but also from the outside.) Perhaps the only notable exception (counterexample) to this was Iran in which Reza Pahlavi was installed essentially by western powers during WW2, which continued meddling in Iran's internal affairs. This lack of revolutionary military backing may explain why Iran government was so susceptible to orchestrated popular pressure - first time the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government by CIA engineered popular unrest, and then overthrow of the Reza Pahlavi's regime by popular unrest captured by the conservative clergy.
So this basically demonstrates my point that institutional backing is needed for a popular unrest to succeed in overthrowing a government in that part of the world. In Iran it was easier due to the weakness of the regime (undermined by the west) but still required institutional backing (the clergy.) In countries like Egypt, however, the military seems to be in a far stronger position and an alternative (the clergy) has been effectively weakened by years of secular quasi military rule (the same holds even more for Turkey, btw. )
Again, it is impossible to predict the future and these speculations can be just dead wrong - but I just do not see how exactly the protesters can capture the government in Egypt.
Wojtek
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> I think there is a lot to Wojtek's argument, but it should be expressed in
> less cynical terms _and_ with more respect for the concrete conditions
> under
> which any mass movement operates. The Civil-Rights movement could not be
> squished because of the existence of the USSR & red Chian, etc. World
> Condiitons. The movement in Egypt cannot be crudely squashed like a bug
> because the _ultimate_ source of the Army's power is U.S. power: and the
> U.S./EU want and have to have an ORDERLY transition. An orderly transition,
> of course, means survival of the regime, but notnecessarily of the people
> who currently make up the regime.
>
> I know nothing of the facts on the ground, but this general framework is
> clear enough. And those who know more of the facts should not make the
> mistake of assuming facts on the ground are determinate. They are not.
>
> Carrol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Wojtek S
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:03 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] how the regime is winning in Egypt
>
> [WS:] I am more skeptical - following Orwell's skepticism (see below). A
> mass movement can succeed only if it is backed by an institutional
> structure
> capable of governing a country. Without such institutional backing, it
> will
> be either squashed like a bug or else it will fizzle out like stale beer.
>
> 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
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>