Mao Tse-Tung wrote prolifically on many subjects that are nowadays considered anachronistic. Indeed, the vast majority of the young and educated may never have any exposure to Mao’s ideas, notwithstanding Pakistani rulers’ exhortations about our ‘special relationship’ with the People’s Republic. In the wake of the never-ending scandal that is the WikiLeaks phenomenon, I believe it is necessary to revisit one of Mao’s enduring themes — and that of Marxism in general — so as make sense of the media frenzy that has erupted around us.

Marxist philosophy is premised on the notion that social conflict — and particularly class inequality — is the driving force of history. More generally, Marxist praxis entails identification of the prevailing contradictions in any given society and an appropriate politics on the basis of what are principal and secondary contradictions. Mao distinguished between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions — the former when pushed through to their logical conclusion produce revolutionary transformation whereas the latter can be managed judiciously.

Certain Marxist analyses of Pakistani state and society have oversimplified the extent to which the ruling establishment has maintained a consensus over time; even non-antagonistic contradictions have been left unacknowledged. In particular, Pakistani governments have too often been depicted as virtual puppets of imperialist powers. The WikiLeaks ‘revelations’ appear to confirm the impression that Washington truly does call all the shots in Pakistan.

To the contrary, I believe that what emerges from the thousands of diplomatic cables that have the global media foaming at the mouth is a complex and contradictory picture which precludes overly simplistic assertions. This is not at all to suggest that empire does not exercise its influence within Pakistan or that successive regimes in this country have been meaningfully autonomous from the machinations of imperialism or the broader effects of the capitalist world-economy. But the relationship has ebbed and flowed and recognition of the various ups and downs is necessary to understand the non-antagonistic contradictions between imperialism and Pakistan’s establishment, the non-antagonistic contradictions within our ruling circles, and the antagonistic contradictions between the Pakistani people and the global-domestic structure of power.

For the best part of our history the combination of generals, bureaucrats, landlords, industrialists, mullahs and co-opted segments of the middle class has willfully served the geo-strategic interests of the American Empire. But at the same time, different governments have maintained varying levels of commitment to their own parochial interests, which at any given historical conjuncture, may or may not correspond fully to the interests of our imperial patrons. So, for example, Ayub Khan publicly offered Pakistani territory and troops to the United States suggesting that there was no need for Americans to come all the way out east when Pakistanis could do the job for them. However, the same Ayub Khan assiduously cultivated a relationship with China following the Sino-Indian border dispute in 1962; this policy flew in the face of Washington’s dictates and reflected how even the most shameless of imperialist touts could antagonize his patrons. In a very different way, throughout his tenure Zulfikar Ali Bhutto decried imperialist conspiracies, yet made sure never to seriously annoy Washington. Bhutto was known to be quite proud of renewing the supply of arms from the Pentagon and famously arranged the secret meeting between US Secretary of State Kissinger and Chou-en-Lai.

But perhaps the most important relationship that needs to be understood is the largely autonomous one between the Pakistani Army and Washington. For the best part of the last two decades, the army has played a public relations card that positions it in opposition to "American interference" in Pakistan’s sovereign affairs. In practice of course, the army has been the single biggest beneficiary of American largesse both in bygone eras and in the so-called "Age of Terror". GHQ’s efforts to distinguish itself from the "soul-selling" politicians reflects only its desire to deflect criticism of the increasingly shameless manner in which imperialist policies are operationalized by our very own national saviours.

In much the same way as WikiLeaks cables shed light on the actually existing relationship between empire and our rulers, they also make clear how consistent — and sometimes even acute — tensions notwithstanding, mainstream political parties and the military establishment share a basic commitment to an exclusive political and economic system. There can be no doubt that the long-standing mistrust between our mainstream politicians and the GHQ has far from dissipated, and that there is an undeniable contradiction between the two. But Mao would suggest that this contradiction is non-antagonistic insofar as our elected rulers are only marginally more progressive than the men in khaki when it comes to basic structures. Of course, those of us who are unequivocal defenders of this flawed political process maintain that successive military adventures into the political realm have actually helped to insulate our elitist parties from substantive organic changes from below.

This brings us to the antagonistic contradiction. In the final analysis, WikiLeaks will precipitate nothing more than a sensationalist media orgy. Indeed, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the leak of diplomatic cables is part of some well-thought out imperialist conspiracy (although such assertions are best left to the dream world of the religious right).

In a time and place when genuinely anti-establishment and anti-imperialist forces were organized enough to take advantage of this de-masking of our rulers’ antics, we might even have believed that the recluse Australian founder of the website was committed to substantive political and social change. But the fact of the matter is that, in contrast to times past, diplomatic cables dealing with Pakistan in this day and age make no mention of left-wing intellectuals, working-class movements or student rebels. Those of us who go beyond sloganeering have always known that contradictions within the ruling class are ever-present. But to take advantage of these non-antagonistic contradictions and foment systemic rupture requires the working people of this country, whose contradiction with the establishment and dominant social forces is of an antagonistic nature, to be mobilized and armed with an appropriate political strategy. WikiLeaks is hardly interested in fomenting such things.