In other words - the protesters will win only if they manage to capture the Egyptian state but it seems likely only if the military switches sides.
Otherwise, the protest will end like the Polish Solidarity did.
Wojtek
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi "At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can be seen from the phrase quoted above, he believed in “arousing the world”, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. But let it be granted that non-violent resistance can be effective against one's own government, or against an occupying power: even so, how does one put it into practise internationally? Gandhi's various conflicting statements on the late war seem to show that he felt the difficulty of this. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another? And, so far as one can gauge the feelings of whole nations, is there any apparent connection between a generous deed and a friendly response? Is gratitude a factor in international politics?"
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
>
> > I am sure the regime's bag of tricks is huge, but this seems to me
> > like the wishful thinking of the U.S. establishment.
>
> I hope you're right.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>