Egypt solidarity and class content of the protests

"people"? why should libertarian communists support "the (Egyptian) people"?!

MT

"people"? why should libertarian communists support "the (Egyptian) people"?!

I think that's the kind of comment that puts lurkers off posting on here.

.

Is it not a legitimate question?

I'd thought better of my comment and deleted it. I suppose it's a legitimate question but still...

[youtube]7hBV0ApIh_4[/youtube]

It's a rhetorical question trying to make a valid point. Clearly libertarian communists should support those in Egypt who are struggling against state repression and oligarchy. Perhaps MT could suggest some language better than "people"?

admin: off topic comment removed. Don't derail threads with off topic comments.

maybe i don't get it, but i thought the point is "class against class" and what I see in those countries is just political revolutions. i know what is political revolution, have seen it, have lived the consequences and perhaps that is why i am very doubtful about this this which I feel to be more a media hype than anything related to the working class selforganisation along class lines which is something i thought is of the interest of libertarian communists.

it is about the change of the ruling class. the method is "the people" in the streets, the outcome is "the new rulers in the parliament" and the working class remains where it was before. where is the class perspective in all this?

and comments like those above put me off explaining myself and posting here. i asked a legitimate question, if you have problem with finding an answer to it, i would welcome you rather write nothing...

MT - I'm trying to open up discussion about events in Egypt and Tunisia not shut it down. I don't particularly feel like taking part in this argument but if anyone else does then that's fine.

putting aside the fact I am not sure how is this related to you, I've tried to explain myself, so if discussing the libertarian communist perspective on a libertarian communist portal doesn't feel good to you, I wonder what discussion you try to open up, really... and basically why the class element is not discussed here at all (my impression but I haven't read all those hundreds of posts).

MT:

maybe i don't get it

Clearly you don't.
Looting of supermarkers, smashing of banks, burning of State buildings, burning of cops shops, the seizure of arms (by the Bedouin) from cop shops, the beginnings of strikes, confusion amongst the army conscripts and them sometimes siding with the protests - all this is just a political revolution?The 1871 Paris Commune included politicians, 1917 included politicians in the form of the Bosheviks using 'class' ideology, 1936 included anarchist politicians who used class ideologically, 1956 Hungary had illusions in the United Nations, 1968 had anarcho-maoist politicos like Cohn-Bendit, the 1984-5 miners strike had Scargill, a politician in union clothing, ..etc. etc ..I've said it before, but really this purist notion of revolution has nothing to do with fighting against the contradictions of this world, which have always manifested themselves in any practical revolt or revolution, which have never followed the abstraction of an unconcrete and eternal "theoretical" critique. Surely you can't be so locked behind some brick wall of cold correctness to not be touched by this uprising, however limited (so far) it might be by an 'us against them', " Egyptian "people" against this government" ideology. If class has not yet become explicit in the discourse of what's happening, that doesn't mean this movement should be snottily, arrogantly and very superficially dismissed.

MT - I'm all in favour of more discussion and I've tried to find what information I can and post it up. I've seen very little on Egypt from a class perspective though it's early days. There's more on Tunisia but it tends to be in French or Spanish. Really if you're interested then read the posts, or at least the ones that look as if they might be relevant.

Samotnaf, simply we have different class perspectives. I see no class element in what you mention above. I really don't care if there are politicians or whoever you may point out at (and in fact I really don't understand why you did that, cos it is something that doesn't answer the class perspective question, so I consider it rather an easy strawman...).

My basic point is that what is there in all those revolting countries that adds to the selforganisation of the workers in the future democratic regime? Something which can be a core for future class struggles, be it a group of revolutionary workers or at least a loose network. In 1989 there was a general strike in Czechoslovakia and mass demos. The regime changed. I believe it would be a massive media thing now (and I believe it was a massive media thing those days in the world) but what does it mean for us living with the aftermath? Any worker revolutionary spirit? Not at all!

So would you call for solidarity demonstrations with Czechoslovak people in 1989?
A know it is a odd question but I think it is clearly related to your line of argumentation.

Mark., I try to read them all, cos I consider the thing interesting, but I hardly have read anything which would be interesting from the class perspective. To me it is a political revolution and it was mentioned in some other topic before. The fact we see everyday people fighting, revolting or looting or whatever, doesn't make it a class thing in any way, in my opinion. At least not inevitably.

It might be better if the information/news threads were kept relatively free of getting too sidetracked into long theoretical discussions and that theoretical debate on recent events was based primarily here;http://libcom.org/forums/news/global-unrest-discussion-28012011

If some particular argument emerges on the news threads that wants to be pursued they could be taken there or made a new thread?

thanks Red Marriott for the link, I have read it now, it is interesting but I am not sure if it is OK to merge this topic with that one. I am aware we are offtopic here, which was caused by my post, but I don't know how to separate this into new thread or merge with the global unrest thread. Can someone help?

I 100% agree with MT and, as a person who lives in Croatia, I share similar experiences regarding collapsing and forming a new regime(s). I think that it’s really important for libertarian communists to analyse things from class perspective and not to get carried away by media hysterics. You people really believe that this is a revolution?

Looting of supermarkers, smashing of banks, burning of State buildings, burning of cops shops, the seizure of arms (by the Bedouin) from cop shops, the beginnings of strikes, confusion amongst the army conscripts and them sometimes siding with the protests - all this is just a political revolution?The 1871 Paris Commune included politicians, 1917 included politicians in the form of the Bosheviks using 'class' ideology, 1936 included anarchist politicians who used class ideologically, 1956 Hungary had illusions in the United Nations, 1968 had anarcho-maoist politicos like Cohn-Bendit, the 1984-5 miners strike had Scargill, a politician in union clothing, ..etc. etc ..I've said it before, but really this purist notion of revolution has nothing to do with fighting against the contradictions of this world, which have always manifested themselves in any practical revolt or revolution, which have never followed the abstraction of an unconcrete and eternal "theoretical" critique. Surely you can't be so locked behind some brick wall of cold correctness to not be touched by this uprising, however limited (so far) it might be by an 'us against them', " Egyptian "people" against this government" ideology. If class has not yet become explicit in the discourse of what's happening, that doesn't mean this movement should be snottily, arrogantly and very superficially dismissed.

Ok, so what we had in Kosovo few years ago was revolution? In 90’s there was a revolution in Croatia and Bosnia? What kind of shit is this?

There’s big difference between revolt against government and social revolution. People take down their governments all the time but social revolutions happened few times in history! What’s happening right now in Egypt, Tunis etc. is revolt against government. Yes, working class started it but they don’t have any class conscious even some of their motives may be class related. This is something which one Croatian sociologist called “a moral bomb” - they revolted because government is corrupted, because they rule to long, because they are rich, because they were brutal and didn’t let political opposition to work etc. Since you are calling for a “realistic approach” can you tell me what will happen in the end? What will be outcome of this struggle? The only realistic outcome is a liberal democracy. Old and new elites will form new government, they’ll choose electoral model, type of government (parliamentary or presidential) etc. The fact that people are mobilised and that they are willing to fight has nothing to do with revolution. For example in Croatia in 90’s people mobilised because president wanted to shut down opposition’s radio station. In Eastern Europe most of state socialist regimes where violently collapsed. Do you judge revolution by “smashing the windows” or by its class character and outcome?

Maybe I’m not paying an attention but I never saw any class related message from North Africa.

Regimes come and go but state and capitalist economical relations will always stay. Still, I hope that new system in North Africa will make possible for revolutionary movement to grow.

the DC and other US rallies have a very patriotic look to them, from the pictures i've seen - lots of egyptian (and US) flags waved, calls for mubarak to go and little else - but what's going on in egypt and tunisia was initiated by victimized workers. the whole business may end with a new administration, but it's massive and there is certainly a class element still, despite that other groups are now getting on board (the muslim brotherhood is claiming responsibility for the neighborhood watches). but that can't erase the revolt's proletarian origins.

btw mark has done heroic work here keeping up the info.

and what is the proletarian origin? that the poor and pissed off started it? how is that different to many other political revolts in the world and what class element does it contain for the libertarian communists except very basic and in the whole context quite empty saying that it was started by the working people? (btw, wasn't the Tunisia started by a businessmen burning themselves to dead?;))

MT

and what is the proletarian origin? that the poor and pissed off started it? how is that different to many other political revolts in the world and what class element does it contain for the libertarian communists except very basic and in the whole context quite empty saying that it was started by the working people? (btw, wasn't the Tunisia started by a businessmen burning themselves to dead?;))

actually, he wasn't a "businessman" but an unemployed worker and university graduate who attempted to make some money by selling fruit, but was not allowed to as he did not have a permit.

In any case, MT, you do have a point with your comment about "the people". However, please bear in mind that many people may not understand the nuances of what you are saying, without some clarifying information. Especially as the person who posted this thread is a new poster, please try to be mindful that not everyone has read the same amount of books!

i don't read books:D and don't check peoples icons or dates, but thanks for informing, will be more sensitive next time.
as an admin, do you have any proposal for cutting this thread into to or merging with something else?

MT - I don't think this thread needs merging with the other one. It has turned into a discussion thread and I think it's a discussion worth having. Possibly the name of the thread could be changed to reflect that.

I can see where you, and Kontrrazvedka, are coming from with the experience of political transformation from dictatorship to liberal democracy in Eastern Europe. For myself the European countries I know quite well, apart from the UK, are Portugal, Spain and Greece, all of which had transitions from dictatorship to liberal democracy in the mid 70s. These transitions opened up a space for some quite radical politics, at least for a few years, and I'd see them all as positive, at least up to a point. I'm sure this colours my thinking. The experience in Eastern Europe was obviously different. It's also worth bearing in mind the example of the Iranian revolution of 1979 with all its disastrous consequences. How far any of these are useful as comparisons for what is happening now in North Africa I'm not sure, and your guess may be as good as mine.

the basic point was how to view these events from class perspective. are there any libertarian communist elements/moments? so far I see none, cos there may be assemblies as a method but they their political nature is questionable, to tell the least. and calls to support the "people" are in fact calls for support of new ruling class.

And I think spain is very good example of what I try to say. the change to democracy made a way for a revolutionary element - rebuilding of the already existing underground anarchist/anarchosyndicalist movement (CNT). I doubt we would call for the solidarity with the "people" of Spain back then, hm?

so, if this social or political transformation in those countries now contains any revolutionary elements which can grow after the regime change and become stronger parts of the new democracy, then it would be great to know them, cos at least to me they are the elements important from the class perspective.

MT

calls to support the "people" are in fact calls for support of new ruling class.

When Egyptians use the word people (shaab) it often has strong connotations with the street and the 'popular' masses. No one would refer to anyone in the government as shaabi. Having said that, there have certainly been calls like that, especially for liberals (e.g. El Baradei and Ayman Nour) and the Muslim Brotherhood (who will likely refer to the ummah, i.e. the community of believers)

There are communist elements, there are working class elements etc. Your analysis MT appears to be based on a very surface understanding of what has been happening in Egypt. To understand it you really need to take into account the increasing level of unrest starting right after the second Palestinian intifida and the labour militancy since 2004, which in my opinion has been the main catalyst for what we're seeing now (because it brought poor working class people into the mix rather than the affluent urban middle class).

i don't dispute that, but my question is about the present not the past.

And the past informs the present. It's not like those that have been involved for the last 10 years or so just suddenly went away now that the entire country has exploded. I can spell it out for you: those workers that have struck, occupied and struggled to form independent unions are very much part of this. But in any case you shouldn't confuse with what goes on in the street with what goes on in communities and workplaces. There are moves by some workers' groups to push for a general strike, which is an extremely significant development. If there had been no earlier workers' militancy they would never have been able to actually call for one that workers might take seriously this time (to compare it to the 6th of April fantasy general strike that some middle class kids launched on Facebook in 2007).

i know past informs the present, but when you say nothing about present we dont know what the present is...

MT

but when you say nothing about present we dont know what the present is...

I

There are moves by some workers' groups to push for a general strike, which is an extremely significant development.

Are you purposfully misreading my posts? Are you not reading what is happening in Egypt right now? There are plenty of stories about the formation of popular committees in all sorts of different communities, people organizing things such as garbage collection, food production, security (against govt. thugs) without the use of state or any capitalist. That these things are not done by self-professed revolutionaries is immaterial unless you advocate some form of vanguardism.

is it so hard for you to copypaste a link here? i am not a freak reading everything you do. I really don't understand why some people here are so nervous when it comes to presenting facts...

There are lots of links and quotes on http://libcom.org/forums/news/egypt-january-25th-protest-23012011

Mark. has done a good job of trying to pick out fragments which relate to class as much as possible.

It's a long thread, but there's a lot going on.

MT

the basic point was how to view these events from class perspective. are there any libertarian communist elements/moments? so far I see none, cos there may be assemblies as a method but they their political nature is questionable, to tell the least. and calls to support the "people" are in fact calls for support of new ruling class.

And I think spain is very good example of what I try to say. the change to democracy made a way for a revolutionary element - rebuilding of the already existing underground anarchist/anarchosyndicalist movement (CNT). I doubt we would call for the solidarity with the "people" of Spain back then, hm?

so, if this social or political transformation in those countries now contains any revolutionary elements which can grow after the regime change and become stronger parts of the new democracy, then it would be great to know them, cos at least to me they are the elements important from the class perspective.

I agree. Where we read this:

arminius

As others have said, so far it seems like just fact reporting, probably because noone knows what context means anymore,...

we should become more critical not less, because it indicates the merging of numerous incompatible narratives dominated by events.

It is important to identify the formal boundaries of the forces in any event and not reduce one's theory to mere affirmation of events. If one finds, from a pro-communist point of view, that one cannot identify the ideological element in mass media reportage because of the sympathy one feels for those being reported, then I would suggest there is something going wrong at a theoretical level.

I would also suggest that the class component, as much as it is defined in terms of expropriation (rather than the relations of production which I know nothing of), seems to comes down to what the media has identified as 'vigilantes' verses 'looters'... The former seem to be the bourgeois element defending and running services whilst the latter appear disorganised and proletarian.

If this is the case, there is an uncomfortable separation between class action and the ideals of 'self-organisation'. It is certainly not easy to theoretically find in favour of further 'decomposition' against, for example, 'the popular assemblies', but that perhaps is what is required at this moment if class antagonism is following those lines.

Gambling on endorsing the appearance of political forms, 'popular assemlies' and so on, is a dangerous move because the decisive factors in these forms only appear later.

Critical caution would still prove a better gamble even if these 'vigilante'/'popular assembly' formations were composed of proletarians, particularly as affirmation never contributes anything positive in such situations. The worst outcome for a negative evaluation is that it turns out wrong, but having tested the claims of that which it is investigating it should help in some small way in building its strength.

Critical distance and not patriotic fervour remains the more useful method.

fort-da game

It is important to identify the formal boundaries of the forces in any event and not reduce one's theory to mere affirmation of events. If one finds, from a pro-communist point of view, that one cannot identify the ideological element in mass media reportage because of the sympathy one feels for those being reported, then I would suggest there is something going wrong at a theoretical level.

I would also suggest that the class component, as much as it is defined in terms of expropriation (rather than the relations of production which I know nothing of), seems to comes down to what the media has identified as 'vigilantes' verses 'looters'... The former seem to be the bourgeois element defending and running services whilst the latter appear disorganised and proletarian.

Even with looters vs. vigilantes it's a lot more complicated than that. There's been plenty of reports that some looters are from the secret services, and that people have been arresting and/or shooting those people, and finding official IDs on them, also that the neighbourhood patrols aren't only restricted to rich areas.

It's perfectly likely that all these statements are true:

- there has been proletarian looting of supermarkets, houses of people associated with Mubarek etc.
- there has been state-sponsored looting by plain clothes police/intelligence - to try to undermine the protests, give the media something to villify, try to push 'moderates' back towards the regime.
- there has been looting by organised criminal gangs, who may be either for or against the current regime depending on their make up.
- there have been vigilante groups of the wealthy to try to keep working class looters out of their communities.
- there have been vigilante groups / armed manning of barricades in working class areas to keep marauding security service and/or professional criminals out.

And on the main updates thread we are seeing more strikes breaking out, workplaces being taken over etc., which has a much clearer proletarian content (and yes may well end up as self-managed capitalism down the line, but that doesn't change the character of the initial expropriation).

So as others have said, I think it's too early to be drawing conclusions in either direction - there is no uncritical cheerleading going on (although understandable excitement, which is very different), but neither is dismissing things with only a fraction of the infomation available, without even a day or so of hindsight very useful either.

MT

is it so hard for you to copypaste a link here? i am not a freak reading everything you do. I really don't understand why some people here are so nervous when it comes to presenting facts...

Sorry MT, things are moving too fast for that. It would literally take me hours to put together what you're asking for. I suggest that you just read through the thread that Mark. has put together; he's done an excellent job of pointing out the class related bits.

The reason that I can (perhaps) make more sense of this is because I used to live in Egypt and have comrades from there. Now, I don't believe that what is happening in Egypt is a working class uprising, at least not yet. I don't think we should uncritically support all demands of the Egyptian "people"; it is not a homogenous mass. But that people are actually self-organizing and realizing (I've seen comments to this effect) that they don't need the state or bosses to do certain things points to a nascent consciousness. That the newly formed independent unions, who have strong support among the most militant sections of the Egyptian working class (e.g. in Mahllah, Helwan, the industrial satellite cities around Cairo), will call for a general strike points to a class dimension to the uprising and, at least to me, is a promising development that may take this from an uprising (that must be short lived) to something that can be sustained over a long time.

Here's just one example MT. From the NY Times of all places:

“These big guys are stealing all the money,” said Mohamed Ibraham, a 24-year-old textile worker standing at his second job as a fruit peddler in a hard-pressed neighborhood called Dar-al-Salam. “If they were giving us our rights, why would we protest? People are desperate.”
He had little sympathy for those frightened by the specter of looting. He complained that he could barely afford his rent and said the police routinely humiliated him by shaking him down for money, overturning his cart or stealing his fruit. “And then we hear about how these big guys all have these new boats and the 100,000 pound villas. They are building housing, but not for us — for those people up high.”

It's just one of the treasures in Mark.'s thread.

And another

The workers at El-Ta3awon Printing House and Ghazl Meit Ghamr (textile) have kicked out their CEOs, and are now self managing the factories.

Khawaga

And another

The workers at El-Ta3awon Printing House and Ghazl Meit Ghamr (textile) have kicked out their CEOs, and are now self managing the factories.

Whereabouts are these factories, Khawaga? The western media seems resolutely focused on Cairo, seeing as it is mainly concerned with what happens to the Government. Are things perhaps going to be slightly more class based in the more industrial parts of the country?

Excuse any simplistic view of modern Egyptian geography on my part.

i've read the thread you mentioned lately and now read all the new posts, so I already know about those examples and they sound interesting.

Auto, Ghazl Meit Ghamr is in the Nile Delta in the Dakhalia governorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_Ghamr). So outside of Cairo. I don't know about the printing house. However, as far as I can tell a lot of the factory stuff is happening outside of Cairo (considering that the industrial heartland is in the Delta this is not surprising). Maybe these things are occurring outside of Cairo because there is not govt. to protest anymore? No other authority but bosses?

Mark.

I can see where you, and Kontrrazvedka, are coming from with the experience of political transformation from dictatorship to liberal democracy in Eastern Europe. For myself the European countries I know quite well, apart from the UK, are Portugal, Spain and Greece, all of which had transitions from dictatorship to liberal democracy in the mid 70s. These transitions opened up a space for some quite radical politics, at least for a few years, and I'd see them all as positive, at least up to a point. I'm sure this colours my thinking. The experience in Eastern Europe was obviously different. It's also worth bearing in mind the example of the Iranian revolution of 1979 with all its disastrous consequences. How far any of these are useful as comparisons for what is happening now in North Africa I'm not sure, and your guess may be as good as mine.

I don't understand how you can’t see such obvious thing. I believe that what I wrote was completely clear and easy to understand.

Yes, we used Eastern Europe and old state capitalist (socialist) regimes as example of what could happen next. We used them for an example because they represent one party dictatorship which turned into liberal democracies and open market economical systems. There were several ways of change and one of them was violent, massive, spontaneous etc. For example Ceausescu case... Or we can take Polish Solidarity as massive organisation of working class. Still, the most important things were end results. In all cases it was some sort of liberal or “limited” liberal democracy made by consensus between old and new elites. Eastern European example can not be ignored, because that is realistic outcome for these cases. There’s no organisation or movement in those countries. Someone mentioned “communists” – well those Stalinists there are joke and too small to effect anyone. This all movement have “national liberation” character, liberation from marionette governments etc. There’s no room for libertarian communists.

I agree with the comrades who have pointed to the powerful class elements in this movement, both at the beginning (the central importance of unemployment, 'bread', as well as repression and so on), and at the present stage where the employed workers of the industrial concentrations seem to be getting more directly involved. I also agree with the points made by Mike Harman about the probability that there are very different forms of 'vigilante' groups .
I do understand the concerns of the comrades from eastern Europe who have lived through a 'peoples movement' that was dominated by the democratic mystification and was to a very large extent used against the working class on a world scale (the whole campaign about the 'death of communism, end of class struggle' etc). But the context is different: we are seeing a worldwide tendency towards massive revolt against the austerity attacks 'demanded' by an equally global economic crisis, so the potential to go beyond the democratic illusions that certainly do exist is far deeper than it was in 1989.
This is not to say that the dangers of the class element being drowned in a 'popular' democratic tide are not real. It is extremely important to argue against the leftists who claim that we are already seeing a 'revolution' (Arab, peoples', democratic, etc) in North Africa. The only revolution on the agenda today is a proletarian revolution, and while today's revolts are part of the movement towards it, we should not confuse the embryo with the baby: we are still very far from the working class on an international scale being able to take and hold power and transform society towards communism.

But the context is different: we are seeing a worldwide tendency towards massive revolt against the austerity attacks 'demanded' by an equally global economic crisis, so the potential to go beyond the democratic illusions that certainly do exist is far deeper than it was in 1989.

I don't think that context is so much different, maybe in its ideological presentation to the outside world...

I have to remind you that people in my country wanted independence from Yugoslavia and capitalism because they believed that this new independent state will provide them some stuff which Yugoslavia didn’t. Also they wanted to take down corrupeted government which was in the power for more that 50 years. Some of this stuff was class related. Even nationalism was main force (in some periods of war even some sort of fascism) there was also big and important class tendency. So, it’s really important to emphasise that a lot of nationalist movements use class struggle and class differences for its mobilisation force or a lot of movements which started as class related revolts develop into nationalist ones. This is just our reality. Maybe Croatia (and other ex-Yugoslav countries) is not the best example but you can see in many other ex-USSR countries that there was big class tendency among masses. That they hoped that some of their needs will be satisfied in capitalism. They couldn’t be more wrong... :cry:

To me it’s really important that we analysis this event from our perspective and to answer on some questions. What is the goal of this movement? What are methods of mass mobilisation? What is the most realistic outcome? Is there any class struggle or is this just another “national liberation”/”down with the evil government” revolt? Why should libertarian communists support this?

As MT, I’m also really happy about this factory occupations and as I’m writing critical article I would really appreciate if someone could post me some sources.

Kontrrazvedka

As MT, I’m also really happy about this factory occupations and as I’m writing critical article I would really appreciate if someone could post me some sources.

The only mention I can find was on the twitter feed of the guy who writes this blog: http://www.arabawy.org. Maybe email him. I think someone also mentioned it was on the Al Jazeera news feed, though I couldn't find anything there.

On an as yet unmentioned point, I think a discussion of the possible role of the army might be worthwhile when analysing events from a class perspective, particularly since in Tunisia, the army played a progressive role in fighting the police (including paramilitary 'internal security forces' and thugs in the police's employ) when they tried to crush the movement by force. In Egypt there is almost universal compulsory military service for men, and much of the rank and file consists of working class youth doing their time. This means that the military is perhaps very much more likely to become militant than a professional force, in my opinion. Already, there are many pictures of tanks daubed with anti Mubarak slogans, and relations between the army and populace seem the opposite of those between the police and populace. I haven't seen any evidence of soldiers starting to organise themselves outside of the existing military structure or act particularly independently however. I wonder if people have any thoughts on the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary potentials of the army (either as a whole or through the actions of conscripts outside of the existing military hierarchy).

we are seeing a worldwide tendency towards massive revolt against the austerity attacks

are we? a worldwide? a tendency? i mean, we see a lot of things in the proletariat but are you really serious it is what you claim it to be?

Spot on Alf.

The only mention I can find was on the twitter feed of the guy who writes this blog: http://www.arabawy.org. Maybe email him.

I think you would be hard pressed to get hold of him now. There's only one working ISP in Egypt at the moments (well according to Arabawy/Hossam el-Hamalawy) and he has a pretty high media profile so an e-mail would likely down in the 1000s of others he get.

This is the latest news from him (from his FB profile):

Arabawy

Shabab, I'm ok, and the revolt continues. We don't have cyberaccess yet, but I managed to log in today via the only ISP left unblocked in Egypt. Plz follow my blog and my twitter page. Love you all. Hossam

He also did a Q&A with WaPo which can be read here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2011/01/31/DI2011013102323.html

Some interesting questions and answers.

I generally agree with Alf here except that I think one can not be certain that a "tendency towards massive revolt against the austerity" will generate proletarian elements. But given there are reasons to be optimistic, it seems important to be open to the possibility of such elements appearing.

I think MT is correct that the present movement is far, far from a proletarian movement. Historically, some bourgeois influenced changes in power remained in the realm of controlled, orchestrated events. Others have transformed into fairly proletarian events.

Just because a group forms an assembly doesn't mean they are taking a proletarian approach. But just because a group hasn't had "training" in libertarian ideology doesn't mean they can't come to communist politics through their practice - and the reverse too.

Forte is correct that there is no reason to simply endorse events. Events do themselves anyway. Communists have no reason to intervene merely to congratulate "people".

Edit: grammar and clarity

This blog seems worth a read for better or worse.

The "middle class poor" they refer to might better be described as "information workers". It is interesting that they are also referred to as "the new proletariat"...

But altogether, the multiple meanings and contradictions of "middle class" are arguably coming to head in the present crisis.

Discuss...

Even if all this amounts to is a shift to bourgeois liberal democracy rather than a proper revolution, I think it is still very empowering for a people to know that they have the collective power to overthrow the government (and not just switch governing party via elections) and this feeling of power will root itself in the psychological makeup of the working class for another generation at least, very few historical events have that sort of power.

This is my feeling at the moment but I know very little about Croatia or Czechoslovakia and whether the historical experience there verifies this thought/feeling of mine.

Going back to the Greek insurrection of 2008, I think the fact that the government managed to stay in power until the next elections was an important factor in keeping the insurrection from becoming a more lasting mass experience and more major historical turning point. (Even if it was just a switch of governing party and not a revolution).
From this point of view it would be important to the ruling class in Egypt to try and present as smooth a transition as possible rather than allow the masses to feel that they have made the government collapse and a new one made in its place.

it is hard to generalize but the fact that people overthrow government by going to demos means very little from the perspective of ex-USSR countries i would say. simple logic just doesn't work. why? because when new regime comes the elections become the battlefield. i don't mean this is the case of Egypt or Tunisia, but i would dare to say this was the case of ex-USSR countries which cannot be ignored. at least.

Khawaga

And the past informs the present. It's not like those that have been involved for the last 10 years or so just suddenly went away now that the entire country has exploded. I can spell it out for you: those workers that have struck, occupied and struggled to form independent unions are very much part of this. But in any case you shouldn't confuse with what goes on in the street with what goes on in communities and workplaces. There are moves by some workers' groups to push for a general strike, which is an extremely significant development. If there had been no earlier workers' militancy they would never have been able to actually call for one that workers might take seriously this time (to compare it to the 6th of April fantasy general strike that some middle class kids launched on Facebook in 2007).

yes, and it is quite interesting what will unfold today... i vividly remember this so called "strike" which nobody took part in...

what about the 6th of april coalition, today? du they yield any influence?

Khawaga

This is the latest news from him (from his FB profile):

Arabawy

Shabab, I'm ok, and the revolt continues. We don't have cyberaccess yet, but I managed to log in today via the only ISP left unblocked in Egypt. Plz follow my blog and my twitter page. Love you all. Hossam

He also did a Q&A with WaPo which can be read here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2011/01/31/DI2011013102323.html

Some interesting questions and answers.

Anything more? Even this Washington Post article is interesting this are just hopes and ideas of one man.

Kontrrazvedka

Anything more? Even this Washington Post article is interesting this are just hopes and ideas of one man.

This man is very well connected to all sorts of workers' committees, strikers, activist groups etc. And although he's a Trotskyist I find his analysis (both past and present) to often be spot on. Also if you've followed events in Egypt for a few years it is easy to understand from his answers that it is just not his personal opinion he is giving. A lot of what he is saying is based on the hopes and aspirations of quite a lot of people. (I should add that I know the guy).

There is more to this, but again I just have to refer you to the Egypt update thread.

jesse blue

what about the 6th of april coalition, today? du they yield any influence?

I don't think they ever yielded any significant influence, that is apart from among middle/upper class kids and to lazy Western journalists.

Khawaga

I don't think they ever yielded any significant influence, that is apart from among middle/upper class kids and to lazy Western journalists.

today, i heard that they are "close to baradei" and will play a role in the future government.
so, sadly, they seem to be by no means irrelevant; leadership of the working class as imposed on them by its enemy, one might sarcastically say. we will se how this imposing will work out.

Khawaga

This man is very well connected to all sorts of workers' committees, strikers, activist groups etc. And although he's a Trotskyist I find his analysis (both past and present) to often be spot on. Also if you've followed events in Egypt for a few years it is easy to understand from his answers that it is just not his personal opinion he is giving. A lot of what he is saying is based on the hopes and aspirations of quite a lot of people. (I should add that I know the guy)

this guy is fixated on national and arabist rhetoric, and i personally cannot hear that any longer. he basically cheers at the stupidity or malevolence who call mubarak or suleiman "traitor" or "israeli puppets", while painting stars-of-david on their portraits. those are things he seems to like, it renders me speechless, i won't believe a word from anyone who is not digusted by these things, and if he tells me the world round i won't believe it, he may be as well connected as he likes to, to me he sounds like a nationalist, disguised as a leftist.

https://intheabsenceoftruth.noblogs.org/post/2011/02/01/on-nasserists-in-disguise-the-deadly-enemies-of-the-revolution/

On Nasserists in Disguise, the Deadly Enemies of the Revolution

To many people, it seemed only natural to see protesters in Egypt carrying signs around saying „Mubarak-Traitor“ or „Suleiman-Traitor“, of portraits of each where Stars-of-David were painted on to their foreheads, so as to hear or see people call them „Israel agents“.

To us, this is not only not natural, it is deeply disturbing; or rather, it sheds a very disturbing light on some of those currents who now, after days of massive protests, are beginning to show on the surface of these turbulent waves.

We will not, however, buy into the argument, even for a secong, that this distorted imaginery, this outright madness is „what the Arab masses are thinking“. It is not, it is, what their presumptive masters want to make them think. It is what their worst enemies would like them to think, so that they can be controlled.

It is, of course, downright foolish to believe the president of Egypt, be it Mubarak or his predecessor Sadat, have been „Israeli agents“, that they somehow protected the interest not of „the Egyptian nation“, but of Israel and the USA. Such a thinking betrays a mindset that is not only nationalist, and state-fetishist, but in the case of Egypt downright imperialist.

And yes, there has been a thing like Egyptian imperialism. And it was precisely Gamal abd an Nasser, the hero of many Egyptian left wingers far beyond the narrow current of die-hard Nasserists, who promoted it.

1. To think of Mubarak as someone who miraculously worked against Egyptian interest, by upholding the peace treaty with Israel, that is to think of state as the quasi innate organ of a nation, to which people belong, by virtue of the coincidence of birth. State, according to that logic, is something quasi-natural, looking after the well-being of its subjects.

Nothing could be farer from truth, and the Mubarak regime is one of the best cases for abolishing state and nation altogether. Every state, in a sense, is a failed state, and necessarily so. State can treat human beings only as part of a machinery; therefore, it has to cease to exist.

Now to suppone to state a good, and friendly purpose with regard to the „nation“ it is supposed to embody, that means obscuring this otherwise obvious relation; spplanting national solidarity in the place of class struggle for human emancipation; promoting the prolongation of state, and by extension, capitalism. It is evidently something deeply counterrevolutionary.

Mubarak has been a tyrant exactly because he guarded the interes of the state, over the wellbeing of its „own people“. Therefore, it is warranted that people break away from this state and cease to be some powers „own people“, and start, for a change, to live as human beings should.

2. But that supposition works in another way as well. By suggesting that Mubarak did not what was in the interest of the nation, especially with regard to his alleged beneficients, Israel and the USA, it is suggested that the interest of the nation would consist in renouncing the peace treaty, and starting another round of hostilities.

Since when is advocating war of aggression a left-wing position? In the Arab world, apparently, anything goes. After al, these supposedly are the legimitate aspirations of a suppressed people.

Never mind that the people in Egypt have not been suppressed by Israel, but by Egypt; that Israels only crime in that is to have concluded a treaty with a dictator, in the absence of another government, to end a war that was started by another Egyptian despot; never mind that, because by some miraculous transformation the real oppressing Egyptian state is shown to be nothing than an Israeli agent, and therefore not the „real“ Egyptian state.

And never mind that the peace treaty has been one of the few things that disgusting regime has ever done good to its people, taking from them the menace of war; without, it must be said, relieving their burden, because it never ended military rule, and kept maintaining an extensive military expenditure.

It is not only a logical fallacy to depict Mubarak as an Israeli agent, it is also part of a propaganda effort aimed at hysterization, of appealing to cheap conspirational thinking, and at once more playing the same tired old tricks to lure the people into another edition of the military state whose last verstiges they had overthrown only recently. It aims at nationalist mobilization, and submission under the national war effort, and discipling the aspirations of the laboring classes.

What is next? Invading Yemen again, to fulfill Nassers legacy, which led him to wage what has been called, and rightfully, Nassers Vietnam, and a colonial enterprise? Or annexing Syria, while we’re at it?

Many prominent Egyptian so called left wingers seem to have no problem with letting that genie out of the bottle again. They deserve to be denounced as what they are. Among them are such celebrities as Hossam al Hamalawy, who is feted even in council communist and anarchist circles who should know better.

All those Nasserists in disguise are recuperateurs, enemies of the working class and its revolution, and should be treated as such.

Das Wort wird nicht gefunden,
das uns beide jemals vereint:
der Regen fliesst nämlich nach unten
und du bist mein Klassenfeind.

this guy is fixated on national and arabist rhetoric, and i personally cannot hear that any longer. he basically cheers at the stupidity or malevolence who call mubarak or suleiman "traitor" or "israeli puppets", while painting stars-of-david on their portraits. those are things he seems to like, it renders me speechless, i won't believe a word from anyone who is not digusted by these things, and if he tells me the world round i won't believe it, he may be as well connected as he likes to, to me he sounds like a nationalist, disguised as a leftist.

Assuming you are talking about Hossam el-Hamalawy, could you provide a link to substantiate this?

I don't get this impression at all reading the Washington Post Interview but I'm open to whatever information is available.

The blog post you paste in also doesn't have links. It would be better if it too could document its case.

Whatever critique we can have about unions, I think this is an interesting development.. Khwaga (or anyone for that matter), have you heard anything about this? Is it actually happening or is it wishful thinking on the part of Egyptian lefties?

Egypt: Founding declaration of new independent trade union federation

Labor struggles paved the way to today’s people revolution. That is why Egypt workers and employees totally refuse that the “governmental” general federation represents them and speaks in their name, because it often denied their rights and claims and even issued the famous statement on January 27 claiming to oppose every single protest action during this period.

Also this,
Egyptian Workers Hold Key to Uprising, New Union Association Issues Call for General Strike

While much analysis has focused on the youth-social network driven aspects of the recent uprising in Egypt, or on diplomatic and political maneuvers that thus far have left President Mubarak in office, and given even more power to the state repressive apparatus through the appointment of Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman to the Vice Presidency, it is the Egyptian working class that holds the future of its country in its hands.

jesse blue

this guy is fixated on national and arabist rhetoric, and i personally cannot hear that any longer. he basically cheers at the stupidity or malevolence who call mubarak or suleiman "traitor" or "israeli puppets", while painting stars-of-david on their portraits. those are things he seems to like, it renders me speechless, i won't believe a word from anyone who is not digusted by these things, and if he tells me the world round i won't believe it, he may be as well connected as he likes to, to me he sounds like a nationalist, disguised as a leftist.

Oh, he's a Trotskyist and is quite enamoured with national liberation. I've had several quite heated debates about this with him. His class analysis is far from perfect, but when it comes to analysis of the workers' movement in Egypt, their demands, what should happen etc. he is actually not too far from libertarian communists. For example, the Revolutionary Socialist Organization (RSO) that he is part of (and is connected to the SWP) has never tried to be a vanguard or start a popular front to recuperate struggles.

He is not a Nasserist; there are actual Nasserist parties.

So my suggestion is to separate the wheat from the chaff in Hossam's analysis.

Ed

Whatever critique we can have about unions, I think this is an interesting development.. Khwaga (or anyone for that matter), have you heard anything about this? Is it actually happening or is it wishful thinking on the part of Egyptian lefties?

Yeah, I've read about these things as well. The independent unions are a huge step for the Egyptian working class. And they could play a key role in what is happening because they have not yet been recuperated by the government or business (though that could very well happen). Hopefully we'll see another wave of strikes, occupations and such soon (it's started but not on a large scale; maybe the workers are in the streets?).

jesse blue

today, i heard that they are "close to baradei" and will play a role in the future government. so, sadly, they seem to be by no means irrelevant; leadership of the working class as imposed on them by its enemy, one might sarcastically say. we will se how this imposing will work out.

The 6th April folks are the eduacted middle class. They support almost any liberal democratic figurehead. It's been others before El Baradei. Baradei just understand who is his constituency, i.e. not the working class.

RedHughs

Assuming you are talking about Hossam el-Hamalawy, could you provide a link to substantiate this?

I don't get this impression at all reading the Washington Post Interview but I'm open to whatever information is available.

The blog post you paste in also doesn't have links. It would be better if it too could document its case.

just read his twitter, he basically posts every fotograf with someone holding a sign calling mubarak an israeli agnet or something.

it's all over his twitter, and over his blog, it gives me the impression that he likes such things, that he feels that this is an expression of real revolutionary thought. hwo strange is that?

i cannot believe that these signs and sentiments are that prominent, in every case he seems to pick them, he really seems to be into that sort of thing, and that makes him deeply suspicios. i try to separate the wheat from the scaff when reading his blog or twitter, but it's strange, the more i think of it, the more scaff is left and the less wheat.

and after all, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see someone who lets himself willingly be paraded as a representative of the uprising. it reminds me of the role cohn-bendit played back in 1968. in a way, these people, powerless as they may be, are doing there part to steal the revolution from the people who made them. i am deeply disgusted by all that, and hope that i'm not the only one.

Hossam el-Hamalawy might have implanted himself as a media darling, à la Danny Cohn-Bendit, but you're conflating this with his political ideology. He's from a family of leftist militants and has a clearly Trotskyite-biased class struggle perspective. You might have a critique of this, as do I, but you're making ad hominems and you completely fail to back this up with supporting evidence. Jesse blue, if you have a critique of his ideology, please use concrete references to what he actually said, wrote or did rather than your subjective "impression."

Some of my comrades know Hossam personally and vouch for his integrity, despite having many substantial differences with him politically.

Hieronymous

Hossam el-Hamalawy might have implanted himself as a media darling, à la Danny Cohn-Bendit,

I am not so sure that he has implanted himself as a media darling. I think it's got more to do with the fact that journalists are essentially lazy. Hossam was/is a journalist and knew all the journos in Cairo (I know because I used to hang out with the same crowd). So when ever there was something working class-ish happening in Egypt they would consult him. They would also love his blog because he wrote in English. No need to translate from Arabic. Since a lot of journos used him as a source, even more media orgs. started using him because all of a sudden he had a bit of a profile. And then the snowball kept rolling.

From knowing Hossam personally I do not believe he gets some narcissistic kick out of the attention. The man has integrity, but he's got some shit politics regarding Israel/nationalism (which sadly actually reflects the general attitude in Egypt and other Arab countries. Perhaps an indication of the defeat of the working class?).

Hieronymous

Hossam el-Hamalawy might have implanted himself as a media darling, à la Danny Cohn-Bendit, but you're conflating this with his political ideology. He's from a family of leftist militants and has a clearly Trotskyite-biased class struggle perspective. You might have a critique of this, as do I, but you're making ad hominems and you completely fail to back this up with supporting evidence. Jesse blue, if you have a critique of his ideology, please use concrete references to what he actually said, wrote or did rather than your subjective "impression."

Some of my comrades know Hossam personally and vouch for his integrity, despite having many substantial differences with him politically.

Empty talk. When he clearly shows his sympathy with people who hold Mubarak to be an Israeli agent, then that is not a "subjective "impression"" of mine.

To me, things like that totally forfeit a persons "integrity"; to you, clearly, they don't.

Lets stop waisting our time, you respect him and I don't. I would not him even with tongs.

Jesse Blue, you reaction also betrays a complete lack of understanding about the impact Israel has had on the Arab psyche. Israel has always been charged with being behind everything. Israel was used for a long time by the Egyptian regime as a political vent; when people were pissed off at Israel they were allowed to protest. Israel as always been used to explain away domestic problems. Sadly this means that "Israel" effectively colonizes people's thinking. And there is almost nothing to say to them about not all Israelis being bad. Most Arabs (though interestingly not Palestinians who actually interact with Israelis) subscribe to the Arab League's Khartoum declaration from 1967 that's all about no contact with the Zionist entity. It's fucking shit, it is counter-productive, but it's all a product of the domestic politics of Arab dictatorships and the geopolitics of the region.