Well, it happened. The people of Egypt managed to overthrow the U.S. backed Mubarak regime after thirty years of despotic rule. And with celebrations in Tahrir Square and elsewhere, there was a sense of finality. But not so fast...
Despite the weird impression fostered by Western media that this was some sort of "middle class revolution" led by wired youth and peace activists from abroad, the central part of the mass of people who actually shut down the government, and the country, were the workers. It was good to see all the people in the streets, and have Nobel-winning peace activist ElBaradei return, but it wasn't until government workers, and factory workers, and in particular the workers of the Suez Canal Company went on strike that Mubarak finally departed.
And there's no reason to think that without these measures he wouldn't still be sitting in the presidential palace in Cairo chewing on rotten dates and planning his comeback.
Revolutions don't really come about because the middle class decides it's time. They come about when ordinary working people do the one thing that all the government authority, and police, and thugs, and even all the brute military might in the world are no match against: they refuse to work.
And that's what many working class people in Egypt are refusing to do--still. The Canal workers, some of them, have gone back to work. But regular people in the banking, government, manufacturing, and transportation sectors are all still out. Why? Because this was never about just getting rid of Hosni Mubarak.
This was about the very real economic grievances that pushed people over the brink. This was about food prices increasing by 100% and more, and fuel prices tripling, and rents skyrocketing, and city and transport services deteriorating or ceasing to exist. This was about land being stolen after centuries from native populations like the Bedouin (who probably had a hand in blowing up a natural gas pipeline that feeds energy to Israel). This was about gentrification, and "touristification," and class warfare. Mubarak's departure does NOTHING---read it, NOTHING---to change these things. As president Obama said, "It's just a beginning." But unlike Obama, who meant it's just the beginning of a transfer to yet another form of bourgeois rule, it seems that the working people of Egypt may have other interpretations in mind.
Now that the military has taken control, they're trying to work with a self-appointed coalition of students, peace activists, and other more acceptable types to Western middle class tastes. The objective is to "smooth out" the transition process. But evidently what many working people are hearing is that the government wants approval to "smooth over" any possibility that the movement to oust Mubarak might become a genuinely revolutionary push to transform Egyptian society along more egalitarian class lines. Strikes are a beginning, and maybe more than that, in a country where the government has just been overthrown and civil society broke down a long time ago. These are truly revolutionary conditions---there's nothing academic about it.
All the talk about inequity during the protests got a lot of investors, and a lot of people in European governments, very upset. The White House wasn't too crazy about it either, seeing as how they just helped to pass one of the biggest windfalls for millionaires and billionaires in history at home. This may explain, at least in part, their reluctance to let go of Mubarak, a point not lost on many of the protestors, especially those who walked out of their places of work shouting not only slogans like, "Mubarak must go," but also things like, "Equality now" and "Down with the rich." And they're not talking about traditional bourgeois definitions of equality under a rule of law that's skewed to begin with to favor the wealthy and powerful. And they're not just referring to equal representation under a political system that even in America, the "home of democracy," has become a joke. You know, people in other parts of the world notice little things like that.
Of course, it's still possible that the coalition that the military has chosen to work with on constitutional reforms and other political issues---let's call it the "coalition of the acceptable"---will side with workers and refuse to go along with any attempt to quell the strikes. With Wall Street watching, and the flow of oil in the Suez on the line (even with most oil workers busy, it's doubtful the Canal can be maintained for long if the heart of the country's workforce remains out), there will be a great deal of pressure on the new military regime to end the labor action as soon as possible. To this end they will try to use the students and other protestors against the working class by offering political and other concessions, anything that doesn't touch upon the central issues of economic inequality and the distribution of private property.
Since much of the property of the old regime was stolen from the people, there will be some gestures towards "cleaning up corruption" and restoring the plundered wealth to public hands. But that's not good enough---as a matter of facts, under these conditions, and with a global depression continuing to hammer those at the bottom in every country, moves to prosecute and confiscate the bank accounts of Mubarak and his cronies should be seen as little more than a distraction. Good work, but not substantial, certainly not structural.
It is of the utmost importance that the working class form their own organizations and elect their own leaders to respresent them in negotiations with the new government. Relying on Western mouthpieces like ElBaradei and Amr Moussa will only lead right back in the direction of dictatorship under a different name: indebtedness. Already there are plans to loan Egypt huge sums for the "transition process" being worked out at the IMF and other organizations. The most disastrous outcome of Mubarak's overthrow would be for Egypt to end up as the new Greece. For now, the workers seem to know this, and they remain cautious about heading back to work or accepting the empty promises of a regime that continues to be backed by the U.S., a country that treats its own workers like shit, and the workers in other countries like slaves.
And for those who think that the military taking over the country is the end of the matter, or the beginning of some merely political reform process, here's something to keep in mind: it's hard to rule a country that refuses to work. It's like, well, ruling a desert.

(Above: Suez Canal Company workers go on strike...and scare the hell out of the White House.)


Salon.com
Comments
r
ben sen - Seems you're a bit behind the events, like the White House.
stu - The financial picture could be the route of linkage between events in egypt etc. and here, in real material terms--the spreading labor unprising could end the fantasy of a "top-down" recovery all at once. Gallup has underemployment at close to 20% today, unemployment up above 10% again. New housing report out says close to 10 million more home mortgages will be underwater by end of year. It's all unsustainable now.
R
THANK you. I was saying the same thing about the Bernie Madoff scandal a year ago. Keep yer eyes on the big picture folks. The upper class made off with trillions and got trillions more in tax breaks from Obama and Co. It's nice that a few bankers went away, but really, it was a blowoff.
Rated.
manhattankid - Good comparison. I see the Italians have joined in today. Berluscoi was one of the few world leaders to stick by Mubarak right to the bitter end. Now Berlusconi is facing indictment for paying a 17year old girl for sex, and a 100,000 women marched against him today. The left want a new no-confidence vote on him. The last one was marred by accusations of vote buying by Berlusconi's party, and tally rigging near the end. Ah Silvio, your Swan Song may be a cheap discoteque number...
rated
-r-
Sam - It's unclear what a mass movement like the one in Egypt would look like in America. But I think that protests and organizing around city development and housing issues give one some idea.
"If Italy goes down under a general strike, it could short circuit all the way to America..."
but in italia the left plays the role of containment, doesn't it? like they did in france when they stopped the actions at the refineries.
...hate to ruin all the workerist talk. yeah.
I think that the situation has changed considerably since the first wave of labor action in Europe. The promises of recovery offered up by austerity-supporting governments have failed to materialize, and if the labor leaders went in the same direction today, trying to back the state, they'd find serious resistance among many workers. This is why Berlusconi was so eager to stake out a position on Egypt. Of course, it turned out to be the wrong one.
The real problem is with the diversion of liberal-democratic politics. That's why I agree, I think it's important for workers to form their own free associations and take the initiative. Or at least use the autonomous space to push for further action when electoral distractions begin to take over. Workerism needn't always mean unionism, or not unionism exclusively.
rate
In my opinion any democracy that refuses to allow workers to collectively bargain over pay and working conditions (and strike where necessary) is a sham democracy for the middle class only. Especially in a repressive regime, unionizing is the only protection the vast majority of a population (those who work for a wage) have against oppression and exploitation by powerful corporations.
I tend to agree, that's the key, or at least a key ingredient. As you say, the tipping point last week, from the army's standpoint, was when labor joined their efforts to what was happening in Tahrir Square. I don't necessarily see the aspirations of labor and the middle class as being that divergent though, at least, not at this point. The two are inter-related in some important ways.
The history in the region is a labyrinth of imperialist intrigue and interference. A good place to start is Tariq Ali's "The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity." It's interesting to note that the neoconservative take on the "clash of civilizations," or the West v. Islam, being the defining ideological moment of the 21st century--formerly Huntington's thesis, now the supposedly reformed Fukuyama's--relies on an interpretation of the modern conflicts in the Mideast being "Muslim wars." When in fact they were all wars imposed by outside forces. The Iraq/Iran conflict was cooked up by our support of Saddam Hussein. The Afghanistan war between us and the Soviets saw us backing religious fundamentalists that then became our enemies, necessitating a rereading of our foreign policy in the region up to that point. The entire canon of neoconservative theory, in fact, can be read as an attempt to elide the former status of our Mideast enemies as our allies, and our allies as our enemies. Our only consistent failure has been not to support modernity--that is, the secular left. When the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, for instance, the first thing they did was to execute the leftist populist president. There was silence from Washington.
nana - I think you're right, for now. But then there is a process of attrition that sets in as things get tough, resources become scarce and so on. The immediate causes of the uprising WERE food price hikes and fuel shortages. So I think that the relationship could get dicey. The "moment" that the protests provided was very important because it bound people of different classes together. But that's just it--people from different classes may have different ideas of what the acceptable threshold of change looks like.
Absolutely. We're already seeing some of that; I'm watching it on BBC right now.
It matters little in the long run whether the pyramid of power is built of "socialist" piggies or "capitalist" hogs. They all go "oink" as they line up at the trough and they all look after themselves first. The hopes and dreams held out to people for the "wonderful socialist society" are as much crap as is the "democratic free society" of the capitalists.
In both cases it is the pyramid of power that rules over all the people. Who controls that pyramid is really only of interest to those who want to do so. For the rest of the people, a master is a master is a master. Who cares where they come from or by what process.
The only possible free society will need to be one where power is shared laterally instead of vertically. It will need to be one where a full philosophy, socio/economic/political, comprises "the system".
The capitalist splitting up of social from political and from economic issues doesn't work for long. The socialist concept of political-economics is equally lousy. The whole society is made up of all three pillars. Without an integrated, laterally organized system we just repeat the follies of the pyramidal power structure, no matter who sits at the apex.
.
Good post. So much of this is about distribution. It bothers the crap out of me that our White House isn't really on the right side of this argument. Under Bush I got that; under Obama I don't.
I know countless college educated folks and lawyers who have worse standards of living than our uneducated, blue collar grandparents had. WTF. Why work this hard if it gets you nowhere?
Yet the picture for Egypt today is cloudy at best.
It would be a cheery sight to see some well known US banksters wearing chains. But the time is not ripe yet.
Soon the new picture will change for many.
The number one clunker was:
"This was about land being stolen after centuries from native populations like the Bedouin." The population of Egypt is mostly (94%) Egyptian, as it has been from the time of the pharaohs. When Cheops built his pyramid a few millenia before Christ, the Egyptians were settled farmers.
The bedouin, (who share the remaining 6% of the Egyptian population with several other minorities) are nomadic. Survival in their harsh environment requires a deep knowledge of the terrain and weather patterns. Frankly, their land doesn't get stolen because no one else wants it.
The next mold you want to force the Egyptians into is the tired Marxist theory of a struggle between the working class and the middle class. When you look around the world, class mobility is what makes for a successful society. The working class doesn't feel any great solidarity. More often, they want their children to get good educations and join the middle class, as a route to a secure job and a secure future. A secure future, that's what people want.
In Tunisia, a lot of the discontent was sparked because these children of the working class did manage to get decent educations and without jobs, couldn't join the comforts of the middle class, as they felt they had been promised.
Marx is dead and his ideas disproven.
All countries with kleptocracies, whether they be communists celebrating the working class (and maybe having driven into exile most of the middle class), oligarchies with a royal family, or pseudo-democracies fail to provide an economic environment for their citizens.
The big issue in Egypt, and I presume that US is aware of this, is population growth. Unemployment was a key issue in these protests. However, given the population pyramid, in the next 5- 10 years, nearly twice as many people will join the workforce than retire from it.
To solve the unemployment problem, the gov't not only has to create a lot of jobs for the existing unemployed, but also for the upcoming generation. That's a very hard recipe for any country and may lead to continual discontent with the gov't and instability in the region.
I don't think that backing Mubarak was the solution, but if you look at the the future of Egypt, it's not at all clear that the picture will be rosy.
And while I accept that social media has changed the game of politics -- in the same way that IED's have changed the game of war -- I suspect that influence is grossly over-rated. For example, the revolution continued in Egypt despite the fact that such communications were blocked.
The cynic in me suspects the glorification of social media means much more to Google, Facebook and Twitter than it does to poor people in Egypt or elsewhere.
Sean - The media seems stuck on that narrative. They are, after all, part of the remnants of the middle class. Maybe this is why (in light of what I describe just above) they seem increasingly irrelevant.
skypixie - You confuse so many terms, and make so many leaps, I wouldn't know where to start.
kosher - This White House, like every White House, including FDR's, is dedicated primarily to the maintenance of capital. Everything else is secondary, and as the crisis deepens even further over the next few years, we'll see this fact coming forward clearly more and more.
Leon - Me, too.
Mission - The public sector, and many private sector unions only recently privatised, made the difference. The Suez Canal Co. workers going out may have been the final tipping point as far as Mubarak leaving. However, the U.S. and other big powers are sitting on various sources of energy, and I'm not a believer in the "vital areas" theory held to by many on the left---the belief that if only certain workers in narrow sectors like energy go out, then the system is paralyzed. Things are much more complicated now, and as a way towards governance the strategy has a bad history: remember the Wilson doctrine of controlling the "commanding heights of the economy" and how well that worked. Still, it helps. But a genuine general strike is what is needed to get the attention of global capital today. So far unions in Europe haven't done this, even in Greece. They've tried to go about it piecemeal, for "political" reasons, or they've taken the "vital areas" route and then backed off at the crucial moment (like when they pulled the plug on the refinery shutdowns in France). To me this approach indicates their continued attachment to bourgeois notions of progressivism. Free associations of workers will have to break through this, and I think they will as the crisis gets really desperate...
Tom - I've never bought into the idea that social media alone does much of anything. See my response above to Sean. I think this is one way that a middle class media in the West had of explaining the events in Egypt to themselves--that is, of fitting it into their usual narratives. I know this sounds shallow, but then we're talking about very shallow people, so let's make the leap: it became a large part of the story because IT PROVIDED THEM WITH A WAY TO TALK ABOUT PRODUCTS THAT ARE ADVERTISED ON THEIR NETWORKS! People interact with social media through cell phones and other commodities. That's about as far as the analysis on CNN and the other cable TV news "networks" really goes. TV is government and corporate propaganda. Period.
Really, really well done piece, Boko
rate
Dr Bramhall - Agree on alJazeera's coverage, although the wsws.org site does great articles. Of course with their point of view, to the core.
Doc - Ali's latest book is "The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad," which gives some clue as to his take on this. Funny but I misquoted the subtitle in my comment on someone's post on OS just recently: "Failure at Home, War Abroad." Since Ali's book came out last year, maybe I just mentally updated it.
Do she and Obama have no shame?!! The USA invaded Iraq for oil, destroying a nation and countless lives, families, businesses, opportunities for education and employment, on and on, all for the benefit of the Right Wing Wealthy Ruling Class. After all, the American military has always been the muscle for the RWWRC, insuring that nations "cooperate" for the enrichment of the RWWRC worldwide. Between 1950 and 2000, a space of a mere 50 years, the American military went into other countries over 200 times. And then our hypocitical leaders, whether Democrats or Repubs as they're all the same, condemn violence when it might overthrow one of our best customers!
The "greatest nation on earth" uses torture? Uses war to make money for the RWWRC, telling Americans we're spreading "democracy and freedom", a lie that, sadly, usually works? American government/media lies about "spreading democracy and freedom" are now blatantly revealed in Egypt where our tax dollars put Mubarak in power via the CIA. The CIA has overthrown many democratically elected leaders and installed bloody, brutal dictators. In fact, the CIA is directly responsible for most of the violence and war throughout the world, ever since the Bush-Walker family set it up, in fact. After all, it's the brutal dictators who need our weapons, our chief export, not peaceful democratic leaders.
Maybe Americans will finally grasp what this nation is about.....and it's not freedom and democracy, nor "liberty and justice for all". Those are the myths fed to the ignorant and unthinking.....and boy, have they worked.......so far.......