Massacre in Egypt: Is Revolution Worth The Price?

As I sat down to write this post the news of a tragic massacre of at least 32 Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated protestors, and the injury of 300 more was plastered all over the internet. That much is clear, the rest is yet to be disentangled (if ever) from two completely opposing stories by the Egyptian military and people on the scene. This is now one more massacre in a two year revolutionary process in which hundreds have died, chaos has reigned and nothing has been settled. I'm sure that millions of people in Egypt and even more around the region and around the world are asking: Is this what is necessary to win democracy and freedom? Is the price worth it?

There is obviously the danger of being glib in writing a judgment on the value or danger of  revolution from the safety of my office in Toronto, Canada - a country founded on the solid business principle of avoiding the messiness of revolution; a country that hasn't seen war in any significant way in 200 years. I'll try to avoid that as much as possible.

For certain the revolutionary process in the Middle East more generally, since the launch of what has become known as the Arab Spring, has had its share of chaos and tragedy. Dozens died in Bahrain in the struggle for democracy against a US/Saudi client regime - and suffered greater repression as a reward for their efforts and aspirations. In Yemen hundreds died only to see their aspirations deflected into a shabby compromise  that suited regional power-brokers - Saudi Arabia and the US (their involvement in aborting democratic movements is a theme and not a coincidence). In Libya, the west and their backers in the Middle East, in particular the Qatari emirate, swooped in quickly to ensure that the initial explosion of grassroots opposition to the Gaddafi dictatorship was controlled using western arms and logistics to suit the ends desired by the big oil companies, the US state department and the agenda of the EU. In Syria the repression of a popular movement led to civil war and the sickening sight of various imperialist powers - all of whom have happily repressed democratic movements around the world for generations - jockeying to gain the upper hand through the cynical manipulation of the various players caught in the Syrian tragedy. As always it is at the expense of local civilians, whether man, woman or child. As a former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once put it when asked about US sanctions against Iraq that had killed perhaps a million children: "We think that the price is worth it."

And yet, it isn't as though the region or Egypt, in particular, is descending into tragedy from a state of pre-revolutionary bliss. The meddling of imperialism - from US financing of the military in Egypt and of the Occupation in Israel/Palestine to Russian arming of the Syrian dictatorship - has ensured a repressive and inhumane set-up in the region. And for the people of Egypt, in particular since the Camp David Peace Accords of the late 1970s, which won the compliance of the Egyptian state to the American agenda in return for billions of dollars in "aid", it has meant decades of, effectively, martial law, police repression, torture and dictatorship in all but name. The compliance of the Egyptian regime also freed Israel's hand to steal more land, kill more Palestinians and launch wars and attacks on their neighbours whenever it suited their colonialist agenda. All this was largely ignored by western media who, when they even bothered to notice, usually put the blame at the feet of "uncivilized Arabs" who needed "strong regimes" to maintain control and protect Israel, the "plucky little democracy" of the region.

What has changed in the present moment is that the masses, the tens of millions of people who have endured the tender mercies of imperialist-backed dictatorships, have attempted to force their way onto the political and historical stage. The "chaos" and "instability" that the media and governments bemoan is really the emergence of democracy in the form of the people waking up to their own power to control their destiny. In the first instance this is, by definition, chaotic as the old institutions, designed to guarantee dictatorship and the rule of both state and market capital, are destabilized and collapse. The ruling class loses many of the levers, primarily fear and quiescence, that it once had to maintain "order" and "stabillty". On the other hand, the newly awakened people haven't yet created their own institutions to replace the old. In this gap between old and new is a ferment of experimentation. Some of it involves the creation of new forms of organization - Egypt saw neighbourhood committees to defend the revolution appear and disappear, only to reappear again during the past two and a half years. There has been an explosion of independent trade unions involving millions of Egyptian workers, after decades of top-down, state controlled "unions". 

But they also attempt to use their old organizations and old institutions in new ways. Thus the Muslim Brotherhood, which has existed for almost a century as an organization that sought to alleviate the conditions in Egypt through charity and moral uplift (basically, obedience to a hierarchical and conservative interpretation of Islam) became the immediate beneficiary of a revolution that they didn't support. Similarly, the military has retained the allegiance of the masses from the reflected prestige of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who led the Free Officer's Movement that overthrew the Egyptian monarch and promoted a form of secular nationalism that challenged imperialism (before being sold off to US imperialism by his heirs) and delivered land reform and social progress. The revolution has become an intense testing ground for these institutions and organizations to see if they fit the needs of the masses.

First the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces took over the direct rule of the country after they facilitated the overthrow of the dictator Hosni Mubarak. But their habitual use of repression, torture and corruption, not to mention genetic opposition to the extension of democracy and social justice created growing anger and mobilization that forced them to surrender office to the Muslim Brotherhood. For the SCAF the conservative MB seemed an excellent vehicle to contain the aspirations of the revolution. They would allow the MB to implement their cultural agenda, a certain degree of Islamization of the Egyptian state, and in return the MB wouldn't touch the institutions of the state security apparatus, including the SCAF itself. The bourgeois led MB also happily went to the IMF for loans and imposed austerity on their own supporters at home in order to implement a neo-liberal agenda. The result was an increasingly mobilized opposition that drew up to 20 million demonstrators on June 30.

It was this "dangerous" mobilization, as with the overthrow of Mubarak, and the threat of major strikes that pushed the SCAF to remove Morsi from power and attempt to replace him with another set of faces, a grand coalition, that would be more acceptable to the masses, It was a pre-emptive attempt to prevent a deeper, more radical revolution. In this sense it was a major victory.

There are several dangers unfolding and that will continue to unfold until the revolution can be completed (and spread to other countries in the region at least, especially Saudi Arabia). Because the military facilitated the removal of Morsy it can empower and embolden them to use their renewed popularity to clampdown not only on the MB but also on the revolutionaries and the popular organizations as well. SCAF's intervention "from above" can also stop the rapid disintegration of the MB that was taking place "from below", giving them the mantle of victim of a Mubarak counter-revolution. This can draw even those skeptical of the MB leadership's intentions and abilities to rally round them in the belief that they are defending the revolution - a revolution that the MB leadership never supported and tried to abort as soon as Mubarak was gone, including supporting the SCAF at every turn (except the one that booted them out the door). This polarization of "masses against masses" as opposed to "masses against the state" opens the door to a potential civil war, on the one hand, and provides an excuse for the SCAF to elevate themselves as being above the fray and thus the legitimate vehicle to separate the two sides and impose a neutral order on the Egyptian people. 

It remains to be seen if the massacre of MB supporters outside of the Republican Guard barracks today was the result of a MB attempt to storm the facility and free former president Morsy from his arrest (with the side benefit of portraying themselves as victims of an army assault if they failed) or the army decided to raise the stakes to provide justification for declaring a state of emergency - or if it were all the result of trigger happy soldiers firing on riled up MB supporters who got too close to barricades (there is no shortage of such "accidents" of history). What is clear is that navigating this confusing terrain and clarifying the next steps in the struggle will require a clear leadership with roots amongst the Egyptian people in order to avoid the twin dangers of supporting the army against the MB or falling in behind the MB as the defenders of the revolution - either of which could lead towards a civil war and defeat of the revolution. That leadership isn't about a few brilliant individuals calling the shots, it will have to be a collective leadership of thousands and tens of thousands of revolutionaries whose collective experience will help them to navigate the chaos and work with others inside the revolution to move things forward. In other words, a revolutionary party.

That doesn't exist yet in Egypt but there are thousands attempting to build one. In the meantime, what is clear is that as in all places the people who have power have no interest in giving it up and will stoop to any depth necessary - murder, torture, conspiracies, lies - to defend what they have. The tragedy and chaos of the present moment is not the result of the revolution, it is the result of that unaccountable an unequally divided power. The solution to ending the tragedy of massacres and misery is not to surrender to the power that imposes such tragedy upon the people. It is to decisively defeat that power so that it is unable to prevent the people from living in freedom and true democracy.

Marxism & Religion: Part 3

Religion is the origin of all social thought – philosophy, science, law, ethics, etc. Like the social thought that we now consider secular, it is also imbued with a referent principle that provides a foundational justification for its imperatives and truth claims. For religion the foundational principle is the will of God, for liberal society it is natural law, for Marxism it is human species-being, which is the ability to perform creative labour (thus transforming self and world). My argument is that it is not necessarily the case that the first and the last are in contradiction. Or, rather, accepting certain conceptions of the “will of God” doesn’t preclude a philosophical framework in which one relies upon the notion of species-being for the foundation of human action. Certain understandings of Islam, for instance, conceive of God as the sum of everything in the universe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science]. To engage in scientific research is another road to seek an understanding of God’s will through understanding the natural laws, which are partial expressions of God Himself. Similarly, one can argue that God, understood as described above, created humans with a certain species-being and to struggle for that species-being to be liberated from alienation and exploitation is a righteous struggle to bring humans into harmony with their God-given nature. That is, religion is not necessarily a barrier to rational examination of nature and society. It can, in fact, provide an impetus.

The key determination of religion’s role is political and historical. Going back to my previous discussion of Kautsky and his examination of the rise of Christianity in the context of the growing Jewish revolt against Rome in the 1st Century CE, he notes that the messiah must be understood not as someone who will lead people to righteousness through cleansing them of sin by his own death. Rather, the messiah is a warrior prince who will lead the Jewish people, under the yoke of both the Romans and a compliant and corrupt local ruling class, in a revolutionary war to win their freedom. The messiah is understood as much in practical as spiritual terms. When Josephus, the first century eyewitness, and chronicler of the Jewish revolt discusses the various self-declared messiahs leading tens of thousands into the desert or to the banks of the River Jordan – usually to be slaughtered by the Roman army – these have to be viewed not as we would contemporary religious cults. These were religiously inspired political revolts that were crushed but reappeared again and again, though the insurmountable character of Roman power shifted the presumed character of the messiah increasingly in the direction of the supernatural. The Jewish and (likely) Christian urge to insurgency as a core religious principle probably wasn’t broken until the second Jewish revolt, or Bar Kokhba Revolt, that took place some 60 years after the first Jewish war against Rome in 66-72AD. It took two profound defeats, with tens of thousands captured into slavery, tens of thousands slain, the local political and religious leadership shattered and sent into exile and the Jewish capital destroyed in order to bleed Judaism (and the minor Jewish sect of Christianity) of its rebelliousness, at least in the ancient world. In this sense, the rise of the Catholic Church has to be understood in a sense similar to Stalinism – it is the product of a world historic defeat of Christianity, not its victorious triumph. Nonetheless, this is a profound demonstration of the ways in which belief systems, including codified dogma, are subject to the fire of historical experience and molecular transformations over long stretches of time.

Now, before I am handed the long list of crimes by organized religion throughout history and around the world, let me just say that these, while true, don’t negate my point. Certainly all forms of idealistic dogma, infected by pessimism turned into principle, or by ruling class ideas given eternal justification through imputing them to be the wishes of God (or Fuhrer or Great Helmsman, whatever) can act as an obstacle to revolution or even to justify horrors from the Inquisition to the Holocaust. This applies to Marxist ideas and Marxist thinkers as much as it does to religion, witness the earnest defenses and denials of Stalin’s genocidal policies during the Great Purges by well-meaning, self-identified Marxists. Of course we try to test our principles against reality but let’s be honest, at least amongst ourselves, shall we. It is the rare Marxist who honestly and regularly engages in the kind of “ruthless criticism of everything that exists” urged by Karl himself towards one’s own principles – whether that be the “socialist character” of the former USSR or China or Cuba or the validity of Trotsky’s transitional program or the continued relevance of a strategic focus on the working class. Not to disparage any particular position on any of these things but just to point out that we operate on faith based upon past insights or, indeed, prejudices more often than we care to admit. The fact that they are coded into a rational discourse doesn’t change one iota the faith-based character of many of our present positions. The doctrine of the Third Period, in which the Stalinized Communist Parties around the world went on a rampage against everyone else on the left during the late 1920s, was given a perfectly rational form of argument to justify utter madness. At a more mundane level, it is simply not possible or desirable to constantly critique and review all aspects of the canon. At a certain point the past argument decay like radioactive half-life leaving behind an act of faith to justify positions – particularly when the level of struggle is low for an extended period of time. That is why not only religious ideas have provided justification for terrible crimes and for resisting social change – so too have liberal ideas and, more recently, Marxist ideas. The traditional Trotskyist escape route, to point to the pressure of material circumstances leading to the degeneration of the Bolshevik Revolution apply with equal justification to religion. As noted above, Catholicism was the product of the defeat and decay of revolutionary Christianity.

Karl Kautsky, expelled from the Marxist canon for so long because of his renegacy, is a prime example of the transformation of a revolutionary into his opposite. We apply labels for such phenomenon that have descriptive power and provide a convenient shorthand – renegade, centrist, reformist, etc. But those labels also freeze in aspic a process that is ongoing and dynamic. It allows us to forget that our own ideas remain in process, probably until we fly up to heaven on gossamer wings. This is a problem for two reasons. The most obvious is that it blunts our own critical faculties. The self-righteous mind is an uncritical mind. But it also means that we lose the good in the teachings of those who later “betray the faith”. We have forgotten the power of Kautsky’s analysis. Years ago I read The Algebra of Revolution, a book on the Marxist dialectic, by John Rees. It still informs my approach to dialectics and for that I’m grateful. Yet it contains a critique of Kautsky as having rejected dialectics and that this is at the root of his inability to see and understand the bureaucratization of the German SDP – thus explaining his becoming a renegade and counter-revolutionary. I accepted this on faith and even repeated it now and again, though Kautsky has been so thoroughly expunged that he rarely comes up. But then I read the Foundations of Christianity and what did I find – not only a sophisticated use of dialectical materialism to analyze historical events, but also a beautiful use of the idea of combined and uneven development (always ascribed to Trotsky in my Marxist education). There’s also an analysis of the rise of bureaucracy in the workers movement that is thrown into the book in such a casual way that it is obvious it had been discussed elsewhere. In fact, Kautsky’s analysis is much better than Lenin’s analysis of the labour bureaucracy laid out in “Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism.” All these years I thought that Tony Cliff and the IS Tradition had pioneered a sophisticated materialist analysis of the labour bureaucracy that superceded Lenin’s “crude materialism” and here I read it in a book about Christianity by a renegade published in 1908. And yet, notwithstanding Kautsky’s sophisticated and supple Marxism he was, indeed, a renegade against his own principles. Rather than intoning his crimes it ought to give us pause to reflect on the frailty of all movements and systems of thought, especially those of individuals, which seek to remake the world. And it ought to remind us that, insofar as history gives a damn at all about us, it will judge our shortcomings harshly as well.

The point of this journey through the crimes and misdemeanors of history is that we must not mistake the degeneration of movements, doctrines and modes of thought with those things themselves. All these things evolve historically and must be studied in their specificity, including particular expressions of Marxism and Marxist movements.

Nonetheless, most Marxists would argue that while religion might be flexible, and might play role in the struggle for social liberation, as it has repeatedly in history, it is nonetheless a product of class society, which will wither with the victory of socialism. Even were that true would it make religion any different than Marxism, which is first and foremost a theory of social combat? In this sense it too will have been rendered irrelevant once class struggle ceases to be the motor of history. I agree that such an event, to be hoped for, would absolutely transform important aspects of religion and cause a rethinking of many key elements of both religious dogma and ritual, along with shattering reactionary religious institutions, like the Catholic hierarchy – as it will transform every field of human activity: sex, the family, work, medicine, sports, et al. At the same time, I want to argue that religion will absolutely not cease to exist as a community of belief united by a series of principles derived from an awe of the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and the puny finiteness of human life. And this is an important point that Marxists forget. Religion’s first point of origin is not class society, though it is sullied by it along with everything else. The religious impulse derives from the mysteries of the universe. By and large we no longer believe that Gods inhabit trees and rocks or are the cause of lightning. We no longer expect the kind of miracles we see in the New and Old Testament, of turning water into wine or parting seas – partly because most of the miracles have been surpassed by technology and now seem rather pedestrian and amateurish. But the universe is still largely a mystery and probably will be for centuries or longer. In the contradiction that exists between our ability to grasp this vastness, Freud described it in Civilization and its Discontents as an oceanic feeling, and our experience of the infinitesimally smaller thing that is a human life – or even human society – is the space in which religion becomes possible. As long as people die and we haven’t ourselves ascended to godhead we will seek to find ways to grapple with that gap emotionally, ethically and morally. The hardened Marxist will of course scoff: “we will conquer the mysteries with the power of science liberated from class society.” But this misses (at least) a couple of things. Intellectual and abstract understanding cannot satisfy all of our emotional needs. Understanding the laws of the conservation of matter and energy isn’t much use at the funeral of a loved one. Knowing the role of genetics, epigenetics, proteomics, nutrition and human biology doesn’t stop a parent’s heart from filling with emotion and awe at the birth of a child. It feels like a miracle because it is a miracle that such a thing should happen in the whole of the universe and arise from apparently nothing. Stripped of the distortions of class society and the reflections of class struggle, religion will nonetheless continue in some form to provide an outlet for the still natural condition of mortality and finiteness in an infinite universe. Of course the exact form it will take is as impossible to understand as the dynamic and multitudinous ways in which a post-capitalist society will be organized democratically from the bottom. To attempt to describe the precise character of it is as silly as attempts to describe the precise ways that economy and culture will be organized under socialism precisely because these will the product of mass participation and experimentation over an extended period of time. All any proponents of radical transformation can do in the here and now is to struggle to create the conditions to unleash human creativity. The reason why we need to show respect for religion, to include expressions of it in the pantheon of potentially powerful ideologies of social change, is to increase the likelihood that humanity will achieve the liberation to ignore our dreams and to create their own. Opening the gates of Marxism to include those who accept the basic premises – self-emancipation, materialist conception of history – in a world where religion continues to dominate, is an important strategic consideration.**

** I should say that I’m an “atheist”, have been since before I was a Marxist, and have never even been baptized. This is a strategic and epistemological argument for a certain kind of philosophical pluralism within a strategic, materialist unity. A Muslim who fights for the unity of the working class and for permanent revolution is more valuable to me than an atheist Stalinist who seeks alignment with bourgeois “progressives”.

Greece: You Say You Want A Revolution?

It's hard to make sense of the hubris and cruelty of European Union leaders towards Greece, unless their goal is to goad the Greek population into overthrowing their government. Why else would they demand from the Greeks ever greater levels of austerity, poverty and unemployment and then, when the government turtles and capitulates to their demands, tell them it isn't enough?

Just look at the most recent round of austerity - a 22% cut in the minimum wage, 150,000 public sector jobs to be cut out of 750,000, further attacks on Greek pensions, weakening labour rights and so on and so forth. They also demanded that the Greek government sign an agreement that no matter who is elected they will implement the austerity. So much for democracy and self-determination.

Of course, from the point of view of the Greek ruling class this is pain that they can accept - since it won't be them who suffers it but, rather, the working class. And, from the opposite end of the spectrum, if there is a "disorderly default" it will be the ruling class who suffers - the banks that won't have access to capital markets, the losses incurred by Greek bond holders, etc.

Of course, there's a certain irony in the militant prickishness of the German ruling class and their toadying, bigoted newspapers with their talk of lazy, overpaid Greeks. The existence of weaker economies inside of the EU keeps the Euro from rising. A lower Euro benefits the German export machine and has allowed the German economy to boom. If Germany were to return to the mark some estimate that it would immediately appreciate by 40%.  Germany thrives on Greece's misery. On the other hand, for the weaker economies, being in the same currency with an advanced economic powerhouse like Germany means that they are stuck with a higher valued Euro, which hobbles their ability to compete. So it is rich for the Germans to gripe about the Greeks. If it weren't for the poverty of the Greeks the German economy wouldn't be chugging along as it is.

Frankly, the Greeks would be better off defaulting and getting the hell out of the Euro, then devaluing their currency so that their goods can sell cheaply abroad(or more deliciously, to Germany herself). The alternative is clear - an endless cycle of austerity generated recession that leads to a contraction in tax income for the state, which leads to a deteriorating debt situation followed by demands for more austerity to receive another bailout. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. You don't have to be a Marxist to make this point, it has been argued cogently by Nouriel Roubini for months.

But the only way that any default will occur that can be worked to the advantage of Greek workers will be if it is one forced upon the Greek state by the Greek working class itself. And this isn't a pipe dream. In the last week there have been back-to-back general strikes - a 24 hour at the beginning of the week, followed by another 48 hour strike on Friday and Saturday. By all accounts both were solid. There is a deepening radicalization amongst Greek workers that has seen support for parties to the left of the Greek Labour Party PASOK growing rapidly so that their combined vote is now the highest for all parties. And the movement is deepening its roots amongst ordinary people, with workers beginning to create alternative sources of power and control where the state and employers have withdrawn.

“We have now been on strike since 22 December because our wages have been left unpaid for seven months,” says Moises [who works for Eleftherotypia, the second largest newspaper in Greece].
“But now we’re launching our own newspaper, The Workers in Eleftherotypia, on Wednesday. This is part of a new wave of radicalism in the workers movement in Greece.”
 And Costas Katarachias, a doctor and union general secretary at Agios Savvas cancer hospital in Athens, tells us about the move towards health workers seizing control of their workplaces.
 “At Kilkis hospital they have already started taking the hospital under workers’ control,” he says. “The procedure is under way, but there are steps to taking full control.”

Of course, the truth is not that the European ruling class wants a revolution in Greece. What they want is to punish and humiliate one of the most militant working classes in Europe as a lesson to every other working class movement. And they want to scare every government on the continent that tries to cut some kind of moderate path. They want absolute subordination to the dictates of the banks - who caused the crisis, after all - and to the market. And they are so contemptuous of ordinary people that they don't believe a revolution will be the result. Let's hope that they have a rude awakening because the alternative is a decade or more of misery for Greek workers. And that painful and destructive experiment won't end in Greece.

BBC News - Greece bailout: PM Lucas Papademos gives final warning:

'via Blog this'

Every Revolution Has Its Road

I was reading about the terrible, terrible tragedy in Egypt last night and today - 74 dead at a soccer match - and the ensuing mass protests and national explosion of anger. And I was struck by how the battle is unfolding in Egypt, the way that the military dictatorship maneuvers and shifts as it tries to undermine the revolution. Even more, I was impressed at how spectacularly and immediately this brutal ruse, this strategy of tension meant to make the people wish for the return of the recently lifted emergency laws, failed completely. There can be hardly anyone in Egypt who doesn't believe that this was a deliberate policy meant to punish the Ultras, who are widely seen as key element of the fighting forces of the revolution.

The massacre of the Al Ahly Ultras took place on the anniversary of the Battle of the Camel, which was an example of this same strategy in play but during the days prior to the overthrow of Mubarak. As the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt noted in a leaflet released immediately following this week's massacre, this was a warning and a reminder from the military that they can still mobilize killers, just as they did during that battle. Of course, the military lost the Battle of the Camela and their thugs were routed. This time the Ultras were trapped inside a stadium, separated from the mass of revolutionaries amongst whom they have played such a prominent role. The Ultras could be punished for their high profile defence of the revolution and uncompromising opposition to the military junta.

Of course, it is already clear that this attack on the revolution has blown up in the faces of the military as tens of thousands have mobilized and attacked the hated Ministry of the Interior in Cairo and more symbols of the military throughout Egypt. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, held in such high esteem in the days following the fall of Mubarak, has by now almost completely used up its prestige amongst the Egyptian people. Their tactics, tested and tried over years and years of dictatorship are outdated and transparent now that the Egyptian people are mobilized and thinking critically about who and how their nation will be governed. The old ways no longer work. And that's a good thing.

But this event also made me think about how every revolution is an interaction of the general and the specific. The Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin wrote that a revolution occurs when the ruling class is split and can no longer rule in the old way and the oppressed and exploited will no longer accept being ruled in the old way. That is a general rule that has a certain obvious - but worth stating - truth to it. However, the way that it unfolds is specific to every revolution, rooted in the particular historical experience of each nation, region and so on.

So, we see with Egypt there was a long period of gestation for the revolution, ten years or more, in which the forces and ideological groundwork was laid for the revolution by the movement in solidarity with the Second Palestinian Intifada and the movement against the war in Iraq in 2003. This anti-imperialist ferment found its counterpart in the growing resistance to capitalist austerity inside of the workplaces, with growing strike waves and the first hint of unions independent of those controlled by the state. And, finally, the meeting point of these two oppositional movements occurred in the democracy movement, typified by the Kefaya (Enough) movement in the first decade of this century. This long gestation meant that the ground work was laid at both ends of the class spectrum - at the top there was a sense that the dictatorship was stifling capitalist development and creating instability. At the bottom there was a growing sense of confidence that the regime could be taken on and even that concessions could be won.

In Syria, on the other hand, that process of "gestation" only really began a year ago with the first protests against Assad's regime. Of course there have been struggles and uprisings in the past - most notoriously the uprising in Hama in 1982 that led to a massacre of somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 people. There are opposition movements and parties as well. But the brutal suppression in Hama led to decades of quiet relative to Egypt where there was no comparable massacre (though there was certainly repression, torture and even extra-judicial killings). There is also an important component that is a side effect of the pressure of imperialism and Zionism on Syria. Syria is a "pariah state", which doesn't tell us anything about its character - democratic, liberal, or authoritarian - only that it doesn't bend its knee with suitable rapidity to American whims and Israeli bullying. That pressure - just as in Cuba, Iran or other countries that have historically resisted US imperialism - creates pressure for a "union of necessity" amongst progressive and nationalist forces. The present movement has to therefore achieve the first condition of Lenin's formula - the undermining of the unity of the ruling class - as well as uniting the broadest section of the population against the dictatorship of Assad, undermining the idea of there being any union of necessity with the Assad regime in order to resist imperialism. It seems that this is beginning to take place and even to gather steam as the incredibly brave Syrian people continue to broaden and deepen their revolution in the face of regime brutality. It is likely, then, that when Assad finally goes out the revolution will begin in an entirely different place, with much deeper networks of revolutionary mobilization than in Egypt (though the exact character of those networks, their connection to the workplaces, their political program for the democratic development of the nation, etc. remains to be seen).

There is a further sense in which the revolution in each country - following certain general principles, such as the important role of the working class in order for the revolution to achieve its goals - has a specificity. Every revolution has key turning points, key battles. These are moments of contingency and even historical accident. A religious or cultural celebration can become for reasons that are hard to fathom - certainly from the outside - focal points for advances and retreats of the revolution. In Egypt the anniversary of the revolution marked a huge re-awakening of the revolutionary forces as people took stock of where they were after a year of the revolutionary process and decided that they weren't far enough. And the elections, which in other revolutions without the depth of the Egyptian, have been the moment of the eclipsing of popular mobilization and its shift to the realm of "professional" politics, in Egypt became instead a test of the depth of the revolution's transformation of the country. Rather than accepting the parliamentary terms of debate, the opening of parliament became an opportunity to raise the demands of the revolution and insist that the elected representative implement it. It also increased the pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood to pick sides in the revolutionary struggle, leading to further fragmentation as the leadership tries to dampen expectations without being seen as total sell-outs (which is the growing perception).

This present massacre and battle is another example of a contingent specificity. It requires the particular popularity of football that exists in Egypt, along with the existence of a politicized fan base, in the form of the Ultras, et al. The choice by the military leadership to pursue a big defeat against the Ultras and the response of the broader masses to that massacre is specific. I am no fan of sports and, in general, I think that most spectator sports plays a reactionary role, instilling notions of thuggish competition with opposing teams and cultivating notions of imaginary unity between classes over trivial commonalities, such as place of residence. But that role is frequently challenged and undermined by the masses themselves, such as with the Ultras, or even in Canada, with the Richard Riot of 1955 by Montreal Canadiens fans, which was an expression of the growing demand by francophone Quebecoises for their national and linguistic rights. It was, in many ways, a prelude to the Quiet Revolution of the early 60s and, later, the rise of the PQ and the explosion of strikes and radicalization in Quebec.

These sorts of contingencies and "accidents" are one of the reasons why revolutions and rising class conflict are hard for rulers to manage. Once the pandora's box of struggle has been opened, it often takes many years to put it back, requiring a series of battles, none of which will be decisive but each of which could reverse all of the gains of the ruling class. They never know when they will make a fateful misstep and launch the struggle to a higher level - as opposed to creating more passivity and acceptance. It creates a growing sense of "walking on eggshells" that also increase the tension and uncertainty inside the ruling class. When anything can blow up in your face there is inevitably bickering about what to do. And such bickering can increase the confidence of those at the bottom to impose their own solution.

To bring it back to Egypt, the failure of the football massacre to generate a pro-policing response or to cow the Ultras and their allies could easily lead to a further fracturing of the state machinery. Already the state governor in Port Said (where the game and massacre took place) has been forced to resign, along with the head of security and the entire board of the football association. Everyone, even the Muslim Brotherhood see this event as an intentional act of vengeance against the Ultras. If SCAF were intending to test the resolve of the revolutionaries, they have gotten their answer. My guess is that it wasn't the one they were hoping for.

Greek Austerity Vote Is Just The Beginning

There was a certain amount of hand-wringing by the business press and politicians internationally that the PASOK government of Greece might not be able to pass the second austerity package in a year. However, it seemed unlikely that more than a handful would revolt against the party when it came down to it. The party that once resisted the Greek military junta had already sold their souls to austerity and neo-liberalism some time ago. As it turned out, just one PASOK MP voted against his party and, in reward, was immediately expelled.

Government agreement to drive down living standards and sell the store for a pack of magic beans - and magic beans would be more effective at reviving the Greek economy than growth destroying austerity and privatizations - is barely the beginning. With around 80 percent of the Greek population opposed to the second austerity package and there having been a year of significant mobilizations, strikes, general strikes and riots, the working class is more radicalized and angry than ever. Indeed, as the votes took place inside the austere parliament, outside tens of thousands of people were battling with cops who attacked them indiscriminately. This is what it looks like to save Europe - tear gas, burning vehicles and hand-to-hand (or baton-to-stave) combat.

Greece is now divided into two clearly defined camps: the minority who favour and want to impose austerity - and who thus represent only the wealthiest Greeks, the banks, the international lending agencies, speculators, corporations, etc. And the people. It is the people vs the machine. The battle would be a quick and decisive one based upon democratic choice or sheer numbers, except that the Greek parliament is not in the service of democracy. And now that the facade of democracy has been lifted, the real source of legitimacy for the Greek state - and by extension the European Union - is made clear - it is armed bodies of men with their sticks and guns and tear gas and shields.

That lesson will not have been missed by the Greek people. The only thing in question is whether there is sufficient confidence and organization to move beyond the symbolic actions of 24 and 48-hour general strikes to action that is powerful enough to counter the threats of international capital and the ratings agencies. The rulers of Greece and Europe must be made afraid - afraid that if they try to impose austerity on Greeks their reward will be the same that Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia received: revolution. Things are moving fast in Greece and, in the coming days, the balance of forces in this battle will become clearer. An interview earlier this week with a Greek socialist gives a flavour of where the struggle may go.

Panos [Garganas] said, “There is now a movement in the unions to extend the strikes beyond Wednesday.
“The power workers are determined to continue until the government backs down. That message is spreading.
“Hellenic post bank workers, who face privatisation, are set to hold a general assembly on Thursday to prolong the strike, as do water workers in Salonica, Greece’s second city."

The irony is that PASOK has more power to negotiate terms than it seems to realize. The global banking sector is on the edge of their seats that a Greek default will lead to a "Lehman moment" - a knock-on effect that will tear through first the European banking system and then world credit markets like a tsunami. When push came to shove, neither the IMF nor the European Central Bank was likely to permit such a massive potential meltdown. Even the Greek Tories, New Democracy, seemed to realize this and have called for a re-negotiation of the terms of this tranche of aid. Why PASOK has completely rolled over and thus likely ensured their defeat for a generation, while creating a dangerous level of social conflict, is unclear. What is clear is that, to paraphrase Orwell, the future lies with the proles.

Greece passes key austerity plan - The Globe and Mail

Greek Meltdown: People vs Banks

Forget the riots in Vancouver by angry hockey fans, things are really on the boil in Greece. After a year of austerity measures that have all but killed the economy and which have driven down living standards substantially, the government is coming back for more. Not surprisingly, people are pissed. And when Greek workers get pissed, they have a way of letting you know.

Yesterday there was a 24-hour general strike against the new round of austerity measures. Those measures will certainly pay down some of the debt - or, rather, transfer it to the working class - but at the price of so damaging the economy that it is likely tax revenues will fall in the medium term, making further debt repayment difficult. Greek workers know this and so tens of thousands of them descended upon the Greek Parliament to vent their anger and frustration, calling politicians "traitors", "thieves", and "liars" and making the obvious point (obvious to everyone but the media) that it wasn't workers who caused the debt, so why should they pay for it?

I suspect that the European ruling classes fully understand the limitations of the austerity measures they are proposing but see no other way out. They will know that opening a full frontal assault on the most militant working class in Europe risks destabilizing the EU more generally, as resentment seethes against the various forms of austerity being wheeled out from Spain to the UK. Following on from the Tahrir Square movement in Egypt - and similar movements in other countries just across the Mediterranean Sea - youth and workers in Spain have occupied central squares that are shaking up politics in their country. In Greece, protestors are reported to be setting up tents in squares there as well. In the UK there is a planned strike by half a million public sector workers against attacks on pensions on June 30.

If the Greek working class can bring down the increasingly shaky Greek government in protest against austerity, that could have a serious, European-wide knock-on effect. For a moment yesterday, it looked like the government might collapse, as the Prime Minister offered to resign in order to form a cross-party government of national unity with the Greek Tories - New Democracy. New Democracy refused for opportunistic reasons and PM Papandreou was, instead, forced to turn back to his own restive Socialist Party. He will now hold a confidence vote in his leadership in order to whip them into line for the next round of slash and burn. It is, nonetheless, a sign of weakness on the part of the government, which is why markets slid around the world overnight.

But even if the government can defeat the working class in Greece, there is still the problem that austerity is unlikely to work in the short term. Russia is still recovering from the austerity of the early 90s, and has only done so because of vast natural resources and an authoritarian government that clamped down on the oligarchs who were stripping down the economy and socking away their cash in foreign banks. The Russian government also clamped down on civil rights and restored something like called Stalinism lite, killing independent journalists, crushing movements for autonomy and independence in former Soviet republics and preventing the emergence of any real political or economic opposition. In other words (limited) economic recovery through dictatorship. Hardly an attractive model to most Europeans, used to several decades (at least) of political democracy and civil freedoms.

The only thing that can save the European economy, and the living standards of the vast majority of the population, is for the Greek working class to soundly defeat the austerity package with such militancy that it puts the fear of good into the broader European ruling classes. That will open the possibility of a different response to the crisis for millions who are told there is no alternative. And the ruling classes will be forced to take on the real bandits and scroungers - the parasitic bankers, investors, currency traders, and speculators, not to mention the under-taxed and over subsidized private corporations - in order to avoid a worse fate at the hands of their own restive populations. Don't think that's possible? Neither did Mubarak and Ben Ali. As Karl Marx once wrote: "all that is solid, melts into air..."

Global markets shaken by Greek debt crisis - Europe - Al Jazeera English

Gaza Suffers In Vengeance For Lebanon

You could be excused for thinking that Israeli jets are bombing the hell out of Gaza in order to stop the missiles falling on southern Israel. Every mainstream news outlet in the western world has been spouting that line, direct from the propaganda offices in Tel Aviv. Too bad it's a lie.

See, here's the thing. Hamas and Israel had agreed a peace treaty that expired only a few weeks ago. You'd think that the problem was Hamas wouldn't renew it but the truth is that Israel violated it back in November, on the night of the US presidential election when most people were looking the other way. Israeli forces assassinated a number of leading Hamas members. What's more, the Israelis never implemented the terms of the treaty, which included lifting the horrific and illegal siege of Gaza, that has turned it into the world's largest open-air prison.

So, the idea that Israel was interested in peace with Hamas or is motivated by concern for the ineffectual rocket attacks on southern Israel is a non-starter. The present asymmetrical slaughter is motivated by two things:

1) Israel wants to restore its prestige after being humiliated by Hezbollah during its last invasion of Lebanon in 2006. As Mark Heller, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University put it: “There has been a nagging sense of uncertainty in the last couple years of whether anyone is really afraid of Israel anymore.” And, when you're a settler regime which owes its existence to the expulsion and continued exclusion and oppression of the indigenous Arab population - and you're surrounded by tens of millions more Arabs who understand that Israel's role is as America's enforcer - well, you better believe that maintaining fear is important. A bully who doesn't inspire fear isn't much of a bully. And if Israel isn't an effective bully, what use would it be to the United States, which forks over 1/3 of its entire direct foreign aid budget to Israel every year, plus billions more in indirect aid, loan forgiveness or just plain military hardware.

2) The present assault on Gaza has to be understood as part of the long term Israeli zionist project of all out genocide against the Palestinians. There have been detours, temporary pauses and the occasional minor reversal but Israel's leaders have never faltered in the long-term project to "spirit the penniless Arab population" out of greater Israel. This present assault is merely one more stepping stone on the way. 

Will it work? The Palestinians are a proud and tenacious people who have endured generations of Israeli brutality (with the full support of the United States of America, history's most powerful and most vicious empire). The present bloodletting is unlikely to break them now. In fact, if anything, this will probably strengthen the hand of Hamas in the West Bank, now ruled by the quislings of the Palestine Authority under "president" Mahmoud Abbas. There is the danger that the strengthening of Hamas will provide an excuse to extend the horror from Gaza into the West Bank, to drive forward the genocide project.

But Israel is on increasingly thin ice regionally. The Palestinians never stood a chance on their own. They need the power of the Arab masses, particularly those in Egypt. Israel and the United States know this, that's why Egypt's ruling elite gets a fat paycheque from the US government every year - to keep their population down. But the Egyptian workers and peasants are increasingly restive, with strike waves and a burgeoning independent union movement, alongside a growing sense that Mubarak's pathetic dynasty must go. If Israel pushes too far they may topple the only Arab regime that really matters for their survival. Revelations that the Egyptian government may well have aided the Israelis in tricking Hamas into thinking an attack was unlikely will further inflame ordinary Egyptians. Already thousands are protesting around the Arab world. Israel is playing with fire, with its usual arrogance, we can only hope that, like 2006, its fingers get burned.