Situation in Egypt

[Enragé]

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/04/egy...-venezuela.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/04/egypt-next-venezuela.html)

comments, thoughts?

dont be spooked by the nonsensical title :P

[RedKnight]

I'm sure that those who know me will not be surprised by my opinion of this essay. I so sincerly hope that a democratic and socialist regime will come into being. But it willl not happen if it is inclusive of islamic theocrats. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood would only exchange a secular dictatorship for a religious dictatorship. We should have no common cause with such barbaric reactionarys.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

It's actually an interesting analysis.

A somewhat similar situation exists in other countries which are lackeys of US imperialism, notably the Philippines and Pakistan.

Dissent against US-imposed dictators is on the rise.

[BreadBros]

At the very least the movement holds out hope in that it is anti-imperialist and serves to splinter the US hegemony in the Middle East.

[Janus]

Well, not only was the recent referendum was a farce since the percentage of participants was so low (as usual) but the issue was quite important as it pertained to civil liberties and the judicial system. And of course, the government quickly cracked down on protestors protesting the changes and the government itself. The situation never looked good in Egypt after Sadat's execution and now it's looking a lot worse.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

But it willl not happen if it is inclusive of islamic theocrats. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood would only exchange a secular dictatorship for a religious dictatorship. We should have no common cause with such barbaric reactionarys.

Can you get any more simplistic than that?

[Enragé]

exactly, thats very simplistic

we should fight alongside the islamists when it suits us, highjack their membership, and then leave them to rot. Thats the only way the left is going to be succesful in those countries.
Being sectarian *****es to the rest of the anti-mubarak movement only ensures that you stay yourself a little sect

[Enragé]

also its important to note that the muslim brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with this strike (their support base is the middle and upper middle class). This is purely a workers action, basicly they're doing it on their own (seeing the lack of a substantial organised left), which is both a strength as well as a weakness.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 04, 2007 04:43 am

But it willl not happen if it is inclusive of islamic theocrats. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood would only exchange a secular dictatorship for a religious dictatorship. We should have no common cause with such barbaric reactionarys.

Can you get any more simplistic than that?
I assume that you are being rhetorical, but no I can not put it any plainer, except to say that I am a part of the Third Camp against both western militarism as well as islamic terrorism.

[Enragé]

oh great, lets all be "principalled", a euphemism for sectarian and short sighted.

Being all "fuck you all" will get the left, therefore working class emancipation nowhere.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by RedKnight+April 04, 2007 10:18 pm--> (RedKnight @ April 04, 2007 10:18 pm)
Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 04, 2007 04:43 am

But it willl not happen if it is inclusive of islamic theocrats. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood would only exchange a secular dictatorship for a religious dictatorship. We should have no common cause with such barbaric reactionarys.

Can you get any more simplistic than that?
I assume that you are being rhetorical, but no I can not put it any plainer, except to say that I am a part of the Third Camp against both western militarism as well as islamic terrorism. [/b]
Well if you had read NKOS's post you would have never made this stupid statement.


NKOS
also its important to note that the muslim brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with this strike (their support base is the middle and upper middle class). This is purely a workers action, basicly they're doing it on their own (seeing the lack of a substantial organised left), which is both a strength as well as a weakness.

Anything that has to do with Middle-East = has some thing to do with Islamic Terrorism.

This Islamophobic stupidity will not lead "Workers of the World to unite".

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by RedKnight+April 04, 2007 04:48 pm--> (RedKnight @ April 04, 2007 04:48 pm)
Spirit of [email protected] 04, 2007 04:43 am

But it willl not happen if it is inclusive of islamic theocrats. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood would only exchange a secular dictatorship for a religious dictatorship. We should have no common cause with such barbaric reactionarys.

Can you get any more simplistic than that?
I assume that you are being rhetorical, but no I can not put it any plainer, except to say that I am a part of the Third Camp against both western militarism as well as islamic terrorism. [/b]
No, comrade, I wasn't being rhetorical. Perhaps I ought to have phrased my question better.

So here it is...

When you say that you take a "third position" against Western militarism and "Islamic terrorism", is that based on a proper Marxian class analysis of the "islamic terrorists", or is it based on the propaganda version of the Islamists which the imperialist media enjoys portraying?

You see, when you use the term "Islamic terrorists" for religious dissidents in Egypt, one wonders where you got that information from. It sounds like a typical Western right-wing effort to label all forces in the Muslim world as "terrorists", thus trivializing and demonizing them.

Islamic elements can be both moderate and extreme, and they can represent the objective class interests of the working-class and peasantry...or work against these oppressed masses. It depends on the historical and social context.

What I'd really like is for you to explain in terms of a Marxian class analysis and the Leninist theory of imperialism: how exactly can you take a "third position" in the conflict between somewhat-religious dissidents and the blatantly pro-imperialist Housni Mubarak regime?

[Comeback Kid]

Supporting Islam in this instace would be akin to claiming that Catholicism overall "aint so bad" becuase they shelter the needy and run soup kitchens. Sometimes religion is the only way to people, becuase those people have been taught since birth that religion is all there is.
Support them in the good they do, and come down hard on them on their faults.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Comeback [email protected] 05, 2007 05:11 pm
Supporting Islam in this instace would be akin to claiming that Catholicism overall "aint so bad" becuase they shelter the needy and run soup kitchens. Sometimes religion is the only way to people, becuase those people have been taught since birth that religion is all there is.
Support them in the good they do, and come down hard on them on their faults.
what you need to do is first read what others post and what is in the discussion. This discussion is about an workers action in Egypt not about religion or anything.NKOS posted earlier


also its important to note that the muslim brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with this strike (their support base is the middle and upper middle class). This is purely a workers action, basicly they're doing it on their own (seeing the lack of a substantial organised left), which is both a strength as well as a weakness.
Emphasis are mine.

No body is supporting Islam. If you have nothing to comment regarding this action better don't say anything and don't troll.

[RedKnight]

I did read the link. I was refering specificly to the Muslim Brotherhood who wishes to set up an islamic caliphate stretching accross the entire middle east as well as north africa. We should be striving to establish the worker state not a caliphate. We're supposed to be supporting the working class not the clerical class.

[Enragé]

oh for fuck sake

where is any of us saying we should support islamists?

nowhere

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:39 pm
I did read the link. I was refering specificly to the Muslim Brotherhood who wishes to set up an islamic caliphate stretching accross the entire middle east as well as north africa. We should be striving to establish the worker state not a caliphate. We're supposed to be supporting the working class not the clerical class.
Well did any thing in that article says that Muslim brotherhood palys a key role in these events ?
The Irony is that Idiotic sectarians like you are thinkingAnything that has to do with Middle-East = has some thing to do with Islamic Terrorism.

Please read what other members posts. That would actually help you.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by g.ram+April 07, 2007 06:27 pm--> (g.ram @ April 07, 2007 06:27 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:39 pm
I did read the link. I was refering specificly to the Muslim Brotherhood who wishes to set up an islamic caliphate stretching accross the entire middle east as well as north africa. We should be striving to establish the worker state not a caliphate. We're supposed to be supporting the working class not the clerical class.
Well did any thing in that article says that Muslim brotherhood palys a key role in these events ?
The Irony is that Idiotic sectarians like you are thinkingAnything that has to do with Middle-East = has some thing to do with Islamic Terrorism.

Please read what other members posts. That would actually help you. [/b]

It will comprise Islamists and Nasserists, communists and liberals, supporters of the Muslim Brothers and of Kefiya, the militant, the devout, the timid, the reactionary, anyone who will stand on a picket line and resist the robocop thugs and their capitalist paymasters That's where.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:48 am
I assume that you are being rhetorical, but no I can not put it any plainer, except to say that I am a part of the Third Camp against both western militarism as well as islamic terrorism.
Which historically, has usually meant neutral on the side of imperialism. The main ancestor of the "Third Camp" position was Schactman, who became a notorious State Department "socialist" during the Cold War.

****

The "Lenin's Tomb" non-analysis is not especially helpful. What does it have to do with Venezuela? Is "overstretching" Washington what defines how important a situation is - only if opposing Washington is your starting point, and not advancing workers' rights. What do the Islamists have to do with these strikes? Etc.

It does link another blog (http://arabist.net/arabawy/) which has a lot of posts on different strikes and opposition activities in Egypt.

And from there you can find This overview of the recent strike activity (http://www.merip.org/mero/mero032507.html)

Also, since this has been discussed, This article about the limited cooperation that does exist between the Muslim Brotherhood and some Egyptian leftists. (http://www.merip.org/mer/mer242/hamalawy.html)

It seems mostly to consist of defense work against government repression. Certainly, undeniably, it's necessary to protest every example of government repression, no matter who it's directed against - you will be next.

Other kinds of cooperation may be tactically useful. Probably it will not be practical to have a lot of cooperation in most situations - due to the attitude of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, mostly.

But that's fine, because it's clearly on them. Let it be visible who is responsible for blocking united action against the regime, and who is more timid in their opposition.

There's a contest for influence over working people and young people who are beginning to oppose the regime....

[RedKnight]

I'm familiar with Shactman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shactman. He wasn't neutral he actually supported the U.S.'s actions in Vietnam. Now the multi-time nominated Socialist candidate for president Norman Thomas was neutral, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. Shactman influenced many who became the original "neoconservatives". I on the other hand oppose equally islamist terrorism as well as western militarism. I am influenced by the Worker Communist Party of Mansoor Hekmat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Hekmat) To help all of you understand where I'm coming from, I compare what is happening in Eqypt, concerning the Revolutionary Socialist Party, to this scenerio. The revolutionary Left during the Clinton administration's war in the balkans joins forces with the Militia Movement (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Militia_M.asp?xpicked=4&item=19), against the bourgeois government. Marching together side by side, as together they sing "Onward Christian Soldiers". (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onwardcs.htm) Meanwhile Timothy McVeigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh) is lauded as a real life V for Vendetta. :wacko: If the same standards which some apply to the third word countries were applied universaly, this sort of thing would happen.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:42 pm
I'm familiar with Shactman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shactman. He wasn't neutral he actually supported the U.S.'s actions in Vietnam.
Exactly. That's what Third Camp has usually meant in practice.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+April 07, 2007 10:28 pm--> (Severian @ April 07, 2007 10:28 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 10:48 am
I assume that you are being rhetorical, but no I can not put it any plainer, except to say that I am a part of the Third Camp against both western militarism as well as islamic terrorism.
Which historically, has usually meant neutral on the side of imperialism. The main ancestor of the "Third Camp" position was Schactman, who became a notorious State Department "socialist" during the Cold War.[/b]

Are you just bored and trying to create a debate that doesn't exist?

RedKnight's position, from that rather "plain" statement, is no different from yours. Like you, he neither supports "western militarism" nor "islamic terrorism" -- after all, you support neither the coalition forces ("western militarism") or the Iraqi resistance ("islamic terrorism").

I mean, just because you have a natural aversion to the phrase "Third Camp", doesn't mean you can suspend all critical thought and start accusing people of being pro-imperialist Schactmanites.

Honestly Severian, you're brighter than this.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 16, 2007 02:10 am
RedKnight's position, from that rather "plain" statement, is no different from yours. Like you, he neither supports "western militarism" nor "islamic terrorism" -- after all, you support neither the coalition forces ("western militarism") or the Iraqi resistance ("islamic terrorism").
I don't know his position on Iraq. Your summary of my position leaves out - what I'm for. I certainly don't draw an equals sign between the contending forces: the main demand of working people should be for the imperialist forces to get out now.

This, however, is a thread on Egypt, and his comments on that situation are significantly different from mine - and very much in the Third Camp pro-imperialist tradition. Other people have pointed out some of the problems with those comments, and the peculiar assumptions behind them.

Red Knight also says: "I am influenced by the Worker Communist Party of Mansoor Hekmat". That's a party that endorsed the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and has called for financial sactions against Iran. It's a party that consciously rejects anti-imperialism, drawing an equals sign between all capitalist countries.

To the degree the WCP operates inside Iran, that may be a somewhat understandable reaction to the mullahs' regime - and directed against "their own" capitalists. It's less excusable when someone in an imperialist country adopts a similar line, which necessarily supports "their own" capitalists.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)This, however, is a thread on Egypt, and his comments on that situation are significantly different from mine - and very much in the Third Camp pro-imperialist tradition.[/b]

You probably know as well as I do that no comment made by the RedKnight is "very much in the Third Camp pro-imperialist tradition". Because if he had made such comments, you would reference them -- rather than talking about them in a vague and elusive sense.

The only real comment he has made, is that he is for a "Third Camp against both western militarism as well as islamic terrorism." And as others who've posted in this thread have shown, it's pretty easy to understand what that means.

NKOS, for instance, has not drawn the conclusions you have drawn from the RedKnight's comments. He's simply moaned about the RedKnight's lack of pragmatism. Attacking him for not picking either "western militarism" or "islamic terrorism" because he chooses "the third camp ... the camp of the working class" instead. (Recognise the phrase?)

And given that the RedKnight's position seems so obvious to everyone but you, I do wonder what lies behind your decision to paint his position in all manner of nasty colours. Intellectual masturbation, perhaps?


Severian
Red Knight also says: "I am influenced by the Worker Communist Party of Mansoor Hekmat". That's a party that endorsed the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and has called for financial sactions against Iran. It's a party that consciously rejects anti-imperialism, drawing an equals sign between all capitalist countries.

You are aware of the fact that there are two separate factions that lay claim to Hekmat's heritage, right? And you are also no doubt aware that Mr. Modaresi is only the leader of one of these factions, the WCPI-Hekmatist.

The WCPI are a rather different group.

Anyway, aside from that, the RedKnight said he was influenced by Hekmat, and not Modaresi. (Who, in all likelihood, he probably hasn't even heard of.) And as has been pointed out to you, there's a difference in Hekmat's and Modaresi's views (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51908&hl=Hekmat).

There's also a question regarding the accuracy of your claims, but that's for another time.

[Janus]

Despite the recent government crackdowns, it looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is going to push ahead with their election plans this year.

Muslime brotherhood to run in elections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_brotherhood;_ylt=AgxLrPFoFY6fB.UCD0q7ahsLewg F)

It's quite sad that Egypt's political situation is allowing such fundamentalists to increase their power and driving their support.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:41 am
Despite the recent government crackdowns, it looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is going to push ahead with their election plans this year.

Muslime brotherhood to run in elections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_brotherhood;_ylt=AgxLrPFoFY6fB.UCD0q7ahsLewg F)

It's quite sad that Egypt's political situation is allowing such fundamentalists to increase their power and driving their support.
Yes, indeed. :( In reference to previous posts, The Worker Communist Party of Iran opposes economic sanctions, as it creates hardship for the people. As for Afganistan, I do not know if the WCPI has ever even mentioned it. Since being a middle eastern political movement, they tend to focus on regional matters over international concerns. Amusing Scrotum is right. I've never heard of Modaresi. The party which I am supportive of is lead by http://www.wpiran.org/English/ht.jpg Hamid Taqvaee.

[Rebel Waltz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:41 am
Despite the recent government crackdowns, it looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is going to push ahead with their election plans this year.

Muslime brotherhood to run in elections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_brotherhood;_ylt=AgxLrPFoFY6fB.UCD0q7ahsLewg F)

It's quite sad that Egypt's political situation is allowing such fundamentalists to increase their power and driving their support.

An awful lot of Arab rulers like Mubarak in Egypt are pretty happy with forcing their people to choose between the MB and themselves. They don't want there to be a middle choice. The MB are very unpopular in Egypt. I'm concerned about the scarcity of alternatives and absence of a reformist movement, leaving Egyptians with only imperialist lap-dogs like Mubarak to choose from or Islamists who are quite untested.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+April 16, 2007 11:56 am--> (Amusing Scrotum @ April 16, 2007 11:56 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Red Knight also says: "I am influenced by the Worker Communist Party of Mansoor Hekmat". That's a party that endorsed the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and has called for financial sactions against Iran. It's a party that consciously rejects anti-imperialism, drawing an equals sign between all capitalist countries.

You are aware of the fact that there are two separate factions that lay claim to Hekmat's heritage, right? [/b]
Relevance? IIRC that split occurred after the invasion of Afghanistan, and doesn't involve any disagreement over it. Hekmat was still alive - and endorsing the invasion - in 2001.


Hekmat
No one can condemn a declaration of war on the Taliban - even if it is by the USA and West. The Taliban must go and can only be removed by force and by military action. The enmity between the West and the Taliban is much preferable to their hitherto friendship. No one will stand in the way of the removal of murderers who were first installed by the West itself. But there is a difference between war and terror. The US and UK actions in Afghanistan are terrorism. The bombing of cities and residential areas must be condemned and stopped. Worthless myths about the Taliban's military prowess and Afghanistan's history of bringing superpowers to their knees only reinforce and feed into US and UK terrorist methods. The Afghan Mujahedin was merely a facade for the West and the USA in their war against the Soviet Union. The Taliban is a criminal drug gang that was created by the West with the assistance of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They can turn their switch off and remove them within weeks. But aerial terrorism is safer, more spectacular, more fitting for a superpower, and more likely to teach the discontented people of the world a lesson in the virtues of obedience. We must oppose these inhumane methods.
2001 article by Hekmat (http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/Sep11_4.html)
Supports the invasion and removal of the Taliban regime by the U.S, just disagrees about methods.

That's from the thread you just linked yourself.

God, I'm always sorry when I respond to you, or even read your posts. You always come up with the biggest bullshit distortions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

God, I'm always sorry when I respond to you, or even read your posts.

On that, you are not alone.

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

I was in Egypt a few weeks back and really nothing is happening...

See it's a confusing situation....if you replace a US backed dictator it's a good thing...but do you replace it with a muslim dictatorship??

In Syria there is a similar situation...the president Bashar al Assad is not elected democratically. He gets many threats to be overthrown but by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda. The reason for this is because Bashar is in fact, a secular person, just like all of the Baath parties. The Baath party allows few parties to run in elections and these parties include the Arab Socialist party and the Syrian Communist Party. But he bans the Muslim Brotherhood from running...now people want to overthrow Bashar...but if he is overthrown, he will be replaced by a Mulism dictator...although bashar is'n't the best president, he is the best thing for Syria at the moment.

Mubarak is a little different because he unlike Bashar, is US backed, which makes him alot worse..

Living in a country full of muslims, i believe the only way the socialists will prevail is indeed to ally with them...because it is together that we can impose a perfect system in the arab world, because the socialists alone will cause islamists to overthrow us due to "atheism" and islamists alone will create a horrible dictatorship. If socialists and islamists join forces it will be for the benefit of all as long as islamists know they're limits and they are not VERY EXTREME in which they want Shariah rule etc, but are democratic and want a part of governement, just like hizbollah in lebanon. Hezbollah and socialists parties along with christian parties in lebanon can overthrow the corrupt american backed sanyoora governement, and trust me we've been trying!

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I see potential in future "socialization" for Hezbollah. Recently, the Iranian Supreme Leader bought into the neoliberal Kool-Aid of privatization, which goes counter somewhat to Hezbollah's economic agenda. At some point, Hezbollah may actually become more independent of its Iranian financiers.

That being said, if a country as big as Russia cannot achieve full economic socialism by itself (Brezhnev's remarks about increasing Comecon trade, in spite of being too late and not really practicing what he preached), how much more for Lebanon achieving economic socialism by itself?

[Enragé]

hmm islamosocialism?
As weird as that sounds it might not be all that weird in reality, though i think hezbollah itself as a structure isnt compatible
as long as some sort of women's liberation movement springs up inside islam, making islam comparable to the christianity where i live (lets go to communion so i get presents yay!) its possible