Chapter 86 Chapter 15 The Third World and Revolution 4

4 The tradition of the social revolution in October 1917 has long been lost—some even believe that even the ancestor of the revolution, the tradition of the French Jacobin party in 1793 has been completely lost—but the social and political turmoil that contributed to the outbreak of the revolution has always existed, The volcano of social unrest remains active. In the early 1970s, the golden age of capitalism came to an end, and a new wave of revolution began to sweep through most parts of the world.Then, in the 1980s, there was a crisis in the Western Communist bloc, which eventually led to their bankruptcy in 1989.

Although most of the revolutionary events in the 1970s took place in the third world, in fact their geographical distribution and political system involved a very wide range.Surprisingly, the opening of the prologue happened first in Europe: in April 1974, Portugal, the longest-lived right-wing regime in continental Europe, was overthrown first; declared bankruptcy. In 1975, Marshal Franco finally lived up to his destiny, and the Spanish regime was peacefully transferred from authoritarian rule to parliamentary politics. The long journey of this southern European country to return to constitutional democracy has finally been completed.The above-mentioned changes can actually be regarded as the final settlement of the unsettled accounts left in Europe by fascism and World War II.

The radical officers of the Portuguese Revolutionary Coup were born out of the frustration of Portugal's futility in years of fighting against guerrilla forces for the liberation of its African colonies.The Portuguese army has been fighting there since the early 1960s. Although the Portuguese army did not have any major battles, in the small colony of Guinea-Bissau, they encountered Cabra, who is probably the most capable African liberation leader. Al (Amilcar Cabral). In the late 1960s, the two armies were able to confront each other and become a stalemate.After the Congo conflict, the South African authorities added fuel to the fire by strengthening the "apartheid policy" (apartheid) - setting aside a "homeland" for blacks to live in; and the Sharpeville massacre, etc. - African guerrilla movements in the 1960s Then it multiplied rapidly.However, generally speaking, it has not achieved much results. With the tribal fights and the Sino-Soviet confrontation, the situation has become even more decadent.In the early 1970s, aid from the Soviet side increased greatly, and guerrilla warfare resumed again—but China was busy going crazy at home at that time: Mao Zedong launched the "Cultural Revolution" turmoil.In the end, however, the colonies gained their independence in 1975, thanks to a revolution in Portugal itself.Mozambique and Angola immediately plunged into an even bloodier civil war, again due to the involvement of South Africa and the United States.

Just as the Portuguese Empire collapsed, another ancient country with the longest independence in Africa also broke out a major revolution at the same time.In famine-plagued Ethiopia, the old emperor was ousted from the throne in 1974, and power eventually fell to a leftist junta that worked closely with the Soviet Union.The Soviet Union thus diverted its support in the region away from the military dictatorship of Barre in Somalia, which at the time was passionately embracing Marxism-Leninism.The new Ethiopian regime has been challenged domestically, and was finally overthrown in 1991. It was replaced by a regional liberation or separatist movement that also followed the Marxist line.

Changes of this kind created a new fashion for regimes that voted for socialism, at least on paper.Dahomey has declared itself a "people's republic", although it is still under military rule, and has also changed its name to Benin.Also in 1975, Madagascar—or Malagasy—declared its commitment to socialism after the usual military coup.Congo, which is ruled by the military, emphasizes its own characteristics as a "people's republic"—this little Congo is not the big Congo.The latter is the former's huge and powerful neighbor, the Belgian Congo now renamed Zaire, governed by Mobutu, a notoriously greedy pro-American soldier.And in Rhodesia in the south—now Zimbabwe—white immigrants tried to establish an independent regime ruled by whites here. After 11 years of unsuccessful attempts, they were finally painted in 1976 under the increasing pressure of two major guerrilla movements. period.However, the two guerrilla forces are divided due to differences in tribal identity and political orientation (one is pro-Russian and the other is pro-China). Zimbabwe declared independence in 1980 under one of the guerrilla leaders.

On paper, these movements belonged to the revolutionary family of 1917; in fact, they were a very different species.This shift in tone is an unavoidable consequence, not least because of the sharp divide between the societies carefully studied and designed by Marxism-Leninism and the African states of the post-colonial world in sub-Saharan Africa today.The only African country that meets their analysis conditions is South Africa, a capitalist country established by immigrants, with a developed economy and industry.So a real mass liberation movement across tribal and racial lines—the African National Congress—began to emerge in South Africa, aided by another real mass trade union movement there, and a very effective Communist Party.By the end of the Cold War, even the regime that insisted on apartheid had to bow to it.But even here, the revolutionary movement is not universal. Some tribes have a strong sense of revolutionary mission, while others have a weak sense of mission—such as the Zulu (Zulus). Take advantage of it and play some role.As for the rest of Africa, apart from a small group of educated and Westernized urban intellectuals, mobilization goals generally based on so-called "nationalities" or other factors are basically based on loyalty or loyalty to the tribe. union between tribes.This increasingly gave the imperialists an opportunity to encourage other tribes to challenge the new regime - Angola being the most famous example.If a country like this has any connection with Marxism-Leninism, at best it is just borrowing its secret recipe to form a well-trained cadre party group and an authoritative system.

The retreat of the United States from Indochina strengthened the advance of communism.The entire territory of Vietnam is now under the unique and total rule of the Communist government, and similar regimes have also emerged in Laos and Cambodia. At the end of the 1970s, the great wave of revolution rushed directly to the United States.The area of ​​Central America and the Caribbean, which was originally banned by Washington's iron fist, now seems to be heading left. The Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 toppled the Somoza family, the leaders of the small republic; El Salvador's guerrilla forces are rampant; General Torrijos, who sits beside the Panama Canal, is even more of a problem figure.However, these situations did not actually pose a serious threat to the US domination here, at least by no means greater than the impact of the Cuban Revolution back then.As for the revolutionary events that took place on the small island of Grenada in 1983 and led President Reagan to mobilize the entire army to strike, it was even more insignificant.However, these successful revolutionary cases are in sharp contrast to the failures in the 1960s. Therefore, for a while, Washington did have a little hysterical panic in the era of President Reagan (1980-1988).There is no doubt that these events are revolutions, but there is a very familiar Latin American flavor in them.The new thing that puzzled the traditional old leftists the most was that there were actually Marxist Catholic priests supporting and even leading the rebellion.The traditional left has always been an anti-clerical secular movement. It is incredible to see this new phenomenon.The instigator of this ethos started with the Cuban Revolution, and with the "liberation theology" supported by an Anglican meeting in Colombia (1968), it then had a legal basis.This trend found strong support among the most unexpected circles—the learned Jesuits.As for the Vatican's opposition, it is expected.

These seemingly nepotistic October revolutions of the 1970s were in fact far from the October Revolution.Historians can certainly see the difference; however, in the eyes of the United States, it is inevitable that they are all regarded as the global offensive of the Communist Party's power.Part of this reasoning stems from the rules of the game in the Cold War era: what one side loses, the other side gains.Now that the United States has sided with the conservative forces of the Third World—especially in the 1970s—it naturally finds itself increasingly on the side of the losers of the revolution.What's more, Washington believed that there should be greater vigilance about the Soviet Union's advances in nuclear weapons.All in all, the golden age of capitalism has come to an end, and with it the dollar's leading role.On the battlefield in Vietnam, the United States was finally defeated as the world had predicted; the most powerful military force in the world withdrew from Vietnam in 1975, and the status of the United States as a superpower was greatly shaken.Not since the giant Goliath was brought down by little David's slingshot did the world see such a defeat of the greater than the lesser. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries launched an oil coup in 1973. If the United States had stronger confidence at that time, maybe it would not have surrendered so easily without resistance?Seeing the Persian Gulf War against Iraq in 1991, it is even more compelled to ask this question.What the heck is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries?Isn't it just a group of Arab lightweight countries, politically insignificant and militarily unequipped, just relying on their oil wells to extort high prices from the world?

Seeing the decline of its global hegemony, the United States naturally regards all this as its highest challenge, and even believes that this is a signal of the Soviet Union's ambition to dominate the world. The revolutions of the 1970s thus brought about the so-called "Second Cold War" (Halliday 1983).This time, it was the same as in the past. The proxy regimes of the two parties fought to the death. The main battlefield was in Africa, and later extended to Afghanistan. A war in which troops are sent to fight outside their own territory.But the Soviet Union itself must have seen that the new revolutionary situation is very good and is extremely beneficial to it-we cannot completely dismiss this statement.At the very least, the Soviet Union must have felt that the current situation could recover its losses.At that time, its influence in China and Egypt suffered major diplomatic setbacks due to the obstruction of Washington's friendship.In addition, although the Soviet Union never ventured into the muddy waters of Latin America, it did get involved in other places, especially in Africa.Just look at the fact that the Soviet Union allowed Castro's Cuba to send troops to Ethiopia and Angola against the new U.S. proxy regime in Somalia (1977) and the U.S.-backed rebel operation Nationalist Angola (National Independence Angola). Union for the Total Independence of Angola, UNITA), and the South African Army, you can see the difference.Therefore, in the various statements issued by the Soviet Union, in addition to the 100% Communist regime, countries that "inclination to socialism" are now also included.So Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, South Yemen and Afghanistan all attended Brezhnev's funeral in 1982 with this title.These revolutionary regimes did not originate in the Soviet Union, nor were they controlled by the Soviet Union, but the latter undoubtedly welcomed them.

However, various regimes collapsed or were overthrown one after another, which proved that neither the ambitions of the Soviet Union nor the "communist world conspiracy" had anything to do with these earth-shaking changes.Regardless of anything else, even the Soviet Union itself could not escape the grasp of fate. From 1980 onwards, it also began to tend to become unstable, and by the end of the 1980s it disintegrated more completely. The disintegration of the 'real socialist state', and how much of that disintegration itself could be considered a revolution, will be discussed in another chapter.But before the crisis in Eastern Europe, there was another earth-shattering revolution, which hit the United States harder than any other change in the 1970s—but had nothing to do with the Cold War.

This was the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah in 1979, the largest of the 1970s and bound to be recorded in history as one of the most significant social revolutions of the 20th century.The revolution broke out in response to the radical change methods of the Shah of Iran at that time.The Shah of Iran has the firm support of the United States on the one hand, and the country’s oil wealth as a backing (after the oil price revolution in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in 1973, Iran became rich as a result), and it also promoted lightning modernization and industrialization (it Expansion of armaments is not a problem).As an absolute monarch with a powerful and terrifying secret police force, the Shah of Iran has all the grandiose characteristics; in addition, he obviously hopes to become a hegemon in West Asia.From his point of view, modernization means agricultural reform, so many small tenant farmers are changed into many small farmers who lack economic scale; or become unemployed laborers, who have to find another livelihood in the metropolis. From 1.8 million (1960) to 6 million.However, the capital-intensive high-tech agriculture that the government especially values ​​has made the labor force more redundant, which has no benefit to the average agricultural output value, which has been declining in the 1960s and 1970s.By the end of the 1970s, most of the food Iran needed had to rely on imports. Since agriculture was not good enough, the king relied more and more on industries that depended on oil revenues. Iran's industries could not compete in the world and could only be promoted by domestic protection.Agriculture is in decline, industry is not working, huge imports-weapons are a large quantity-plus high oil prices, Iran's inflation is inevitable.For the majority of Iranians not directly associated with modern economic sectors or the emerging urban business class, their standard of living was likely to be lower than higher in the years leading up to the revolution. The cultural modernization movement vigorously promoted by the Shah of Iran has even had a rebound effect.The king and his wife really wanted to improve the living status of women, but in an Islamic country, it is difficult for this approach to get the support of the people-the Afghan Communist Party will find the same in the future.As for the enthusiasm and sincerity of the Shah of Iran for education, he produced for himself a considerable number of revolutionary students and intellectuals (although half the population of Iran is still illiterate).Industrialization has strengthened the strategic position of the working class, especially the oil industry. The Shah of Iran got the throne in 1953 in a coup d'état planned by the US Central Intelligence Agency to return to the throne. At that time, he fought against a very large-scale mass movement. Therefore, the Shah did not have much public opinion and legal status. Funding depends on.The Pahlavi dynasty (Pahlavis) he himself was born in actually originated from another coup d'état in the early years. The founder of the dynasty, Reza Shah (Reza Shah), was originally a soldier of the Cossack brigade. Royal title.But in the 1960s and 1970s, the old communists and nationalists were under the iron grip of the secret police, local and ethnic movements were suppressed, and leftist guerrilla groups—whether orthodox Marxists Or Islamic Marxism—not immune, of course.None of the above-mentioned forces could provide the spark for the eruption of the revolution, so this earth-shattering big bang was basically an urban mass movement—a return to the ancient traditions of Paris in 1789 and Petrograd in 1917— The Iranian countryside, on the other hand, was always silent. That spark came from the special climate of the Iranian land, that is, the well-organized and politically active Islamic religious teachers, who occupy an active position in the public political arena, which is unprecedented in other Islamic worlds It is also rare within the Shiite sect.The religious teachers, together with the merchant artisans of the bazaars, had always played an activist role in Iranian politics, and now they were mobilizing the new urban masses, large enough to rebel with every reason. The leader of this comprehensive force, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, is old and respected and full of revenge.He has led demonstrations at a holy site called Qum against a proposed referendum on land reform and a police crackdown on the activities of religious teachers.So he went into exile abroad in the mid-1960s, and publicly criticized the Iranian dynasty for violating the true meaning of Islamic teachings.In the mid-1970s, he began to promote an entirely Islamic form of government, advocating the responsibility of religious teachers to rise up against tyranny and even further to power.Simply put, it is to launch an Islamic revolution.This concept is indeed an extreme innovation, even for Shia religious teachers who have always been active in political action.Khomeini's teachings were disseminated to the Muslim masses through the new tool of the post-age - tape recorders, and the masses also listened to them.So devout young students took action in the holy city of Qom in 1978, protesting an assassination allegedly planned for the secret police.The students who marched were brutally shot.More demonstrations, more marches, mourning for fallen martyrs.Such activities were repeated every forty days; the numbers grew, and by the end of the same year, millions of people had taken to the streets to protest against the authorities.The guerrillas also moved into action, and in a critical and highly effective strike, the oil workers shut off the fields, the bazaars closed their shops, the country was paralyzed, and the army was either helpless or refused to put down the riot.Finally, on January 16, 1979, the king fled, and the Iranian revolution was victorious. The novelty of this revolution is its ideology.Revolutions everywhere in the world have up to this time followed the same idea and basically based on the same vocabulary, the Western revolutionary tradition since 1789.To be more precise, always on a certain kind of secular left, that is, the line of socialism or communism.The traditional left did exist and was very active in Iran, and its role in the overthrow of the Shah—such as instigating workers' strikes—in fact cannot be underestimated.But with the revolutionary new regime, the leftist forces were immediately wiped out.The Iranian revolution was the first revolution launched and won under the banner of religious fundamentalism, and it was also the first revolution to replace the old regime with populist theocracy.And the project of this populist theocracy aims to return to the society of the seventh century AD - or in other words, since we are talking about an Islamic world, what it wants to return is the sacred writing. , the social environment after Muhammad's exodus (hijra).To revolutionaries of the old school, this new development was as inconceivable as Pope Pius IX rising to lead the Roman Revolution of 1848. Although the Iranian revolution was successful, this does not mean that the banner of revolution will be waved under the voice of religion from then on.However, since the 1970s, in the growing Islamic world, religious movements have indeed become a major political force among the middle class and intellectuals, and were inspired by the Iranian Revolution to turn to rebellion.The congregation of Islamic fundamentalists rose up in Syria, where the Baath Party was in power, and was brutally suppressed; in pious Saudi Arabia, they flocked to the most sacred seat; in Egypt, led by an electrical engineer, Assassinated the president of the country; all this happened between 1979-1982.However, apart from this, after all, there is no revolutionary teaching that can replace the revolutionary tradition handed down in 1789 and 1917; after all, there is no leading plan to engage in world-wide transformation other than the overthrow of the old regime. The phenomenon of the Iranian revolution does not even mean that the old traditions have disappeared from the political arena, or that they have lost the power to overthrow the regime.But the collapse of Soviet communism did remove the role of traditional revolution from a large part of the world.But in Latin America, it still has considerable influence. The biggest rebellion broke out there in the 1980s, the so-called "Shining Path" in Peru, which used Mao Zedong Thought as its banner.It is still alive and well in Africa and India.What's more, to the surprise of the Cold War generation, the Soviet-style "vanguard" ruling party survived even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially in backward countries and the third world.Not only did they win elections in the southern Balkans; in Cuba, in Nicaragua, in Angola, and even in Kabul after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, they proved themselves to be more than mere Soviet proxy puppets.However, even in these places the spirit of the old revolutionary traditions was eroded, and often destroyed from within.For example, in Serbia, the local Communist Party changed its original appearance and became a party advocating Greater Serbian chauvinism.Or in the Palestinian movement, the leadership of the secular left is being eroded by Islamic fundamentalists.