which began a decade ago, out of the protests in Seattle. It seems to be
an open forum, automatically passing on what's sent to it, including the
daily messages I send you. I note this as I try to enlist subscribers of
all political persuasion, including those who may be uncomfortable with
the word 'marxist.' I ask them to get over it; this material is the most
comprehensive I've seen, expanding on what's in today's NY Times.
And please don't identify me as whatever. I am what you see, daily.
Ed
ps: It turns out Democracy Now's senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous
is a Cairo native. He just relo'd home and is reporting, daily. Tune in.
From: "Cort Greene" <cort.greene@gmail.com>
Subject: [LAAMN] Alan Woods/Revolution in Egypt – Power is on the street
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:58 PM
In 1916 Lenin wrote these lines:
"Whoever expects a pure social revolution will never live to see it. Such a
person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution
is….
http://www.marxist.com/revolution-in-egypt-power-is-on-the-street.htm
Revolution in Egypt – Power is on the street
image:
Print]<http://www.marxist.com/revolution-in-egypt-power-is-on-the-street/print.htm#>
by Alan Woods
*London, Saturday, 29 January 2011*
Day five of the revolution and the movement continues to grow in size and
intensity. Last night's curfew was ignored, and today there are more people
on the streets than yesterday. A new curfew was called for four o'clock
Egyptian time, but this is no more effective than the previous one. Even
before the curfew came into effect, larger numbers of protestors were
gathering on the streets.
"The street is not being organized by the parties, it is not being organized
by the state. It is not controlled by anybody." (Al Jazeera)
Following the events hour by hour I recalled the following incident from the
French Revolution. On the 14th of July 1789, shortly after the fall of the
Bastille, the French king Louis XVI asked the Duke of
Rochefoucauld-Liancourt: "Is this a revolt?" To which the Duke delivered the
immortal reply: "*Non Sire*, *c'est une révolution* !" - No, sir, it's a
revolution.
In Egypt we are witnessing a revolution in full swing. After five days of
colossal struggles, this fact has penetrated even the most obtuse skulls.
The popular revolt is spreading by the hour. It is like a mighty river that
overflows its banks and sweeps away all barriers that were erected to
contain it.
Overnight all police have disappeared from the streets of the capital. Tanks
and armoured personnel carriers are on the streets of Cairo, where fires
from the previous day's violence are still smouldering. Mobile phone
services have been restored in the city, but the internet remains down.
Meanwhile, the death toll has reportedly risen to 53 since the January 28
protest. In Suez, where at least twenty people have been killed, the bodies
of the martyrs were carried through the streets as the people shouted
revolutionary slogans. In Cairo the political prisoners have taken control
of a jail. In Giza the people have burnt the police station and are
attacking the police. Burning police vehicles have become a common sight on
Egyptian streets. In one case, a group of protesters tried to push an
armoured vehicle into the River Nile.
After the withdrawal of the police there have been many reports of looting.
The people suspect that this has been deliberately organized by the regime
in order to create the impression of anarchy and chaos. It is clear that the
prisons have been opened to let out the criminal elements who have been
armed for this purpose. Egyptian television has shown scenes of destruction
of precious artefacts in the historic Cairo museum.
It is an open secret that this is a manoeuvre to destroy the revolution. The
large numbers of armed police who yesterday were shooting at unarmed
demonstrators are now nowhere to be seen as armed lumpenproletarians go on
the rampage. Several of the looters who were caught by protestors turned
out to be undercover policemen.
In response neighbourhood committees have been set up in Suez and Alexandria
to keep order and prevent looting. In some places the committees are even
directing the traffic. There is an urgent need to generalise the committees
and to arm the people. We must remember the slogan of the French Revolution:
"Mort aux voleurs!" (Death to thieves!)
Mubarak's speech
"Power tends to corrupt," the saying goes; "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." The President is suffering from the same delusions of grandeur
that affected the mental capacities of every Roman emperor and Russian tsar
in the past. Last night's speech of President Mubarak, far from calming the
situation, has thrown petrol on the flames.
<http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/egypt/Jan_29_victory_sign-philip_rizk.jpg>
[image: January 29. Photo: Philip Rizk]
The people's message is loud and clear. But the President does not hear it.
He is blind and deaf and has lost the use of reason. A man who has got used
to being surrounded by a camarilla of servile courtiers hanging on his every
word loses all contact with reality. He begins to believe in his own
omnipotence. The border line between reality and fantasy is blurred. Such a
state of mind is akin to madness.
Watching Mubarak speak, one had the impression of a man who has lost all
contact with reality and is playing out his own fantasies. He promises that
everything will be better from now on, if only the people will trust him. He
will dismiss his government and he will graciously appoint another one. He
will make the necessary changes. But he will not tolerate chaos and
disorder. Anyone who disobeys can expect no mercy.
This is the voice of the Father of the People, the harsh but benevolent
Pharaoh who decides every question for the benefit of his children. But the
people of Egypt are not little children and have no need of a Pharaoh who
has to send his army onto the streets to keep them obedient.
The government has duly resigned and a "new" government has been appointed
(by Mubarak). The prime minister will be Racheed Mohamad Racheed - a
millionaire and the former minister of investment, commerce, and industry.
Rachid is identified with the so-called "neoliberal" reforms that have
contributed to the hardship of the masses: high and rising prices,
unemployment and poverty.
This appointment is sufficient to reveal the precise physiognomy of the
"new" government. It is a provocation to the people on the streets. Since
then Omar Suleiman, the 74-year old head of the state intelligence services
has been named vice-president. Since Suleiman is one of Mubarak's main
stooges, this is an even more blatant provocation to the masses. It shows
how far out of touch with reality Mubarak is.
If the President's speech was intended to calm things down, it had the
opposite effect. Last night BBC television spoke on the telephone to a man
who had been on the streets all day: "I intended to go to bed for a few
hours and then continue demonstrating tomorrow, but after I heard Mubarak's
speech I immediately phoned all my relations to come out and demonstrate,
and I went back on the streets."
The "Islamist menace"
The western media is constantly repeating the idea that the Moslem
Brotherhood is behind the protests, and that they are the only alternative
to Mubarak. This is false. The fact is that, just like all the other
political parties, the Moslem Brotherhood has been completely caught
unawares by this movement. Initially they did not even support it, and their
role in organizing the protests has been minimal.
The Muslim Brotherhood recently subtly changed its message ahead of the
latest protests. The deputy leader Mahmoud Izzat spoke encouragingly of the
protests: "People are demanding freedom, the dissolution of this invalid
parliament. From the beginning this is what the young people have been
shouting and we are with them," Mr Izzat told the al-Jazeera news channel.
And he went on to criticise "the excessive force" of the security services.
However, the Brotherhood did not organize the protests and on the
demonstrations one sees very few bearded fundamentalists. The majority of
the activists are young, many of them students, but there are also many
unemployed youth from the slums of Cairo and Alexandria. They are not
fighting for the introduction of Sharia law but for freedom and jobs. .
The fact of the matter is that these reactionaries did not want this
revolutionary movement and are mortally afraid of it. The people who
streamed out of the mosques to demonstrate on the streets of Suez after
Friday prayers did so in spite of the fact that the imam told them not to
participate in the protests. The reactionary role of the fundamentalists is
shown by the influential Islamist al-Qaradawi who, according to AlJazeera,
"urges people not to attack state institutions."
The Brotherhood Itself is split and has declined. Hossam el-Hamalawy told Al
Jazeera:
"The Brotherhood has been suffering from divisions since the outbreak of the
al-Aqsa intifada. Its involvement in the Palestinian Solidarity Movement
when it came to confronting the regime was abysmal. Basically, whenever
their leadership makes a compromise with the regime, especially the most
recent leadership of the current supreme guide, it has demoralised its base
cadres. I know personally many young brothers who left the group. Some of
them have joined other groups or remained independent. As the current street
movement grows and the lower leadership gets involved, there will be more
divisions because the higher leadership can't justify why they're not part
of the new uprising."
International repercussions
If the government and all the political parties have been taken by surprise,
this is still more the case with western governments. Having denied any
possibility of an upheaval in Egypt only one week ago, the leaders of the
western world in Washington now stand with their mouths open.
Obama and Hilary Clinton seem to be having difficulty keeping up with the
situation. Their public declarations show that they have not yet grasped the
realities on the ground. They express sympathy with the protestors but are
still in favour of maintaining a friendly dialogue with the government that
is shooting and gassing them. This desire to ride both horses at the same
time may be understandable, but it is a little difficult to do when both
horses are running in opposite directions.
President Obama, as everybody knows, specializes in facing all directions at
once. But his chief speciality is in saying nothing but saying it very
nicely. He advises Egypt to introduce democracy and provide its citizens
with work and a decent living standard. But neither he nor any of his
predecessors had any problem about collaborating with Hosni Mubarak,
although they knew he was a tyrant and a dictator. Only now, when the masses
are on the point of overthrowing him, do they suddenly begin to sing the
praises of democracy.
Obama's request for more jobs and improved living standards in Egypt sounds
particularly hollow. It was the United States that was behind the economic
"reforms" of 1991. That pushed Egypt into the kind of "liberalism" that
resulted in huge inequality, obscene wealth for a few and poverty and
unemployment for the vast majority. More than anything else that is what has
created the present explosive situation in Egypt. In this context, Obama's
advice is the worst kind of cynicism.
Washington's concern is not motivated by humanitarian or democratic
considerations. It is motivated by self-interest. Egypt is the most
important Arab country in the Middle East. By comparison, Tunisia is a small
and relatively marginal country. But historically whatever happens in Egypt
tends to communicate itself to the entire region. That is why all the Arab
ruling cliques are worried and that is why Washington is worried.
They are right to worry. But the Israeli ruling circles are even more
worried. Mubarak was a useful tool of Israeli foreign policy. As a
"moderate" (that is, a western stooge) he helped to keep up the illusion of
a fraudulent "peace process" which kept the Palestinian masses in check
while the Israelis consolidated their positions. He propped up the equally
"moderate" Abbas and the other leaders of the PLO, who have betrayed the
aspirations of the Palestinian people. He supported the so-called war on
terror.
He was thus very useful to both the Americans and the Israelis. His services
were well rewarded. The USA subsidized his regime to the tune of around $5
billion a year. Egypt is the fourth largest recipient of American aid, after
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel. Most of this money went on arms
expenditure, a fact that will have been painfully brought home to the
protestors when they read the labels on tear gas canisters with the words
"Made in the USA" written on them. These messages from Washington speak to
the protestors with far greater eloquence than the speeches of Mr. Obama.
The removal of Mubarak will therefore remove one of the most important
elements on US foreign policy in the Middle East. It will further undermine
the "moderate" (pro-American) Arab regimes. Already the mass protests are
growing in Jordan and Yemen. Others will follow. Saudi Arabia itself is not
safe.
The imperialists look on aghast. Overnight all their schemes are coming
undone. Malcolm Rifkind, a former Conservative British Foreign Secretary,
when asked for his view of the situation on BBC television, said: "Well,
this has been prepared for a long time. Whatever government comes to power
in Egypt will not be pro-western. But there is not a lot we can do about
it."
The army
<http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/egypt/Jan_29_people_on_tanks-philip_rizk.jpg>
[image: January 29, people on tanks. Photo: Philip Rizk]
The army is now all that separates Mubarak from the abysm. How will the army
react? The army has now replaced the police on the streets. The relationship
between the soldiers and the protestors is uneasy and contradictory. In some
cases there is fraternization. In other cases, there have been clashes with
protestors.
In order to put an end to the revolt, it would be necessary to kill
thousands of protesters. But it is impossible to kill them all. And there is
no guarantee that troops would be prepared to obey the order to fire on
unarmed demonstrators. The army officers know that one bloody incident would
be sufficient to break the army in pieces. It seems very unlikely that they
would be prepared to take the risk. Today the BBC website speculated about
the army's role:
"Broadly speaking, Egyptians respect their army, which is still seen as a
patriotic bulwark against their neighbour Israel, with whom they went to war
in 1967 and 1973.
"But the black-clad riot police, the Central Security Force (Amn
al-Markazi), belongs to the interior ministry, and has been in the forefront
of much of the violent confrontations with protesters.
"Poorly paid and mostly illiterate, they number around 330,000 when combined
with the Border Force. They themselves rioted over low pay in the early
years of President Mubarak's rule and had to be brought under control by the
army.
"The army has a similar strength - around 340,000 - and is under the command
of Gen Mohammad Tantawi, who has close ties with the US (he has just been
visiting the Pentagon).
"When Mr Mubarak ordered the army onto the streets of Cairo and other cities
late on Friday, his aim was to back up the riot police who have been heavily
outnumbered by the protesters.
"But many of them are hoping the army will take their side or, at the very
least, act as a restraining force on the police who have been acting with
excessive brutality throughout this protest.
"Hence the cheers that greeted the columns of army vehicles as they drove
through Cairo on Friday night.
"Up until now, President Mubarak has enjoyed the support of the armed
forces.
"He was, after all, a career air force officer suddenly catapulted to the
presidency when Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981.
"But if these protests continue and intensify there are bound to be senior
voices within the military tempted to urge him to stand down."
The days of the Mubarak regime are numbered, and this must be clear to the
army chiefs who must think of their own future. Even if security forces
manage to put down protests today, how will they put down the ones that
happen next week, or next month or next year? Power is in effect lying in
the street, waiting for somebody to pick it up. But who will do so? If a
party like the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky were present, the
conquest of power by the working class would be on the order of the day. The
problem is that such a party does not yet exist
In the absence of a revolutionary party and leadership, the present
situation can end in deadlock. In such situations the state itself, in the
shape of the army, tends to raise itself above society and become the
arbiter between the classes. In Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries
there is a long history of such things, beginning with Abdel Nasser. It is
possible that a section of the army leaders will decide to dump Mubarak.
The mass movement is strong enough to overthrow the old regime. But as yet
it lacks the necessary level of organization and leadership to constitute
itself as a new power. Consequently, the revolution will be a protracted
affair, which must go through a series of stages before the workers are in a
position to take power into their hands. There will be a series of
transitional governments, each more unstable than the last. But on a
capitalist basis none of the fundamental problems can be solved.
However, the fall of Mubarak will open the flood gates. The working class
has been awakened to struggle. For the last four years there has been a wave
of labour strikes in Egypt. The workers will take advantage of democracy to
press their class demands. The struggle for democracy will open the way for
the fight for socialism.
*London 29th January*
No comments:
Post a Comment