Post by Onyango Oloo on Oct 2, 2017 16:23:35 GMT 3
Part One of a Digital Essay by Onyango Oloo
Since I am not a Christian, but a Communist, I will begin this digital essay by quoting from some well known Marxist-Leninist teachers of mine.
The first one is from Asia.
And no, I am not talking about Mao.
I am going to Vietnam and I will not borrow words from their prophet, Ho Chi Minh, whose mausoleum I visited when I was in Hanoi in September 2007.
Instead I am referring to the country’s greatest ideologue Le Duan.
In a book put out in the USA in the early seventies, he wrote:
...Far from pinning our hopes on antagonisms within the ranks of the enemy, we are fully aware that the development of these contradictions and the extent to which they be capitalized upon are in the last analysis determined by the strength of the revolution. The experience of all genuine popular revolutions shows that the stronger the revolutionary forces become and the higher the revolutionary tide rises, the more the enemy’s ranks are torn by contradictions and are likely to split. Ultimately the time comes when these conflicts have grown so exacerbated as to render impossible all compromise between the various enemy factions. This constitutes one of the unmistakable signs of the maturity of the revolutionary situation. The revolution then breaks out and the enemy’s rule is overthrown in decisive battles...
The victory of the revolution depends primarily on a correct determination of the general orientation and strategic objective, as well as the specific orientation and objective for each period.
But just as important as defining the orientation and objective is the problem of how to carry them into effect once such decisions are made.
What road should be followed? What forms should be adopted? What measures should be used?
Experience has shown that a revolutionary movement may mark time, or even fail, not for lack of clearly defined orientations and objectives, but essentially because there have been no appropriate principles and methods of revolutionary action. Methods of revolutionary action are devised to defeat the enemy of the revolution, and in the most advantageous way, so that the revolution may attain its ends as quickly as possible. Here one also needs wisdom as well as courage; it is not only a science, but also an art. Decisions over methods of revolutionary action require, more than in any other field, that the revolutionary maintain the highest creative spirit. Revolution is creation; it cannot succeed without imagination and ingenuity. There has never been nor will there ever be a unique formula for making a revolution that is suited to all situations. One given method may be adaptable to a certain country but unsuitable in another. A correct method in certain times and circumstances may be erroneous in other situations. Everything depends on the concrete historical conditions...
It is a matter of principle that either in the daily policies or in the practice of revolutionary struggle... a revolutionary should never lose sight of the final goal. If one considers the fight for small daily gains and immediate targets as ‘everything’ and views the final goal as ‘nothing’... then one displays the worst kind of opportunism which can only result in keeping the popular masses in eternal servitude. However, it is by no means sufficient to comprehend only the final objective. While keeping in mind the revolutionary goal, the art of revolutionary leadership lies in knowing how to win judiciously step by step. Revolution is the work of millions of popular masses standing up to overthrow the ruling classes, which command powerful means of violence together with other material and spiritual forces. That is why a revolution is always a long-term process. From the initial steps to the final victory, a revolution necessarily goes through many difficult and complex stages of struggle full of twists and bends, clearing one obstacle after another and gradually changing the relation of forces between the revolution and the counter-revolution until overwhelming superiority is achieved over the ruling classes...”
This is from The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems and Essential Tasks, New World Paperbacks, New York, 1971, pp 22-27.
And the guru himself, Lenin said:
“...The more powerful enemy can be conquered only by exerting the utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skilfully taking advantage of any, even the smallest, ‘rift’ among the enemies...by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional...”
That quote is from Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder, International Publishers, New York, 1940, p.50.[/b][/u]
My first and second reading is a way of introducing my revolutionary “sermon” tentatively entitled “Has Kenya Arrived at a Revolutionary Situation?”
Speaking of which, when does one talk of a “revolutionary situation”?
Instead of rummaging my brain, let us remember these immortal words:
When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes,” a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses…
That is Vladimir Lenin writing in his work, The Collapse of the Second International.
Mind you, Lenin was talking here of the OBJECTIVE conditions of a revolutionary crisis.
There is a missing ingredient: the SUBJECTIVE factor.
I will come to that shortly.
But why am I at the lectern, uninvited, giving this “sermon” in the first place?
Well, I am a Kenyan and activist for that matter.
I have been following Kenyan news developments for the last little while. If I did not have revolutionary beliefs and commitment I could easily have been in depression by now, so bleak have been the developments. Those of you who follow my postings on Facebook can bear witness to the plethora of updates on Boinett, Matiangi, Kuria, Ruto, Amina Mohammed, Chiloba, Murathe, Uhuru and the rest of the Jubilee gang. You have all seen Youtube updates on the fascist, bloody police carnage on innocent university students, cops stealing phones during Babu Owino’s court appearance and just the other day, the death of a University of Nairobi student. We have all followed NASA and its campaigns to have a level playing field and clean up of IEBC before the Supreme Court ordered Presidential rerun.
My question today for my fellow Kenyans is this:
Do we have a “revolutionary situation” in the country?
And my answer is a simple, if slightly convoluted one:
Yes.
And No.
Allow me to explain.
First, if we use the OBJECTIVE yardstick given by Lenin, which to remind my readers:
When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes,” a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses…
If you look at what is going on in the country, OBJECTIVELY, then absolutely the answer is YES, there is a “revolutionary crisis” obtaining in Kenya.
But this is a shingo-upande PARTIAL answer to the question.
Because of the SECOND component:
The SUBJECTIVE conditions.
What do I mean?
The late Comrade Mzala, a South African revolutionary who was a member of Umkkhoto we Sizwe armed wing of the ANC and also a stalwart of the South African Commuist Party whose work I used to follow in the SACP journal African Communist once wrote an article that I still remember called “Armed Struggle in South Africa.”
I will quote the part which is relevant for this essay:
To accomplish a revolution there must be real forces and ripe subjective conditions. The subjective conditions for the revolution exist when the progressive forces have the ability to take conscious revolutionary action with a view to overthrowing the old system and establishing a new one. If there are no such forces, the moment may be lost – if the subjective forces are insufficiently ripe, the revolution will suffer defeat. In concrete terms, the existence of a clear leadership (by clear leadership I mean those leaders who are the genuine representatives of the working people not only in theory but in actuality) with material resources at its disposal to spark off and sustain operations is an imperative. That the operations have to be sustained is absolutely imperative because spontaneous, isolated action (no matter how well-meaning) is not enough to achieve victory in the revolution. It is vital that the movement demonstrate that it has come to stay. Only then can it give the people confidence and the ability to see possibilities.
Isolated and unco-ordinated activities finally play into the hands of the enemy who tries to deceive the people that the guerrillas are a scared, desperate and gangster-like lot who are afraid of the state security forces. An isolated in a country like South Africa, for instance, is easily drowned in the daily sensational issues in the country many of which are created by criminal gangs.
An assessment of the maturity of the subjective factors at this stage of the revolution must ascertain not only the readiness of the vanguard movement and its political leadership, but also the material possibilities to sustain the struggle till the masses are able to shift from being mere supporters to being active participants in the revolution. The latter factor, because of its mechanical nature, is very easy to ascertain and also to provide (given the presence of the socialist community as well as the enemy resources within the country), but the former can only be tested in practice and not only in theory – for only practice is the criterion of truth. Political forces of revolution are formed and tested in the flames of political struggle on the basis of practical experience accumulated by the masses. The masses themselves are genuinely organised by the struggle itself.
Clearly in Kenya, in terms of struggle we are further from South Africa than the geographical distance between Nairobi and Johannesburg.
In the first place, instead of COSATU we have COTU.
And in the second place, NASA is no SACP.
With all due respect, Raila Odinga is a far cry from Chris Hani nor is Kalonzo Musyoka no Joe Slovo.
I say this with NO DISRESPECT intended.
So what is to be done in Kenya then?
The OBJECTIVE conditions point to a “revolutionary situation” while SUBJECTIVELY, the conditions are not there.
Do we give up and pray for a political messiah to appear miraculously?
No.
I think not.
I will explore the options in Part Two of this digital essay.
Since I am not a Christian, but a Communist, I will begin this digital essay by quoting from some well known Marxist-Leninist teachers of mine.
The first one is from Asia.
And no, I am not talking about Mao.
I am going to Vietnam and I will not borrow words from their prophet, Ho Chi Minh, whose mausoleum I visited when I was in Hanoi in September 2007.
Instead I am referring to the country’s greatest ideologue Le Duan.
In a book put out in the USA in the early seventies, he wrote:
...Far from pinning our hopes on antagonisms within the ranks of the enemy, we are fully aware that the development of these contradictions and the extent to which they be capitalized upon are in the last analysis determined by the strength of the revolution. The experience of all genuine popular revolutions shows that the stronger the revolutionary forces become and the higher the revolutionary tide rises, the more the enemy’s ranks are torn by contradictions and are likely to split. Ultimately the time comes when these conflicts have grown so exacerbated as to render impossible all compromise between the various enemy factions. This constitutes one of the unmistakable signs of the maturity of the revolutionary situation. The revolution then breaks out and the enemy’s rule is overthrown in decisive battles...
The victory of the revolution depends primarily on a correct determination of the general orientation and strategic objective, as well as the specific orientation and objective for each period.
But just as important as defining the orientation and objective is the problem of how to carry them into effect once such decisions are made.
What road should be followed? What forms should be adopted? What measures should be used?
Experience has shown that a revolutionary movement may mark time, or even fail, not for lack of clearly defined orientations and objectives, but essentially because there have been no appropriate principles and methods of revolutionary action. Methods of revolutionary action are devised to defeat the enemy of the revolution, and in the most advantageous way, so that the revolution may attain its ends as quickly as possible. Here one also needs wisdom as well as courage; it is not only a science, but also an art. Decisions over methods of revolutionary action require, more than in any other field, that the revolutionary maintain the highest creative spirit. Revolution is creation; it cannot succeed without imagination and ingenuity. There has never been nor will there ever be a unique formula for making a revolution that is suited to all situations. One given method may be adaptable to a certain country but unsuitable in another. A correct method in certain times and circumstances may be erroneous in other situations. Everything depends on the concrete historical conditions...
It is a matter of principle that either in the daily policies or in the practice of revolutionary struggle... a revolutionary should never lose sight of the final goal. If one considers the fight for small daily gains and immediate targets as ‘everything’ and views the final goal as ‘nothing’... then one displays the worst kind of opportunism which can only result in keeping the popular masses in eternal servitude. However, it is by no means sufficient to comprehend only the final objective. While keeping in mind the revolutionary goal, the art of revolutionary leadership lies in knowing how to win judiciously step by step. Revolution is the work of millions of popular masses standing up to overthrow the ruling classes, which command powerful means of violence together with other material and spiritual forces. That is why a revolution is always a long-term process. From the initial steps to the final victory, a revolution necessarily goes through many difficult and complex stages of struggle full of twists and bends, clearing one obstacle after another and gradually changing the relation of forces between the revolution and the counter-revolution until overwhelming superiority is achieved over the ruling classes...”
This is from The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems and Essential Tasks, New World Paperbacks, New York, 1971, pp 22-27.
And the guru himself, Lenin said:
“...The more powerful enemy can be conquered only by exerting the utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skilfully taking advantage of any, even the smallest, ‘rift’ among the enemies...by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional...”
That quote is from Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder, International Publishers, New York, 1940, p.50.[/b][/u]
My first and second reading is a way of introducing my revolutionary “sermon” tentatively entitled “Has Kenya Arrived at a Revolutionary Situation?”
Speaking of which, when does one talk of a “revolutionary situation”?
Instead of rummaging my brain, let us remember these immortal words:
When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes,” a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses…
That is Vladimir Lenin writing in his work, The Collapse of the Second International.
Mind you, Lenin was talking here of the OBJECTIVE conditions of a revolutionary crisis.
There is a missing ingredient: the SUBJECTIVE factor.
I will come to that shortly.
But why am I at the lectern, uninvited, giving this “sermon” in the first place?
Well, I am a Kenyan and activist for that matter.
I have been following Kenyan news developments for the last little while. If I did not have revolutionary beliefs and commitment I could easily have been in depression by now, so bleak have been the developments. Those of you who follow my postings on Facebook can bear witness to the plethora of updates on Boinett, Matiangi, Kuria, Ruto, Amina Mohammed, Chiloba, Murathe, Uhuru and the rest of the Jubilee gang. You have all seen Youtube updates on the fascist, bloody police carnage on innocent university students, cops stealing phones during Babu Owino’s court appearance and just the other day, the death of a University of Nairobi student. We have all followed NASA and its campaigns to have a level playing field and clean up of IEBC before the Supreme Court ordered Presidential rerun.
My question today for my fellow Kenyans is this:
Do we have a “revolutionary situation” in the country?
And my answer is a simple, if slightly convoluted one:
Yes.
And No.
Allow me to explain.
First, if we use the OBJECTIVE yardstick given by Lenin, which to remind my readers:
When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes,” a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses…
If you look at what is going on in the country, OBJECTIVELY, then absolutely the answer is YES, there is a “revolutionary crisis” obtaining in Kenya.
But this is a shingo-upande PARTIAL answer to the question.
Because of the SECOND component:
The SUBJECTIVE conditions.
What do I mean?
The late Comrade Mzala, a South African revolutionary who was a member of Umkkhoto we Sizwe armed wing of the ANC and also a stalwart of the South African Commuist Party whose work I used to follow in the SACP journal African Communist once wrote an article that I still remember called “Armed Struggle in South Africa.”
I will quote the part which is relevant for this essay:
To accomplish a revolution there must be real forces and ripe subjective conditions. The subjective conditions for the revolution exist when the progressive forces have the ability to take conscious revolutionary action with a view to overthrowing the old system and establishing a new one. If there are no such forces, the moment may be lost – if the subjective forces are insufficiently ripe, the revolution will suffer defeat. In concrete terms, the existence of a clear leadership (by clear leadership I mean those leaders who are the genuine representatives of the working people not only in theory but in actuality) with material resources at its disposal to spark off and sustain operations is an imperative. That the operations have to be sustained is absolutely imperative because spontaneous, isolated action (no matter how well-meaning) is not enough to achieve victory in the revolution. It is vital that the movement demonstrate that it has come to stay. Only then can it give the people confidence and the ability to see possibilities.
Isolated and unco-ordinated activities finally play into the hands of the enemy who tries to deceive the people that the guerrillas are a scared, desperate and gangster-like lot who are afraid of the state security forces. An isolated in a country like South Africa, for instance, is easily drowned in the daily sensational issues in the country many of which are created by criminal gangs.
An assessment of the maturity of the subjective factors at this stage of the revolution must ascertain not only the readiness of the vanguard movement and its political leadership, but also the material possibilities to sustain the struggle till the masses are able to shift from being mere supporters to being active participants in the revolution. The latter factor, because of its mechanical nature, is very easy to ascertain and also to provide (given the presence of the socialist community as well as the enemy resources within the country), but the former can only be tested in practice and not only in theory – for only practice is the criterion of truth. Political forces of revolution are formed and tested in the flames of political struggle on the basis of practical experience accumulated by the masses. The masses themselves are genuinely organised by the struggle itself.
Clearly in Kenya, in terms of struggle we are further from South Africa than the geographical distance between Nairobi and Johannesburg.
In the first place, instead of COSATU we have COTU.
And in the second place, NASA is no SACP.
With all due respect, Raila Odinga is a far cry from Chris Hani nor is Kalonzo Musyoka no Joe Slovo.
I say this with NO DISRESPECT intended.
So what is to be done in Kenya then?
The OBJECTIVE conditions point to a “revolutionary situation” while SUBJECTIVELY, the conditions are not there.
Do we give up and pray for a political messiah to appear miraculously?
No.
I think not.
I will explore the options in Part Two of this digital essay.
