Discussion:
[Marxism] Alan Wood on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto
Louis Proyect
2007-12-27 18:46:27 UTC
Permalink
http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-assassination-benazir-bhutto271207.htm
Pakistan: The assassination of Benazir Bhutto
By Alan Woods
Thursday, 27 December 2007

Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a suicide bomb attack.

The leader of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) had just addressed a
rally of PPP supporters in the town of Rawalpindi when the attack took
place. First reports talked of at least 100 killed in the attack, but
more recent news put the figure at 15.

This murderous onslaught on the PPP came in the middle of an election
campaign where, after years of military dictatorship, the masses were
striving for a change. There was a wave of support for the PPP, which
was sure to win National and provincial assembly elections that were due
to be held on 8 January 2008.

The campaign was gathering strength, and the PPP Marxist wing was
getting enthusiastic support for its revolutionary socialist message in
places as far apart as Karachi and the tribal areas of Waziristan in the
far north. These elections would have reflected a big shift to the left
in Pakistan. This prospect was causing alarm in the ruling clique. That
is what was behind today's atrocity.

This was a crime against the workers and peasants of Pakistan, a bloody
provocation intended to cancel the elections that the PPP was sure to
win and to provide the excuse for a new clampdown and the possible
reintroduction of martial law and dictatorship. It is a
counterrevolutionary act that must be condemned without reservation.

Who was responsible? The identity of the murderers is not yet known. But
when I asked the comrades in Karachi, the reply was immediate: "it was
the mullahs". The dark forces of counterrevolution in countries like
Pakistan habitually dress up in the garb of Islamic fundamentalism.
There are even rumours in circulation that Benazir was shot from a
mosque, although the western media insist that the murder was the result
of a suicide bomber.

Whatever the technical details of the assassination, and whoever was the
direct agent of this criminal act, the threads of the conspiracy
undoubtedly reach high up. The so-called Islamic fundamentalists and
jihadis are only the puppets and hired assassins of reactionary forces
that ere entrenched in the Pakistani ruling class and the state
apparatus, lavishly funded by the Pakistan Intelligence Services (ISI),
drug barons with connections with the Taliban, and the Saudi regime,
always anxious to support and finance any counterrevolutionary activity
in the world.

The war in Afghanistan is having a ruinous effect on Pakistan. The
Pakistan ruling class had ambitions of dominating the country after the
expulsion of the Russians. The Pakistan army and ISI have been meddling
there for decades. They are still mixed up with the Taliban and the drug
barons (which is the same thing). Huge fortunes are made from the drugs
trade that is poisoning Pakistan and destabilizing its economy, society
and politics.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is just another expression of the
sheer rottenness, degeneration and corruption that is gnawing at the
vitals of Pakistan. The misery of the masses, the poverty, the
injustices, cry out for a solution. The landlords and capitalists have
no solution to this. The workers and peasants looked to the PPP for a
way out.

Some so-called "lefts" will say: But Benazir's programme could not have
provided the way out. The Marxists in the PPP are fighting for the
programme of socialism - for the original programme of the PPP. But the
masses can only learn which programme and policies are correct through
their own experience.

The January elections would have give the masses an opportunity to
advance at least one step in the right direction, by inflicting a
decisive defeat on the forces of reaction and dictatorship. Then they
would have had the possibility of learning about programmes and
policies, not in theory but in practice.

Now it seems most likely that they will be denied this opportunity. The
purpose of this criminal provocation is quite clear: to cancel the
elections. I have not yet seen the response of the Pakistan authorities,
but it would be unthinkable that the elections could now take place on 8
January. They will be at least postponed for some time.

What effect will this have upon the masses? I have just spoken on the
phone to the comrades of The Struggle in Karachi, where they have been
battling the reactionary thugs of the MQM in a fierce election campaign.
They tell me that there is a general feeling of shock among the masses.
"People are weeping and women are wailing in their houses: I can hear
them now," the comrade said.

But the shock is already turning into anger: "There is rioting in the
streets of Karachi and other cities. People are blocking the roads and
burning tires." That is a warning to the ruling class that the patience
of the masses is now exhausted. The movement of the masses cannot be
halted by the assassination of one leaser - or by a thousand.

The masses always adhere to their traditional mass organizations. The
PPP developed in the heat of the revolutionary movement of 1968-9, when
the workers and peasants came close to taking power.

The dictator Zia murdered Benazir's father. That did not prevent the
resurrection of the PPP in the 1980s. The forces of state terrorism
murdered Benazir's brother, Murtazar. Then they exiled Benazir and
installed a new dictatorship. That did not prevent the PPP from
experiencing a new resurrection when 2-3 million people came onto the
streets to welcome her back.

The masses will recover from the momentary shock and grief. These
emotions will be replaced in time by anger and the desire for revenge.
But what is needed is not individual revenge, but collective revenge.
What is needed is to prepare the masses for a new revolutionary
offensive that will tackle the problems of Pakistan by the roots.

The ruling clique may delay the date of the elections, but sooner or
later they will have to be called. The reactionaries calculate that the
removal of Benazir will weaken the PPP. That is a serious
miscalculation! The PPP cannot be reduced to a single individual. If
that were true. It would have disappeared after the judicial murder of
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The PPP is not one individual, It is the organized expression of the
will of the masses to change society. It is the three million who came
on the streets to greet Benazir's return. It is the tens of millions
more who were preparing to vote for a change in the January elections.
These millions are now mourning. But they will not mourn forever. They
will find effective ways of struggle to make their voice heard.

The masses must protest the murder of the PPP leader through a national
protest movement: mass rallies, strikes, protest demonstrations,
culminating in a general strike. They must raise the banner of
democracy. Against dictatorship! No more martial law! Call new elections
immediately!

The PPP leadership must not capitulate to any pressure to delay the
elections. Call the national and provisional elections! Let the people's
voice be heard! Above all, the PPP must return its original programme
and principles.

In the PPP's founding programme is inscribed the aim of the socialist
transformation of society. It includes the nationalization of the land,
banks and industries under workers control, the replacement of the
standing army by a workers and peasants militia. These ideas are as
correct and relevant today as when they were first written!

There is nothing easier than to take the life of a man or a woman. We
humans are frail creatures and easily killed. But you cannot murder an
idea whose time has come!
Joaquin Bustelo
2007-12-28 00:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Alan Woods says, about the murder of Bhutto: <<Who was responsible? The
identity of the murderers is not yet known. But when I asked the comrades in
Karachi, the reply was immediate: "it was the mullahs". The dark forces of
counterrevolution in countries like Pakistan habitually dress up in the garb
of Islamic fundamentalism.>>

I found this part of Woods's article disquieting. Because aren't "The dark
forces of counterrevolution in countries like Pakistan" actually the CIA?
And doesn't a lot of the resistance to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan
"habitually dress up in the garb of Islamic fundamentalism"?

Yet my impression was that imperialism was rather favorably disposed towards
Bhutto, in a "lesser evil" kind of way, given how politically weak
Musharraff (who I thought has been clearly "their boy") had become. I really
would like to read a fuller explanation from someone who understands what is
going on there.

That said, given the whole imperialist ideological framework of a war of
civilizations, and the liberal cover for this as a crusade against
"Islamo-fascism," doesn't that sort of argue against adopting the kind of
tone and stance implicit in statements like "it was the mullahs," especially
in an article addressed to a "Western" audience? Or am I missing something
here?

Joaquin
Ed George
2007-12-28 20:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Pretty much par for the course for this imperialist economist sect, I
would have thought.




Joaqu?n Bustelo writes (with reason):

Alan Woods says, about the murder of Bhutto: <<Who was responsible? The
identity of the murderers is not yet known. But when I asked the
comrades in
Karachi, the reply was immediate: "it was the mullahs". The dark forces
of
counterrevolution in countries like Pakistan habitually dress up in the
garb
of Islamic fundamentalism.>>

I found this part of Woods's article disquieting.
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
or over the web
gary.maclennan
2007-12-29 00:04:44 UTC
Permalink
I am far from being an expert on Pakistan, and so much of the detail that is
necessary for a full understanding of that country is missing. Howe ver in
general terms the assassination of Benaizir Bhutto might be worth commenting
on. To begin with the question of "who did it?" has to be left aside. There
is simply no way someone like me could ever solve that particular conundrum,
and truly I do not want to even think about it. I do however agree with the
criticism that it is overly simple to say "The Mullahs did it"

What I feel is at work however is the central struggle between the two
varieties of modernity ? socialist or capitalist. Briefly and very
schematically I am inclined to read history of the 20th C as the struggle
by the USA, the avatars of capitalist modernity, to defeat the very
possibility of socialist modernity represented primarily if imperfectly by
the Soviet Union. To accomplish their victory the USA had to enlist the
forces of anti-modernity eg The Catholic Church and of course reactionary
Islamic elements. Having overcome the possibility of socialist modernity,
the task then emerged of winding back those elements who had been crucial to
the victory. In some ways that can be seen as the central struggle of the
21st century. It is also known as the "war on terror". Why the need though
to take on the former allies? Well of course it is precisely because they
do not fit the profile needed for the spread of a thorough going capitalist
modernity. The Manifesto is quite brilliant here in its description of the
radical and revolutionary nature of capitalism and how it profanes all that
is sacred etc. So in many ways following the collapse of socialist
modernity, what we are seeing is business as usual.

Now where does poor Benazir come into all this? Well and here I will
confess to being far from certain of my ground, the central contradiction of
Pakistan is that the social base of the military dictatorship is precisely
those reactionary forces who were once useful if distasteful allies in the
struggle against socialist modernity and now stand in the way of capitalist
modernity. The other side of the contradiction is of course that the
military dictatorship has been the loyal ally of the USA. So people like
Musharaff are trapped. They are facing demands from their American bosses
to comply with the imperatives of capitalist modernity, while their support
base is screaming out against this.



This is where Beanzir came in. Someone in Washington hatched the brilliant
plan of trying a cedar/purple/green/whatever revolution in Pakistan. These
had been successful in the former Soviet arena. However to do so they had
to find a figure who mobilize the social forces that would pour onto the
streets in support of democracy (ie capitalist modernity by any other name).
Bhutto was the obvious choice here and she was more than willing to be as
she put it to Tariq Ali on the "right side of history".

Between the Americans, the Military and Bhutto was an agreement to provide
the secular revolution that was to clip the wings of the traditional
Islamicists and former allies in Pakistan. Benazir was to provide the foot
soldiers for the revolution. The Military were there to supply any muscle
that might be needed and also to make sure the secularists did not get out
of control.



In effect Bhutto had agreed to a partnership, but it was one that she had
trouble is selling to her base. Especially when her supposed partners used
the state of emergency to smash the very forces that were to power the
secular revolution that was to rein in the traditionalists. True at the same
time the military invaded the Red Mosque to provide a bit of balance.

So we had then a three way deal ? the USA, the Military Dictatorship and
Benazir Bhutto. My guess and it is only a guess that of the three partners
to this deal only Benazir was totally committed. I can understand the
ambivalences of the Musharraf camp. Benazir's base consists of their class
enemies and of course they wanted to cling to power. But it is more
difficult to analyse the ambiguities underlying the American approach. It
is very tempting to resort to the category of "stupid" to describe
everything the Bush camp does. However I am inclined to think that elements
within the Bush side truly feared the forces that might be unleashed by a
successful secular revolution; after all the Americans have spent a good 60
years fighting secular forces in Islamic countries. That also meant among
other things that they did not provide the security needed to protect
Bhutto. Contrast their approach to guarding Karzai!
In any case the deal is now off. Those in the Bush camp that wanted to build
some kind of secular revolution to hold back "Islamic extremism" have had a
severe defeat.

regards

Gary
Charles Brown
2007-12-28 19:44:53 UTC
Permalink
I found this part of Woods's article disquieting. Because aren't "The
dark
forces of counterrevolution in countries like Pakistan" actually the
CIA?
And doesn't a lot of the resistance to the U.S. in Iraq and
Afghanistan
"habitually dress up in the garb of Islamic fundamentalism"?

Yet my impression was that imperialism was rather favorably disposed
towards
Bhutto, in a "lesser evil" kind of way, given how politically weak
Musharraff (who I thought has been clearly "their boy") had become. I
really
would like to read a fuller explanation from someone who understands
what is
going on there.

That said, given the whole imperialist ideological framework of a war
of
civilizations, and the liberal cover for this as a crusade against
"Islamo-fascism," doesn't that sort of argue against adopting the kind
of
tone and stance implicit in statements like "it was the mullahs,"
especially
in an article addressed to a "Western" audience? Or am I missing
something
here?

Joaquin

^^^^^

CB: I don't know if you are missing anything, but this particular
assassination may have been organized by some of the mullahs, and not
the CIA , since, there seems to be some evidence, as you say, that the
US (and therefore the CIA) supported Bhutto.
Marvin Gandall
2007-12-31 18:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Charles Brown writes:

[...]
Post by Joaquin Bustelo
That said, given the whole imperialist ideological framework of a war
of
civilizations, and the liberal cover for this as a crusade against
"Islamo-fascism," doesn't that sort of argue against adopting the kind
of
tone and stance implicit in statements like "it was the mullahs,"
especially
in an article addressed to a "Western" audience? Or am I missing
something
here?
Joaquin
^^^^^
CB: I don't know if you are missing anything, but this particular
assassination may have been organized by some of the mullahs, and not
the CIA , since, there seems to be some evidence, as you say, that the
US (and therefore the CIA) supported Bhutto.
==========================================
The Pakistani military and security establishment is divided between those
like Musharraf who have aligned themselves with the US and those still
sympathetic to the Taliban, so this may well have been a joint operation
organized by "rogue elements" in the ISI and militant civilian Islamists.
Both groups would have been the most threatened by a new Bhutto government
pledged to a crackdown on "terrorists" and their allies in the army. I
expect many in Pakistan and elsewhere favour this theory.

Loading...