I undertook the translation of this article into Arabic out of a desire to explore opinions and analyses that are unconventional and lesser-known among Arab leftists of all varieties, most of whom rely on Leninist ideas. These opinions and analyses belong to a current known as "ultra-leftist," which was influenced by Rosa Luxemburg’s ideas and her debates with the Leninist position on the necessity of a vanguard party. This current is known as the "councilist" or "Copenhagen" [?] current.
Councilists base their analyses on the idea that the proletariat alone is capable of changing its conditions and, consequently, building socialism. The organization of the proletariat takes place through elected councils in every site of struggle, without a political party usurping or suppressing its role. There is no doubt that councilist analysis is diverse and rich, and their intellectual contributions, which are unknown to many, are significant in understanding the Marxist idea, which tends toward utopianism. This idea remains utopian as long as the proletariat remains unaware and unselfconscious of itself as an exploited class. This consciousness alone is capable of pushing it toward confronting exploitation until it imposes its socialist alternative. The role of the revolutionary intellectual here is not to lead this class or build hierarchical organizational structures to absorb its militant efforts, but rather to play an enlightening role, nothing more.
Why did I translate an article discussing nationalism and socialism, even though Paul Mattick wrote it long ago, in 1959, and some believe that the conditions under which it was written no longer exist? At that time, the world was divided into two camps, and that period heralded the end of old colonialism, among other things. Of course, these are not the same conditions today; many changes have occurred. However, these changes are merely developments in the trajectory and evolution of capitalism, not in its fundamental structure. In other words, history has not shifted significantly in favor of the oppressed or exploited. The changes that have occurred were anticipated by Mattick and others, as capitalism continues its domination over resources, production, and thus the global market in an unprecedented manner. This domination now affects the sovereignty of every country in the world in ways unparalleled in history. It has become impossible for any nationalism to control its resources or pursue its own path of capitalist development without submitting to this globalized control and its standards and requirements. Moreover, the roles within global capitalism have been distributed in a way that ensures the dominance of the capitalist core countries.
Yet, the prevailing leftist thought in our Arab world and in most countries still speaks of self-determination for nations and the necessity of emerging national identities as the inevitable choice to remove obstacles to progress and liberation. We constantly talk about colonialism, even though the only existing colonialism in the world today is the state of Israel. The era of old colonialism, as one manifestation of capitalist imperialism, has ended. This requires us to rethink what is happening from the perspective of the oppressed, not from the perspective of nationalist identities aspired to by a petty bourgeoisie enamored with the rhetoric of the French Revolution or Western bourgeois democratic revolutions.
The issue of the last colonialism, Israel, has led many Arab leftist intellectuals to defend the dictator and his criminal regime in Syria under the pretext of opposing imperialism and Israel as its spearhead. I don’t know where they aim to go with this, knowing that the Assad regime is part of the global capitalist equation. It has not yet normalized relations with Israel, but it has with the United States, and it seeks shelter under Iran, which aspires to play an imperialist role in the region, as well as the Russian mafia. What are the interests of the oppressed in a regime like Assad’s? What has it done to the country to justify keeping Assad in power? Has imperialism been defeated? Will it be defeated? Of course, Assad’s opponents are also culpable and not innocent, and neither side defends the interests of the oppressed in Syria.
There are many examples in our region where Arab leftists are polarized toward one side or another, either with this or that, and justifications are typically made by choosing the lesser evil, as if there are no other options. The option of socialism, even if utopian, is overlooked. It also seems that the Arab leftist elite, across all its spectrums, wishes to remain part of the bourgeois political discourse and can only rise to the podium of this discourse. This is the easy path that may satisfy the desires and ambitions of this elite, which is primarily seeking personal glory rather than influencing the masses. Thus, even if the discourse is leftist, it is not immune to populism and pandering to chauvinistic sentiments at a time when feelings of defeat and despair deepen among the impoverished masses.
In any case, this capitalism—the capitalism of the twenty-first century—suffers from contradictions more than ever before. It now faces a profound, intractable crisis with no radical solutions to ensure its survival and continuity. Perhaps capitalism will collapse one day, but not in the foreseeable future. As for what will replace it—barbarism or socialism? No one knows…
I leave you with Mattick.
As usual, his writing may be shocking, pushing the reader to raise a thousand questions at once. Mattick was known as a catastrophic thinker.
Note: Translation is not my profession, so there may be some errors in the translation, and some parts may not be entirely clear. I tried to convey the ideas into Arabic to the best of my ability. The translation was done from French and cross-checked with the English version due to errors in the French text, as the French translation was done by a non-professional activist translator.
Jamal Abu Yusuf