Mediaboss Marketing

Ten years ago today, mass protests began in Egypt that led 18 days later to the fall of long-standing dictator Hosni Mubarak, electrifying workers and youth worldwide.

The Egyptian revolution was a powerful revolutionary uprising in which the working class played the central role. On January 25, 2011, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in cities across the country, including Suez, Port Sad and Alexandria. On the so-called Friday of rage three days later, these growing masses of people defeated the regimes notorious security forces in street fighting that came to resemble civil war.

Millions demonstrated across Egypt over subsequent days. Tahrir Square, occupied by hundreds of thousands of people who came to downtown Cairo, emerged as an international symbol of the uprising, but it was the intervention of the working class that ultimately delivered the decisive blow to Mubarak. On February 78, a wave of strikes and factory occupations erupted across the country, continuing to grow after Mubarak stepped down on February 11.

At the high point of the revolution, there were an estimated 40 to 60 strikes per day. As many strikes occurred in just the month of February 2011 as in the entire previous year. Hundreds of thousands of workers in Egypts key industrial centres were on strike, including Suez canal workers, steelworkers in Suez and Port Sad, and the 27,000 textile workers at Ghazl al-Mahalla, Egypts largest industrial facility in the Nile Delta city of Mahalla al-Kubra.

The World Socialist Web Site assessed the developments in Egypt and Tunisia, where mass protests brought down the long-standing dictator Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali days earlier, as the beginning of a new revolutionary epoch. In a perspective entitled The Egyptian revolution, David North, the chairman of the WSWS international editorial board, wrote:

The Egyptian revolution is dealing a devastating blow to the pro-capitalist triumphalism that followed the Soviet bureaucracys liquidation of the USSR in 1991. The class struggle, socialism and Marxism were declared irrelevant in the modern world. Historyas in The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)had ended. Henceforth, the only revolutions conceivable to the media were those that were color-coded in advance, politically scripted by the US State Department, and then implemented by the affluent pro-capitalist sections of society.

This complacent and reactionary scenario has been exploded in Tunisia and Egypt. History has returned with a vengeance. What is presently unfolding in Cairo and throughout Egypt is revolution, the real thing. The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historic events, wrote Leon Trotsky, the foremost specialist on the subject. This definition of revolution applies completely to what is now happening in Egypt.

Ten years later, however, it is not the working class that is in power in Egypt, but a blood-soaked military dictatorship backed by the imperialist powers that lives in terror of a renewed mass uprising and suppresses every sign of social opposition. On January 22, the Egyptian Parliament, at the request of Mubaraks former general and current dictator Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, extended the state of emergency another three years. Since his coup against elected President Mohammed Mursi in 2013, more than 60,000 political prisoners have disappeared into the regimes torture chambers. Thousands have been condemned to death and executed.

Amid a renewed upsurge of class struggle around the worldfueled by the horrific consequences of the pandemic, and the bourgeoisies increasingly open resort to dictatorship and fascistic forms of rule, it is necessary to draw political lessons from these experiences. How could counter-revolution in Egypt be victorious, and what political tasks does this pose for the class battles to come? The key to answering these critical questions is a concrete study of the events and the role of political tendencies and programs. The chief problem of the Egyptian revolution was the lack of a revolutionary leadership.

One day prior to Mubaraks overthrow, David North warned in another perspective:

The greatest danger confronting Egyptian workers is that, after providing the essential social force to wrest power from the hands of an aging dictator, nothing of political substance will change except the names and faces of some of the leading personnel. In other words, the capitalist state will remain intact. Political power and control over economic life will remain in the hands of the Egyptian capitalists, backed by the military, and their imperialist overlords in Europe and North America. Promises of democracy and social reform will be repudiated at the first opportunity, and a new regime of savage repression will be instituted.

These dangers are not exaggerated. The entire history of revolutionary struggle in the Twentieth Century proves that the struggle for democracy and for the liberation of countries oppressed by imperialism can be achieved, as Leon Trotsky insisted in his theory of permanent revolution, only by the conquest of power by the working class on the basis of an internationalist and socialist program.

Over the course of the Egyptian Revolution, this assessment was confirmed. All factions and parties of the bourgeoisie and their Stalinist and pseudo-leftist appendages showed their essentially counterrevolutionary character. They collaborated with the imperialists and defended Egyptian capitalism and its institutions. This is as true of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now banned again as it was under Mubarak, as it is of Nasserist or liberal parties. As the ruling party before the coup, the Brotherhood conspired with the military, banned strikes and protests, and supported imperialist interventions in Libya and Syria,

One can mention a few prominent examples. Mohamed El Baradei, the former leader of the National Association for Change, became the first vice president in Sisis military junta. Independent trade union leader Kamal Abu Eita became Labor Minister. Hamdeen Sabahi, the leader of the Nasserist Egyptian Popular Current, publicly defended the juntas massacres. When the army murdered at least 900 coup opponents, including women and children, while breaking up protests by Mursi supporters in Rabaa El-Adaweya Square in Cairo, Sabahi declared on television: We will stay hand in hand, the people, the army and the police.

A particularly corrupt tendency that paved the way for the counterrevolution, however, was the so-called Revolutionary Socialists (RS), a pseudo-left group in Egypt with close ties to the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Britain and the Left Party in Germany, among others. At every stage of the revolution, they insisted that workers could not play an independent role but had to subordinate themselves to one faction or another of the bourgeoisie to struggle for their democratic and social rights.

After Mubaraks fall, the RS fueled illusions in the military, which had taken power under the leadership of Mubaraks former defense minister, Muhammed Tantawi. Writing in Britains Guardian, RS activist Hossam el-Hamalawy said, young officers and soldiers are our allies, declaring that the army will eventually engineer the transition to a civilian government.

As the army cracked down on protests and strikes and calls for a second revolution emerged, the RS revived their earlier support for the Muslim Brotherhood. In party statements, they called the Islamists the right wing of the revolution, advocating a vote for Mursi in the 2012 presidential election. They then celebrated Mursis victory as a victory for the revolution and a great achievement in pushing back the counterrevolution.

When new strikes and protests erupted against Mursis anti-worker and pro-imperialist policies, the RS reoriented themselves once again toward the military. They supported the Tamarod Alliance, backed and funded by El Baradei, Egyptian multibillionaire Naguib Sawiris and former officials of the Mubarak regime, among others, and which called for the military to overthrow Mursi. In a statement, published on May 19, 2013, the RS hailed Tamarod as a way to complete the revolution and declared their intention to fully participate in this campaign.

The RS response to the July 3 military coup fully confirmed its counterrevolutionary nature. They celebrated the coup as a second revolution, calling on protesters to protect their revolution. While the military restored the Mubarak regimes repressive apparatus, the RS once again spread the fairy tale that the military government could be pressured to obtain democratic and social reforms. In their July 11 statement, they called for pressure on the new government to take measures immediately for achieving social justice for the benefit of the millions of poor Egyptians.

Since then, the RS have been primarily concerned with covering their tracks. In his own article on the anniversary of the revolution published in the SWP paper Socialist Worker, Hamalawy writes of the counterrevolutionary conspiracy: The military in secret reached out to the secular opposition (leftists, Arab nationalists, liberals), and secured its backing for a coup in July 2013. What followed were the biggest massacres in Egypts modern history, amid the cheering of the Egyptian leftists.

Hamalawy studiously conceals the fact that among these Egyptian leftists who cheered on Sisis massacres were his own organization.

The crucial lesson of the Egyptian Revolution is the necessity to build a revolutionary leadership in the working class before mass struggles break out. Only in this way can the political independence of the working class be established from the bourgeoisie and its petty-bourgeois stooges, and the masses be armed with a socialist program and the perspective of permanent revolution to overthrow capitalism.

The ICFI and its sections are guided by the conception that also guided the Bolshevik Party and its leaders Lenin and Trotsky before the October Revolution in Russia. In the resolution adopted at the Second National Congress of the SEP (US) in 2012, one year after the Egyptian revolution, we wrote:

It is not enough to predict the inevitability of revolutionary struggles and then await their unfolding. Such passivity has nothing in common with Marxism, which insists upon the unity of theoretically guided cognition and revolutionary practice. Moreover, as the aftermath of Mubaraks downfall demonstrates all too clearly, the victory of the socialist revolution requires the presence of a revolutionary party. The Socialist Equality Party must do everything it can to develop, prior to the outbreak of mass struggles, a significant political presence within the working classabove all, among its most advanced elements.

Amid a renewed upsurge of the class struggle worldwide, this work must now be pursued with renewed energy. This is the task of the ICFI and its sections and sympathizing groups.

See the rest here:
Ten years since the beginning of the Egyptian revolution - WSWS

Sir Keir Starmer

YOUR editorial Comment of January 14 noted how Sir Keir Starmers shadow chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, had announced the abandonment of Jeremy Corbyns economic policy, in what will be another U-turn, (Stuck on old, failed ways instead of seeking a new path).

A year ago, on January 23 2020, you published an interview with Sir Keir, when he was running to be the next Labour Party leader, (Im a socialist for me it has a very practical application).

Your interviewer, Richard Osley, attempted to draw from Sir Keir what his politics actually were.

The future Labour leader declared that I am a socialist. He added that there needed to be a fundamental change with a shift in power and wealth. Also that certain services simply shouldnt be in the private sector.

He accepted that Jeremy Corbyn had been vilified in the national press but when asked if the BBC had been biased, as Corbyn supporters had argued, he replied Ive never gone down that route.

Sir Keir was seeking the votes of those hundreds of thousands of them who had joined the Labour Party because of Corbyn and his attempt to move his party from the old centre-right consensus of parliamentary politics.

Sir Keirs mailing to those with votes in the leadership election stated 10 principles, which he offered as his pledges.

These included defence of workers rights and repeal of the Trade Union Act; increased taxes for high earners and corporations, and tackling tax avoidance; that public services (including rail, mail, energy and water) should be in public hands and not making profits for shareholders; no more illegal wars and a review of UK arms sales.

One issue that Richard Osley did not report on in his piece was the source of Sir Keirs funding. His main opponent from the left, Rebecca Long-Bailey, had done so before the votes were cast.

Although Sir Keir announced ahead of the election that he had received 100,000 from a local lawyer, he did not reveal possibly using a delaying tactic based on parliamentary rules the names of some other large donors. This meant that by the time the donors were identified, the election was over.

These donors included wealthy New Labour and anti-Corbyn types, including a hedge fund manager, and a pro-Israel lobbyist. We might assume that they were at ease with Sir Keirs brand of socialism.

Since the leadership election we have learned, through the leaked internal Labour Party report, of attempts from within the party machinery to undermine Corbyn and his campaign to win the 2017 general election.

There has been no serious condemnation by Sir Keir of these plotters, neither of those Labour MPs who were part of this anti-Corbyn subversion.

In 2016, a year after Jeremy Corbyn was first elected leader, Sir Keir was one of the shadow cabinet members who resigned in timed sequence, in an attempt to force Corbyn to stand down.

There are suspensions from the party once more, as there were in 2016 during the leadership contest. The Corbyn-backing leader of Scottish Labour, Richard Leonard, has resigned.

The left-wing MSP Neil Findlay called those who made efforts to oust him flinching cowards and sneering traitors. I wonder if Sir Keir, who formulaically praised Mr Leonard after the fact, would agree.

ERIC KRIEGER Haverstock Road, NW5

The rest is here:
A year is a long time for a socialist - Camden New Journal newspapers website

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Go here to see the original:
Letter to the editor: Scared by prospect of socialism - TribLIVE

Socialism or barbarism? Reform or revolution? These phrases both describe modern political debates and essays written by leftist political theorist Rosa Luxemburg over 100 years ago. The New Haven Free Public Library made this connection explicit Friday night in its event Rosa Luxemburg and a Century of World-Changing Women, featuring a talk with Luxemburg biographer Dana Mills and adult services librarian Rory Martorana during lunch hours, on Zoom and Facebook Live.

A titan of political thought, Luxemburg was never a leader in her time. She was one the founders of the Polish Social Democratic Party, which would become the Polish Communist Party, and later worked for the communist Social Democratic Party in Germany. She critiqued socialists and communists from the left, taking issue with both moderate reformism and the less democratic side of what was then-nascent Leninism.

Mills, author of Rosa Luxemburg, walked the viewers of this talk through Luxemburgs life her intellectual development and the historical moments that led to her murder at age 47 at the hands of members of a conservative German paramilitary group with the expertise of someone who has fully studied another, and the sense of living vicariously that comes from it.

The talk with Mills, a self-identified leftist based in Israel but teaching in Amsterdam (and speaking in New Haven), showed the best potential of our current remote reality. Radiating a love for her subject matter and always eager to quote Luxemburg directly when appropriate, Mills was quick to connect Luxemburgs times with our own lives, from her Jewish identity to her socialist-feminist ideals.

But the true beauty of the talk and Luxemburgs most urgent relevance came out in the audience Q&A portion of the event. Zoom webinars dont offer the perk of an observer knowing just how many people have tuned in, and Facebook Live is an imperfect tool. But the caliber of questions helped one imagine a full lecture room anyway. Martorana fielded questions across platforms and asked them verbatim, and Mills answered with aplomb. On socialism and feminism in Luxemburgs thought, Mills said, Luxemburg was an intersectional feminist before it was cool. She was born and died in a very different world from ours ... she was the lefty celebrity of her time. She didnt see gender as separate from class. one of the people she closely collaborated with was ... Clara Zetkin, another member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany who led the organization of the first International Womens Day in 1911.

Luxemburgs unwillingness to sacrifice democracy in favor of revolution is a hallmark of her thought, and in leftist discourse, an extremely prescient one. Electoral politics and direct action, Mills said, both have places in todays society.

We need both legal changes and structures and revolution, Mills said. Thats why we need each other none of these changes happen on their own ... you have to form collectives that will support you.

Mills cited her own attitude toward politics as one of obligation: I always consider my role in history. For me politics is not a joyful activity. Its something you do because there is a moral calling that you have to do. In cultivating her own sense of duty, and the sense of needing to work toward change even in dire circumstance, she drew directly from Luxemburg.

Another thoughtful question by an anonymous attendee (others commented more publicly, particularly through Facebook) asked about how to dispel fears about the word socialism in contemporary U.S. political discourse. Mills thanked the asker for the generous question and delivered a compelling answer. It began with the long history of socialist organizing within the United States, and then pointed toward the regard for politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But fundamentally she advised people to define what socialism meant beyond its strict economic meaning (that is, the means of production are in the hands of government, rather than in the hands of property owners, as under capitalism, or of workers, as under communism) and in a broader political context.

Socialism is about equality. Its about equal access to dignity. The very simple assertion that no one should be starving if there is enough to feed everyone, Mills said. Its about respecting everyone, putting in place the integrity to protect ourselves ... healthcare is so important for us. No one wins if there are poor people in our midst.

As Mills repeatedly pointed out, Luxemburg lived in a world very different from our own, but she summoned us here today. Many of the issues she wrote on the intersection of class and gender, the need for both reform and revolution, the necessity of a different way of life than that which capitalism could provide are still just as relevant and just as debated.

Mills ended her talk with an exhortation: Keep reading, keep talking to each other keep connected. Its so important. It is, after all, what Luxemburg would do.

Millss biography, Rosa Luxemburg, is available at the New Haven Free Public Library. Visit the librarys calendar to view talks and other virtual events the library is hosting.

Go here to read the rest:
Reform Or Revolutoin? Rosa Luxemburg's BIographer Revisits Question With Library Crowd - New Haven Independent

Two days after the 2020 election, which saw Democrats capture the White House while losing ground in Congress, House Democrats held a conference call to discuss what went wrong. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (DVa.) was unequivocal: "We need to not ever use the wordssocialistorsocialismever again," she said.

Indeed, socialism was something of a political loser this election cycle. The specter of it likely cost Joe Biden his chance at winning Florida. It appears President Donald Trump won over many Latinos in the state with targeted ads tying the Democratic Party to left-wing authoritarianism in Latin America. And while voters reelected all four members of the socialism-friendly "squad"Reps. Ayanna Pressley (DMass.), Ilhan Omar (DMinn.), Rashida Tlaib (DMich.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.)the consensus among the party's leadership seems to be that thes-word is toxic outside of heavily left-leaning districts.

Rep. James Clyburn (DS.C.), the House's third-ranking Democrat, urged members not to run on "Medicare for All or socialized medicine" in the future. Even some progressive Democrats echoed these concerns. "I think Republicans did get some traction trying to scare people on this socialist narrative," said Rep. Jared Huffman (DCalif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "What's the point of embracing a phrase like that?"

Flirting with socialism may have cost Democrats dearly. If Republicans win either of the two runoff Senate races in Georgia, President-elect Joe Biden will face a GOP-controlled Senate. That would mean Republicans could block virtually all of the structural changes that progressives were counting on in order to consolidate power, such as D.C. statehood, an expansion of the Supreme Court, and nuking the filibuster. The Senate can also kill off lofty legislative proposals, vote down Biden's judicial picks, and thwart liberal Cabinet nominees. "The Biden presidency will be doomed to failure before it starts," frettedNew Yorkmagazine's Eric Levitz.

For democratic socialists, the 2020 election cycle began with great promise: The hard left had not one but two progressive primary candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) and Bernie Sanders (IVt.). But neither Warren nor Sanders could overcome Biden, the Democratic candidate who worked hardest during the primaries to put serious distance between himself and socialism.

Democratic socialists thought they were riding a blue wave. Instead they gave us divided government. That's not what they intended, but it might be the best possible outcome.

Visit link:
The 2020 Election Was a Rebuke of Socialism - Reason