Egypt: Not Yet a Revolution
Posted by onehundredflowers on February 10, 2011
This piece comes to us from Vantvan.
We are posting it because it raises some important points for revolutionaries, among them: What are the contradictions in play? What is the relationship between the different social forces? What stance should we take on a situation that is still unfolding? As usual, by posting this, we are not necessarily endorsing all the positions being argued.
Initial thoughts on Egypt
Feb. 4, 2011
All too often, we on the Left attempt to prematurely analyze objective reality based on what we see as the expression of an internal contradiction, without thoroughly investigating, understanding or appropriating the internal factors, even at the level of perceptual knowledge.
Theory should not be reduced to the act of commenting or reaching verdicts on events (even if that includes analysis), but should instead be the process of understanding an objective reality. In this way, the production of theory should serve the proletarian struggle.
The struggles in Tunisia and Egypt, just to cite a couple of the recent ones, are not revolutions, or more precisely, they have not reached the stage of revolutionary struggles, though they may be on that path. The struggles are still on the level of demanding popular democratic reforms. A very thin line separates these from being reformist struggles. Therefore, these struggles should be seen as popular democratic uprisings, rather than revolutions. This clarifies the content and nature of these struggles, as well as their limitations. Their purpose is to enlarge bourgeois democracy.
The limitations are determined by the fact that these struggles are being waged under the leadership of sectors of the bourgeoisie, and most importantly the petit bourgeoisie, which the bourgeoisie is heavily leaning on to guarantee their control of the popular masses, and prevent any development of these struggles into revolution.
These struggles, even with their limitations, are an objective advancement over the previous order, and require our support. We need to support them in unity with the objective interests of the Egyptian proletariat and the international proletariat.
However, the risk is present for these struggles to be co-opted by the dominant classes. Only the autonomous presence of the popular masses, particularly the working class, will determine A) how far the demands could be pushed, and B) the continuation of these struggles to actually defeat the dominant classes and imperialism.
It will be important for us, non-dogmatically and from a non-ultra-leftist position, to avoid conflating these struggles with revolutions or concluding that they are victories, and thus deflating their actual effect.
Dictatorship is the capacity of a class to reproduce its dominance within a specific social formation. The dominant classes use the state apparatus as their political tools to administer, manage and regulate their dominance.
The anti-dictatorship struggle should not focus itself against one person, but against the dominant classes. So, it is important not to confuse the state apparatus with the government. The state apparatus is the machine of repression, and the government is the center pole of that machinery. Elections tend to allow the dominant classes the possibility of rejuvenating the state apparatus by changing the government, favoring this alteration for the purpose of retaining their power.
In a sense they are constantly regulating bourgeois democracy. Of course, this is relative depending on the strength of the bourgeois dominant structure and the nature of their internal struggle, as well as their ability to maintain power in the face of popular struggle and imperialist interference.
In some instances of bourgeois democracy we encounter periods of particularly extreme forms such as autocracy and fascism. Even in these cases, we should not confuse the trees with the forest. The forest is always the dominant classes. The trees are these particular forms that power takes, or individual figureheads.
If we do confuse them, we are bound to make any number of the following errors:
1) To label these struggles revolutions and conclude that they are victories.
2) To call for a united front.
3) To limit our support to government change, allowing the restructuring of the relations among the dominant classes, even if they do concede some rights to the masses.
4) Be completely overtaken by reformism.
5) Go against the objective interests of the working class.
Since Nasser, a problem faced by the National Liberation Movement (but not only related to the NLM), is that a bureaucratic bourgeoisie has been consolidated within these social formations. The bureaucratic bourgeoisie has a tendency to be autocratic. In most of the social formations in question, it is this fraction of the bourgeoisie that, in its own interests and in the interests of all the dominant classes, possesses hegemonic political power .
Two types of struggle are presently occurring in Egypt, as well as in many other social formations (each of course with their own particularities): the struggle between the popular masses and the dominant classes, and the struggle among the different factions within the dominant classes for political control and preferential relation with imperialism.
As we analyze these struggles, we should consider several points:
1. There is a constant struggle among the dominant classes to restructure bourgeois democracy, especially if it is being managed autocratically by one fraction and all power is concentrated in the hands of one individual.
2. In most cases within this type of social formation, the social base of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is the army or sectors of the army, and/or the general repressive apparatus structure. Sadat and Mubarak were army generals. In most cases, the army or particular sections of the army act as the political organizations of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie fraction. One sector of the army could be under the leadership of this sector of the bourgeoisie and in service to imperialism, or it could serve feudal landlords — this is not cut and dried. We need to analyze these conditions further to understand the army’s role.
3. The sectors of the bourgeoisie acting against the bureaucratic bourgeoisie (which has been headed by Mubarak) are not progressive and should not be considered allies of the masses. The contradictions between these sectors are secondary contradictions, presently being resolved antagonistically. The bourgeoisie as a block is utterly pro-imperialist. Soon after Nasser, the imperialist political line within the Egyptian social formation made substantial gains. For example, aid from imperialists favored the formation of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, undermined Nasser’s petit bourgeois nationalism, and greatly impaired the national bourgeoisie. More in-depth analysis is needed to understand the full internal impact of that political line.
4. Egypt’s role in assisting imperialism in the Middle East is significant, especially in relation to Israel. This also facilitates the development of a particular ultra-reactionary feudalist Islamic tendency, as we have seen in other social formations in the Middle East.
5. The struggle among the dominant classes is solely in the interests of those classes, even if the masses receive a few concessions. Genuine liberation depends upon the autonomous capacity of the masses, and their independence from and resistance to the bourgeoisie.
6. Sectors of the dominant classes against the hegemony of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie generally tend to lean on the petit bourgeoisie to influence the masses, to limit and prevent any deepening of the social contradictions that would allow a transition from an uprising to a revolutionary struggle. The petit bourgeoisie usually presents their class demands as the demands of the fundamental masses (those of the working class in particular); thus drowning the struggle in populism, opportunism and class collaboration.
7. The popular struggle will advance based on its capacity to resist cooptation by sectors of the dominant classes and imperialists who present themselves as in opposition to the bureaucratic bourgeoisie.
8. Imperialist politics have matured greatly in the past forty years. The practice of unilateral support for autocrats is over; now imperialists will lean on both camps and adjust their position as a situation develops. Imperialism must be unequivocally denounced.
9. We should not simply react in a populist fashion. We need to point out that the situations in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere represent the failure of capitalism and neo-liberalism.
The popular demands are based on underlying class interests. We need to understand their class content in order to pursue our anti-capitalist struggle at all levels, and to support these popular struggles from an anti-imperialist/anti-capitalist perspective.
In the days to come, the relations of power will be crucial to what is achieved by the struggle of the masses. The more the struggle is constrained, the more the outcome will favor the interests of the bourgeoisie as a block and imperialism. Even if the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is shaken by the maneuverings of the imperialists, the probability for the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the block of the dominant classes to regain control is far greater than the likelihood of victory by any autonomous popular alternatives.
We need to develop and offer analysis of these situations, and avoid potential negative impacts of blind support flowing from the low level of class consciousness and struggle in the United States.
These are some initial thoughts to consider in the context of our general support of the uprisings in Egypt.
Adrienne said
This may be case — yet, it has seemed to me as though all sectors of the Egyptian population have been rising up. I was reading just yesterday that people living in slums in Suez were protesting to demand improved housing conditions.
Also, here’s a couple of articles I was reading this morning:
Egypt’s working class joins anti-government revolt
Egyptian workers catch protest wave, call strikes
Btw, it’s now being tweeted that Mubarak is expected to step down tonight.
Eddy Laing said
I think this mis-characterizes the upsurge to date, and the dynamic in Cairo and elsewhere in the country. The Mubarak regime has tried to conjure a ‘leadership’ to negotiate with, but so far only meetings with members of the Muslim Brotherhood have taken place. The army remains divided, although the push is concerted to move against the ‘uprising’ and in some areas the military has in fact shot down and/or disappeared the people.
But at the outset, the massive outpouring in Cairo was not the only manifestation of the uprising. As is now known, there is also a general strike underway. There have been seizures of police stations and military barracks, prison breaks, and other organs of state power across northern Egypt (and perhaps beyond) since the beginning of the uprising.
There are many class/political forces in the field. This will not continue indefinitely, of course. At some point, the struggle must resolve itself in favor of one class group (or coalition) or another.
But it seems clearly not ‘led’ by the bourgeoisie … nor orchestrated from afar.
Eddy Laing said
And, as the most recent indication of this ‘power void’ …
Beruit’s Daily Star reports as breaking news:
The Daily Star
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Egypt army takes control, Mubarak set to resign tonight
Beirut – Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak looked set to step down Thursday night, a number of senior Egyptian officials said.
Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq told the BBC that the 82-year-old strongman may step down in response to more than two weeks of nationwide protests against his 30-year rule.
“A decision about the president staying or leaving is coming within hours,” another unidentified cabinet official said.
In addition, The head of Mubarak’s ruling party, Hossam Badrawi, told the media that he expects Mubarak will “respond to protesters’ demands” in his evening speech.
State TV said Mubarak will speak to the nation Thursday night from his palace in Cairo.
CIA Director Leon Panetta told lawmakers there was a “strong likelihood” that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would step down later on Thursday.
Asked about media reports that the Egyptian leader was about to relinquish power, Panetta said: “I got the same information you did, that there’s a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening.”
“There’s a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening, which would be significant in terms of where the, hopefully, orderly transition in Egypt takes place,” Leon Panetta told a congressional hearing in Washington.
In a statement televised on state television, The Supreme Council of Egyptian Armed Forces said it had convened a meeting in response to the current political turmoil, and that it would keep its meetings open until a decision is made.
Footage on state TV showed Defense Minster Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi chairing the military’s supreme council, with around two dozen top stern-faced army officers, seated around a table. Not at the meeting were Mubarak, the military commander in chief, or his vice president Omar Suleiman, a former army general and intelligence chief named to his post after the protests erupted Jan. 25.
That could be a sign that Suleiman, as well, was being pushed out of power.
“All your demands will be met today,” Gen. Hassan al-Roueini, military commander for the Cairo area, told thousands of protesters in central Tahrir Square. The protesters lifted al-Roueini onto their shoulders and carried him around the square, shouting, “the army, the people one hand.” Some in the crowd held up their hands in V-for-victory signs, shouting “the people want the end of the regime” and “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” a victory cry used by secular and religious people alike.
But protesters also chanted, “civilian not military,” a signal they do not want military rule. More people flowed into the square following the military announcement in the evening.
(report continues…)
Miles Ahead said
While I write this, am more so listening to Mubarak—addressing his “sons and daughters of Egypt”—as their father (grossly patronizing which inflamed the people even more), not stepping down (not even close–although conflicting reports as to whether or not the power has been shifted to Sulieman as de facto prez.) and that he is not buckling to any foreign powers’ pressure, at the same time continuing to paint himself as the bulwark of stability. And as to the economic crisis…a feeble attempt to blame the people’s movement for this…Holy shit, even the U.S. mainstream media is shooting holes through this and other lies..lies, and more lies. ! Delegating some more powers to Sulieman. Besides Mubarak restating his entrenchment, PERHAPS his speech is one to bait the people, and unleash the military for a bloodbath. (Now Sulieman is on Egyptian state-run TV. “Go back to your homes, work,” etc. “Do not listen to the foreigners who are trying to foment sedition.” Reiterating what Mubarak said. Both thumbing their noses at the U.S. in particular.)
Reaction by the 100’s of 1,000’s…in Tahrir Square…exploding in anger, outrage, enraged, uproar, etc., understanding full well what Mubarak just said…this is a people united and militantly so (now talking about marching on the presidential palace or “storming the state television station.” BTW, guess what? The state-run TV station has an entire phalanx of military surrounding and protecting it.).
But…am glad that both Adrienne and Eddy posted the above comments…most of what they say is true although there are a few facts that need to be honed. For instance, the prison breaks (which happened early on), were orchestrated by the Mubarak forces…Al Jazeera and others pointing out that most of those in prison who “broke out”, were even bribed to act as thugs against the people. What the hell is the military going to do? This is a military dictatorship, no?
As far as the strikes, which is leaning toward a general strike, but for now concentrated outside of Cairo, those workers (and as Adrienne pointed out, some “slum dwellers”) have now joined the movement concentrated in Cairo…textile workers, workers at the Suez Canal (!!!), etc. I posted all this on another thread, plus the interview with Vijay Prashad from a few nights back—an interview with Democracy Now!. (It is hard to keep track of all this…)
But something that jumped out at me in the introduction to this post…”What stance should we take on a situation that is still unfolding?” And subsequent remarks about how the (national?) bourgeoisie, and/or petit bourgeoisie are basically leading the revolution…but as Adrienne pointed out, “This may be case — yet, it has seemed to me as though all sectors of the Egyptian population have been rising up.” (I agree with Adrienne and will add that repeatedly overwhelmingly this rev. has been called a “mosaic” of forces across the board..)
But—as revolutionary-minded, or revolutionary communists/internationalists, Why is this even a question?? Or is it a rhetorical one?
IMO Egypt is going through a massive/popular in the millions, revolution, a bourgeois democratic one. I am all for analysis…but not for empty prognostics. Sarah Palin stated that she is critical of “Obama’s handling” of this crisis because he is not being transparent enough, and not telling the “American people who is going to take power.” So, to be blunt…are many of those who are concerned about various forces at the helm, of this revolution so far looking for some simple answer as well? Underneath all the p.c. rhetoric, are they some of the same forces who didn’t want to support the huge uprising in Iran because some even said it was just a bunch of spoiled rich kids with cell phones?
What do people think revolution looks like? Is anything short of proletarian revolution from the outset, just a bunch of yak yak? What does conjuncture mean to revolutionary-minded people?
Here’s what analysis, from afar and particularly within the U.S. I think is more helpful — to try and analyze what this means for the imperialists? What this means for both allies and foes in the region and the effects this revolution has on the world—politically, socially, economically. How can revolutionary people around the world take advantage of the new and heightened contradictions the friggin’ imperialists and their puppets are finding themselves in? etc. Egypt is a game changer … at least for the present and foreseeable future, and I staunchly believe that we should be on board, on the side of the people, whose consciousness (some of us keep talking about) is being elevated on an hourly basis. And not worry so much as to who initiated this revolution, or be so damn nervous about whether or not those forces are from the petit bourgeoisie. Think this whole historic event has gone beyond all that…(and without an apparent organized communist party and/or organization as a meaningful force…although am not discounting the communist forces.)
What are we waiting for…? The perfect scenario, and one to our liking?
Stiofan said
Mubarak has decided to confront the people and his vice-president is blaming the unrest on satellite television. The ancien regime is clearly in denial and the social forces at work indicate that this is a revolutionary process unfolding now. This is not to say it won’t be be a bourgeoisie democratic one but the author seems to think that only a successful outcome merits the revolutionary title. Keep in mind that the French Revolutions of 1798, 1830, 1848 and the Paris commune of 1871 were all crushed, thwarted, or derailed in one way or anther. The popular use of the term “revolution” among the Egyptian people themselves expresses their awareness that the social and political order of the entire Arab world is at stake and the degree to which their consciousness has already been transformed. That process will be contradictory, chaotic and unpredictable as the revolutionary road has always been. At this moment the masses are making history under conditions they have not chosen but which they confronting with heroism, self sacrifice and creativity.
Long Live the Egyptian Revolution
Long Live the People’s Struggle
Eddy Laing said
miles ahead wrote:
your interpretation of the prison breaks is at odds with a variety of other accounts that are not ‘Mubarak forces’.
it would make sense for the Egyptian government to threaten the middle classes with ‘disorder’ to be perpetrated by the proletariat and other ‘lower classes’, including those who were incarcerated. but let us make a Marxist class analysis of the prisons and prisoners in Egypt!
Human Rights Watch has posted (2/2/11) an interview with some escapees who seized the opportunity to return to Gaza (many prisoners were Palestinians) and who recounted their experiences at the hands of the Egyptian penal system. And from the alternate perspective the Jerusalem Post reported on escaped ‘terrorists’ from Egyptian prisons, now returning to Gaza.
other accounts (Reuters and Huffington Post (1/29/11) for example) report that during these prison breaks, there were armed assaults on the prisoners by the military, and that at least one army general was killed at one of the prison breaks — describing conditions surrounding pitched battle, not orchestrated releases.
and then the government’s vaunted threat of the mob of thugs (enemies of the state) descending upon Cairo did not materialize, did it?
Adrienne said
Well comrades. What can be said?
You know, other than: hey that Mubarak must have one cRaZy-ass, maggot-ridden brain-case full of ego-maniacal monster-goo, eh?
Huge let down for the Egyptian people tonight. Tomorrow should be an interesting day indeed. Or maybe all of next week.
I’m personally hoping we won’t be looking on as another Tienanmen type of situation unfolds before our eyes — but this time as a live Al Jazeera exclusive.
Yes, that’s it exactly, Miles Ahead! (and since I keep finding that to be the case, one of these days, the drinks will have to be on me.)
Eddy Laing:
Also well said, and I totally agree. The people (in Tahrir and elsewhere) truly seem to be All In at this point, and there is likely no going back for them. I’m getting the distinct impression that many really would rather die standing in the street while fighting for their rights, rather than put it off until later in one of the prisons run by this despicable regime.
Viva! Viva! (Anyone know the Arabic translation?)
chicanofuturet said
The author Vantvan makes a well written information rich polemic urging communists to avoid making a “rush to judgment”,so to speak,dogmatic left analysis of events occurring in Egypt.
Vantvan makes the argument that communists should not mis-characterize the Egyptian struggle.
The author states-
“It will be important for us, non-dogmatically and from a non-ultra-leftist position, to avoid conflating these struggles with revolutions or concluding that they are victories, and thus deflating their actual effect.”
Sorry comrade,but I strongly differ with you about branding such “conflations” and “conclusions” as being utra-left and dogmatic in nature..
I for one surely do conclude that what the Egyptian struggles have accomplished so far are tremendous..monumental victories inspiring, breathtaking, full of promise and hope for the future.The “actual effect” IMHO is the opposite of what you conclude.
We must never forget Revolution also has powerful spiritual and subjective aspects which can “fuel” the revolution.
IMHO to deny this critical dynamic is to be dogmatic and ultra-right.
It seems to me that at the end of the day Vantvan is basically in the same boat of “uncertainty” as many of us other communists find ourselves in presently.Simply put…at this stage of the struggle no one knows definitively where all this is heading..it is just too fluid..
It’s fine to be cautious,avoid making mechanical dogmatic prognosis.
But I would add,making errors on the side of extreme caution can be just as bad as making errors on the side of extreme optimism.
Dialectical materialism teaches us that profound change during a time of great crisis is often hidden,not apparent-in a state of latentcy.. potentially in the womb of revolution..
Having said that,one thing for sure that many of us communists can do concretely to make revolution would be to forge strong links-ties in solidarity with the Egyptian people..urge and help them to fight for socialism and make revolution a reality.
As Karl Marx (forgive me for being dogmatic here)once said-
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it.
Stephanie McMillan said
Yes, we need to cheer on the Egyptian people, uphold their aspirations to liberate themselves, and celebrate their bravery and determination. We need to support their struggle. Obviously. Vantvan was not saying otherwise.
What he pointed out, and what I agree with, is that this is not, so far, a revolution (though it could turn into a step toward one), and to call it one is a mistake.
Whether or not people from the dominated classes are participating is not in question. This situation might not be, but can still be, tragically, co-opted by the ruling classes if all that is accomplished is a transfer of power within those classes. Let’s hope not, of course, but at the same time not blind ourselves to this reality. If we don’t recognize the difference between an uprising and a revolution, then we risk promoting illusions about what it actually means to win a genuine revolutionary victory.
This is an uprising, a revolt, and we can celebrate it as such. It is not a revolution at this point. A revolution requires one class to overthrow another. To call this a revolution at this time, confuses what a revolution actually is. It leads people to declare victory and the struggle finished, when they may end up with (along with some concessions to make life more bearable, which, if we recognize these as such and don’t inflate them, are also victories to be celebrated), in the final analysis merely a transfer of power within the ruling classes and no fundamental change.
To me this entire situation makes even more clear and urgent the crying need to raise revolutionary consciousness and build organizations now, everywhere, so that when mass uprisings do occur, their energies can be focused on winning the ultimate prize, the overthrow of the ruling classes as a whole.
RW Harvey said
From the point of view of the armchair, everything looks easy to evaluate, criticize, and make perfect.
I appreciate and value analysis as much as anyone. My question is: to what end and in the service of what? It seems that Egypt holds up a mirror even more than it presents a lens.
For revolutionaries in the US, it would seem that we are getting an important glimpse of what revolutionary upheaval looks, sounds, and feels like — in quite a fluid and complex scenario, brought to us on television, the internet, twitter, etc. Yes, it is a crucial lesson that there is no ‘autonomous proletarian’ leadership, but that is a lesson primarily mirrored for us right here in our preparations, our reconvening. It is hardly a thing we can affect within Egypt.
Sure it is important that we parse out and articulate the class forces in movement, how they contradict and complement the thrust towards a revolutionary overthrow of Mubarak; and again, this is a mirror for us.
The greatest service we can do the Egyptian people is twofold: support unequivocably their desire for freedom and liberation, and relentlessly expose the role of the US imperium in Egypt and in the Middle East. The fact that some can even venture an analysis while so much is still in play is precisely the result of effort to lay a dogmato-template upon the struggle of the Egyptian people.
To even hint that this uprising is somehow less than proletarian-perfect serves no other purpose than to once again reveal the holier-than-thou attitudes of intellectualizing revolutionaries analysing from on-high within the privileged position in the belly of the beast.
Jan Makandal said
What we should be waiting for?
For the working class to take history in its own hands, overcome bourgeois politics, and offer a genuine alternative to any form of capitalism. The posting was not aimed to make a prediction, but rather to have “mise en garde”/ points to consider on the evolution of the valiant popular uprising in Egypt.
We have seen lately in many social formations, though the popular masses are the principal forces of these uprisings, and this is an objective advancement, still the result is crumbs from the dominant classes and mostly the bourgeoisie regaining control of the situations. We could cite Algeria, South Africa, Haiti, Nicaragua, Iran and most recently Tunisia. Anything short of a proletarian led struggle and revolution is from the onset limited in these times of capitalism and imperialism. Proletarian revolution must be the order of the day. Does that mean we need to turn our backs on these ongoing valiant struggles? NO. We need to support them any way we can, but at the same time recognizing their limits. We need to use this opportunity, as well, to expose bourgeois democracy.
They are two types of demands:
We have demands in the interest of the dominant classes, principally the one opposed to Mubarak’s autocracy. These demands are in the interest of the bourgeoisie, and easily recoverable by imperialism. These demands are only limited to regime change, calling for new elections. Some go even as far as calling for the army to take control of the situation, reforming the constitution. The contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the whole dominant classes are secondary contradictions. Most of the bourgeoisie are historically pro-imperialist and exploit their own people. Even if sometimes the bourgeoisie seems to resolve these contradiction violently, especially when bourgeois democracy structure are no longer capable to manage these contradictions.
We also have popular democratic demands. These demands are still being made under the dominance of the dominant classes, without threatening this dominance. These demands could even turn into bourgeois law. But in essence, these demands are popular, and we need to support them by exposing here in the belly of the beast the failure of neo-liberalism and the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy, capitalism and imperialism. How far the popular masses will go with these demands will be determined by their capacity to remain autonomous from the bourgeoisie and their lackeys in the petit bourgeoisie.
So far, we haven’t seen any openly revolutionary demands, such as the crushing of the State Apparatus, the institutional political organizer of the dominant classes in the Egyptian social formation.
In fact, many of the international left is doing imperialism a big favor by only pointing at Murbarak, but not identifying Egyptian dominant classes as a whole, plus their State Apparatus and imperialism, as the mortal enemies of the popular masses. The masses, who lack an autonomous proletarian alternative, even in their combativeness are not able to break with bourgeois leadership and forge their own path to freedom, even if they are striking and occupying the streets. The problem is not in their participation, but rather in the determinant objective to rid their society of capitalism and imperialist domination. At the stage of imperialism, only proletarian-led revolution is the real alternative to capitalism.
Stiofan said
The regime has fallen and the masses are celebrating
Amongst the euphoria in Cairo, Al Jazeera interviewed a young woman
in the crowd.
She said:
“Its not just about Mubarak stepping down. It is about the process
of bringing the people to power.”
(she then denounced Hilary Clinton’s saying the Egyptian regime is
stable and all the Western racist myths about Arabs and the supposed
passivity and submissiveness of the Egyptian people who would always worship
their pharaoh.)
“The issue of women, the issue of Palestine, now everything seems
possible.”
Al Jazeera is cautioning that the Army is in charge now
and there are illusions about that institution, but the everyone
they are talking to celebrating the fall of the regime are
proclaiming the revolution must continue.
Revolution is possible.
The Revolution must continue
Revolution until victory!
Stephanie McMillan said
RW Harvey says:
“I appreciate and value analysis as much as anyone. My question is: to what end and in the service of what?”
In the interests of learning from struggles everywhere, so that we can prepare wherever we are as thoroughly as we possibly can for a revolutionary opportunity, *before* it presents itself, so that we can push it as far as possible when the time comes.
RW Harvey also says,
“The greatest service we can do the Egyptian people is twofold: support unequivocably their desire for freedom and liberation, and relentlessly expose the role of the US imperium in Egypt and in the Middle East.”
I agree, we should do these. Absolutely. AND we should do everything we can to understand the underlying forces within that struggle, so that we can best prepare ourselves to defeat the US ruling class when the masses rise up here (speaking for those of us in the US), which is our responsibility.
This isn’t armchair intellectualizing; it’s trying to grasp how all this works so that we can be more able to do what is required to end all forms of domination, exploitation and oppression worldwide.
It doesn’t serve anyone to confuse an uprising followed by a democratic victory in the form of overthrowing a tyrant, glorious as that definitely is, with a revolution.
CNN is, in fact, right now calling it a revolutionary victory. They are doing that precisely to confuse us so that we won’t grasp the need to overthrow the tyrant’s whole class.
Stephanie McMillan said
Stiofan says,
“but the everyone they are talking to celebrating the fall of the regime are proclaiming the revolution must continue.”
This, and the other quote cited by Stiofan, does indicate that it can go further. I hope these sentiments prevail!
RW Harvey said
SM writes: “It doesn’t serve anyone to confuse an uprising followed by a democratic victory in the form of overthrowing a tyrant, glorious as that definitely is, with a revolution.”
Agreed. And it doesn’t serve anyone to wish a communist revolution on a situation where that is not in the offing.
Mostly, I chafe at the idea that US revolutionaries could become the left version of the US government: where they decry chaos and demand order (in the name of thwarting this revolutionary upheaval), we decry the absence of proletarian leadership and demand perfection, and end up (objectively and more likely subjectively) turning away from the winds of freedom in Egypt because it does not go far enough.
It fries my oysters that we can quibble over the definition of what constitutes revolution when 30 years of dictatorship is being resisted; when a central foundation of imperialism in the Middle East is being shaken. Guess what? We have no control over what transpires in Egypt. The twists and turns there are harbiners of what a revolutionary situation tastes like, of what we can expect in the US where people, under the illusiion that dictatorship is actually democracy, will be mobilizing in all sorts of complext ways when revolution erupts here.
As Mao famously said: “fight, fail, fight, fail until victory.” He was hardly saying that failure is a goal, or inevitable — he was speaking to the complexity of revolution, that in the face of things not being perfectly aligned we fight anyway and push matters as far as they can be pushed. Egypt demonstrates that oppression breeds resistance, not that oppression breeds a straight path to socialism and communism.
It is our duty as internationalists to support the Egyptian people in pushing things as far as they can.
Stephanie McMillan said
RW Harvey,
I agree with your stand on this situation — that we should support the struggle through all its twists and turns. I didn’t think that perfection was being demanded at all, or that support for the people was being in any way withheld.
I agree that we have no control over what happens elsewhere (or much control over what happens where we are, either, really); but we do have the opportunity to learn lessons that we can apply. I considered this discussion an attempt to understand underlying forces and possible trajectories.
RW Harvey said
SMc, perhaps it is the limitations of written text frozen in time and space, the absence of voice inflection and body language that contributes to my feeling that some of ourposts regarding the situation in Egypt feel capricious, all-knowing, and dissociated theoretical dogma.
I agree with you that there is a rich and deep vein of revolutionary ore to mine in fields of struggle within Egypt. I am trying to sort that out as well.
Stephanie McMillan said
RW Harvey wrote:
“perhaps it is the limitations of written text frozen in time and space, the absence of voice inflection and body language that contributes to my feeling that some of our posts regarding the situation in Egypt feel capricious, all-knowing, and dissociated theoretical dogma.”
It’s a limited form of communication, yes.
I don’t know about others, but personally I certainly feel anything but all-knowing! Just trying to discern general shapes, hoping for the best but with an unshakable (always) worried sense of urgency.
I think everyone here is sincere in the desire to contribute however possible to our common future. It’s expressed in different ways. It’s an intense, emotional time.
chegitz guevara said
Of all the comrades I’ve ever known, vantvan is the one I could least describe as an arm chair revolutionary.
I do not agree with his narrow definition of revolution. I don’t limit revolution simply to mean the overturning a class. The term is popularly understood to mean the overthrow of a government, and while the Egyptian government has yet to be overthrown, a tyrant is gone.
What I do agree with is the heart of vantvan’s argument, which is that a social revolution is (yet) not taking place, and while tens of millions of people in the street brought this about, what happened in Egypt was not solely due to the masses. Factions of the bourgeoisie have been struggling for dominance, and one sector finally won out, which is what finally resulted in Mubarak’s ouster, rather than an attempted crackdown. They will now attempt to bring the masses in line behind them.
Miles Ahead said
This moment is not just a teaching moment for “us” but for the people of the world. And with all our posts about the power of the internet, FB, etc. in the hands of the people, I think we need to look at this moment with new eyes, in all its fluidity, and not just dogmatically analyze monumental events with our own biblical works.
As revolutionary communists, we are not strictly “students of history.” I have heard and read numerous criticisms of Nepal’s revolution because it is not necessarily unfolding by “the,” or “our” play-book. These criticisms seem pretty audacious to me, and maybe more than audacity, what should be on our agenda is a better understanding not only of the objective situation with all its contradictions and complexities, but what in fact gives rise to the people’s potent (and all important) desire to continue the revolutionary process.
Maybe Wael Ghonim sounds naïve to some, but I think in a sense we should heed his words: that basically he has faith in the 80 million Egyptians as they move forward from this historic moment. (Already as underlying politics unfold, many Egyptians are saying that we have to hold the military accountable, we don’t want another military coup, etc., and the military must be beholden to the people’s movement. And it should be apparent to revolutionary-minded people that there are and will be different political lines contending among the mass movement.)
“Where there is oppression, there’s resistance.” And that resistance obviously doesn’t just come in some neat and tidy package. It took the millions in Egypt 30 years to markedly rise up against their oppression, initiated by the youth which comprises at least half of the population; some of those youth not even born when Mubarak came to power. Nevertheless in their (and family, neighbors and friends) lifetime’s, they’ve gravely suffered under brutal tyranny. Today, in Tahrir Sq. and in Alexandria, people across all class, gender, and age lines, are “testifying.” And it is difficult for the rulers to reverse the people’s feeling of empowerment.
(In each of “our” own political development and consciousness, is it not difficult for our enemies to completely reverse verdicts, smash all vestiges of revolutionary spirit, or for the people to look at the world in the same old ways? Do some people think that radical and revolutionary consciousness (more en masse) just comes about from the more enlightened imparting their wisdom, rather than earthshaking events like Egypt that can change the entire political landscape? These people stood up to and organized against the Egyptian state!)
Mainstream media, for the most part, has already segued into the “domino theory” (which obviously has different meaning for different forces) and is putting some emphasis on Iran, as well as talking about the likelihood of the “revolution being betrayed.” And the U.S. government is already trying to revise its own history and complicity and are plenty worried about sustaining its own control. They are walking a tightrope. (Hey, the U.S. rulers revised history re WWII, and took credit as the true liberators in the war against fascism. Their rise as top superpower, is teetering, and there is a realignment of forces in the works.)This revolt or revolution or whatever one chooses to call it, this massive groundswell has put the U.S. and the Zionists in a much more precarious (and unstable) position than ever before. And don’t think they aren’t aware of it.
Yes, revolutions, wars of liberation or massive popular uprisings and struggles of the people have surely been betrayed, new oppressive forces co-opt the courageous and genuine struggle of the people, even in socialist revolutions. As Mao unleashed the Cultural Revolution he warned, where is the bourgeoisie? it is in the Communist Party itself.
But this is a moment for (well deserved) ebullience and celebration, humility and inspiration, not skepticism, posturing and cynicism. Personally I have been a militant radical/revolutionary/political activist for over 50 years. This historic event has conjured up feelings when the Vietnamese people, in solidarity with people all over the world, whipped the U.S. imperialists’ asses.
Last weekend, at the solidarity rally and demo in my area, a few African American bystanders asked me outright, “Are you Egyptian?” My answer, “No. I’m an internationalist and my staunch allegiance is with the oppressed people worldwide.” How are these different “struggles” interconnected? Along with many of us, I have read (several times), and tried to popularize John Steele’s Where’s Our Mississippi? While we’re not talking about Buloxi, Manhattan, Chicago, etc., as internationalists (and revolutionary communists), Egypt, in untold ways, is part of our query, where is “our” Mississippi? And IMO, internationalists have a vital role to play, in overcoming a new found “nationalism” that is sure to be part of the political potpourri.
Jan Makandal said
To chicanofuturet:
My point is that while we need to support these struggles, if we are coming from a communist perspective (which is a proletarian alternative), and looking at these struggles from the objective interests of international proletariat, then we need to recognize their limitations in relation to the ultimate interest of proletarian struggle.
Look, we called the Nicaraguan struggle a revolution, the South African struggle a revolution. We did a lot of propaganda educating people that these were revolutions [conflating], now to find that in most of these social formations, capitalism is healthy and those political parties like the Sandinista front and, the ANC are capitalist organizations [deflating consequences].
The genuine proletarian forces need to show solidarity, from a proletarian internationalist perspective, but also need to insist on the importance for the Egyptian proletariat to rise up and face responsibly for its historical task. Anything short of that, and the struggle will remain in the objective interests of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, even if the masses come out with some crumbs. We should never be satisfied with bourgeois democracy.
No conclusions have been made from where we are standing. The struggle will advance based on the relation of forces within of all the social forces, but mainly on the capacity of the masses to push their democratic and revolutionary demands forward, while remaining independent and autonomous from the demands emanating from the secondary internal struggle between the dominant power block and imperialism. The demands for Murbarak to go are correct. But they are limited – very limited – and it is a bourgeois demand. The demand for Murbarak to go AND for capitalism and imperialism to go – that is a popular demand and a revolutionary demand.
Gary said
I agree with Jan that we (at least the “we” I associate myself with) should never be satisfied with bourgeois democracy. And I share his hopes for the evolution of the struggle. But what does it mean to “insist on the importance for the Egyptian proletariat to rise up and face responsibly for its historical task”?
Who or what has dispensed “historical tasks” that peoples, or proletariats, are responsible for implementing? It’s not like there’s a god out there who created such tasks and istelling people what to do.
“History” (with a capital H) doesn’t tell anyone what to do. History is only, as Marx put it somewhere, people pursuing their own ends. There is no inevitable sequence of stages. There are possibilities, and general historical tendencies we can discern in the evolution of class society. But there are no “historical tasks” that we can “insist” on, and we especially shouldn’t when we’re talking about people in societies outside our own.
I’m not aware of a party in Egypt that can be considered a revolutionary communist party. If there were, and I met some members, I would not presume to tell them that capitalism “has to go” according to any particular timeline. They might feel that the petit bourgeoisie is an ally at this stage, and that the strengthening of the legal rights of small shopowners and business people employing workers serves the interests of socialist revolution and the ultimate attainment of communism.
As for demanding that imperialism go, it looks likely that any new regime in Egypt will maintain a dependent relationship with imperialism (esp. US) but significantly reduce cooperation with the Zionist fascists on questions like the Gaza strangulation and the vilification of Hamas and Hizbollah. Popular opinion will (or might, anyway) insure that.
But there may not be in Egypt (where Marxist texts have been banned for years) the critical mass of people equipped with a communist analysis to make a break with imperialism a “popular and revolutionary demand.” However one might “insist” on it, on the outside looking in.
Jan Makandal said
Hey brother Chegitz
Solidarity for your support.
One thing for sure in the internationalist tradition of our struggle we need to have a level of critical thinking of our own praxis as well as other social struggle, even if these struggle are indirect to us, to further and deepen our class theory in the advancement of our struggle to defeat capitalism and imperialism.
See, I do agree with you, if revolution is simply “the overturning of a class”, than your critic of my narrow view would have been totally correct and would require a self-criticism and immediate rectification. Unfortunately, this narrow view, you gave to me, is not shared by me.
Now to overturn a class we do need to address not simply the government but the State Apparatus, in which the government is the center pole. The state apparatus is the political instrument permitting the power block to organize as dominant classes. To overturn these classes it is principally imperative that we crush the political organizer of the dominant classes. The only way to do is revolution. Many struggle, violent struggle resulted to government change but did not result to the crushing of the state apparatus rendering these struggle reformist and easily recoverable by the bourgeoisie: Nicaragua comes to mind. So, revolution, from a proletarian alternative, is the violent crushing of the State Apparatus allowing the radical transformation of a social formation.
It is important that we do not confuse the government, as the center pole of the State Apparatus, to the State Apparatus. Again, aside our critical view of any struggle, including our own, we do need to support the valiant struggle of the people of Egypt, MAY THEY NEVER BE SATISFIED WITH A CAPITALIST ALTERNATIVE.
Stiofan said
Stephanie wrote
It doesn’t serve anyone to confuse an uprising followed by a democratic victory in the form of overthrowing a tyrant, glorious as that definitely is, with a revolution.
CNN is, in fact, right now calling it a revolutionary victory. They are doing that precisely to confuse us so that we won’t grasp the need to overthrow the tyrant’s whole class.
These are good observations and you raise the problem of making critical distinctions in social and political history. It is also true that the word “revolution” and “revolutionary” are mis-used often in America. That beening said, even though the dramatic events in Cairo are just the scene 1 of act 1, I do believe we are witnessing a revolution in real time.
This is not to say that events could take dramatic turns for the worse or even the merely disappointing. There are no guarantees in his process
except the opportunities for the people are now unlimited. This is why one astute commentator said that what we are witnessing is a stake through the heart of the status quo in the region and that includes Iran.
Had the army deposed Mubarak a month ago you would still have had a big party in Tahrir square, but that would have been just a coup with popular
support. The military wouldn’t have done this on their own volition though because they were an integral part of a miserable regime of crony capitalism, police torture, and the personal patronage of Hosni Mubarak. According to some of the wikileaks material, the American military sees the Egyptian Army as led by incompetents promoted and financially rewarded according to their loyalty to the same Hosni Mubarak. So why was the army paralyzed and refused to take part in forcibly stopping the demonstrations? I believe it was because in the face of a developing revolutionary upheaval, those same officers were terrified that an order to shoot demonstrators would have led to whole units under their command going over to the people with their weapons.
The ousting of Mubarek then is not just the fall of an individual despot, but the shattering of a whole regime. The people first confronted and destroyed the police on January 25, and then continued to build in size and force despite everything thrown against them. Because we are seeing a revolution unfolding the future of the entire region is in play and the ruling class is terrified. There is, indeed, great disorder under heaven and for the people the situation is excellent.
Nate said
I’d like to hear from comrades here how far they think events like this could go. I ask because I recently read Immanuel Wallerstein’s book Historical Capitalism where he suggests that any large-scale victory in a single country will only ever at best a reformist victory as long as the capitalist world system remains in place. He says that past victories of this sort, while incredibly important, have been followed by the imposition of some form of capitalism or at least things that share objectionable features of capitalism because of the effects of the world market and the global political order. My hunch is that this is quite relevant to the current situation in Egypt though I’m not able to fully tease out what it means.
Jan Makandal said
To Gary,
At every historical moment, a social class is needed to offer a higher form of social organization than what exists. In our time, which is dominated by capitalism and imperialism, this social class is the working class. Henceforth the correctness of the slogan: proletarian revolution must be the order of the day. Capitalism did once take us to a higher form of social organization; and capitalists were the only class capable of doing so at the time. Now, to go to a yet higher form social organization, we need to address the processes of capitalist exploitation and the production of surplus value, and the only class capable of doing that is the working class. If history is people pursuing their own ends, then the working class [people] needs to pursue its own ends in the time of capitalism and imperialism. Correspondingly, to eliminate slavery, the only the only class capable of pursuing their own ends, in their own interests, were the slaves.
Again, as revolutionary proletarian internationalists, if there are no revolutionary proletarian organizations, then we need to call for their construction while supporting the masses’ struggle, and while recognizing the limits of that struggle because of the lack of a proletarian alternative. As any working class, the Egyptian proletariat, in their specific social formation, will have to address two opposite and unified realities: capitalist exploitation and proletarian revolution. Under the guidelines of these two opposites, the workers will be able to break with the dominant ideologies and forge their own path of unifying other dominated classes under their leadership to defeat capital.
It is imperative that we affirm and consolidate a proletarian alternative in our own social formations, and reclaim and reconstruct the international to address your just and correct point:
“… The critical mass of people equipped with a communist analysis to make a break with imperialism a ‘popular and revolutionary demand.’ However, one might ‘insist’ on it, on the outside looking in.”
Jan Makandal said
Stiofan said:
“There is, indeed, great disorder under heaven and for the people the situation is excellent.”
This could be so true, unless the popular masses are ready to overcome the reactionary limit of simple bourgeois regime change and push their popular democratic demands in the forefront, and to pursue and continue for radical revolutionary change.
The great disorder under heaven, for me, is class struggle and the capacity of the popular masses determined by class struggle to use to the maximum the new arising moment to further their interest.
Soon after, the fall of the Apartheid’s regime in South Africa, a valiant struggle wage by the popular masses, the workers were reprimand because of their intent to pursue in this struggle their autonomous demands. In Nicaragua, similar situation arose. In Haiti, in 86, the demands of the workers to organize in their workplace were quickly over shadow by the demands coming from the petit bourgeoisie, such as the right to speak. The right to organize was a lot more problematic for the bourgeoisie than the right to speak; a demand quickly granted. In all cases, workers were accused of adventurism for wanted to push forth their demands that were attacking the core of capitalist productions: the process of capitalist exploitation and the process of production of surplus value.
In Haiti, the jubilant masses, hugging the army a reflection of their low level of political conciseness after being repress by this army for more than 30 years and a reactionary call if it comes from a political organization claiming to be revolutionary, started by putting popular neighborhood committee to clean their streets, to prepare for the so- called the new rebirth of Haiti, quickly find out the crushing of their dreams in the reorganization of the bourgeoisie under imperialist dictate. The popular masses, under the leadership of the petit bourgeoisie, were urged to massively vote for a reactionary constitution consolidating bourgeois democracy with one minor concession the “Tonton Macoute” forces were banned on paper to participate in the political life for ten years, although they headed most of the provisional government after the 1986 uprising, giving legitimacy to bourgeois dictatorship. The proletarian revolutionary forces, in minority, did not stay idle or didn’t dilute themselves in the populist euphoria of the moment, remain autonomous and independent under great threat even from the masses to offer a proletarian alternative and continue an alternative coming from the working class, the only class capable to take Haiti off this downward spiral. The battle is ongoing for the Haitian proletariat to be capable to enter the political scene and be an active political participant for a viable alternative to the bankrupt Haitian social formation that many of us from the left as labeled a revolution, in 86.
Stiofan said:
“The people first confronted and destroyed the police on January 25”
I think this conclusion is premature simply because you are drawing a conclusion from what you see with out looking at the internal contradiction. You could be right but still more in-depth analysis is needed to come with such a conclusion. In my initial thoughts, I have precisely laid the groundwork to guide an analysis of the internal contradiction.
“In most cases within this type of social formation, the social base of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is the army or sectors of the army, and/or the general repressive apparatus structure. Sadat and Mubarak were army generals. In most cases, the army or particular sections of the army act as the political organizations of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie fraction. One sector of the army could be under the leadership of this sector of the bourgeoisie and in service to imperialism, or it could serve feudal landlords — this is not cut and dried. We need to analyze these conditions further to understand the army’s role.”
If the police played the role of the political organization of the fraction headed by Mubarak than your conclusive assumption is rationalized. But I could assure it will be quickly reorganized and the future of this police force will be determined by class struggle mostly the internal secondary struggle among the dominant classes but as well as popular struggle and pressure, even from imperialism, are having pertinent effect on the reorganization of the Egyptian’s power block.
In Haiti, the army did not implode because of an Aristide’s magic wand. The Haitian army is guaranteed by the reactionary Haitian constitution of 88 that the masses voted for, under the leadership of the bourgeoisie leaning on the petit bourgeoisie. The masses were convinced it was the right thing to do. The Haitian army imploded and disbanded because the hegemony of the Haitian bureaucratic bourgeoisie was no longer, and many attempt are ongoing by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie to re-structure, attempt were made by Arsitide also by forming its own paramilitary forces, to regain hegemonic control.
By the way, the many attempt of the Haitian bureaucratic bourgeoisie to regain hegemonic control is one of the important element of the ongoing internal crisis facing the Haitian power block in the consolidation of bourgeois democracy in Haiti.
Again, in any social formation we should never be satisfied with the false hope of bourgeois democracy. We do need to distance ourselves, in our autonomous and independent practice of all peddlers of false hope, to build a genuine alternative to capitalism.
Stiofan said
Jam quoted my response than disagreed with my characterization of the events of Jan 25th in Cairo
“The people first confronted and destroyed the police on January 25”
I think this conclusion is premature simply because you are drawing a conclusion from what you see with out looking at the internal contradiction.
My comment was a simple observation that in the first round of struggle occasioned by mass protests, the people routed the security forces and drove them from the streets. The regime responded by sending cops in plain clothes to terrorize neighborhoods and this tactic failed too.
There are a great many internal contradictions at work in any revolutionary situation but I was not addressing that. Had the police prevailed then, or in the subsequent attempts to drive people from Tahrir Square there would have been a wave of mass terror unleashed against an anyone the regime wanted to track down and make an example of. In that situation it would be correct to speak of a heroic uprising of the people laying the groundwork for further resistance. We are beyond that now although where this goes and how it is resolved is an open question. One particularly astute bourgeois commentator on MSNBC characterized the capitulation of Mubarak as “Scene 1, Act 1.” A good characterization.
The events of Jan 25th are dramatically shown on a superb You tube video make posted on Jan 29, “Joy, Despair & Hope in Egypt’s Streets.” there are others posted that show even more graphic footage of police gunning down demonstrators in the street and of the fallen being carried away by their comrades.
chegitz guevara said
Stiofan says, ‘It is also true that the word “revolution” and “revolutionary” are mis-used often in America.’
I disagree. Language is a changing, dynamic thing, and once a particular usage catches on, it becomes part of the language. What happened in Egypt is a revolution because that’s the word that vast majority uses to describe what happened. If they used the word “snorg” to describe the events in Egypt, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is the idea they are attempting to convey.
What happened in Egypt is a revolution, because that’s the word the English speaking world uses to describe what happened. Rather than fight the wind, bend like a reed and explain what we mean.
Stiofan said
As to the American appropriation of the term “revolution,” I was thinking of the vast capitalist marketing machine that seeks to transform everything into a commercial. I most definitely agree that what is occurring in Egypt is a revolution.
Jan Makandal said
To Stiofan:
I didn’t disagree with the characterization formulated in your quote. As a level of an observation, I think the concept “destroy” was a too strong and needed more in depth analysis to confirm it.
To Chegitz and Stiofan:
Words are concepts that have theoretical values constantly developing, defined by class struggle. In Marx time, the concept revolutions meant something before the Commune and totally evolve and deepen after the Commune. It is our duties and responsibilities as revolutionaries to continue on the path of deepening these concepts base on social practice, in the relation of theory and practice determined by practice, especially after many revolutionary experiences occurred. If we maintain the theoretical value of these concepts define by previous revolutionaries, we could affirm we are not advancing our theory to destroy capitalism. Than these concepts in particular and our theory in general become a dogma, a list of accumulated formula that are incapable to evolve with the test of time, most importantly class struggle. From the interest of proletarian struggle, the concept revolution can’t be permanent, but constant. In materialism, nothing is permanent; the only permanence is that we must have constant reproductions, not similarities and especially no carbon copy. Even if we enter a river at the same spot for the past 50 years, it is never the same river.
Concepts, since they are defined by class struggle, are also defined by class interest. The definition of revolution by the bourgeoisie should antagonistically be opposed to the proletarian definition. The bourgeois definitions are metaphysical and permanents. The bourgeoisie will like that we agree to a definition of revolution limited to a simple regime change. The same way they want us to believe, in contradictionary fashion, that democracy is election but yet they supported the repressive government of Mubarak for all that times and try to diffuse a popular plebiscite on Mubarak. Another good example is the effort of the bourgeoisie to attempt to give a sociological definition of classes without connecting it with class struggle. This definition of classes is a demarche corresponding to the interest of the bourgeoisie that try to prove classes are eternal but not their antagonism. So, a simple regime change is a good thing, since he doesn’t question the bourgeoisie dominance and dictatorship.
The proletarian definition of revolution is the radical transformation of social formation. Is the proletariat transitioning for a class by itself to a class for itself, unifying the other dominated classes under its leadership to fight capitalism at all levels and objectively transform radically the social relations. This is a revolutionary definition of revolutions.
Revolution is not an act, it a process and the popular uprising is an act in that process, but not the process itself. To take the act, fuse it with the process is dangerous, and somewhat reformist, since it imposed historically a limitation on the process, reduce the theoretical value and equal revolution, as a concept that existed before the Commune. [Even before the Haitian and American Revolution] For that act to be fully embedded in a revolutionary process, the proletarian alternative needs to be actively present. This is the reason we need to recognize the limitations of the act outside of an autonomous proletarian presence. The Proletarian alternative is the only viable alternative to capitalism in our time.
In an effort not to be long and repetitive, some of the points are very concentrated and not elaborated properly.
Stephanie McMillan said
The word “revolution” belongs to the dominated classes internationally, and defines our process of overthrowing the ruling classes. The power of its meaning is why the ruling class keeps trying to muddy it.
They commercialize it, until we can have a revolution in hair color or car design. They try to convince us that if we depose a representative of their class, but the rest of them remain in power, that we’ve achieved our goal.
They’re constantly trying to steal our word.
I think we need to defend our concepts and the acts they represent.
This is not to say that what is happening can’t be “Act 1, Scene 1″ of a developing revolutionary process. I hope with all my heart that it is. Let’s just not declare victory of a *revolution* when that’s not yet what we have — because if we do, then what is it that we still want?
Stiofan said
Stephanie wrote:
Let’s just not declare victory of a *revolution* when that’s not yet what we have — because if we do, then what is it that we still want?
I appreciate your comments Stephanie but perhaps you are equating the term “revolution” with the political victory of the revolutionary movement. The latter has not occurred in Egypt and there is no guarantee that it will. The explosion that dethroned Louis XVI resulted in the instillation of Louis VXIII and the re-institution of the aristocracy. The nature of social relationships had been profoundly altered and the ruling class carried within them a fear of the people’s rage that changed French politics irrevocably. As I mentioned in another post the French people would rise again in 1830, 1848, and 1871 and everyone of those resulted in political defeat too. Even within defeat however, the consciousness of the people and the collective power of the working class was growing, developing and inspiring revolutionaries everywhere.
When Lenin arrived in the Finland Station in 1917, the band couldn’t find the sheet music for the Internationale and so played the Marseilles instead and it didn’t make any difference.
There is now throughout the Arab world, and beyond, an electric sense of excitement among the people and a sickening fear among all the dictators and their crony capitalists and imperialist enablers. Revolution is not just the end of the journey but the very path the masses take when they overturn the existing social relationships that destroy regimes and open all possibilities for the future. The slogan of Palestinian revolutionaries as they began their armed struggle against Israel was “Revolution until victory.” It is a good slogan now too along with the current demand in Egypt to “bring Tahrir Square to the factories.”
Stiofan said
I hope comrades will forgive me for posting this excerpt from the Electronic Intifada. It is powerfully and persuasively written and illustrates the rippling effects of the Egyptian peoples heroic struggle.
The revolution continues after Mubarak’s fall
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 12 February 2011
On many minds — especially Israeli and American ones –
has been the question of whether a new democratic Egyptian
government will tear up the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
That of course, is up to the Egyptian people, although the
transitional military government confirmed in its fourth
statement Egypt’s adherence to “all international and regional
treaties.”
But the treaty is not really the issue. Even if democratic Egypt
maintains the treaty, the treaty never required Egypt to join Israeli
and American conspiracies against other Arabs. It never required
Egypt to become the keystone in an American-led alliance with
Israel and Saudi Arabia against an allegedly expansionist Iran. It
never required Egypt to adopt and disseminate the vile “Sunni vs.
Shia” sectarian rhetoric that was deliberately used to try to shore
up this narrative of confrontation. It never required Egypt to
participate in Israel’s cruel siege of Gaza or collaborate closely with its intelligence services against Palestinians. It never required Egypt
to become a world center of torture for the United States in its
so-called “War on Terror.” The treaty did not require Egypt to
shoot dead migrants crossing Sinai from other parts of Africa just
to spare Israelis from seeing black people in Tel Aviv. No treaty
required or requires Egypt to carry on with these and so many more
shameful policies that earned Hosni Mubarak and has regime the
hatred of millions of Arabs and others far beyond Egypt’s borders.
…………………
What the revolutions demonstrate to all Arab regimes is that the United
States cannot rescue you in the end. No amount of “security assistance”
(training, tear gas, weapons), financial aid, or intelligence cooperation
from the United States or France can withstand a population that has
decided it has had enough. These regimes’ room for maneuver has shrunk
even if the sorts of uprisings seen in Egypt and Tunisia are not imminent
elsewhere.
After the revolutions, people’s expectations have been raised and their
tolerance for the old ways diminished. Whether things go on as they
have for a few weeks, a few months, this or that country, the pressures and demands for change will be irresistible. The remaining Arab regimes must now ask not if change will happen but how.
………………………
And in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud
Abbas is in a more precarious situation than ever. Its loss of legitimacy
is so thorough – especially after the revelations in the Palestine Papers – that it exists only thanks to the protection of the Israeli occupation, US and EU training of its repressive security forces, and massive EU funding to pay the salaries of its bloated bureaucracy.
The PA’s leaders are as dead to the just cause and aspirations for liberation of the Palestinian people for which so much has been sacrificed, as Mubarak was to the Egyptian people’s rights and hopes. No wonder the PA relies more and more on the thuggery and police state tactics so reminiscent of Mubarak and Ben Ali.
The revolutions in the Arab have lifted our horizons. More people can now
see that the liberation of Palestine from Zionist colonialism and US- and
EU-funded oppression, to make it a safe, humane place for all who live in it to exist in equality, is not just a utopian slogan but is in our hands if we struggle for it and stick to our principles. Like the people power, against which the Egyptian and Tunisian police states were powerless in the end, Palestinians and their allies (particularly those supporting the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement) have the power to transform reality within the next few years.
In whatever form the revolution continues, the people are saying to
their rulers: our countries, our futures, don’t belong to you any more. They belong to us.
full – http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11799.shtml
Stephanie McMillan said
It was announced today that those in power are forbidding workers from meeting and having strikes.
May the revolution continue.
* * *
http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFNWEB867320110213?sp=true
Egypt’s military to warn against “chaos and disorder”
Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:05pm GMT
CAIRO Feb 13 (Reuters) – Egypt’s new military rulers will issue a warning on Sunday against anyone who creates “chaos and disorder”, an army source said.
The Higher Military Council will also ban meetings by labour unions or professional syndicates, effectively forbidding strikes, and tell all Egyptians to get back to work after the unrest that toppled Hosni Mubarak. (Reporting by Marwa Awad, writing by Alistair Lyon)
Stiofan said
This NBC News report from today shows the local strikes and protests all over Cairo even as Tahrir square was re-opened. The military will indeed decree a great many things. So far, this is the popular response. (click on Egypt find its voice from the main page)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/41563758#41563758
Mike E said
[I'm back from a week's walkabout]
Jan writes:
I think we should use the word revolution less narrowly.
A revolution is an overthrow of power. Some revolutions have been socialist, but others have not. So, for example, the Iranian revolution succeeded in overthrowing the Shah, but ended with a theocratic regime — it was certainly a mass revolutionary event with a shattering of an entrenched power structure. But it was hardly a socialist revolution in its end result.
Now clearly we have our views and desires: on what kinds of revolution are needed. And on the value of socialist revolution in particular.
“Regime change” is not liberating — and the fall of mubarak (and the retention of state power by the military) is hardly the change that Egypt’s people need. As is often true in the revoutionary process, the fall of a hated symbol (mubarak, the Tsar, the Shah, etc.) marks the start (not the end) of the struggle.
However there have been (and will be) other kinds of revolution: there have been bourgeois revolutions in the past (the French, for example, but many others.) There were also many anti-colonial revolutions, some of which were socialist (China, for example) and others that were not. In the 1950s and 60s — Cuba and Vietnam clearly had revolutions, so did Nicaragua a decade later — though there is a lot to debate about the content of those revolutions, and whether they ultimately achieved socialism.
Revolution is also not simply the moment when power. For example the Chinese revolution started in the 1920s, developed its first red power in the early base areas, achieved countrywide victory in 1949, and continued as a revolution for decades. The moment of victory (1949) was hardly the only moment of revolution.
Similarly, people are sometimes confused when we talk of the Nepali revolution — and some even assume we believe the revolution has already won. Nepal (like china before it) has experienced a protracted revoltionary process — with the armed struggle starting in the mid 1990s. Nepal has a revolution going on that has not yet won nationwide victory (and the possibility exists that this revolution may not succeed in getting to that point of countrywide victory and transition to socialism. That is not yet written).
While we are talking, I find it odd when Jan proclaims “The proletarian definition of revolution is…” Who says? How does the proletariat (a historic class) have a specific definition of something? When did that happen? How did that happen?
It is odd to me for someone to declare their personal beliefs about something (a definition, a strategy, a controversy) and then (with a strange voice of authority) declare that their view is the view of the working class. How different is that from preachers declaring that their personal views come (somehow) from god?
Why don’t we just put forward our views and debate them — without each declaring that our own personal twist on things is ordained by the immense and unseen movements of whole classes.
dave brown said
Tunisia: when is a revolution a revolution?
2 weeks ago by dave brown
Are the huge protests that spread from Tunisia to Algeria, Egypt and Yemen part of a revolution, or not? The short answer is yes, and I’ll explain why.
Revolutions must overturn existing social relations to qualify as revolutions. However, revolutions often take many years to complete and may may become redundant when ovetaken by other revolutions. The current uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria and Yemen are a continuation of ongoing colonial revolutions. They qualify as bourgeois revolutions since they the purpose is to elminate barriers to the full development of capitalist social relations. They must unify the nation, replace pre-capitalist relations with bourgeois market relations (or integrate them fully) and create a capitalist market for the production of commodities. These revolutions may take take decades to complete and remain incomplete until overtaken by socialist revolutions as I’ll explain.
For example, the American revolution was a revolution to establish an American bourgeoisie independent of Britain. But it didnt succeed in establishing the complete dominance of capitalist social relations until it eliminated the pre-capitalist social relations of slavery and united the federation after the Civil War.
Once the European powers and the US had united their nations and their economies had outgrown their national territories, they expanded to become imperialist states. That is, they dominated all the other nations in varying degrees, subordinating them to a divison of labour in which their raw materials were exchanged for manufactured commodities. This economic dependence, or backwardness, meant that they were incapable of completing their bourgeois revolutions and achieving national independence without a total break with imperialism.
Thus the bourgeosies of the colonies, or even weak imperialisms such as Tsarist Russia, did not have an economic base to allow them to win wars of national independence. These bourgeoisies remained agents of imperialism while the task of completing the bourgeois revolution passed onto those classes who were superexploited by both imperialism and their national bourgeoisies.
The proof of this was in the fact that it took socialist revolutions to break from imperialism, in Russia, China and Cuba. The Russian bourgeoisie remained tied to imperialism so it was necessary for the workers and peasants to overthrow them with a socialist revolution in order to break from imperialism. So the goals of the bourgeois, or national democratic, revolution were subsumed in the socialist revolution. These examples allow us to understand the logic of the current incomplete colonial revolutions of which Tunisia is one of many.
Tunisia’s national revolution against France was incomplete and the exploited and oppressed classes are now waking up under the whip of imperialist crisis which imposes terrible austerity on their lives. At the moment their goal is bourgeois ‘democracy’ i.e. removing a ‘corrupt’ capitalist class. They have yet to see that this will be insufficient. The examples of the USSR, China and Cuba appear to be irrelevant or worse as models for completing their bourgeois revolution. For that we have to thank imperialism that strangled these socialist revolutions over many decades, and Stalinism for holding the workers down.
However, the lessons of these socialist revolutions will remerge more clearly when the the barriers to national liberation become obvious. The sooner that the new generation of Arab fighters can see through all the imperialist ploys to pretend they can create a bourgeois democratic state, or the Islamics can create a clerical state, and fight for a popular workers and peasants socialist government, the better.
Miles Ahead said
I received the following from a dear friend (cultural anthropologist, sociologist, art critic and author) in Mexico, after soliciting his (and other’s, also in other countries) opinion as to Egypt’s significance. Apparently he sent this to a number of people around Latin America in order to “spark” more discussion, “spark” being the operative word here. With all the various analyses of the situation in Egypt–”revolutionary” or not, IMO it is important to keep in mind how this historic event has affected people in different lands, who live under some different conditions. As people are well aware, the Mexican people have been suffering and living under basically an overt police state for the last 5 years, and while lots of people are angry, some outraged, there is unfortunately a sense of grave fear and demoralization. However, on some levels the spirit of the mass revolt in Egypt has been both inspirational and contagious, and surely that is a positive thing.
De mí amigo:
Jan Makandal said
Mike E said:
“A revolution is an overthrow of power.”
J Makandal said:
“ Now to overturn a class we do need to address not simply the government but the State Apparatus, in which the government is the center pole. The state apparatus is the political instrument permitting the power block to organize as dominant classes. To overturn these classes it is principally imperative that we crush the political organizer of the dominant classes. The only way to do is revolution. Many struggle, violent struggle resulted to government change but did not result to the crushing of the state apparatus rendering these struggle reformist and easily recoverable by the bourgeoisie: Nicaragua comes to mind. So, revolution, from a proletarian alternative, is the violent crushing of the State Apparatus allowing the radical transformation of a social formation.”
Looking at both statements, M. Ely’s and mine, I do not know why mine would be considered narrow. In my responses to this post, I did clarify that there are different types of revolutions. I spoke of the American and the Haitian revolutions, neither of which was a socialist revolution. The American one was a bourgeois revolution, and the Haitian was a feudal-led revolution with the slaves as the principal force (please revisit my post on Toussaint Louverture).
A simple review of my different responses to this post, especially comment 31, would have clarified this.
* * *
Mike Ely also explains [preaches] his own concept of revolution:
“…Revolution is also not simply the moment when power. For example the Chinese revolution started in the 1920s, developed its first red power in the early base areas, achieved countrywide victory in 1949, and continued as a revolution for decades. The moment of victory (1949) was hardly the only moment of revolution…”
JM said:
“Revolution is not an act, it a process and the popular uprising is an act in that process, but not the process itself. To take the act, fuse it with the process is dangerous, and somewhat reformist, since it imposed historically a limitation on the process, reduce the theoretical value and equal revolution, as a concept that existed before the Commune. [Even before the Haitian and American Revolution] For that act to be fully embedded in a revolutionary process, the proletarian alternative needs to be actively present. This is the reason we need to recognize the limitations of the act outside of an autonomous proletarian presence. The Proletarian alternative is the only viable alternative to capitalism in our time.”
Mike E failed to mention a very important aspect in the Chinese revolution: the proletarian alternative was present, even if it was present mainly in theory, even if the theory did not all the time translate into proletarian practice. But the presence of the proletarian alternative gave a red character to the Chinese revolution.
The Chinese revolution was not simply an act, it was a long-term process[de longue Haleine].
* * *
Mike E said:
“While we are talking, I find it odd when Jan proclaims ‘The proletarian definition of revolution is…’ Who says? How does the proletariat (a historic class) have a specific definition of something? When did that happen? How did that happen?”
I hate to quote, but simply revisit all the communist and anarchist classics, especially from when anarchism was a tendency within the proletariat. Mao insisted on the autonomy of the proletariat in the anti-imperialist united front. Marx insisted on the need for the proletariat to take leadership of his struggle. Now I am not simply repeating these comrades, but I am in agreement with them. It is not just my own personal belief. It is the only scientific alternative to capitalism and imperialism.
This is my view and I will debate it. I will repeat right after a comrade: the proletariat will not win if he (the proletariat) does not wage relentless struggle against opportunism (and I am adding populism).
Please do not raise the anti-preaching flag to better preach. Theoretical battle is an integral part of class struggle. Now, there is nothing wrong with anyone struggling for the positions they believe to be correct, for them to become a collective viable alternative, even if they are the pioneers.
“Proletarians of all countries unite” is:
a] a radical rupture with bourgeois and petit bourgeois ideology
B] demonstrating the importance of the autonomy of the working class within the capitalist social formation.
Marx, among many, insisted upon the importance of combating voluntarism in the proletariat, and defined a long-term struggle as a condition for becoming suited for political power.
Jan Makandal said
FIRST AND FOREMOST, soon after the dechoukaj/uprooting of Mubarak the army put an anti strike decree and push to reopen the Egyptian Stock exchange addressing two of the most fundamental elements to capitalism: The process of exploitation and the process of producing surplus value. As of yesterday, the workers in many places went on strike demanding popular democratic demands such as wage increase. These battles need our support and we need to denounce capitalism.
Mike Ely said:
“A revolution is an overthrow of power.”
Although I basically agree with the statement in a general way, I would like to elaborate on this conception.
It is important that theoretically we differentiate the political power of a class on the one hand, and on the other hand the State Apparatus that has the capacity to manage that power, outside (or ”above”) the power block.
The understanding of that complex relationship between political power and the State Apparatus is important, and fundamentally demarcates us from reformism. The political power of a class is not exercised directly but indirectly. Economic domination is not possible if it is not enforced by the political class struggle.
To illustrate, it is not the bourgeoisie that descends on the workers to oppress them in times of open class struggle. It is either hired goon squads (in the early stage of capitalism), or institutions of the State Apparatus (such as the police and the army), plus other non-state institutions (such as churches and yellow unions) that act as a pre-emptive machine of repression. Economic domination is allowed by legal and other measures. Measures are sometimes not entirely in the interests of the entire power block (all fractions of the dominant classes), and those cases it is determined by class struggle inside the dominant classes.
Like economic domination is not directly applied by the capitalists, they also do not directly apply political domination. In this sense, it is important that we understand that the State Apparatus, even in the most advanced bourgeois democracy, is not a state of or for all the people. A state is commanded by the realities of the dominant classes to serve the process of exploitative production, the process of capitalist production and the process of production of surplus value.
The political power of the dominant classes is “managed” through specialized institutions called the sate apparatus. The dominant classes in any social formation are the formal power political power, and the State Apparatus is the real political power and the former political power determines he real political power, defines by class struggle.
A “revolution” overthrowing one institution of the State Apparatus, or the central pole of the State Apparatus (the government), is a revolution half done, and is reformist, since the formal power is not touched and is able to regain control and restructure.
Jan Makandal said
To Dave Brown:
I would argue differently that the uprisings boiling in different social formations in North Africa are part of an on going bourgeois revolutions to eliminate barriers to the full development of capitalist social relations with the determinant objectives to replace pre-capitalist relations with bourgeois market relations, making these acts of uprising elements of an ongoing bourgeois-led revolution. I will simply enumerate some points, with not that much elaboration, just some outlines to be developed and questions to be answered, to explain my divergence with such an interpretation.
A] To eliminate barriers to the full development of capital social relations, feudalism should and would have been the principal mode of production to be eliminated and relation with imperialism redefined. In most of these social formations, the bourgeoisie is not waging a protracted war at the theoretical level, political level and at the ideological level to unify the masses under its leadership against feudalism, like we have seen historically in most bourgeois-led revolutions, such as in many countries in Europe. The Renaissance, in France, was part of that protracted war against feudalism, their promise of democracy… and so on. One of the social formations where capitalism didn’t have to battle feudalism for hegemony was the US social formation since the contradiction was 1] against colonialism and 2] the civil war, to resolve inter-capitalist contradictions on the manner the process of capitalist exploitation needed to be implemented (free labor or slave labor) and the manner most beneficial to capitalism to produce surplus value. What are the elements to characterize these uprising as an ongoing bourgeois revolution?
B] At the stage of imperialism that we are in now, is bourgeois-led revolution still possible? In the past, some Marxist theoreticians did believe that the fundamental condition for socialism was the creation of an abundant society, the rapid development of the productive forces and bourgeois-led revolution was a necessary stage to achieve this objective. Looking at objective reality, there is no social praxis able to validate this theory. If theory is a guide, practice is a validation of that guide. Social practice is the source that proves if these theories are correct.
C] One of the important contributions of Mao, in China, was to rupture with that economist line of the development of the productive forces (with all the limitations of Mao, limitations plagued with populism and opportunism, but nevertheless important contributions). This was the line elaborated in “The New Democracy,” by proving socialist, proletarian-led revolution, is possible in social formations were the feudal mode of production was either dominant, or in decay but still remained strong and the capitalist mode of production existed as well and was in struggle for dominance against feudalism. The elaboration of two dialectically interrelated tasks of the proletariat, not a “stage” approach, but in the same process, one a democratic task, the other a socialist one, to address the antagonistic contradictions with feudalism and capitalism in the construction of socialism. It was not only a rupture with an economist stage approach, already proven to be inapplicable, but as well a consolidation of the importance of the autonomy and independence of the proletariat, confirmed in this slogan at this period of imperialism that proletarian revolutions must be the order of the day.
D] In the relation of imperialism to the social formation it dominates. Imperialism is not letting the productive forces develop in the dialectical relation of agricultural production with small-scale production to large-scale production to benefit these social formations and to consolidate them so they could be self-sufficient, independent and autonomous. In fact, the political economic line of imperialism is to render these social formations more dependent on imperialism. The Free Trade Zones, the Assembly Industry are not connected to the internal development of the productive forces of these social formations. They are in most cases one of the main causes of economic and political crises inside these social formations. Imperialism, in order to keep these social formation totally dependent, did its best to keep the national bourgeoisie disorganized, and in some cases disbanded it and or transformed/transitioned the national bourgeoisie to other fraction of the bourgeoisie. Again, bourgeois revolution is less likely to occur in the period of imperialism, especially in the period of imperialism where finance capital is hegemonic, thereby consolidating the principle that at the stage of imperialism, proletarian revolution is the order of the day. The theory of the two stages in the radical transformation of a social formation is incorrect, not valid at a period of imperialism. We could just take a look at Egypt, the National Liberation Movement and nowadays the relations of all these social formation to imperialism. None of them became self sufficient and independent from imperialism, even if they are rich in raw material. Iraq, Nigeria and Libya are rich in oil but are not able to create that society of abundance, a fully developed productive forces because of 1] fundamentally and determinately of the anti popular, anti national nature of their dominant classes, headed, in most cases, by the hegemony of the Bureaucratic Bourgeoisie. 2] secondarily and very importantly imperialist domination.
E] We need to differentiate, nowadays, two types of contradictions not to be confuse with a bourgeois led revolution: the contradictions among the dominant classes to resolve their internal problems especially in social formation where bourgeois democratic structures are not strong enough to absorb these struggles. and the contradictions of the popular masses against the dominant classes, and the contradictions of labor and capital, as the center pole of the contradiction of the masses against the dominant classes.
F] At the stage of imperialism, there is no progressive role left for bourgeois democracy. It is utterly reactionary. Uniting with one sector / fraction of capitalism against another is suicide. Although, it is important to understand the social forces present, the dynamic role of all the classes in those social forces and their relations and non-relations with imperialism.
G][. Is Libya an on- going Bourgeois revolution as well? It is important that we learned from these experiences so we don’t become the non- official spokesperson of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. We do need to be critical and self critical of the position taken by most of the left on Libya, and in particular Gadhafi, who transitioned from the petit bourgeoisie to the bourgeoisie by joining the bureaucratic bourgeoisie.