Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby justdrew » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Alongside the horrific human cost, a sad casualty in the ongoing violence and turmoil in Egypt has been the looting of the Malawi Museum in the southern Nile River city of Minya. Quote: “Among the stolen antiquities was a statue of the daughter of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who ruled during the 18th dynasty. Archaeologist Monica Hanna described it as a ‘masterpiece.’ Other looted items included gold and bronze Greco-Roman coins, pottery and bronze-detailed sculptures of animals sacred to Thoth.” Over 1000 pieces were stolen, and when Hanna tried to confront the looters, telling them that, quote, “this is property of the Egyptian people and you are destroying it,” the looters responded that they were upset by her lack of veil and that the thievery was in retaliation for military killings. This is yet another blow to Egypt’s legacy and tourism industry, one which is/was a huge part of the country’s income. The longer that industry is disrupted, the longer it will take for the country to financially recover from the current crisis.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby justdrew » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:37 pm

maybe we should change the title of this thread
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby justdrew » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:22 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/washington-post-egypt-protests-anti-morsi_n_3797875.html

The Washington Post became the target of anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators on Thursday afternoon when a huge crowd of protesters rallied outside the newspaper's headquarters. The Post briefly locked down its lobby in response.

Al Jazeera America reported that the pro-Egyptian military protest began at the White House, with people chanting "Obama, stop supporting terrorists." There were about 500 protesters, according to the news organization, who marched to moved to offices of the Post on 15th Street.

Protesters chanted, "The Washington Post supports violence!" and "The Washington Post supports terrorism!" one person aligned with the protest tweeted.


more at link
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:44 am

No, we all know this title for 2.5 years now - probably the most active thread on RI?

However, if change, then how about: The Egyptian Revolution Thread (Since 2011)
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:32 pm

*

Thoughts on Egypt from a fascist zionist imperialist anti-Egyptian terrorist.

What's Happening in Egypt is a Precursor to a Global War Between the World's Elites and the Poor

By Chris Hedges
Truthdig.com

Radical Islam is the last refuge of the Muslim poor. The mandated five prayers a day give the only real structure to the lives of impoverished believers. The careful rituals of washing before prayers in the mosque, the strict moral code, along with the understanding that life has an ultimate purpose and meaning, keep hundreds of millions of destitute Muslims from despair. The fundamentalist ideology that rises from oppression is rigid and unforgiving. It radically splits the world into black and white, good and evil, apostates and believers. It is bigoted and cruel to women, Jews, Christians and secularists, along with gays and lesbians. But at the same time it offers to those on the very bottom of society a final refuge and hope. The massacres of hundreds of believers in the streets of Cairo signal not only an assault against a religious ideology, not only a return to the brutal police state of Hosni Mubarak, but the start of a holy war that will turn Egypt and other poor regions of the globe into a caldron of blood and suffering.

The only way to break the hold of radical Islam is to give its followers a stake in the wider economy, the possibility of a life where the future is not dominated by grinding poverty, repression and hopelessness. If you live in the sprawling slums of Cairo or the refugee camps in Gaza or the concrete hovels in New Delhi, every avenue of escape is closed. You cannot get an education. You cannot get a job. You do not have the resources to marry. You cannot challenge the domination of the economy by the oligarchs and the generals. The only way left for you to affirm yourself is to become a martyr, or shahid. Then you will get what you cannot get in life—a brief moment of fame and glory. And while what will take place in Egypt will be defined as a religious war, and the acts of violence by the insurgents who will rise from the bloodied squares of Cairo will be defined as terrorism, the engine for this chaos is not religion but the collapsing economy of a world where the wretched of the earth are to be subjugated and starved or shot. The lines of battle are being drawn in Egypt and across the globe. Adli Mansour, the titular president appointed by the military dictator of Egypt, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, has imposed a military-led government, a curfew and a state of emergency. They will not be lifted soon.

The lifeblood of radical movements is martyrdom. The Egyptian military has provided an ample supply. The faces and the names of the sanctified dead will be used by enraged clerics to call for holy vengeance. And as violence grows and the lists of martyrs expand, a war will be ignited that will tear Egypt apart. Police, Coptic Christians, secularists, Westerners, businesses, banks, the tourism industry and the military will become targets. Those radical Islamists who were persuaded by the Muslim Brotherhood that electoral politics could work and brought into the system will go back underground, and many of the rank and file of the Muslim Brotherhood will join them. Crude bombs will be set off. Random attacks and assassinations by gunmen will puncture daily life in Egypt as they did in the 1990s when I was in Cairo for The New York Times, although this time the attacks will be wider and more fierce, far harder to control or ultimately crush. What is happening in Egypt is a precursor to a wider global war between the world’s elites and the world’s poor, a war caused by diminishing resources, chronic unemployment and underemployment, overpopulation, declining crop yields caused by climate change, and rising food prices.

Thirty-three percent of Egypt’s 80 million people are 14 or younger, and millions live under or just above the poverty line, which the World Bank sets at a daily income of $2 in that nation. The poor in Egypt spend more than half their income on food—often food that has little nutritional value. An estimated 13.7 million Egyptians, or 17 percent of the population, suffered from food insecurity in 2011, compared with 14 percent in 2009, according to a report by the U.N. World Food Program and the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). Malnutrition is endemic among poor children, with 31 percent under 5 years old stunted in growth. Illiteracy runs at more than 70 percent.

In “Les Misérables” Victor Hugo described war with the poor as one between the “egoists” and the “outcasts.” The egoists, Hugo wrote, had “the bemusement of prosperity, which blunts the sense, the fear of suffering which is some cases goes so far as to hate all sufferers, and unshakable complacency, the ego so inflated that is stifles the soul.” The outcasts, who were ignored until their persecution and deprivation morphed into violence, had “greed and envy, resentment at the happiness of others, the turmoil of the human element in search of personal fulfillment, hearts filled with fog, misery, needs, and fatalism, and simple, impure ignorance.”

The belief systems the oppressed embrace can be intolerant, but these belief systems are a response to the injustice, state violence and cruelty inflicted on them by the global elites. Our enemy is not radical Islam. It is global capitalism. It is a world where the wretched of the earth are forced to bow before the dictates of the marketplace, where children go hungry as global corporate elites siphon away the world’s wealth and natural resources and where our troops and U.S.-backed militaries carry out massacres on city streets. Egypt offers a window into the coming dystopia. The wars of survival will mark the final stage of human habitation of the planet. And if you want to know what they will look like, visit any city morgue in Cairo.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?st ... 0232214455


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:41 pm

Career

El-Sisi received his commission as a military officer in 1977 serving in the mechanized infantry, specializing in anti-tank warfare and mortar warfare. He became Commander of the Northern Military Region-Alexandria in 2008 and then Director of Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance. El-Sisi was the youngest member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt. On 12 August 2012, Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi took a decision to replace Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Egyptian Armed Forces, by el-Sisi, and promoted him to the rank of General.[6] El-Sisi also took the post of Minister of Defense and Military Production in the Qandil Cabinet.

Key positions

[list=] Chief of the Information and Security of the Secretariat of the Ministry of Defence.
The commander of a mechanical infantry battalion .
Defense diplomat in Saudi Arabia.
Mechanical Infantry Brigade commander.
Mechanical infantry division commander.
Chief of Staff of the northern military region.
The military commander of the northern region.
Director of military intelligence and reconnaissance.
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defense and Military Production.[/list]

Minister of Defense

Since el-Sisi was appointed as Minister of Defense on 12 August 2012, there have been concerns in Egypt regarding rumors that General el-Sisi is the hand of the Muslim Brotherhood in the army, though el-Sisi has always declared that the Egyptian army stands on the side of Egyptian people. On 28 April 2013, during celebrations for Sinai Liberation Day, el-Sisi said that, "the hand that harms any Egyptian must be cut".[7] This statement was taken by Morsi opponents as a clarification that the Army is in support the people. However, the statement was described by Morsi supporters that el-Sisi was warning Morsi opponents that he would not allow an overthrow of the government. He remained in office under the new government, formed after the coup that deposed Morsi, and led by Hazem Al Beblawi. He was also appointed Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Fata ... _medals-22


You have to wonder what the ruling classes in Egypt mean by terms such as "Egypt", "the Egyptian people", "the people" and so on.

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:50 pm

Tahrir-ICN anarchist group statement on events in Egypt / August 2013

Void Network
August 17, 2013

The events of the past couple of days are the latest step in a sequence of events by which the military can consolidate its hold on power, aim towards the death of the revolution and a return to a military/police state.

The authoritarian regime of the Muslim Brotherhood had to go. But what has replaced it is the true face of the military in Egypt – no less authoritarian, no less fascist and for sure more difficult to depose.

The massacre carried out by the army against pro-Morsi supporters in Nadha Square and Raba’a has left around 500 killed and up to 3000 injured (Ministry of Health figures- the reality is likely much higher). It was a pre-orchestrated act of state terrorism. It’s aim is to divide the people and push the Muslim Brotherhood to create more militia’s to revenge and protect themselves. This in turn will enable the army to label all Islamists as terrorists and produce an “internal enemy” in the country which will allow the army to keep the military regime in an ongoing state of emergency.

They go after the Muslim Brotherhood today, but they will come after anyone who dares to criticize them tomorrow. Already the army has declared a state of emergency for one month, giving the police and military exceptional powers, and a curfew has been declared in many provinces for the same amount of time from 7pm to 6am. This gives the army a free hand to crack down on dissent. It is a return to the days before the revolution, where emergency law had been in place since 1967 and it provided the framework for wide-spread repression and denial of freedoms.

The character of the new regime is clear. Just a few days ago 18 new governors were appointed, the majority of which hail from the ranks of the army/police or even remnants of the Mubarak regime. There has also been an ongoing attack on workers who continue to strike for their rights (such as the recent army attack and arrest of steel workers on strike in Suez). The military regime is also hunting for revolutionary activists, journalists have been beaten and arrested, foreigners have been threatened against being witness to events. Both local and global media has told half truths and built narratives supportive of a political agenda. The counter-revolution is in full flow and it knows how to break the unity of the people in its effort to divide and conquer.

In the past two days there has been a rise in sectarian reprisals, with up to 50 churches and christian institutions attacked. The army and police were not seen protecting these buildings of the Christian community. It is in the interest of both army and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke tensions and create fear and hatred in the people. They will fight for their control of the State as people’s blood fills the streets.

We condemn the massacres at Raba’a and Nadha Square, the attacks on workers, activists and journalists, the manipulation of the people by those who vie to power, and sectarian attacks. For the revolution to continue the people must remain united in their opposition to the abuses and tyranny of power, against whoever it is directed.

Down with the military and Al-Sissi!
Down with the remnants of the Mubarak regime and business elite!
Down with the State and all power to autonomous communities!
Long live the Egyptian revolution!

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?st ... 7191446779


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:07 am

vanlose kid » Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:32 am wrote:*

Thoughts on Egypt from a fascist zionist imperialist anti-Egyptian terrorist.


I doubt it; I sure hope not, because I respect Chris Hedges. But he's not God, he can be wrong, and he's got it very wrong here.

Radical Islam is the last refuge of the Muslim poor. The mandated five prayers a day give the only real structure to the lives of impoverished believers. The careful rituals of washing before prayers in the mosque, the strict moral code, along with the understanding that life has an ultimate purpose and meaning, keep hundreds of millions of destitute Muslims from despair.


The majority of Egyptians, Muslim and Christian, are devout. Religion has played a central role in Egyptian cultural and social life for thousands of years, and the rituals, strict moral code and spiritual comfort are all available within the traditional Muslim and Christian faiths, as they have always been. Chris Hedges should define here what he means by "radical Islam"; does he mean the Wahhabist ideology, which Saudi Arabia has spent tens of billions of dollars over the past 40 years to introduce to Egypt and other countries and to promote? Does he mean the Muslim Brotherhood cult, which has hardly ever attracted adults, but depends on the Muslim Brotherhood's access to children (through schools, mosques, clinics and other "charity work") so that they can be properly brainwashed into absolute, unquestioning obedience ("hear and obey"), taking the orders of whoever is above him in the Brotherhood hierarchy, who in turn slavishly obeys the one above him, going all the way to the guy who has, by some unknown process, been appointed "Supreme Guide" in the Muslim Brotherhood (and probably beyond him to some foreign intelligence handler)?

Because Hedges needs to distinguish between something that is a "refuge" and something that is a trap, specifically designed and set by predators who feed on the weak. In fact, studies have shown that poverty alone does not render people more receptive to the Muslim Brotherhood, but the combination of extreme poverty and extreme ignorance. Among people who are very poor but at least somewhat educated, the MB's recruitment efforts are more likely to fail than to succeed.

The fundamentalist ideology that rises from oppression is rigid and unforgiving. It radically splits the world into black and white, good and evil, apostates and believers. It is bigoted and cruel to women, Jews, Christians and secularists, along with gays and lesbians. But at the same time it offers to those on the very bottom of society a final refuge and hope. The massacres of hundreds of believers in the streets of Cairo signal not only an assault against a religious ideology, not only a return to the brutal police state of Hosni Mubarak, but the start of a holy war that will turn Egypt and other poor regions of the globe into a caldron of blood and suffering.


Um, Mr. Hedges conveniently overlooks the fact that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that set up armed terrorist camps in the middle of a residential Cairo intersection and in Giza, and that engaged in regular acts of armed violence against Egyptians and hateful incitement to terrorism for 45 full days before police went in to disperse it. He overlooks the fact that there WAS NO MASSACRE, except for the hundreds who have been brutally tortured and murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood after the camps' dispersal, which was filmed and aired live in its entirety. In fact, the very first person to die on August 14 was a policeman, shot by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that since then, at least 60 policemen have been killed, some tortured to death, in the Muslim Brotherhood's attacks against police stations, some with RPG's, in addition to the dozens of soldiers. These are all well-documented facts, while there is NO evidence whatsoever, of the police engaging in any 'massacre' of the Brotherhood.


The only way to break the hold of radical Islam is to give its followers a stake in the wider economy, the possibility of a life where the future is not dominated by grinding poverty, repression and hopelessness. If you live in the sprawling slums of Cairo or the refugee camps in Gaza or the concrete hovels in New Delhi, every avenue of escape is closed. You cannot get an education. You cannot get a job. You do not have the resources to marry. You cannot challenge the domination of the economy by the oligarchs and the generals. The only way left for you to affirm yourself is to become a martyr, or shahid. Then you will get what you cannot get in life—a brief moment of fame and glory. And while what will take place in Egypt will be defined as a religious war, and the acts of violence by the insurgents who will rise from the bloodied squares of Cairo will be defined as terrorism, the engine for this chaos is not religion but the collapsing economy of a world where the wretched of the earth are to be subjugated and starved or shot.
....

Thirty-three percent of Egypt’s 80 million people are 14 or younger, and millions live under or just above the poverty line, which the World Bank sets at a daily income of $2 in that nation. The poor in Egypt spend more than half their income on food—often food that has little nutritional value. An estimated 13.7 million Egyptians, or 17 percent of the population, suffered from food insecurity in 2011, compared with 14 percent in 2009, according to a report by the U.N. World Food Program and the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). Malnutrition is endemic among poor children, with 31 percent under 5 years old stunted in growth. Illiteracy runs at more than 70 percent.

In “Les Misérables” Victor Hugo described war with the poor as one between the “egoists” and the “outcasts.” The egoists, Hugo wrote, had “the bemusement of prosperity, which blunts the sense, the fear of suffering which is some cases goes so far as to hate all sufferers, and unshakable complacency, the ego so inflated that is stifles the soul.” The outcasts, who were ignored until their persecution and deprivation morphed into violence, had “greed and envy, resentment at the happiness of others, the turmoil of the human element in search of personal fulfillment, hearts filled with fog, misery, needs, and fatalism, and simple, impure ignorance.”


Once again, Mr. Hedges conveniently forgets some facts: first, the Muslim Brotherhood was a close partner of the ruling SCAF, which took over after Mubarak was deposed, and under the approving eye of its US bosses, if not under the US' direct orders, the SCAF handed Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood on a golden platter. As a result, the Muslim Brotherhood had nearly total control over the machinery of state for over a year and a half. They rigged elections at will, dominated both houses of parliament, custom-designed their own self-serving constitution, controlled the presidency, the state media, the police, and took over much of the nation's economy, both public and private sector, so that within 18 months, they had vastly increased their holdings and pretty much constituted the nation's political, financial and business elite.

Once in power, they demonstrated a level of greed and selfishness that made Mubarak's regime seem humble. The president's personal budget, which had been wildly inflated in Mubarak's time, rose by 30% under Morsy. All the top-ranking Muslim Brotherhood officials were appointed to cushy government jobs at exorbitant salaries ($100,000 per month was not unusual), utterly unrelated to their qualifications or lack thereof. Under their extraordinarily incompetent rule, the ranks of the unemployed grew until they comprised close to 50% of the nation's work force. Peasants and workers were forced out of their lands and factories. Close to 4000 factories shut down, and hundreds of tourist resorts were forced into bankruptcy, many of them quickly snapped up at bargain-basement prices by cadres of the Muslim Brotherhood. The infrastructure was left to deteriorate without any maintenance whatsoever -- not even garbage collection (which, along with many other things, people had to organize themselves if they could, because the government was busy).

Meanwhile, government officials scolded the poor. The Muslim Brotherhood's Minister of Essential Goods told them that subsidized bread (which formed the bulk of the diet of increasing numbers of people) would henceforth be rationed to three flat loaves per day. The Muslim Brotherhood's Prime Minister, on International Women's Day, gave a speech in which he admonished peasant women to wash their nipples thoroughly so their babies would not get diarrhea.

By May 1st, our Labor Day, when the Egyptian president traditionally visits one of the large, public-sector factories, could not find a single factory to visit where the workers would not protest and possibly attack his entourage. He did go to the state-owned iron and steel factory, but the workers were kept away by police, and labor activists were arrested before his visit; instead, he spoke before an enthusiastic audience of Muslim Brotherhood members dressed up as workers.

By Wheat Harvest Day last May 15, when the Egyptian president traditionally visits a peasant village to give a speech, Morsy could not find a village to safely visit, without provoking a riot. Instead, he made his speech in the middle of a large wheat-field owned by a corporation, surrounded by bodyguards.

Image

Mr. Hedges conveniently ignores the fact that, more than any other sector of society, it was the poor who suffered the most under Muslim Brotherhood rule, and it was the poor who made up the vast majority of those who organized the uprising and demanded that Morsy and the Brotherhood be removed from power. It is in the very poorest neighborhoods that members of the Muslim Brotherhood now fear for their lives. If Mr. Hedges could only have seen what happened at the Fateh Mosque on August 15, when members of the Muslim Brotherhood holed up there for 18 hours and shot at police and ordinary people from inside. When they were finally evacuated, it was the police who had to physically protect them at the risk of their own lives, from the thousands of poor people who wanted desperately to lynch them.

The lines of battle are being drawn in Egypt and across the globe. Adli Mansour, the titular president appointed by the military dictator of Egypt, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, has imposed a military-led government, a curfew and a state of emergency. They will not be lifted soon.


First, we do not have a military-led government, but a civilian president, prime minister and cabinet, which includes the minister of defense. It is the prime minister and his cabinet who are currently running Egypt until the parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled to take place within 6-8 months, depending on how long it takes to produce a new constitution and hold a referendum to approve it.

Second, since January 25, 2011, we have had several curfews declared, all of which were rather hilariously ignored by the Egyptian people, because they did not like those who imposed them. They held football matches, weddings, dance performances and parades that lasted all night, from the curfew hour until morning. We are a very strong-willed people, Mr. Hedges, and especially after all we've been through, we do not accept being pushed around. And there are so many of us, no army or police could ever hope of controlling us all. But in the case of this curfew and this month-long state of emergency, we are all staying off the streets so that OUR police and OUR army can find and capture the killers who hate us and are trying to destroy our country.


The lifeblood of radical movements is martyrdom. The Egyptian military has provided an ample supply. The faces and the names of the sanctified dead will be used by enraged clerics to call for holy vengeance. And as violence grows and the lists of martyrs expand, a war will be ignited that will tear Egypt apart. Police, Coptic Christians, secularists, Westerners, businesses, banks, the tourism industry and the military will become targets. Those radical Islamists who were persuaded by the Muslim Brotherhood that electoral politics could work and brought into the system will go back underground, and many of the rank and file of the Muslim Brotherhood will join them. Crude bombs will be set off. Random attacks and assassinations by gunmen will puncture daily life in Egypt as they did in the 1990s when I was in Cairo for The New York Times, although this time the attacks will be wider and more fierce, far harder to control or ultimately crush. What is happening in Egypt is a precursor to a wider global war between the world’s elites and the world’s poor, a war caused by diminishing resources, chronic unemployment and underemployment, overpopulation, declining crop yields caused by climate change, and rising food prices.


Sorry to disappoint Mr. Hedges, but the exact opposite is in fact occurring. After the Brotherhood's violence reached its peak the day after the camps were dispersed, it has been steadily dwindling, as the police raid arms caches and arrest the Brotherhood's financiers (many caught with millions of dollars and Euros in cash, as well as Egyptian currency and credit cards; one 'preacher' was also caught with 17 credit cards in different names). This would have been much more difficult without the assistance of ordinary Egyptian citizens, who have helped the police to locate these caches and to capture the criminals by reporting suspicious activity.

The Brotherhood called for a "million-man march" yesterday, after Friday prayers. The largest such march consisted of an estimated 200 people. They avoided the main roads and kept to side streets in poor neighborhoods. Wherever they went, the marchers were greeted by pail-fulls of dirty water and rocks thrown at them from people's balconies. In Tanta, a relatively large town in the agricultural Delta, the residents attacked the marchers and beat them up, until police intervened to save them. In Helwan, the Muslim Brotherhood marchers kidnapped a camera crew sent to cover their pathetic demonstration, and threatened to kill them unless the tv station paid a ransom (the police released the camera crew and arrested the kidnappers by early evening).

Of course, the ability to plant a bomb or set fire to a building or stab or shoot someone dead, doesn't require popular support. Indeed, believe it or not, these acts can and are carried out by "enemies of the people", not their champions. If the aim of the Brotherhood is to terrorize and kill Egyptians, then some of their attempts may well succeed, although they will never again be able to do the kind of devastating damage they were doing to Egypt when they were in power. Now, they are simply a rapidly-dwindling gang of terrorists (many of them not even Egyptian, but imported by the Brotherhood to attack Egyptian society), and they will be dealt with accordingly.

The belief systems the oppressed embrace can be intolerant, but these belief systems are a response to the injustice, state violence and cruelty inflicted on them by the global elites. Our enemy is not radical Islam. It is global capitalism. It is a world where the wretched of the earth are forced to bow before the dictates of the marketplace, where children go hungry as global corporate elites siphon away the world’s wealth and natural resources and where our troops and U.S.-backed militaries carry out massacres on city streets. Egypt offers a window into the coming dystopia. The wars of survival will mark the final stage of human habitation of the planet. And if you want to know what they will look like, visit any city morgue in Cairo.


Hah. One would never guess that it is those very same "global corporate elites", including the US government, its allies and the Western corporate media that have proven so determined to impose this so-called "radical Islam" upon Egyptians and other Arabs, against our will. One would think that these so-called radical Islamists have done anything to help or further the cause of Arab ordinary people, instead of serving the agenda of the very foreign imperialists that sponsor them.

Oh, Mr. Hedges, you should really stick to something you know. Clearly you don't understand at all what's happening in Egypt.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby slimmouse » Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:41 am

It strikes me from Alices commentary that the Egyptian people understand exactly who and what they are first.

The media meanwhile create the overall impression that we are something else, pick your flavor.

BS labels.

Jack?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:34 pm

Tamarrod: Brotherhood defends American agenda
On Sat, 24/08/2013 - 12:01

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/ta ... can-agenda

Image
Tamarod campaign
Mahmoud Abdel Ghany


[Article by] Al-Masry Al-Youm

Tamarrod movement spokesperson Hassan Shahien said that the current suffering could have been expected and originated from the corruption that existed under former President Hosni Mubarak, the lack of political openness, the state of submission planted in the hearts of people, and the constant repression which gave an opportunity for terrorist groups to emerge.

Shahein explained that the Muslim Brotherhood was defending its American agenda, as indeed "Mubarak bowed to the United States, and the military council of Tantawi and Sami Anan bowed to the Muslim Brotherhood. Americans and the Muslim Brotherhood are a backward ally that seeks colonization. [The Muslim Brotherhood's] desperate defense is for the American agenda, not the Islamic one”.

However, Shahein mentioned that the security solution was not the only way to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, except for those guilty of violating the rights of the Egyptian people. He added that it was the duty of the state to provide those who had been pushed into the path of darkness with the culture and the foundations of true religion, through Al-Azhar and the Ministry of Endowments.

"We have to re-evaluate things and build a modern Egypt. We need to follow two tracks: apply the rule of law on those who carry weapons; promote a new religious and moral culture for those who have been pushed into the path of darkness; develop a respectable constitution that preserves the rights of the revolution, and head to the ballot boxes in an early presidential elections”.

"The Egyptian people came out on [30 June] to build a new Egypt which aims to achieve independence, national freedom, and social justice. The beginning of that project is a constitution that preserves the rights of the revolution and realizes the dreams of martyrs," Shahien concluded.

The Tamarrod movement (Rebellion), which called for demonstrations on 30 June, and played a leading role in the protests against the policies of Mohamed Morsi, has been taking position on the current situation. This happens in the background of a protracted crackdown between the current government and the Muslim Brotherhood, after the violent dispersal of two sit-ins in Rabaa and Nahda last week.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:38 pm


http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/le ... square-one

Leading activist says Egypt revolution back at square one
On Sat, 24/08/2013 - 12:03

Image
File photo of activist Ahmed Maher, coordinator of 6 April Movement, during an interview with Al-Masry Al-Youm, 7 April, 2010.
Ahmed Hayman
Reuters

Ahmed Maher's April 6 movement helped lead the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak in 2011. With Mubarak now out of jail, he says the revolution is back to square one, and could take a generation to prevail.

After the bloodiest week in Egypt's modern history, Maher fears the consequences of the hatred that has split the country into two rival camps: the army-led state and its backers, and the Islamists they removed from power on July 3.

"Our problem is there is a wave of madness. People tell you: 'We must eradicate them'," Maher said, saying such attitudes had emerged on both sides. "There must be a third voice."

The assessment from one of Egypt's best-known activists underlines the bleak outlook for the country whose January 25, 2011, uprising inspired pro-democracy revolts across the Arab world.

Maher, 32, says it may now be another generation before the goals of the revolution - freedom, social justice and dignity - are secured.

He spoke at a rundown Cairo office where the walls were covered with stickers bearing witness to non-stop activism since 2011: campaigns first against the generals who replaced Mubarak, and later against the elected Muslim Brotherhood-led government.

Protest work itself is becoming a victim of the latest bloodshed: April 6 canceled a rally on Friday against Mubarak's release out of fears it might lead to violence.

"We view ourselves back at square one, because what is happening now could be more dangerous, more complicated than what was there before January 25, 2011," Maher said.

"We don't fully understand what is happening in the new regime," he said. "There are fears of the return of the old regime, its people and methods."

"There are also extremist, radical armed groups."

Maher's April 6 was one of the youth movements that galvanized Egyptians during the 18-day uprising that ended when the army forced Mubarak aside on February 11, 2011.

But like most secular groups, it failed to make much of a political mark once Mubarak was toppled - a failure that helped the Islamists win election after election, culminating with last year's presidential vote that brought Mohamed Mursi to power.

April 6 backed Mursi in that vote, but later turned its countrywide activist network against him, echoing critics who said his Muslim Brotherhood was seeking to entrench its power even as it failed in government.

It gathered 2 million signatures for the Tamarod petition campaign that helped to mobilize protests against Mursi.

"When the army came to power after January 25, the alternative was the Brotherhood. Then the Brotherhood came, and the alternative was the military," he said. "The problem was the two-sided equation from the start. There must be a real alternative."

DIFFICULT TO SPEAK OUT

The Brotherhood is now facing one of the toughest crackdowns in its 85-year history.

Since Mursi's downfall, the security forces have killed at least 1,000 of his supporters, most of them last week when the police used force to break up their two Cairo protest camps.

Some 100 soldiers and police were also killed in bloodshed that has raised fears that an armed Islamist insurrection could ensue, even as the Brotherhood continues to disavow violence.

The police are arresting Brotherhood leaders and supporters across the country. State media say Egypt is fighting terrorism.

Maher said public hatred of the Brotherhood was now running so deep that it was difficult for activists to speak out about worrying trends such as the re-imposition of a state of emergency. "Everyone is directed towards the idea of the 'war on terror', and if there are violations, they are being ignored."

Mubarak's release on Thursday was a symbolic victory for supporters of the veteran autocrat. Though he is being retried for ordering the killing of protesters in the 2011 uprising, there are no longer any legal grounds for his detention.

"Naturally, there are fears, especially after the release of Mubarak," Maher said. "But as a revolution, we knew at the start there could be many setbacks ... We were expecting difficulties. But nobody thought it would be this complicated."

"I should be depressed, and I am depressed, but I still have hope, even with these complications, the violence, these fears. I still have confidence that one day we will see a new Egypt," he said. "My generation might not see these changes. We might be paving the way for the new generation to see these changes."
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:14 am

Sorry, Jack, I didn't read the article that quotes Ahmed Maher. He doesn't speak for us or to us, but to you. Ahmed Maher is a paid agent of the CIA, according to a great deal of strong evidence (if not proof). He has cast suspicion on, and betrayed, everyone who trusted him, including people who gave him a job when he couldn't support himself and people who worked so hard and sacrificed so much on behalf of the April 6 movement which his actions have totally discredited. He is a disgusting excuse for a human being; The Americans like him, though; a lot. They've appointed him (among others from inside their pockets) to be the face and voice of the Egyptian Revolution, especially in Western media, when in fact he only speaks for his paymasters.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby vanlose kid » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:28 am

Not a Revolution, Just an Old-Fashioned Coup
July 8th, 2013

Egypt Offers Lessons for America’s Left and Right

The U.S.-backed military coup that ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi reconfirms two historical lessons that Americans repeatedly refuse to accept.

The first is for American activists, the idealistic progressives working to make the world a fairer and more decent place. Once again in Egypt, we are seeing how you can’t make a revolution without revolutionizing society – which requires the complete, violent overthrow of the ruling class. The second lesson is for elite policymakers in Washington and other Western capitals, but they won’t learn it until the inevitable blowback from their incessant manipulation and backroom schemes prompts another September 11 — or worse.

First, the takeaway for leftists.

Western critics, most of them unabashedly pro-coup, blame the Muslim Brotherhood for its own overthrow. They weren’t inclusive enough, they presided over a lousy economy, after decades of exile they just weren’t ready to govern. For the sake of argument, let’s concede all that.

No matter where you stand on Morsi, it is undeniable that his nascent presidency never stood a chance. The 2011 “revolution” that began and ended in Tahrir Square, which defined the Arab Spring and inspired the Occupy Wall Street movement, toppled an aging U.S.-backed dictator, Hosni Mubarak. But Mubarak’s regime mostly remained in place. Mubarak’s old judiciary blocked Morsi and his party, a political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, at every turn. The other major holdover, the military and security forces, orchestrated his political demise, culminating in last week’s coup. Now there is a strong chance that Egypt is about to disintegrate into a civil conflict whose scale of violence might eclipse the mayhem in Syria.

Western analysts, liberals and even leftists who ought to know better have so cheapened the word “revolution,” attaching it to developments that, though notable, are nothing of the kind: independence struggles, civil rights movements, and most recently events like the Arab Spring, which enjoyed support by Western media and governments precisely because they were not violent, or at least not very violent, and thus not revolutionary — and therefore not a threat to the power of elites in charge of the current system. Although there may be strains of continuity in government and culture before and after a true revolution, such as the maintenance of some ministries and place names and so on, real revolution is characterized first and foremost by the replacement of one set of ruling elites — economic, cultural and political — over another. Revolution is also indicated by a vast set of radical transformations in the way that ordinary people live, such as the legalization of divorce, the abolition of the Catholic Church, and the establishment of the metric system after the French Revolution.

Though important and meaningful, what happened at Tahrir Square in 2011 didn’t come close to qualifying as a bona fide revolution. The rich remained rich, the poor remained poor, and though a few officials here and there lost their jobs, the ruling class as a whole retained their prerogatives. Meanwhile, life on the street remained miserable — and in exactly the same way as before.

Similarly, the 2013 coup d’état — weasel words to the contrary, if language has any meaning whatsoever, it is always a military coup when the military deposes a democratically elected ruler — isn’t a revolution either. Even if it was demonstrably true that, as General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi claimed and many protesters agree, that “it is not the army who took over, it is the army who acted on behalf of the people,” what we have here is nothing more than a personnel change. The system remains intact.

At the height of the Occupy movement during the fall of 2011, many knee-jerk pacifists, besotted with the post-1960s religion of militant nonviolence (in spite of its repeatedly proven ineffectiveness), agreed that radical transformation — revolution — was necessary in the United States. Yet these liberals also argued that (even though there was no historical precedent) the triumph of the mass of ordinary American workers over the corrupt bankers and their pet politicians could result from purely nonviolent protest.

They have only to look at Egypt to see why they are wrong. The Arab Spring was a huge experiment in the efficacy of nonviolence to affect political change. No country has seen a true revolution since the events of 2011. There were, however, changes — and these were most dramatic in the nations that saw the most violence, such as Libya.

Unless you dislodge the ruling elites, who have everything to gain from continuity and everything to lose from reform, your wannabe revolution doesn’t stand a chance of getting off the ground. The privileged classes won’t relinquish their privileges, power or wealth voluntarily. They will use their control over the police and the military (and, as we have recently learned, their access to the intimate details of our daily lives) in order to crush any meaningful opposition. They are violent. Their system is violence. Defeating them requires greater violence. Nothing less results in revolution.

Egypt is about to teach America’s political class yet another lesson about blowback, the tendency of meddling in the internal politics of foreign countries to result in anti-Americanism, which manifests itself in the form of terrorism.

After 9/11 you’d think that the U.S. would tread lightly in the Muslim world. This would go double in Egypt, where America’s pet dictator Hosni Mubarak ruled for 29 years, only to go down in flames despite being propped up by billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid. In the end, like a bored and easily distracted infant, the State Department green-lit Mubarak’s removal. Now, two years later, they’re at it again, brazenly orchestrating and signing off on an old-fashioned military coup to remove the first democratically elected leader of the spiritual center of the Arab world — who just happens to be an Islamist.

The behind-the-scenes machinations of the White House are sordidly reminiscent of CIA-backed coups in Latin America in the 1960s.

As President Mohamed Morsi huddled in his guard’s quarters during his last hours as Egypt’s first elected leader, he received a call from an Arab foreign minister with a final offer to end a standoff with the country’s top generals, senior advisers with the president said,” reported The New York Times over the weekend. “The foreign minister said he was acting as an emissary of Washington, the advisers said, and he asked if Mr. Morsi would accept the appointment of a new prime minister and cabinet, one that would take over all legislative powers and replace his chosen provincial governors.”

Over my dead body, Morsi replied.

This was conveyed to Anne Patterson, Obama’s ambassador to Egypt, and Susan Rice, his national security advisor. Rice told Morsi’s advisor she had green-lit a coup. “‘Mother just told us that we will stop playing in one hour,’ an aide texted an associate, playing on a sarcastic Egyptian expression for the country’s Western patron, ‘Mother America,’” the Times reported.

What could go wrong?

http://rall.com/2013/07/08/syndicated-c ... ioned-coup


*

The Failure of Tahrir Square 2011
August 22nd, 2013

Not a Revolution, Just a Useless Protest

Two years ago, when I was in the Occupy movement, my comrades and I argued about revolution. Was revolution necessary? What is it? The split that destroyed our movement — as it did the Left during the Sixties — pitted revolutionaries against reformists. The most frustrating part of the debate, however, wasn’t ideological. It was linguistic.

Even on the Left, few Americans know what revolution is: the violent overthrow of the ruling classes. In a revolution, everything — beginning with the power structure — changes.

The Tahrir Square encampments that led to the ouster of Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak were a huge influence on Occupy. But we couldn’t agree about what they meant. Was Tahrir a “revolution”?

No doubt, the 2011 Arab Spring was a powerful mass movement. Everyone agreed about that. For reformists — people who want to fix the system rather than replace it — Tahrir Square was a perfect example to emulate: a peaceful people-power transition that changed things for the better without shedding blood. Cut-and-paste the same phenomenon from Cairo to the United States — convince millions of peaceful demonstrators to camp out in American cities to demand change — and you’d get similarly dramatic results, reformist Occupiers urged. “Egypt had a peaceful revolution,” they said.

Revolutionaries — people who want to get rid of the existing system and start from scratch — countered that the Arab Spring uprisings were not revolutions at all and were thus insufficent. “Tunisia and Egypt,” I said, “were merely personnel changes.” The system, the way society, politics and the economy are organized, remained unchanged.

As recent events prove, the resignation of a president does not a revolution make.

In all the ways that matter, post-Mubarak Egypt remains the same. Those who were rich before are still rich; the same-old poor are the brand-new poor. Egypt’s generals, awash in billions of barely-audited American taxdollars and high-tech military hardware, continue to call the shots.

Egypt’s military brass is a canny lot. Corrupt and autocratic, they tack left and right along with the winds on the dusty streets. When Tahrir got big, they called back their rapists of demonstrators and told Hosni it was time to take a powder. When Mohammed Morsi won the election, they golf-clapped — until Mo’s numbers fell. Then it was his turn to vanish into house arrest.

The crowds in Tahrir cheered as fighter jets streaked overhead. Applauding their own oppressors.

Fools.

The proles get their concession. The figurehead performer everyone thinks runs the show, the big star who plays Mr. President on TV, gets fired after he turns stale. Yet, no matter how chaotic the politics, regardless of how much blood flows (spilled by projectiles made in the U.S.A.), the real bosses — the military, their business cronies, the publishers and owners of state media outlets — remain in charge.

Which now is plain as day.

General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who overthrew Morsi in a coup that dare not speak its name (in Western countries, whose quaint 20th century human rights laws would otherwise require the severing of lucrative weapons contracts that benefit major campaign donors), has apparently gotten so caught up in the serious business of slaughtering members of the Muslim Brotherhood that he’s completely forgotten to pay lip service to restoring democracy.

In the ultimate symbol of restoration (or feeling so confident they feel free to tip their hand), the military’s old friend/employee Mubarak is out of prison and may soon be released.

As two visiting U.S. senators recently witnessed firsthand, power has gone to al-Sisi’s telegenic little head. This isn’t a crackdown, but rather an attempt to grind the Muslim Brotherhood into oblivion. Al-Sisi’s soldiers have arrested the Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Mohamed Badie, on brazenly trumped-up charges. And his fellow coup leaders are gearing up for a fascist-style ban of the party — another return to the Mubarak era.

As usual, Western liberals are smart enough to foresee future blowback from the Egyptian junta’s brutal campaign. “Attempts to exclude a party with the level of support recently secured by the Muslim Brotherhood will simply prolong Egypt’s agony. That is a tragic lesson from the history of Algeria in the 1990s,” Douglas Alexander writes in The Guardian.

Also as usual, Western liberals are too stupid to push for a stronger remedy than wouldn’t-it-be-nice hoping things will magically feel guilty and stop mass murdering. “The Muslim Brotherhood needs the opportunity,” Alexander continues, “to ‘get out of the streets and into the voting booth.’ Yet to do so, its supporters must believe there is a viable democratic path.”

Which of course there isn’t.

Which brings us back to Tahrir Square 2011. What should Egypt’s proto-Occupiers have done instead?

If their goal was actual change rather than new window-dressing, the protesters at Tahrir shouldn’t have settled for a personnel change at the pseudo-top. Mubarak’s departure wasn’t enough.

If you want to eliminate oppression, you must eliminate the oppressors. In Egypt, that would have meant rounding up every major official in the military as well as the government, and seizing control of the nation’s economy. Everyone who was anyone, rich and/or powerful, should have been imprisoned.

This would, of course, have required violence.

Revolution isn’t pretty. But as we’re seeing now in Egypt, neither is the alternative.

http://rall.com/2013/08/22/syndicated-c ... quare-2011


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:30 am

The latest rave in Egypt is for individuals and groups of people to get together and try to overcome the language and cultural barriers, in order to communicate with Western audiences. Dozens of compilation videos have emerged just in the past couple of weeks, of varying lengths and quality. We don't have the millions of dollars to spend on public relations firms in the US and Europe, as the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar do, and we don't have the professional Western media on our side. So our efforts are not as slick, nor do they always hit the mark when it comes to speaking in terms that Western audiences understand. But when we show our truth it is quite compelling anyway, because the truth has its own power.

This video was put together as a labor of love by a group of Egyptians, some working in the media field, but most not. I find it most effective when it shows the reality that we've experienced, and least effective when it tries to put that reality in Western terms, because our reality should not need to be compared to anything in order to be understood. We are human beings, and anybody willing to acknowledge that, will understand perfectly where we stand and why.

"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby vanlose kid » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:03 am

*

July 18, 2013
The Military Coup in Egypt
Requiem for a Revolution that Never Was
by AJAMU BARAKA

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

- Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth

As the military in Egypt consolidates its putsch against the leadership and political structures of the Muslim Brotherhood, it should be obvious that the initial narrative rationalizing intervention by the military as a necessary corrective to a “revolutionary process” has lost all credibility. Yet many liberals and radicals appear united in a fanciful reading of the events in Egypt that not only legitimizes the coup but characterizes the collection of small-minded state-capitalists thugs who make up the top officer corps of the military as part of the people and the revolutionary process.

From bourgeois intellectual hacks like Isabel Coleman to venerable Marxist materialists like Samir Amin, who implied that the Egyptian army was a neutral class force, the emotional response to seeing hundreds of thousands of people on the streets seems to have created a case of temporary insanity, or as Frantz Fanon refers to it as – cognitive dissonance. This can be the only explanation for the theoretical and rhetorical acrobatics many are engaged in to reconcile their beliefs in democratic rights and revolutionary transformation with what is occurring right before their eyes in Egypt.

A revolution in name only

The popular use and acceptance of the term revolution to describe the events in Egypt over the last two years demonstrates the effectiveness of global liberal discourse to “de-radicalize,” with the collusion of some radicals, even the term “revolution.”

Eschewing the romanticism associated with revolution and the sentimentality connected to seeing the “masses in motion,” it has to be concluded that between February 2011, when Mubarak was ousted, and July 3, 2013, when the military officially reassumed power, there was no revolutionary process at all, in the sense that there was no transfer of power away from the class forces that dominated Egyptian society. No restructuring of the state; no new democratic institutions and structures created to represent the will and interests of the new progressive social bloc of students, workers, farmers, women’s organizations etc.; and no deep social transformation. In fact, the rapes and sexual assaults that occurred during the recent mobilizations were a graphic reminder that sexist and patriarchal ideas still ruled, untouched by this so-called revolutionary process.

A revolutionary process is a process by which structures of power are created by a broad mass of people that allow them to eventually transform every aspect of their society — from the structure and role of the State and the organization of the economy to inter-personal relations — all with a view to eliminating all forms of oppression. There were some important organizational advances made by some elements of the labor movement in Egypt, including the creation of independent trade unions. However, the organizational imperative for revolutionary change that requires the building of popular structures to sustain mass struggle and represent dual power, was not as strong as it should have been in Egypt.

Early 2011 in Egypt saw mass agitation for social change and a mass rebellion against a dictatorship that galvanized previously disparate social forces and classes — Westernized secular liberals, labor rights activists, radical students, women’s rights activists and Islamic fundamentalists — into one oppositional social bloc. The initial demand was for the end of the Mubarak dictatorship and the creation of a democratic system that respected democratic rights — the essential component of an authentic national democratic revolutionary process. However, the maturation of this process was arrested due to three factors: (i) the seizure of power by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) on February 11, (ii) the channeling of mass dissent primarily into the electoral process, and (iii) the failure of the oppositional forces to organize sustainable mass structures to safeguard and consolidate the developing revolutionary situation.

The concern with characterizing the nature of mass struggle in Egypt and in Tunisia that eventually was branded as the “Arab spring,” is not driven by a desire for some kind of neat, categorical purity that abstracts complex social phenomenon from its historical context. But instead the concern is the need to differentiate politically and programmatically the specific political challenges and tasks between an insurrectionary phase of struggle and one that has entered a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary phase.

This is important because the liberal appropriation of the term “revolution” to describe everything from the events in Libya and Syria to the Green movement in Iran not only distorts social reality but also advances a dangerous narrative. That narrative suggests that revolutionary change takes place as a result of spectacle. It devalues organizing and building structures from the bottom up as unnecessary because it is the theater that is important; the episodic show; the display that refutes Gil Scott Heron’s admonition that “the revolution will not be televised!”

The perverted logic of this approach is reflected in both the failure of the opposition to organize itself beyond the spontaneous mobilizations of 2011 and the knowledge of Morsi’s opponents, the Tamarod — thanks to signals from their patrons in the U.S. — that if they demonstrated significant street opposition to President Morsi the U.S. would have the cover to support intervention by the military.

The military’s pre-emptive strike against revolution

To have a clearer view of the current situation in Egypt, we must debunk the nonsensical, a-historical gibberish that suggests that the Egyptian military is a neutral, grand mediator of contending social and political forces, and stepped into the political scene in January 2011 and again July 2nd as a national patriotic force allied with the interests of the “people.”

The reality is that what we have witnessed in Egypt is a lateral transfer of power, in class terms, from the civilians in the Mubarak government, representing capitalist interests tied to the State, to the military, which has similar economic interests, with their enterprises and retired officer corps populating companies connected to the State sector. In fact, under President Morsi, the military never really went away. It maintained an independent space in the Egyptian state and economy. Critical ministerial positions in the Morsi cabinet, such as the Interior Ministry, Defense and Suez Canal Authority, were given to individuals associated with the Mubarak regime that were allied with the military. And the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court, populated by Mubarak-era appointees, was the main instrument used by the military to limit and control any efforts to restructure the state or expand Morsi’s power.

For U.S. policy-makers, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Morsi government were never seen as an alternative to Hosni Mubarak. Despite the repression meted out to members of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Mubarak regime, it was well understood that the Brotherhood was part of the Egyptian economic elite and open to doing business with the West. Therefore, Morsi was seen as an acceptable and safe civilian face to replace Mubarak while the U.S. continued its influence behind the scenes through the military.

Both the U.S. government and the Egyptian military had objective interests in making sure that the power of the Morsi Presidency remained more symbolic than real. The military, working through the Constitutional Court and the bureaucracy, made sure that President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood only had nominal control of the State. Morsi did not control the intelligence or security apparatus, the police, the diplomatic corps, or the bureaucracy, which was still staffed with Mubarak holdovers.

In fact, one of the major sources of tension between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood was the threat — and real moves — made by the Morsi government to use their nominal state power to curtail the economic activity of the military, which holds interests controlling anything from 15 to 40 percent of the economy, in favor of the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood itself, representing sectors of the competitive capitalist class.

One way of looking at the assault on the Muslim Brotherhood is that it was nothing more than a militarized solution to an intra-bourgeois class struggle within the context of Egyptian society, and had nothing to do with the interests of the fragmented and institutionally-weak opposition.

So the idea that the military, as a neutral force, allied itself with “the people” and only stepped in to resolve a political crisis is nothing more than a petit-bourgeois fantasy.

The class-based, social and economic interests of the military mean that it will oppose any fundamental transformation of the Egyptian economy and society, the ostensible aim of the “revolution.” Significantly, this means that the power of the military is going to have to be broken if there is to be any prospect of revolutionary change in Egypt.

A National Democratic Revolution: One step forward, three steps back

This analysis, however, should not be read to suggest that the people were just bit-players in a drama directed by powers they had no control over. The mass rebellion in Egypt created a crisis of governance for the corrupt elite that were in power and their U.S. patron. The demand for the end of the dictatorship was an awesome demonstration of people-power that created the potential for revolutionary change. The problem was that the dictatorship had severely undermined the ability of alternative popular forces to develop and acquire the political experience and institutional foundations that would have positioned them to better push for progressive change and curtail the power of the military. Unfortunately for Egypt, the force that had the longest experience in political opposition and organizational development was the Muslim Brotherhood.

The call by a sector of the “people” for the Morsi government to step down was a legitimate demand that expressed the position of a portion of the population that was dissatisfied with the policies and direction of the country. Yet, when the Egyptian military — a military that has not demonstrated any propensity for supporting democratic reforms — intimated that it would step in, the mass position should have been “no to military intervention, change only by democratic means” — a position that a more mature and authentically independent movement might have assumed if it was not being manipulated by powerful elite forces internally and externally.

It was wishful thinking that bordered on the psychotic for liberal and radical forces in the country and their allies outside to believe that a democratic process could be developed that reflected the interests of the broad sectors of Egyptian society while disenfranchising the Muslim Brotherhood, a social force that many conservatively suggest still commands the support of at least a third of the Egyptian population, and is the largest political organization in the country. Liberals and some radicals that supported the coup did not understand that the construction of the “people” is a social/historical process that requires both struggle and engagement. Not understanding this basic principle has resulted in the killing of the national democratic revolution in its infancy.

The powerful national elites that bankrolled the anti-Morsi campaign and their external allies, including Saudi Arabia and the U.S., have successfully set in motion a counter-revolutionary process that will fragment the opposition and marginalize any radical elements. The Egyptian elite understood much more clearly than the Tamarod or the National Salvation Front that a revolutionary process would entail the development of a political program that has as its objectives the subordination of the military to the people, the public appropriation of state capitalist sector and the rejection of neoliberal capitalist development. Because of that understanding, they moved with textbook precision over the last year and a half to protect their interests.

Sadly, the liberal and radical collusion with the anti-democratic forces of the Egyptian military and economic elite has provided legitimacy for the same retrograde forces that dominated Egyptian society under Mubarak to continue that domination, but this time in the name of “revolution.”

Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist and veteran of the Black Liberation Movement. He is currently a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Baraka can be reached at www. Ajamubaraka.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/18/ ... never-was/




*

In Defense of Leaderless Revolutions
by PETER GELDERLOOS
CounterPunch
July 27, 2013

Barcelona.

Cihan Tugal (“The End of the “Leaderless” Revolution” July 10, 2013) effectively picks apart the populist and premature claims of a successful revolution in Egypt. Yet he goes further to use the evident flaws in the leaderless revolutions that have been a hallmark of the early 21st century to discredit the very concept of leaderless revolution. In doing so, he opens the way for an amnesiac backslide to the much more flawed authoritarian revolutions of the 20th century, in the process committing some of the same errors that must be criticized in the ongoing revolts.

In order to build up a continuity of critique that benefits from awareness of all our past failures—a rich history indeed—we need to compare the failings of the leaderless revolutions with the much greater failings of the authoritarian revolutions of the past, rather than cover up those failings with the facile neologism of “leaderful” revolutions.

Ajamu Baraka, in “Requiem for a Revolution That Never Was” (July 18, 2013), is correct in challenging the pretensions of the Egyptian revolt to being a revolution. He sets the bar necessarily higher, stating: “A revolutionary process is a process by which structures of power are created by a broad mass of people that allow them to eventually transform every aspect of their society — from the structure and role of the State and the organization of the economy to inter-personal relations — all with a view to eliminating all forms of oppression.”

I would differ sharply with the idea that simply changing the structure and the role of the State is compatible with eliminating oppression, as every State in history has advanced the exclusive interests of the ruling class it unfailingly creates, necessarily blocking the full freedom of action and self-organization of its subjects. In fact no one has advanced a convincing argument about how a State could possibly do anything else, and the proponents of such apologia have most often been the ones to actively disprove the proposition of a benign State.

Nonetheless, we can take this as a starting point: a revolution seeks to profoundly transform social organization and eliminate oppression. If we acknowledge that populists were premature in declaring a revolutionary victory in Egypt, we should also accept that Tugal is premature in declaring a failure.

What revolution that ran its course was not preceded by insurrections that were crushed? In Russia there was the failed 1905 revolution. In China there was the Autumn Harvest Uprising, and in Spain the insurrections at Casas Viejas in 1933 and Asturias in 1934. The Cuban Revolution was preceded by the attack on the Moncada barracks. And the American Revolution owes much more to the thwarted Conspiracy of 1741 in New York than most historians are willing to acknowledge (given that the eventual leaders of that revolution were looking to avoid, rather than realize, the dreams of early insurgents).

Revolutions are not an event, but a process, and a major part of that process involves learning from our failures, developing more adequate theories and analysis, and building up the capacity to defend the spaces we seize and the germinal social relations we create.

In Egypt, the forces that obstructed this learning process were the revolt’s would-be leaders, populists hoping to mobilize the masses with empty slogans. These leaders were unwittingly complemented by direct democracy activists who thought it was enough for people to take to the streets and participate in assemblies. They were happy to have created a vessel, no matter how superficial the content that filled it, no matter how undeveloped their new structure’s capacity for self-defense.

In the plaza occupation movement in Spain, directly influenced by the Arab Spring, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets chanting, “the revolution begins here.” Most of them were sincere, but they also held a media-corrupted view of what revolution actually means. The experience with a leaderless revolution forced many of them to question their assumptions and deepen their analysis.

Behind the façade of popular unity that the many commentators helped to create, these movements contained important conflicts. In Spain as elsewhere, there were the authoritarians and the movement politicians who parroted horizontal, anti-party rhetoric so as not to scare away their potential constituency. And there were the activists who believed in an ideology of horizontality and direct democracy in and of themselves. Both of these groups coincided in their desire to hide and suppress the internal divisions in the movement. They spoke of unity and hoped that everyone would rally around lowest common denominator positions. But there were also the marginalized, who were not content with any movement that would sate itself with mere reform. Many of them kept coming back to the streets because of what they found there, a spontaneous, self-organizing collectivity that promised a future community based on everything that is lacking under capitalism. And among the marginalized were the radicals, who specifically and unceasingly criticized the false unity, the democratic populism, and the at best superficial analysis of capitalism.

The movement politicians tried their best to ignore these radicals. The media suggested they were outside provocateurs, even though they were there from the beginning. But an increasing number of people began to listen to them, and collectively the movement as a whole deepened its analysis and sharpened its practice. This is why the largely middle-class, populist “indignados” of the spring of 2011 gave way to the anticapitalist, diverse, and numerically superior strikers and rioters of the general strike one year later.

In Egypt as well, anarchists and other radicals were in the heart of the recent uprising, opposing the Morsi government as well as a military government, and spreading critiques of the power structures that underpin both. For now, the military has prevailed, but this gives people in Egypt a chance to learn lessons and strengthen their practice. A population that has been subdued by military dictatorship for decades has little chance to develop the analysis and the tools of self-defense they need to overcome one of the most heavily funded militaries in the world in just two years, but in such a short time, they have come a very long way.

The leaderless revolution must overcome centuries of conditioning that teaches us that we need to be ruled. This is its central conflict. Setbacks in Egypt and elsewhere should underscore this conflict, not justify running away from the greatest struggle we will ever take up.

What becomes clear with experience is that it is not enough to take to the streets and protest, no matter how many figureheads we topple, because power runs deeper than that. It is not enough to implement democratic debate, because the right answers have already been precluded by the very way our lives have been structured.

Tugal is dead wrong when he writes about “the fallacy that the people can take power without an agenda, an alternative platform, an ideology, and leaders.” That someone can still talk about taking power as a liberatory proposition without getting laughed off stage, in the face of so many historical examples that show what taking power actually means, shows how deep our collective amnesia runs.

It is no surprise, however, that some people keep sounding the call for unifying behind leaders and a platform in order to take power. In an authoritarian revolution, academics and other intellectual and cultural producers often move from their middling rung in the capitalist hierarchy to the top tier. It is in their class interest to advocate for authoritarian revolution. The rest of us just need to learn to tune them out.

The idea that we can address the economic alienation of capitalism without addressing the political alienation of the State is absurd. It is no coincidence that all the authoritarian revolutions that billed themselves as “anticapitalist” proved to be nothing more than shortcuts back to capitalism. The greatest promise of the leaderless revolutions is their ability to create a synthesis between economic and political liberation, but only if they also reject the democratic populism that Tugal and many others have criticized. But an analysis critical of both capitalism and populism already exists in the heart of the Egyptian revolt, as it also did in the Spanish plaza occupation movement and even Occupy.

These leaderless revolts do not need to be rejected. We just need to cut through the veil of unity, hollow discourses like that of the “99%” or “people power”, acknowledge the conflicts that exist within these movements, and take sides. Not to advance the correct platform, the correct agenda, and the correct set of leaders, inevitably setting off a carnival of sectarianism, but in a spirit of pluralistic debate.

Bowing down to the need for leaders, “an” (read, one) ideology, and a common platform would obstruct the most important line of growth for these revolutions, which is self-organization. A prerequisite for self-organization is that the outcomes cannot be predetermined as they are when we all have to toe a party line. Once most people know how to take the initiative in their own lives and put their plans into action, once the practice of self-organization intensifies to move beyond making abstract decisions, people will be able to create new social relations and collectively organize the material aspects of their lives—how to feed, clothe, house, heal, and generally provide for themselves. If this happens, leaders will be obsolete and we can begin to earnestly talk about revolution.

The worst problem with authoritarian revolutions is not that they produce “a cult of the leader,” the only glitch Tugal finds to criticize, but that their existence requires them to obstruct the self-organization of the people by any means necessary, a dynamic that Voline documented in the Russian Revolution and that has proven to be the case in every authoritarian revolution since.

The revolts in Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, Spain, and elsewhere are an important start. But wherever we participate in leaderless movements we need to argue passionately against reformism, for a radical critique of capitalism, and for a committed rejection of leaders. Eschewing leadership provisionally, rejecting only the current leaders, will only lead to a takeover by populists, opportunists, or seemingly neutral structures like the military, as happened in Egypt. But if the rejection of leadership solidifies, Tamarod or any other group will not be able to rally people behind a leadership that appears to be neutral, or convince them to stuff their dreams into a ballot box.

If these revolutionary movements grow and successfully resist co-optation, they will come into greater conflict with the State. Leaderless insurrections in recent years in Egypt, Brazil, and Greece quickly overcame the ability of the police to contain them, raising the specter of a clash with the military. How can a leaderless revolt adapt to such a conflict? Fortunately we have historical precedents.

The most important historical lesson warns against the militarization of the conflict. Many revolutionary movements have had to overcome the military force of the State, but they ended up defeating themselves when they subordinated social questions to matters of military organization. In combat, large groups of people often need to arrive at unified decisions in the shortest time possible, meaning that assemblies don’t cut it. The forms of organization and leadership that develop in the sphere of martial conflict must therefore never take precedence over the social character of the ongoing revolution.

In recent times, the Zapatistas have taken great pains to avoid a militarization of the conflict or subordinate their social activities to the military leadership. The results of their efforts remain to be seen.

In the Spanish Civil War, anarchist and some socialist militias organized with elected and recallable officers, and these militias had no authority in socio-economic matters. The revolution was lost when it was subordinated to the military question (“win the war first, then make the revolution later”) and the militias were forced to join the regular armies.

In the Russian Revolution, the anarchist Makhno led a highly effective partisan detachment comprised entirely of peasant volunteers that wreaked havoc on the authoritarian White and Red Armies. For his part, Makhno refused leadership in the revolutionary assemblies that were established in the liberated territory. He stuck to military matters, and told workers or peasants looking for guidance to organize themselves.

Kim Jwa-Jin was a similar figure in the Chinese Civil War: leader of the Shinmin Commune’s army, he left all political decisions to the federation and the local assemblies, where an anti-authoritarian spirit were the order of the day.

Nanny led the maroons in Jamaica in the battle against slavery. And in their victorious wars against Spanish attempts at colonization, the Mapuche of South America chose tokis to lead them in battle. But Nanny and the tokis had no power on the community or household levels, beyond their own household and their own community, nor were they integrated into any power structure that governed those other social levels, as are military leaders in a compartmentalized state structure.

For most of us, the eventuality of military conflict is still a long way off. Even in Egypt, where a civil war is an imminent possibility, the movement still has so much work to do to get to a point where it could hope to survive such a conflict. Ultimately, we will cross that bridge when we get there. But it is good to know that we won’t be the first ones to carry the dream of an egalitarian revolution and a world without hierarchy or oppression.

We have no need to listen to those who sound the call to retreat, back to the hopelessly flawed model of authoritarian revolution that marred the 20th century. The leaderless revolution is an ongoing experiment, an endeavor that challenges us to abandon our authoritarian baggage, to convince those who are new to struggle that a simple reform is not enough, to spread an understanding of how power actually functions and to see the connection between every form of oppression.

The widespread mistrust of leaders is one of the few things we have gained from our long history of revolutionary failure. Let’s not give that up just because our struggles are not immediately successful. Rather, we need to turn that mistrust into a principled position. A hundred years ago, millions of people cried out, “The liberation of the workers is a task for the workers themselves.” This is true of everyone who is exploited and oppressed, whether their oppression plays out on lines of class, race, gender, sexuality, or ethnicity. They will know better than anyone else how to liberate themselves.

Peter Gelderloos is the author of several books, including Anarchy Works and the newly published The Failure of Nonviolence: from the Arab Spring to Occupy. He lives in Barcelona.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?st ... 7021124945


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests