For weeks, the world has been debating Sudan. Since the spring of 2023, when the Sudanese Armed Forces, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the armed militia known as the Rapid Support Forces, led by the self-proclaimed “General” Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, alias "Hemedti," became embroiled in a civil war, Sudan, a country in East Africa where Arab Muslims and black Africans coexist, has suffered a massacre. The death toll, including both civilians and military personnel, is estimated to have reached 700,000. But when, in October, Hemedti's forces captured the city of al-Fashir, the only stronghold of the Sudanese Armed Forces in the province of Darfur, news of the resumption of the genocide perpetrated by those forces in that poverty-stricken province in the early 2000s once again put Sudan in the global spotlight (perhaps also due to the temporary truce in the war in Gaza). Since then, we have been looking for an opportunity to write an article explaining the historic significance of this massacre, or rather, genocide. But our busy schedule had not allowed us to do so.
While we were looking for a free moment, our newspaper Gerçek (The Truth), published an article on the tragedy in Sudan, which highlighted, with great relevance, the disaster unfolding there. We therefore decided to write this article, based on the background information provided in that article to summarise our main idea. (By the way, we had also explained how Sudan landed in its current situation in the first article of a series of three, published in 2023. The second and third articles in that series pointed to the two main parties responsible for this tragic situation.)
The article published in our newspaper already mentioned has also clearly identified those responsible: imperialism is among the main culprits of this massacre because it has played a crucial role in paralysing the masses in Sudan and has not exerted the slightest pressure on those responsible for the current war, especially the United Arab Emirates, founders and protectors of the genocidal Hemedti.
And what about our side?
But what we really want to highlight is something else. When Marxism suffered a severe blow to its credibility due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the product of 20th-century socialist construction and, of course, the momentous October Revolution, in addition to the restoration of capitalism in many other countries, a large number of people insisted on ignoring the warning that this historical event was, in reality, a consequence of the governments of those countries trampling on the Marxist programme, turning their backs on all the central ideas of Marxism (the class struggle, the historical role of the proletariat, proletarian hegemony and power, the fight against imperialism, world revolution, etc.). Meanwhile, of course, the idea that the liberation of humanity would be achieved through revolutions was also abandoned.
For years, even decades, pacifists, non-violent activists, advocates of non-violence — whatever you want to call them — have chanted "Oh, no violence!" at every major advance of the masses. This movement also played a key role in the Arab revolutions of 2011-2013 and 2018-2019. We detail this history in an article (in Turkish) published in our theoretical journal Devrimci Marksizm, where we drew lessons from the common problems of the Arab revolutions. "Slim" (peace) was a frequent slogan in the Arab revolution. In the Revolutionary Marxism article, we also showed how the response to this slogan generated different attitudes among different classes and layers. While the popular masses partially resorted to revolutionary violence in the Arab revolution, the "non-violence" stance of the identity-based left, particularly the left in imperialist countries, which served as a "mentor" for poor countries, had a profound impact on students and others from Arab countries living in Western countries. We have also demonstrated previously, with concrete examples, how the powers of imperialism, especially the governments of continental Europe and more specifically the Nordic countries, contributed to this by anaesthetising the popular movement.
Let us recount an anecdote. At one stage of the huge revolutionary movement launched by the Sudanese people to overthrow the Muslim Brotherhood dictator, Omar al-Bashir, leader of the thirty-year dictatorship, they began a mass sit-in in front of the General Staff building. This protest went on for quite some time. On one of the first days, the military units 'protecting' the square and the building opened fire on the crowd. But the people did not disperse. Our reader will surely be surprised. How is it possible that an unarmed people did not disperse under fire?
The crowd did not disperse because, in response to the fire opened on the crowd, the lower ranks of the armed forces and some foot soldiers began firing in the direction of the troops who had fired on the crowd. The military command must have calculated the danger that a division within the army posed to the established order, and the army did not fire on this large group again, nor did it continue its attack using other methods for days.
We emphasised that the emergence of such a division within a country's armed forces with regard to the revolution is one of the most crucial elements for the revolution’s success. We argued that the Sudanese left, the leadership of the revolutionary movement, should have taken advantage of this opportunity to organise its supporters within the military ranks with a military defence mentality, but that, apparently, the leadership refrained from doing so. The leadership of the revolution was broadly composed of two elements: on the one hand, the Sudanese Professional Organisations, which led the central actions, especially in the capital, Khartoum; and on the other, the Neighbourhood Committees, organised in poor neighbourhoods, including in the capital, and in small towns and impoverished villages on the outskirts of towns. The Sudanese Professional Organisations, compared to the Neighbourhood Committees, enjoyed the advantages of operating at the central level, being organisations of the educated masses, possessing diverse skills, and having international connections. In a way, the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie (partly the modern petty bourgeoisie and the educated proletariat or semi-proletariat) were in a superior position to the representatives of other sectors of the poor proletariat and the working masses. The petty-bourgeois revolutionaries rejected violence.
And now?
Do you realise what the leaders, intellectuals and pacifists have done? If the Sudanese revolution, capable of mobilising immensely large masses, had taken up arms and received the support of rank-and-file soldiers in the army, it would not have allowed Burhan and Hemedti to establish their joint dictatorship in 2021 so easily. As we wrote at the time, 2021 represents the victory of the counter-revolution. Unfortunately, the leaders and intellectuals were willy-nilly forced to retreat to their homes.
The supposed sages of the imperialist West, the "great theoreticians," those know-it-alls who believe themselves superior to others, and those who followed their example and participated in "non-violent action" in countries subjected to imperialism! At the most critical moment of the Sudanese revolution, you advocated moderation and condemned violence on the pretext of protecting human life. What has happened now?
Do you bear any responsibility for the bloodshed of 700,000 people? Perhaps for the hundreds of thousands, even millions, who will die in the ongoing civil war? Do you bear any responsibility for the suffering of the babies and children who, as a result of the war, are starving and malformed, some of whom ultimately lost or will subsequently lose their lives due to severe famine? Who do you think is responsible for the rape of women in the presence of their families in Darfur, Kordofan and all the territories where black African Sudanese live? Raise your voice!
Raise your voice! Don't remain silent! Insult us if you want, but don't remain silent! We will not let you get away with it. Because with this attitude, tomorrow you will commit the same crime, not only in poor countries, but also in American cities, when not only ICE agents but also military units (i.e. the National Guard) attack immigrants, poor American citizens, and then the good people of New York City: Blacks, Latinos and Latinas, Jews and other brave people of all races. You will prevent them from defending themselves and fighting for their rights.
Do not try to deceive us with lies. We are not saying that there should be no mass movements, nor that the struggle should begin with violence from day one. We are talking about the bankruptcy of those who oppose the self-defence of the masses, the self-defence of the revolution. Tell me there was no revolution in Sudan, and we will immediately offer you a face-to-face debate. Since you are sagacious people of learning, come out with your truths. Even if you say, "The days of revolution are over everywhere," or "There are no revolutions, and yet you talk about violence," we will prove to you the existence of all the revolutions and rebellions of the 21st century (true, revolutions and rebellions that have not yet triumphed).
Threatening the Sudanese revolution with Syria
Let's conclude with another anecdote from the Sudanese revolution. It must have been in late 2018 or early 2019. Omar al-Bashir was in charge. At the head of his omnipresent intelligence agency was a powerful figure. This man, known as Gosh, once threatened the revolutionary masses: "If you continue like this, I will tell you what will happen: Sudan will become Syria." His argument was that, just as Assad was destroying the people of Syria in order to control them, they themselves would not relent and would do the same. (We cannot delve here into the distorted nature of his account of Syria. Let us simply point out that it was the Islamist opposition that started the real war there).
Let us consider Gosh's threat in the light of our current knowledge. What has happened? The leaders of the Sudanese revolution decided to act cautiously to protect the people from the wrath of the generals, militias and Sudanese intelligence services... and Sudan sank into a situation much worse than that in Syria!
If the development of a society has progressed to such an extent that the upper classes and the popular masses are at each other’s throats, anyone who undertakes a course that tries to square the circle in such a situation will have caused the greatest harm to the people.
Marxism had taught already this truth in full perspicacity to revolutionary movements. To take but a single example, Trotsky formulated it during the Spanish Civil War thus: "During revolution, the line of least resistance is the line of greatest disaster." ("Lessons of Spain. The Last Warning," December 1937).
Those who forget Marxism, in this as in other areas, are left stranded here, completely disoriented, in the face of Hemedti's barbaric gangs and Burhan’s venal bands.