Revolutionary Socialists’ Statement on Egypt’s Presidential Elections

[Crux]

Revolutionary Socialists’ Statement on Egypt’s Presidential Elections (http://muftah.org/revolutionary-socialists-statement-on-egypts-presidential-elections/)
I'll put my commentary in a spoiler so you can read the statement for yourselfes first.

Well, the Revolutionary Socialists have a history of working with the MB. This is a rather dangerous game to play, as the history of the worker's movement in the arab countries and Iran gives ample example of.

"We cannot fail here to call on the Muslim Brotherhood and all the political forces to put the interests of the revolution before party-political interest and to unite against Shafiq so that we do not deliver our revolution to its enemies as easy prey." What would be the class and political nature of this unity? The Muslim Brotherhood, while having a long history of opposing the former regime clandestinely, was not and is not part of the forces defending the revolution.

While the RS put demands towards the MB any unity behind the MB is, well very very dangerous. It's not just the remnants of the NDP that are the forces of conuter-revolution in Egypt, but largely the MB and the Salafists as well. Indeed the Brotherhood rose in the last parliamentary election as the candidates of "stability". I'd rather not see history repeat itself.

That said MB's members and sympathiers are not just a "reactionary mass". Their long standing opposition to the former regime is what has earned them some credibility, while at the same time acting as the party of capitalist stability. Many of their young and working class members joined the uprising, in defiance of the official party line, just as they did in the strike movement in 09 that acted as a prelude to the revolution. So there is a chasm between their young and working class members and the older pro-capitalist leadership. But then again this was arguably the case in Iran as well, so the question is how do the revolutionary left win those layers? Even if we suppose the Brotherhood, unlike the Salafists and the remnants of the regime have not yet fully become the force of reaction, is sowing illusions in them really the way forward?

[Crux]

they are going no where , it's an old hostility since Nasser's days ,

i thought they are nationalists , not socialists
I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

[¿Que?]

is sowing illusions in them really the way forward
I think the RS are just trying to get some organizing time and wiggle room under MB leadership that they probably wouldn't have under Shafiq.

Let's face it, if the MB wins, they will owe their position to the revolution, and thus they must at the very least keep a semblance of support for it. OTOH, I figure if Shafiq gets in power, there's going to be a lot of missing people shortly thereafter. Not good for the revolution.

It's the same as their call to form a broad coalition with reformists as well, even in light of the fact that reformist is a dead end and will eventually betray any revolution.

Dunno, not following too closely, but that would be my guess.

[Crux]

I think the RS are just trying to get some organizing time and wiggle room under MB leadership that they probably wouldn't have under Shafiq.

Let's face it, if the MB wins, they will owe their position to the revolution, and thus they must at the very least keep a semblance of support for it. OTOH, I figure if Shafiq gets in power, there's going to be a lot of missing people shortly thereafter. Not good for the revolution.

It's the same as their call to form a broad coalition with reformists as well, even in light of the fact that reformist is a dead end and will eventually betray any revolution.

Dunno, not following too closely, but that would be my guess.
Sure they are being "tactical", best case scenario this is just a bit of popular frontism/lesser evilism towards a bourgeoisie party worst case scenario welll...there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq_(1968%E2%80%932003)#Al-Bakr.27s_rule_and_Hussein.27s_rise_to_power_.28196 8.E2.80.931979.29) some precedents. or even much more recently in Tunisia, with their "moderate islamist" government: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5599 http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5693

[wsg1991]

the egyptian reformists are generally Nasserists , combining Arab nationalism + socialism comparable to south america leftist leaders

Nasser have a historical problems with MB , an alliance between someone claiming to be a nasserist , Hamdeen subahi and the brotherhood would be hard .

the Muslim brotherhood themselves are no less threat to democracy , and are your typical religious Right . the last time was an alliance like that was in Iran , communists were massacred

i rather staying out of this , keep building up . This is like choosing the lesser evil , just like choosing between 2 USA presidential candidates

BTW did this RS supported Hamdeen subahi in election ?

[Crux]

the egyptian reformists are generally Nasserists , combining Arab nationalism + socialism comparable to south america leftist leaders

Nasser have a historical problems with MB , an alliance between someone claiming to be a nasserist , Hamdeen subahi and the brotherhood would be hard .

the Muslim brotherhood themselves are no less threat to democracy , and are your typical religious Right . the last time was an alliance like that was in Iran , communists were massacred

i rather staying out of this , keep building up . This is like choosing the lesser evil , just like choosing between 2 USA presidential candidates

BTW did this RS supported Hamdeen subahi in election ?
I'm pretty sure they backed Abu Al-Izz Al-Hariri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Al-Izz_Al-Hariri) the Socialist Popular Alliance candidate, but I don't know.

[wsg1991]

the tunisian story is different , the troika , as we called here , was formed by CPR , TAKATTOl , and MB

CPR high members proved to be opportunistic , as their Leader itself Marzouki accepted presidency without any authority

Takkattol , ''a social democrat'' Betrayed the people that elected , Mustapha ben Jaafar clearly said in one of his speech , i will not ally myself with MB , he lied


Trade union had a corrupted Leadership , now elected a new one . this new one is causing the government problems and probably the strongest organization in Tunisia ,

that 9 april protest that were repressed because they reached a street that the government forbade protests there . UGTT said that 1 mai workers day celebration WILL be there , the government back off

now there is several strikes including the medical professors in my university , because the government refused to raise salaries and solve several problems that require money .

[wsg1991]

I'm pretty sure they backed Abu Al-Izz Al-Hariri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Al-Izz_Al-Hariri) the Socialist Popular Alliance candidate, but I don't know.

Hamdeen subahi required another 800,000 vote to come second , i don't think that guy did even collect 100,000 voice , but it was a mistake not to support one candidate



sending someone to presidential palace without active support and protests is futile , as he would easily bend to foreign pressure

[Crux]

Hamdeen subahi required another 800,000 vote to come second , i don't think that guy did even collect 100,000 voice , but it was a mistake not to support one candidate



sending someone to presidential palace without active support and protests is futile , as he would easily bend to foreign pressure
I don't necessarily think it was a mistake, but I am not that familiar with either candidate. re the 8 00 000 votes, it has been alleged there was some pretty massive election fraud especially from Shafiq. I think this, rather than as RS suggest lining up behind MB, should be one of the lefts main focus in this election. A Hambdeen Subahi versus the MB second round would provide an interesting dynamic. Even so the main focus should not be the electoral field. As you say even if the left populist Sabahi were to win the movement must be in the streets and work places.
To quote St Juste, one of the leaders of the french revolution "those who make revolution half-way dig their own graves."

[Crux]

http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/5817

[cynicles]

From what I understand the members of the RS are split on a number of issues, some of them wanted to boycott both the parliamentary and presidential elections because of the continued roll of the scaf and viewed voting as legitimizing possibly fraudulent elections under military rule.

[Tukhachevsky]

I grew up seeing how much religion exploited and manipulated people around me, so the socialist ideals of freeing people from this always resonated with me.

I find surprising how much these middle eastern "socialists" are willing to blood their hands with irrationality, mass manipulation and religion.
They are half-heartily socialists or half-heartily islamists?
Or they are just in for any way to gain power?

[Hit The North]

I grew up seeing how much religion exploited and manipulated people around me, so the socialist ideals of freeing people from this always resonated with me.

I find surprising how much these middle eastern "socialists" are willing to blood their hands with irrationality, mass manipulation and religion.
They are half-heartily socialists or half-heartily islamists?
Or they are just in for any way to gain power?

Instead of imposing a doctrinaire strategy of non-compliance with religious organisations on the basis of intellectual disagreement, perhaps the RS are more concerned with evaluating the MB from the point of view of their political position within the prevailing relations of power. So in the article the RS view the MB as a reformist organisation that mobilises the hope of millions of workers and, secondly, as the broadest front against the old regime and, therefore, presently more progressive. You can offer tactical support to such an organisation without having to buy into their religious beliefs. It is obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood is not just a religious organisation but a social and political organisation and so, to a Marxist, their religious dogma is the least interesting thing about them. But any socialists in the Islamic world who do not pay attention to the role of religion in shaping and organising political life or maintain an inflexible opposition to all religion, will find it difficult to orientate itself within the struggle as it presents itself.