Chuck Grimes
``Let there be no confusions about what is happening in Egypt. All the anti-government protesters are reformists, or, at best, half-revolutionaries. Half Revolutionaries in the sense that they want to change a regime--they have no objection or issues against feudalism or capitalism. They have no idea about how humanity can survive and dwell best upon this negligible and horribly petty earty. Egypt's is a spontaneous happening--without the previous preparation necessarily required for politico-cultural victory...''
Zihannasheen
----------------
I think the above is probably an inaccurate view of what's going on in Egypt.
Cox] Perhaps, perhaps not. But more important is his archaic superstition that there exist some one "right way" to make a revolution.
CG] Mubarak is just a symbol for exactly a neoliberal regime of croney capitalism and its dependence on a global elite.
Cox] Chuck -- we just can't know. Probably those on the scene; even the leaders of various groups, don't know. It really fucks up thought to project Probably those on the scene; even the leaders of various groups, don't know. It really fucks up thought to project your onw wishes or views on such a complex and jumbled process as is going on in Egypt. This mind-reading at a distance is wht provoked my amusement the other day.
CG] Throwing Mubarak out is a symbolic victory for throwing out foreign company and western interests.
Cox] No revolution in history has been this focused this early in the process. What is your evidence for saying Juan Cole doesn't know what he is talking about when he claims the Army wants _nothing more_ than merely getting rid of Mubarak. And some nonsensical article posted today is right on that: As the Army goes, so goes a revolution. This, like any other insurrection, depends on the willingness of soldiers to fire. They would not fire in all the successful insurrections of the last 50 years; when they fired or were known to be willing to fire (France 68, tiananmen square, where an insurrection as militant and large as this one was crushed in a day.
An NUC caucus in 1970 called itself "Solidarity is not a Sentikent." That is relevant now. This is obviously, first of all, _nothinmg_ but a desire to get rid of Mubarak, and (or but) like all such struggles develops (if at all successful) a momentum that goes beyond initial intentions. The kind of intention you mention is probably _one_ of such intentions. But if you ascribe that to the movement as a whole, you are setting the stage for the undermining of solidarity by disappointed expectations. We owe them solidarity REGARDLESS of which elements come to the fore (as long as the direction is even minimally towards Egyptian independence from foreign meddling.
CG] As for phoney democracy, I think that is what is behind the whole move to political revolution. They are convinced right or wrong, they get elections to elect representative government of the people's interest.
Cox] Nice hope. We shall see.
CG] The battle over capital is probably reflected well by an article posted earlier. The split is between a nationalist capital or in country egyptian owned industries and international capitalist who populate the croney class associated with Hosni and Gamal Mubarak.
So the US and UK leaders of international capitalism, and US UK political elites have a great interest in preserving Mubarak or somebody Suleiman.
As to whether Egypt is prepared or not, from what I see and listen to they are very well prepared. Remember they lived under a police state, but certainly appear to have pretty vibrant and well educated people, even if that education was not in colleges. For example, the April 6th, from what I've heard was started by better educated, union workers and students and these people were at the core of this revolution.
Cox] This sounds reasonable, but still you are writing recipes for a people you do not know and cannot know in depth by watching even the best accounts from the front for a few days. Revolutions have a dynamic which can rarely be predicted (though many Trotskyists and "Leninists" daydream that they can sit in tranquility and map them out in advance.)
CG] I am trying to apply what I've been learning about Egypt about a week, so I could easily be all wrong. I think if they get to a new parliament system, they will begin to be forced to realize beside political repression, they are also under capitalist oppression that has produced an economic castrophy.
``There can be no revolution in the world without the revolt of the army. Army is the key to every revolution.''
Of course. But haven't we already seen this understanding coming from Tahrir. They know this and are working away as hard as possible to get the lower ranking officers to split off from the top brass. There are also the military academies to work on. They've already got a couple of retired generals.
Cox] Very good. But "working hard" and accomplishing the goal are not the same. And I am still worried about a spectator view of the Revolution accompanied by wishful thinking about how it will turn out can undercut solidarity with a semi-crippled revolution that still will merit solidarity -- not as a sentiment but as working to put people on the streets to oppose u.s. interference. The present state of the anti-war movement does not encourage high hopes for that.
Carrol
CG] The army is trying to have it both ways. Of course the top brass support
Mubarak because the army is a business. But they will have to choose, and I hope they choose Tahrir. I suspect as long as the Tahrir movement can apply mass protest pressure, the army will split along some seams with the officer
ranks. Part of the reason I believe this is because evidentually somebody is
going to start shooting and the rest of the army will refuse the fight.
CG