Global unrest - discussion

Excellent idea, was thinking this was necessary. Will chip in at some point.

a bit to the side, but: i've been watching to see how this will be spun in the american media. so far there's been reportage, but not much in the way of commentary. i'd expect vilification, as there is a large workers' component, aimed at u.s. allies in power, and facilitated in some degree perhaps by wikileaks and al jazeera; but it isn't an islamist movement, and it appears 'democratic'. (my stopwatch is running, marking the time until i hear the first rightwing 'this is all a referendum on obama' comment.)

Surprisingly, everything that's happened since the Tunisian president fled has been reported semi-responsibly in the American media. They're only reporting that it's a revolt supported by the majority of the population, facilitated in a large degree by social media networks like Twitter, and the police suppression is actually receiving a fair bit of coverage as what it is. The American media isn't outright villifying the movement or defending any of these regimes as even remotely democratic. That's shocking to me considering what the right-wing noise machine did to Wikileaks.

But the American media, being the American media, is perfectly useless because real journalism in this country is dead.

My five cents: it seems like we're seeing a repeat of the phenomenon of food riots that hit most of the developing world in the 1970s and 1980s. Interestingly the bread intifada of 1977 is seen as the start of the wave (though there was a riot in Peru in the late 60s). The riots we see today seems to be not only about food/survival, but also about political liberties. What remains to be seen is if these are linked properly in terms of a social revolution or just calls for national unity governments that will remedy the piss poor economic conditions of working class Arabs.

I think a good place to start for an analysis of this is to revisit the argument from the book Free Markets and Food Riots to find some clues to how and why protests swept the developing world and whether the food riots are useful to understand the current situation.

As others have said, so far it seems like just fact reporting, probably because noone knows what context means anymore, and don't have a clue or even a guess what any of it means. When they catch their media breath, I'm expecting the implication of it being islamist inspired, or taken over etc, regardless of the real situation on the ground. So their momentary confusion on reporting this is actually oddly refreshing!

since i typed my post above i've seen this from yahoo, which touches some of the points i guessed at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110128/ts_yblog_thelookout/unrest-in-egypt-whats-going-on
the comments are cretinous, of course, but in them may be the germ of what we'll see from the major media outlets soon

Just for the sake of wild speculation:

In 1989 we thought anarchism could be a popular alternative, in the satellite countries of the Soviet Union where revolutions where breaking out in a similar manner to the global unrest at the minute, and in Russia itself.

What we got instead was a load more national variations on state capitalism with their markets opened up to western capital. In the absence of national scale examples of working-class self-organisation movements in the countries where the recent unrest has been it is difficult not to see the outcome being the same.

However the revolutions did show that the Soviet Empire could no longer control it's satellites and the Soviet Union collapsed a few years later followed by the Russian economy.

Does the recent unrest show that the US Empire has finally over-stretched itself in Iraq and Afghanistan and that it can no longer control it's client states and that it could collapse itself in a few years? This time it would appear that the Chinese State Capitalists would be the first into these new markets.

I think someone posts on here from a China Watch type academic blog. How much influence do the Chinese have in North Africa and the Middle East? The Tunisian ruling-class made deals with the US and the Russians at the same time in the past, so they could make make deals with the US and the Chinese at the same time now.

Martin - some thoughts off the top of my head

In the ex-communist countries any idea of socialism had been pretty much discredited for obvious reasons. I seem to remember many dissidents before 1989 favouring a move to some kind of social democratic system but this all got swept away when the system actually collapsed.

In Tunisia I get the impression there's a movement using revolutionary means to try and achieve social democratic ends - marching management out of the door and then calling for nationalisation, and so on, which probably owes a lot to the influence of leninist ideologies. Quite where this will end up I'm not sure. Maybe a Portugal/Spain/Greece style transition to liberal democracy with a few years of radicalism before it all dies down. I think the example of Portugal is interesting because it had at least a semi-revolutionary situation which the various leninist parties played a large part in undermining.

I'm not sure about Chinese influence, though it's important in the Sudan and a lot of sub-saharan Africa. For instance a year or so ago I was in Cape Verde, which has very little in the way of natural resources, and one of the striking things was the number of Chinese immigrants. Most imported goods come from China and a lot of the shops are Chinese owned. In China itself there's a boom in learning Portuguese because of involvement in Angola and Mozambique, and to a lesser extent trade with Brazil. I haven't heard of this kind of involvement in North Africa, but I may be missing something.

Thanks for this thread, it's a great idea.

Another aspect of this global unrest is the threat to international trade and world financial markets. With each successive uprising (Greece, France, etc.) we have seen a frightened response from the capitalist class. If you buy Polanyi's argument in The Great Transformation, it was rising nationalism and economic protectionism that deepened the crisis of the 1930's. With the current crisis 'resolved' on such a tenuous basis - trillions of dollars of fictitious assets guaranteed by governments, increasing gov't debt levels, austerity programs etc. - perhaps a period of rising working class insurgency will weaken this edifice.

After all, the international ruling class has been assiduous in its drive to quell protectionism among capitalist nation states. But what if Egyptian workers shut down the Suez Canal? What if the unrest should spread to Saudi Arabia and shut down the flow of oil to the West?

The capitalist class is getting scared and I like it.

I'm sure it sounds ridiculous to say that Internet is something like the only progressive force in the world.

I would say the history of last twenty years has been the history of capitalism destroying any idea of opposition more quickly than it can impose misery and austerity on the world. Of course capitalism has been in crisis for that entire period.

And recently, we've seen the "efforts" to keep things together falter.

The explosion in Argentina in 2001 was something like the leading edge of the unraveling of the financialized capitalist order. But there was no extension given the ability of post-dot-com capitalism to "bounce" into house-bubble-capitalism over 2002-2008.

But now... But now...

... Guy Debord described modern society as "perfect but fragile". I think that describes the overall situation quite well. The present order is a "marvelous, marvelous" order in the sense that what once was multiple systems is now single, self-reproducing, mutually defending but poorly design system (no plural).

Of course, we've seen spontaneous mass revolts once things went South to the degree people couldn't survive. WTF else was/is there?

(More later...)

Middle-class, urban, web-savvy – the archetypal media image of the young protesters who have shaken Egypt's dictatorship this week captures only part of the reality.
This generation of dissidents, most of whom have lived their entire lives under the three-decade rule of President Hosni Mubarak, have rejected the moribund landscape of formal politics that has ensnared many of their liberal elders since Nasser's 1952 revolution.
Not content to feed on the crumbs of free expression thrown by the Egyptian regime, they have carved out an alternative space in which to develop, swap and spread ideas which challenge the status quo.
Until the government cut off internet access this morning, the forums they organised were online, spread through a vibrant network of blogs and social media sites. Despite Egypt's limited internet penetration, Facebook has been "the main actor", says Khalid al Aman a political analyst at Durham university. "The development of these events has transcended classical movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and other political parties."
We have witnessed this before in Iran but he goes on to say:
But despite the talk of a "Twitter revolution" it is worth remembering that the specific events that helped fuel this uprising happened offline. On top of the long-burning grievances of political oppression and economic hardship, it was a 2008 strike by textile workers in the Nile Delta town of Mahalla al-Kubra that fired the imagination of many of those on the streets today. The three people shot dead by security forces during the Mahalla unrest on 16 April inspired an online movement which took its name from the date.
The traditional working class from all corners of the country has continued to provoke and inspire dissident activity ever since, occupying pavements outside parliament for weeks on end to highlight the devastating impact of the neoliberal reforms pursued by the ruling NDP party. Some trade unions – most notably the real estate tax collectors – have gone on to break free from state control.
Away from the economic concerns, anger at police corruption and brutality has been at the heart of the new wave of protest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jan/28/egypt-protests-live-updates

The above seems important as so far there has been little to clarify the balance and relation of class forces in these events. Popular 'revolutions' (a term whose usage needs periodic clarification) have so far meant, apparently, attempted toppling of unpopular despotic regimes. Assuming the old leaders go, (re-)division of the social cake - which classes get what concessions - will be demanded. The working class will find itself confronting (or failing to) a new ruling power drawn predominantly from, probably, a mix of the old ruling elite, the traditional political opposition, Islamicists and other sections of the middle and upper classes. (Maybe a few figures from the left/unions too.)

Then those who have most to gain from a new regime and those with least to gain will confront each other directly. The present alliance of all who are against the static authoritarian regime may tend to progressively fragment to the extent that the working class asserts its own particular demands in its own interest. An extension of the 'social wage' - workers rights, social security, union recognition etc - will be one form by which the attempted limitation of demands will be managed. Or what is an alternative development? Apart from imminent full-blown social revolution, of course, which though still far off, seems now a little less utopian. Even a working class offensive that forced some major reforms would be impressive. (In their desire to limit social movements the ruling class are probably a little more flexible than those who insist reforms are no longer possible in this era.)

What encouragingly suggests a new era is how recent events of varying scale - Millbank/UK student movement, Tunisia/Egypt - have erupted out of the blue. What remains to be seen is how sustainable these movements are in their ability to advance their development, expansion and linkage.

I think it'd definitely be interesting to trace a history of "how we got here" and keep up the speculation about "where we're going".

I too feel your excitement, Mark Harman, seeing as how I'm a pretty young chap and this is all just getting started...

RedHughs, very interested in hearing what more you've got to say. The next bubble burst will be the "green industry" bubble.

Is it too much wishful thinking, or am I actually going to live to see the end of the capitalism?

Wishful thinking Vonn. Moments of popular rage are ten-a-penny in the history of capitalism. To say that capitalism is in crisis tells us nothing because capitalism is absolutely dependent on crises and destruction.

We have no right to expect that the world will fall into our laps just because tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people take to the streets and in their quite justified rage demand "change".

"Change" is not synonymous with the emergence of a libertarian communist future; there is no clear road that leads from protests supported by the Muslim Brotherhood to a global commune of communes.

We do not deserve to be excited by this, we have not done the work or earned the right to be anything but saddened by the deaths; if things don't come out even worse once the flames die down we can allow ourselves to be relieved.

Ariege; it is apparently you who wants a fully formed "libertarian communist future" to "fall into our laps" - any other interruption to the domination of normal capitalist relations that falls short of this you dismiss with some patronising sympathy.
Ariege

"Change" is not synonymous with the emergence of a libertarian communist future; there is no clear road that leads from protests supported by the Muslim Brotherhood to a global commune of communes.

I guess we should also completely dismiss all aspects of the Spanish and Russian revolutions due to them being supported by Bolsheviks and Stalinists. The Paris Commune - enormously influential on later radicals - began as an-ultra patriotic defence of Paris; the Russian & German revolutions emerged in the aftermath of the obedient slaughter of WWI. But class antagonisms are not always frozen within these events, they ebb and flow and continue to develop.

The Muslim Brotherhood appear so far to have been marginal and without influence. But there is "no clear road" - period. Any road that would lead to "a global commune" could only be travelled by overcoming the obstacles of various religious/political powers that do sometimes give opportunistic support to social movements, all the better to disarm them. In circumstances of long dictatorship it's hardly surprising that an initial revolt would have populist characteristics - that does not mean that particular class interests will not emerge more clearly as part of its development, nor that they are not already forming themselves in small but growing acts of co-ordination. You are looking to use every less than revolutionary 'imperfection' to dismiss any radical potential of the events; failing to see that the development of radical social movements is an unfolding process with no guarantees - nor immediate appearances of your own preconceived narrow utopias.
As was said on the other thread in response to similar dismissive purism;
Samotnaf

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.
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/egypt-solidarity-protests-washington-dc-29012011

I do not "snottily, arrogantly and very superficially" dismiss the movement of the Egyptian people; I am not untouched by this uprising. I merely point out that these kind of events are common in the history of capitalism and that it is naive to read anything into them with regard to what might be considered real progress. If adrenalin and rebellion excite you then fair enough I suppose, but it remains to be shown that this upsurge, or any upsurge like it, has the capacity to challenge market ideology or social hierarchy.

Of course radical social movements can arise in a variety of different circumstances and, as you point out, have done so in the past; there may be some constructive legacy to all of this, but the work of spreading The Idea will remain to be done, and in an environment in which no doubt the public discourse will be that "the tyrant has gone and next year's elections will be fair and free!"

You leap to the conclusion that I would dismiss all aspects of the Spanish and Russian revolutions because they were "supported" by Bolsheviks; on the contrary, I would argue that to the extent that Bolsheviks and, in Spain, the PCE, were involved, they were counter-revolutionaries; their actions do not diminish my respect for the people in those places who struggled for liberty. As of right now I don't read or hear the voices of libertarian socialists in these events in North Africa; I would like to, now that would be interesting.

When I see things like this debate I'm always reminded of what I think is the base of my politics.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Its not to say that these movements are in any way communist, but its that the potential of communism comes from these movements, not from some external ideological form.

RedHughs

... Guy Debord described modern society as "perfect but fragile". I think that describes the overall situation quite well. The present order is a "marvelous, marvelous" order in the sense that what once was multiple systems is now single, self-reproducing, mutually defending but poorly design system (no plural)

He said too that modern capitalism no longer thinks historically and that a power unable to think historically is unable too of thinking strategically.

That's crucial imo. As in this wired age events follow one another at light speed, and with several power centers more or less antagonistic to each other when it comes to profit making, controlling the evolving scenario becomes much harder in the near future.

Ariege

I merely point out that these kind of events are common in the history of capitalism and that it is naive to read anything into them with regard to what might be considered real progress. If adrenalin and rebellion excite you then fair enough I suppose, but it remains to be shown that this upsurge, or any upsurge like it, has the capacity to challenge market ideology or social hierarchy.

Written by someone who has not followed Egyptian social unrest (or for that matter in all the countries we're seeing unrest in the Middle East now) since its latest incarnation after the al-Aqsa intifada? While these events are common in the history of capitalism, it is not common in the history of Egypt. It is not common that these protests have come after years of protracted class struggle in Egypt which did challenge market ideology and social hierarchy. These protests are much more a result of austerity than politics; I was recently told what the prices of staples were and I was shocked. It was always difficult for working class Egyptians to make ends meet, but now it's near impossible.

Granted these protests will not lead to revolution until the people get off the streets and start self-organizing their communities and workplaces. In order to sustain and push the protests further that has to happen.

If these protests do fizzle out it is even more important for us to figure out why, what went wrong, at what point, if the particular class composition in Egypt and other countries had something to do with it and so on.

"the tyrant has gone and next year's elections will be fair and free!"

Egyptians have become far too cynical to believe in this line now....

Ariege

Of course radical social movements can arise in a variety of different circumstances and, as you point out, have done so in the past; there may be some constructive legacy to all of this, but the work of spreading The Idea will remain to be done, and in an environment in which no doubt the public discourse will be that "the tyrant has gone and next year's elections will be fair and free!"

"spreading The Idea"?! Fuck 'The Holy Idea' and all similar pious catechisms. You continue to insist that the absence of a constituency of official adherents to 'libertarian communism' means nothing radical can be occurring in these events. You mention 1936, yet in Spain those CNT leaders most closely identified with libertarian communism as an official ideology (The Idea) - and who gained sufficient authority to join the state(!) as its representatives - were exactly the counter-revolution within the revolution. So much for Holy Ideas borne by ideological figureheads and their loyal constituencies - all mirroring the relations of bourgeois politics. That nothing radical can happen unless there is a constituency loyal to your pet frozen ideology - now that's naïve.

These protests are much more a result of austerity than politics; I was recently told what the prices of staples were and I was shocked. It was always difficult for working class Egyptians to make ends meet, but now it's near impossible.

Granted these protests will not lead to revolution until the people get off the streets and start self-organizing their communities and workplaces. In order to sustain and push the protests further that has to happen.

It seems a given that these protests won't overthrow capitalist relations tomorrow.

It seems as if they have a strong potential allow a variety of self-organized institutions to come into existence fairly quickly (link to call from Cairo for a general strike and the formation of "popular committees" - I've only been able to find links on Facebook, sorry).

However, it also seems fairly likely that the whole movement will at some point between police repression, reshuffling of officials, and democratic illusions/confusion. Hopefully, it will still leave people with a sense of collective empowerment and give a greater space for organization.

Further, the problem is that world capitalism has pretty much steeled itself to inflict the damage of the crisis on the most impoverished. Thus I would imagine that the time between fall-back and new explosion is going to be much less than previous times.

Naturally, one can not predict such things with any exactness.

Still, I don't see anything contradicting the idea that revolutionary struggle in the near future will involve a series of fairly chaotic forward-backward "explosions" rather than either a quick cake-walk or a slowly-built "movement".

petey

(my stopwatch is running, marking the time until i hear the first rightwing 'this is all a referendum on obama' comment.)

3 days, almost exactly:

Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

link

would anyone do better?

Governor Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion to protect our interests in North Africa.

that's from a site called christwireDOTorg

http://www.freerepublic. com/ is the site to check if you want to learn how everything is Obamas fault. Christwire is a parody site, but I've been fooled by it too. Shows how nutty american fundies are.

ludd

Christwire is a parody site

:oops:
still i think that one is a parody that can't be distinguished from reality

edit: ta-da!

Just now on MSNBC, neocon Dan Senor, former Iraq occupation spokesman, raised the possibility of intervention in Egypt.

from antiwar
yes it's just one but more'll come out i'm sure

Fox News is also preparing the discourse for military intervention

If the Safety of the Suez Canal Were Threatened Would You Support U.S. Military Action?

The Egyptian crisis continues to grow, and with it concern is being raised about the safety of the Suez Canal, which connects the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. An estimated 35,000 cargo ships use the canal each year, of which about 10 percent were petroleum tankers. The U.S. estimates that about 16 percent of the tonnage carried through the canal is petroleum product – including 1 million barrels of oil a day -- and the canal is considered by the U.S. government to be one of seven “world oil transit chokepoints.” In addition, about 8 percent of the world’s trade passes through the canal. With that in mind, if free passage through the canal were threatened, would you favor or oppose U.S. military action to keep it open?

If free passage through the canal were threatened, would you favor or oppose U.S. military action to keep it open?

Oppose – Rather than put Americans in harm’s way, let’s once and for all make the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Undecided – I’m concerned about what effect a closed Suez would have on our economy, but I’m not sure I’d want to risk American lives.

Favor – We must not let this strategically important route fall into the wrong hands. Do whatever is necessary to keep it open.

Other (post your comment).

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/31/suez-canal-threatened-support-military-action/

Juan Conatz

Fox News is also preparing the discourse for military intervention

If the Safety of the Suez Canal Were Threatened Would You Support U.S. Military Action?

The Egyptian crisis continues to grow, and with it concern is being raised about the safety of the Suez Canal, which connects the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. An estimated 35,000 cargo ships use the canal each year, of which about 10 percent were petroleum tankers. The U.S. estimates that about 16 percent of the tonnage carried through the canal is petroleum product – including 1 million barrels of oil a day -- and the canal is considered by the U.S. government to be one of seven “world oil transit chokepoints.” In addition, about 8 percent of the world’s trade passes through the canal. With that in mind, if free passage through the canal were threatened, would you favor or oppose U.S. military action to keep it open?

If free passage through the canal were threatened, would you favor or oppose U.S. military action to keep it open?

Oppose – Rather than put Americans in harm’s way, let’s once and for all make the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Undecided – I’m concerned about what effect a closed Suez would have on our economy, but I’m not sure I’d want to risk American lives.

Favor – We must not let this strategically important route fall into the wrong hands. Do whatever is necessary to keep it open.

Other (post your comment).

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/31/suez-canal-threatened-support-military-action/

Oof. That's a bit frightening, though I'm not surprised that Fox is pushing this angle already... warmongering pieces of shit.

I'm not sure the U.S. state apparatus has the support, means or inclination for a military intervention in Egypt in the near-term, though I wouldn't rule anything out at this point. Perhaps if the 'chaos' increases in the region and expropriations continue or an Islamist government comes to power we could see an international intervention. This would be probably under UN auspices or part of a new coalition couched in the rhetoric of 'humanitarian aid', though Fox is quite honest in admitting that any intervention would be for largely economic interests.

The geopolitical ramifications of this Egyptian revolt are endless. Whither Gaza? Whither Israel? Whither the other authoritarian regimes of the Middle East? Whither the global economy?

As the ancient Chinese said, "May you be blessed to live in interesting times."

Or, as goes the old communist axiom, “There will be periods of 30 years which will pass with the seeming importance of a single day, and single days with the importance of 30 years.”

egyptian state media is doing its own work.

[Nile News] ran extensive reports on the thousands of criminals who had been mysteriously released from the jails, along with calls from terrified viewers who said looters had been seen in their neighborhoods and also made some mention of the protests.

Anchors and religious figures offered advice to Egyptians in a difficult time.

But the effect of the programming — and maybe its intent, analysts say — was to link the protesters to a growing sense of lawlessness, while the channel delivered regular bulletins on steps the military and the government were taking to restore order. While no one expected the state media to amplify the views of the protesters, what was more surprising was how important — some say brazen — a role that the media played in the government’s effort to survive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/middleeast/01statetv.html?_r=1&hp

ludd

Christwire is a parody site, but I've been fooled by it too.

at least we're not alone

Maddow falls for the article hook, line and sinker:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110201/cm_atlantic/rachelmaddowandnbcstrugglewithsatire6795

reminds me of Kondratieff Waves