representation of sects in the ministry and public administration. Few know that this article came at the request of the Muslim representatives in the periphery.
I am afraid that the outside, especially France, will be able to establish new rules for the conflict after the resignation of Hassan Diab, who founded it, a new betrayal of Lebanon in the name of striking and resisting corruption, and then weeping over the ruins of the disaster of the destruction of Beirut’s port, with a return at the level of the system, to new class formations of forces with names The class lineups of the right and left, when in reality are the masks encapsulated to renew this system.
* Lebanese politician and writer

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube Here





LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here