Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts

Sunday, 31 March 2013

At Marxism 2013 - Contributions

I attended workshops on women's and queer liberation at Marxism 2013. Both workshops were given in-depth presentations on Marxist understandings of gender and liberation, followed by a thorough, ranging and generally comradely discussion afterwards. These are notes from two contributions I drafted on my phone before I spoke (the latter I got to give in the session), which I have slightly polished.

From Gender Construction and Capitalism

A comrade raised concerns about the attitudes towards trans* people and one particular contribution which got quite crudely biological about it. I agree, and I think that this was an issue I felt wasn't addressed enough; several comrades also repeatedly used the phrase of "same sex marriage". This is the kind of demand the Tories, Clover Moore & Alex Greenwhich can support; what we should remember we are fighting for is equal marriage, inclusive of all gender identities.

Recently we've seen footballer Robbie Rogers publicly come out shortly after retiring from Leeds - something that the progressive sporting world certainly should take note of, given the role sport plays as a bastion of reinforcing gender identities. The last footballer to do so committed suicide shortly after, alienated from the football community. Robbie has stated that he needed to step away from the sport to do so, but the fact that he felt he could now do so and seems to be recieving much more positive support for it, to me, reflects that something has changed since the turn of the millenium - and the most obvious answer is the equal marriage movement, which has totally shifted public opinion in Australia and overseas.

This is why independent movements of both lgbti people & women is so crucial to ensure we begin to challenge oppression now; the effect that victories, or even just higher levels of struggle, has on popular consciousness is significant, even if it feels as activists we're shouting into the wind.

Most people in the room seem to have different ways of putting it when it comes to feminism, current tasks or demands to emphasise, and I have an opinion on those things, but I think there is common enough opinions amongst socialist that could forms a basis for united work - against the oppression of women today, seeking to win demands like equal pay, reproductive rights or others, in the same way that we have worked together in the equal marriage movement.

From Festivals of the Oppressed - Women in Revolutions from Russia to Egypt.

I think it's a very pertinent topic to consider and thank Julia for the talk. I think we can all agree that so long as we live in a society based on class oppression then we cannot talk about full liberation for anyone.

To build on what Julia raised about how struggle inspires women to find a greater courage and dedication even than many leading male revolutionaries - Michael Lebowitz said in Socialism for the 21st century:
Rather, we change only through real practice, by changing circumstances ourselves. Marx’s concept of “revolutionary practice”, that concept of “the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change’, is the red thread that runs throughout his work.
This is very true for the process of struggle, particularly at revolutionary peaks, undermining sexist ideas, and other ideologies underpinning oppression. Julia identified women's oppression is a barrier to women getting involved in the class struggle already. I think this means if we want all people to be involved in our movement we should struggle against women's oppression and to challenge sexist ideas and behaviours today - the muck of the ages.

This us a big challenge for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world. Julia mentioned that women have played a key role in protests in Tahrir, leading the chants in the square - this was certainly my experience, even in November still the case!

Tahrir Square, 27/11/11

But women and men have also had to challenge sexual assault in Tahrir; there have been many documented cases of assault against women since January 25, by both by forces of the state and others in the street, and that's an ongoing struggle which has come to the fore again today. But the overall success of revolutionary struggle has meant that independent feminist struggle has grown massively since the downfall of Ben Ali and Mubarak.

A key example is the struggle over the constitution in Tunisia - feminist activists led struggle against a constitutional reform being proposed by Nahda which would define women as "complimentary" to men.. That particular struggle has been a key component, along with union struggle in both cities and interior regions, of rebuilding class struggle to the point where it is now - arguably at a higher level than when Ben Ali was overgrown. The lesson is that independent womens struggle is key, not only for the class struggle as a whole but also building a movement to challenge oppression today and lead to a society where we can be rid of it.

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

Alliance Voices, Revolution and Transition

In light of recent developments (I'd argue both the the continuing crisis in Europe, the advancing revolutionary situation in the Middle East / North Africa (MENA) region, and the continued development on the Latin American alternative, which are all showing in practice the strengths and limitations of different approaches to the question of revolutionary leadership and unity, as well as the subjective ones of the Socialist Alternative's "turn to unity"), there has been some interesting discussion in the lead-up to the next national conference of the Socialist Alliance. I'm going to look at some particular contributions from Alliance Voices, and some related posts, as part of the process of working on some PCD of my own. There have been other good contributions so far - including this piece from three leaders of Resistance which is well worth reading - that I won't comment on just yet.

Nick Fredman, a member of the Alliance from Melbourne branch, has put forward an amendment to the Towards a Socialist Australia (TASA) document to tighten up some sections - particularly, incorporating an explicit call for "Revolution" in 'How will we get there?'. This is, in part, driven by the call put out by Socialist Alternative for unity amongst "Revolutionaries", counterposing it against unity with the "Reformists", whoever that might mean (during discussion at a recent event in Sydney Josh Lee from Socialist Alternative did say that this didn't mean the Alliance...) - which has triggered seemingly endless back and forth on social media.

Graham Matthews, from Sydney West branch, has responded with an argument that the use of the R word is implicit in the TASA document and our perspectives, isn't necessary, and puts up barriers in actually regrouping working class leadership:
"there is certainly no evidence that an important task facing the (revolutionary) socialist movement in Australia today, is convincing large numbers (or even relatively small numbers) of reformist socialists that socialism can only be won through extra parliamentary struggle and, ultimately, social revolution...
In this context in Australia then, where the level of the crisis is so acute, yet where the forces of working class resistance are so defuse and ideologically confused - why would the (relatively) few organised socialists, want to place an ideological and organisational barrier between themselves and those who are coming into political motion?
Peter Boyle, from Sydney central branch (and national co-convener of the Alliance), has weighed in on this debate and other proposals arguing that making our revolutionary politics explicit in material like TASA isn't a barrier, but it shouldn't be done just to defend the Alliance from accusations of "Reformism". He argues that we should explain revolution in a way which draws on Australia's history and the real context of today:
our guide is not just what we (or others in the left) understand, or want, but also where the consciousness of broader layers moving into struggle against the capitalist system is at... most people come to a stronger realisation of [the] need to organise systematic resistance to the violence of the minority only in the process of struggle.
Peter's piece references and draws on Peter Camejo, whose work I think needs to be included in this discussion, particularly Liberalism, Ultraleftism, Mass Action.

There's another that's come up in discussion - Trotsky's Transitional Program, and whether or not it should have any bearing on this discussion, which I wanted to weigh in on a little bit. Before that, I think it's initially worth noting the following quote from Doug Lorimer in the introduction to the Transitional Program published by Resistance Books:
Under certain circumstances, agitation around any of these different types of demands can serve to mobilise working people in mass anti-capitalist struggles. It is the mobilising potential of any of these types of demands at any particular conjuncture in the class struggle that is of primary interest to revolutionists. It is a basic fact of political life that people who are united with others in struggle are more open to radical ideas and new forms of action than those who are atomised and quiescent.
Omar Hassan from Socialist Alternative, who took up this point of transitional demands in a note on Facebook (apparently in reference to a comment made by an Alliance comrade at a recent event in Melbourne) argued that the Transitional Program is hugely problematic and the divide between our ultimate goal and the struggles of today "cannot be synthesised on paper, they must be embodied in the traditions of a revolutionary party." I find this rather problematic. He is certainly right to say "demands don’t create revolutionary crises, objective circumstances do" - but there is a whole world of advances the working class in Australia could be making short of capitalising on a revolutionary crisis to overthrow capitalist property relations. In the words of Trotsky, "transitional" demands lead to "one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat" - but there is a whole lot of struggles to be had between now and that final point which can also be considered "transitional", and it's crucial that we make some advances on that front now. Just because Trotsky misread the revolutionary potential of the impending crisis in 1930 doesn't invalidate the concept as a whole.

Many of the examples of transitional demands Trotsky counterpoises to the "minimum" demands of the Stalinists - indexation of wages to inflation, open the corporate books, no secret diplomacy - are struggles that have at specific times or in limited ways, since been won (or forced upon our rulers, in the case of WikiLeaks) - and although this hasn't been a "bridge" to worldwide socialism yet, at times times they have helped to galvanise various other struggles - WikiLeaks played key roles in the change in government in Kenya or the overthrow of Ben Ali in Tunisia, for example.

"We cannot do away with the schism between minimum and maximum program," states Omar - yet the value of the concept of transitional demands is in approaching the fight for minimum demands - ie reforms - in a strategic way which helps to develop the power of the working class and does actually connect our struggles for "minimum" demands today to our broader strategic vision. To strike at the "weakest point of capitalist hegemony" is a good aim, but to me it only seems of use if we're actually using that strike to develop momentum, win recognition, and actually begin to solve the question of leadership by drawing the broadest possible forces into radical struggle in order to further radicalise them.

This is to me an example of a transitional demand - one which may or may not be able to granted under capitalism, but which brings socialist revolution closer. That is our goal as revolutionaries, after all - for our struggles today to be hastening revolutionary overthrow of class society. And history has shown us that victories in certain key social movements has led to a wave of increased class struggle on a whole variety of fronts - from the success of civil rights & indigenous rights movements in the US and Australia helping to catalyse the upsurge of the 60s and 70s, to the overthrow of Ben Ali & Mubarak empowering already rampant trade union struggle, civil rights struggles by minorities, the women's movement or those of the shanty towns.

This isn't a shortcut to revolution; it's a perspective that putting our shoulder to the wheel in struggles today and making them as successful as possible, not only propagandising about the dictatorship of the proletariat from the sidelines, is the best method of convincing people of the need for a revolution and winning them to a revolutionary party.

Omar and I are both active campaigners for Palestine solidarity here in Australia; I think the demands of the BDS movement are a perfect example of transitional demands. The three pillars of the movement - an end to the apartheid wall, the right of return for refugees, and full civil rights for Palestinians inside Israel - are difficult to imagine ever being granted by the present existence of Israel in its current form as an apartheid state and imperialist attack dog for the region, as their implementation would critically undermine the possibility of maintaining that project with a facade of democracy. But this doesn't mean the struggle for those demands is a dead end reform we should stop fighting for - the inability of Israel to grant those reform helps to develop and broaden awareness of the nature of Zionism as a racist ideology underpinning imperialist dominance in the MENA region. And any cave-ins from the Israeli state on these points will curb the power of imperialism in the region, even if only fractionally.



The rallying cries of the Russian revolution - peace, land, bread - were certainly key transitional demands (nobody's maximum program), and those for real democracy, redistribution of wealth and dignity being raised in the MENA region today likewise fit the bill. Tad Tietze, in the discussion following Omar's post, argued that a demand like climate justice is a similar example of such a transitional demand to struggle for today; at one point this was the rallying cry for a movement of thousands, and although the last two years have seen a decline in such activism, I think every new climate disaster reflects the burning vitality of that demand.

How does this all relate to the above discussion about the goals and politics of the Alliance? Omar gives a throwaway comment that "it is also relevant because those seeking to justify the Alliance program seek to hide behind references to their alleged transitionality." This comment (seeming at odds with the above comments that the Alliance isn't reformist) does reflect a certain truth, but I feel it's being expressed as a pre-emptive hostility over a different tactical perspective for Australia today; a different approach to the question that's been raised - what role should the party play in making the revolution? And what does this mean for our activism today? I think this question is shaping the above Alliance Voices debates, as much as Alternative's call for unity.

The certain truth: I do agree with Peter and Nick that we should be including explicit statements that our ultimate goal is working class revolution in the Alliance constitution or our chief propaganda tool, the TASA document - but Graham is right that the key thing to be done today is win more to socialism, not convince other socialists of the correct path, and that requires we throw our energy into the struggles at the grassroots today, particularly aiming for the most transitional demands to strip the emperor's clothes from Rinehart, Palmer and the whole capitalist system and neoliberal offensive, if we want to educate and unite the class-conscious workers into a force which can take advantage of real revolutionaries opportunities.

But the important thing isn't uniting on our "maximum" program - for now, it should be left at the revolutionary overthrow of class society by the masses. In this low ebb of class struggle, it's far more important that we focus our attention on the immediate "minimum" & "transitional" kinds of tasks to regrow a pole of class struggle today. It's heartening to see the Socialist Alternative turn to unity and agree that we should unite on "a socialist program for Australia today"; but is that program to win more ones and twos to Marxism, or is it to build class struggle as a whole and win a whole generation of activists? As a Marxist in the Alliance, my perspective is certainly for the latter.

Monday, 3 September 2012

Tunisia: Ennahda fails to deliver promises of work and freedom


Originally published in Green Left Weekly, Saturday September 1

Almost a year since Tunisia's Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, Islamist party Ennahda, leader of the coalition government, continues to lose the confidence of those who rose up against dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in late 2010.

Anger was prompted by Constitutional Article 27, which was passed by the Committee on Rights and Freedoms on August 1, defining women's rights as "complementary" to those of men, placing women "at the heart of the family and as man's associate".

This enraged feminists democracy activists, who saw the article as trying to undermine the principle of equality for all citizens, enshrined in Article 22. Formal equality for women has been a strong principle in Tunisian society since the days of post-independence ruler Habib Bourguiba.

Activist Wafa Ben Hassine wrote in independent collective blog Nawaat on August 3 that "the gains that women have acquired in Tunisia are admittedly unmatched in the Arab world, and Tunisians are proud of that".

Thousands of people took to the streets of downtown Tunis to protest against the definition of women in Article 27 on August 13. Reuters said protesters chanted "Rise up women for your rights to be enshrined in the constitution".

The question of women's rights, and the relationship between religion and the state in Tunisia, has come into focus since the January 14 downfall of Ben Ali. The dictator used Tunisia's legacy of equality to justify suppression of political Islam movements such as Ennahda, as well as taking part in the “war on terror”.

Hardline Salafists were locked out of taking part in the CA elections, but have polarised national opinion with a campaign of aggression against alcohol vendors. The first Salafist Party, the Reform Front, was granted official recognition in May, reported Tunisia Live. Ennahda leader Rasheed Ghannouchi attended the party's first conference in July.

In mid-June, suspected Salafists destroyed an art exhibition in Tunis they considered offensive to Islam, resulting in riots that left one dead, while in August actor and comedian Lotfi Abdelli's show in Menzel Bourguiba was obstructed by a Salafist sit-in.

Media freedom

Media freedom is another front where confidence in Ennahda had been shaken.

Two hundred journalists rallied on August 22 against the appointment of Lofti Touati to director general of the Dar Assabah state-run newspaper. Associated Press reported the protests were angry at the government for going back on a promise to consult with civil society leaders before making such appointments.

Touati is a former police commissioner. He has come under fire after orderingpiece in Dar Assabah critical of his appointment and accusing him of being "too close to Ennahda" to be replaced with advertisements.

Minister of foreign affairs, Rafik Abdessalem, was reported by TAP state news agency on August 26 as saying that Ennahda's goal was to "clean up" the media and prevent them from "[transforming] themselves into forums of opposition to government action".

Tunisia's president Moncef Marzouki responded at the congress of the centrist Congress Party for the Republic (CPR), one of the parties of the troika government.

He criticised "the appointments of Ennahda supporters in key positions whether they are competent or not”, Jeune Afrique reported on August 25. “Our brothers in Ennahda are working to control the administrative and political state."

Tunisian cyber activists, at the forefront of the uprising against Ben Ali, have lodged a bid with the Interior Ministry to reveal the identity of the figure responsible for administering Tunisia's regime of internet censorship, nicknamed "Ammar404".

Nawaat reported on August 21 that Sofiane Chourabi, one of the initiators of the idea, said: "It seems that this government is working on wiping out and marginalising this issue, so that those who committed violations would not be held accountable."

Food, work and national dignity

On the economic front, Ennahda and the coalition have done little to differentiate from the old regime. Al-Akhbar English reported on August 17 that the minister for investment, Riadh Bettaib, announced the state would take out a further $1 billion in World Bank loans.

And radical labour struggle has continued to grow. The General Union of Tunisisan Workers (UGTT), under radical left leadership since it's constitution in January, has led a wave of strikes in the south and interior aimed at fulfilling the Jasmine revolution's demands of “work, freedom, national dignity”.

City-wide general strikes have swept through Tataouine, Monastir, Kasserine and Kariouan, as well as Sidi Bouzid, the town where fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself on December 17, 2010, which triggered the Arab uprisings.

Day workers in Sidi Bouzid demonstrated on July 26 over a two month delay in wages, reported Al Akhbar English, attacking the party offices of Ennahda. Ongoing water shortages in the region over the past six months have also raised anger. Sidi Bouzid's governor, Mohamed Najib Masouri, has blamed residents who failed to pay their bills for the shortages.

The December 17 Progressive Forces Front, along with the UGTT and other forces, organised a demonstration on August 9 to take up the demands of securing water supplies and settling workers' wages.

The demonstration also called for the resignation of the governor and the regional commander of the National Guard, and the dissolution of the whole CA for failing to address the issues of Sidi Bouzid and Tunisia's poorer interior regions.

The protest was attacked by police with tear gas and rubber bullets, putting five in hospital. Blogger Lina Ben Mhenni said one young activist of the Tunisian Workers' Party (POT), Saddem Akermi, was hospitalised after he was shot with a rubber bullet.

An Ennahda spokesperson blamed the demonstrations on the party Nidaa Tunis (Call to Tunis), which formed on July 19 and is comprised of ex-regime figures.

He claimed to have "proof that some figures within the region known to be close to Nidaa Tunis sided with criminals, thieves and alcohol vendors to spread anarchy in Sidi Bouzid," reported Leaders.

The December 17 Front and UGTT responded with a general strike on August 14. TAP said thousands marched through the town and rallied outside the local courthouse to demand the release of prisoners from the previous protests.

Crisis of legitimacy

These struggles have shaken the confidence of many Tunisians in the Ennahda-led troika to chart a new path for Tunisia after the ousting of Ben Ali.

An International Crisis Group report published in June dismissed the "spectre of a second insurrection", but identified that continued political turmoil and a failure to address severe economic inequality could "risk snowballing into a legitimacy crisis for the newly elected government".

Nidaa Tunis has been presenting itself as the alternative vision to the troika. The party, led by elder statesman and post-Ben Ali prime minister from February to December last year, Beji Caid Essebsi, has been condemned by troika parties as a renewal of the old regime. CPR secretary general Mohammed Abbou told Tunisian radio that Nidaa Tunis represented "a return to tyranny," reported Tunisie Numerique.

Essebsi responded to the attacks, calling them "free of charge". He publicly supported the demonstrators in Sidi Bouzid, saying "it is inappropriate to describe this way the democrats, activists and human rights components of civil society who took to the streets to protest against repression and to defend their rights."

Given the moves of Ennahda in office, and the emboldened Salafist aggression since the downfall of Ben Ali, Nidaa has taken up space for a secular-based "Doustourian" (constitutional) party with the popular recognition and networks to electorally challenge Ennahda outright, unlike the two secular troika partners, the CPR and social-democrat Ettakatol.

Two representatives of the CPR in the CA, Dhamir Manai and Abdelaziz Kotti, said they had joined Nidaa on August 23, joining members of the 17 different parties formed out of Ben Ali's Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD).

The left alternative

However, the left has also made steps to challenge both poles of the mainstream political spectrum and follow through on the demands of the Jasmine revolution.

The Tunisian Communist Workers Party (PCOT), which holds three seats in the CA and has some of the best recognition of any of the far-left parties, made the decision to rename itself the Tunisian Workers Party (POT) in July.

Party spokesperson Mohamed Mzam told Tunisia Live on July 11 that the party aimed to "avoid the stereotype most Tunisians think of when hearing the word 'communist'", and that people should instead "focus on what a political party is committed to offer them on political, social and economic levels."

The decision came after a long process of discussion and a general referendum within the party. Discussion had begun immediately after the overthrow of Ben Ali, but was postponed for the CA elections last October. This may have accounted for PCOT's inability to win serious space in the CA.

POT has also participated in the reformation of the national January 14 Front, which was active immediately after the overthrow of Ben Ali to push for further democratisation, but quickly broke apart. Negotiations to re-form the alliance began in July, and on August 13 a first agreement was announced between 12 left parties from a variety of Marxist, Nasserist, Baathist, Green and other backgrounds, alongside independent revolutionaries.

Mohamed Brahmi, of the Nasserist Movement of the People party, said the front was formed "following the example of the December 17 Front set up in Sidi Bouzid".

POT's chairperson Hamma Hammami described the coalition as "a political front and not essentially electoral. It will work for the realisation of the objectives of the revolution."

The reformation of the front is an important step forward for strengthening the democratic struggle. The spectre of a "second insurrection" may well prove a possibility before new elections are due in next year.

Please read Kefteji's posts on the battle for media freedom and the debate over Constitutional Article 27 for more information on those topics. Tunisian Girl has also written an update on the appointment of Lofti Touati to Dar Assabah, including a protest that took place as my original article went to print, and the call for a general stike on September 11 in protest.

Sunday, 29 April 2012

On Lenin, Left Unity & Organisation

The following post is my thoughts alone and doesn't necessarily represent the position of the party or any other organisations I'm part of. Check out this piece I wrote on revolutionary organisations in Australia today for a disclaimer listing the organisations I am part of, as well as a bit of an explanation as to why I'm at where I'm at.

I'd also like to make a distinction in terminology I'm using, between sectism (the practice of socialists operating in tiny organisations based on narrow differentiation) and sectarianism (hostility, aggresive behaviour or unhealthy competitiveness between such tiny organisations). Also, IMHO = in my humble opinion, with which I preface this whole piece.


It has also been pointed out to me that there's a contradiction between stating what is to be done today is more important than history, then faffing on about the history of the Socialist Alliance. I might not have done the best job of attempting to write that history without taking sides on ten year old faction fights, but I still think it's pertinent to talk about it and perhaps think about the lessons learned given Pham's proposal for such a formation to be launched in the US.

This piece is written as a response to some of the ideas about socialist regroupment in America today raised in a debate hosted on LINKS. Ostensibly, this debate started with Pham Binh's proposals for steps towards joint socialist organisation, such as joint organising committees, if not a broad-based socialist party, in Occupy and Tasks of Socialists.

But the thing that actually triggered debate is his review of Tony Cliff on Lenin: Building the Party published shortly after. Binh puts it that this is "emblematic" of "exactly what’s wrong with us, the US socialist left" and, although I am inclined to agree, the timing of the publication of Cliff on Lenin, despite his explanations, seems calculated to trigger such a response.

The US International Socialist Organisation (ISO)'s Paul D'Amato responded in the Mangling of Tony Cliff, which promted some discussion of how these issues relate to left politics in Australia, which I'll respond to further down. However, I'd like to note that this response continued the tone of the debate – any discussion of how socialists should be organising today is predicated on having The Correct Interpretation of Lenin.

Paul Le Blanc, also of the US ISO, responded in Revolutionary Organisation and the 'Occupy moment'. Of particular interest to me here is some of the constructive engagement with Binh's points around left regroupment, specifically the vision of effective "united front" work being put forward:

"The key to left unity is to engage in the real struggles of today. For example, a number of us in Pittsburgh (from different groups and from no specific groups) are engaging in a united front effort to defend public transit, and some of us are engaged in related efforts to help the Occupy movement to be part of this and similar struggles. That is reflected here:
http://www.pittsburghersforpublictransit.org/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/184136405014024/240591199368544/
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/video/6795512-riders-protest-planned-port...
http://www.livestream.com/occupypittsburgh/video?clipId=pla_481e856b-3f9...
Out of such experiences as these, a genuine left unity can be forged, which can advance mass struggles and mass socialist consciousness that are among the essential preconditions for the crystallization of a substantial revolutionary socialist party."

Le Blanc's most recent response, while advancing the discussion on interpretation of Lenin in much the same manner as the rest of the debate, actually put forward something very healthy in this statement: "Is the pre 1912 RSDLP model of hardened factions what we need"?  – which was followed up in the comments to argue that the kind of united front approach Le Blanc outlines above will be more useful to build future prospects for left unity and a real mass revolutionary party than a multi-tendency united party would not (an argument that I don't think I agree with, but which I commend for actually advancing the discussion). However, I found the response of one commented extremely interesting:

Thu, 04/19/2012 - 04:03 — Des Derwin (not verified) Refining further "I'm not sure Pham is trying to cram us into a "revolutionary party" rather than explore the ground between the movements, and united fronts within the movements, and the holy grail of the revolutionary party. "

Prior to this discussion, the only significant amount of Lenin that I'd read was State and Revolution, perhaps with some bits of What Is To Be Done?, so it's definitely been a helpful learning experience for me to observe the debate and learn a bit more of the ins and outs of the early Russian communist movement. But, while debates over what exactly happened historically or readings/interpretations of different texts are useful, to me more interesting is the component of discussion around "what is to be done" in 2012.

As Binh put it (while, I'd argue, falling into the same trap himself), debate around who is "right" is emblematic of what is wrong with many parts of the modern organised left – The aim of studying the past is to have an unassailably correct interpretation of the "truth" of how to organise as given by Lenin/Trotsky/whoever, then shout at everyone else until they agree and join your organisation. I'm going to write a future post of the dynamics of being right, as opposed to winning arguments, but in the interim I'll just say that I don't think this is of any use to anyone other than socialism's enemies. But the other aspect of this debate - coming up with concrete proposals around how socialists relate to Occupy, the prospects for united front work or other forms of left unity, etc have been far more healthy.

Personally, I think I'd argue for the launch of a broad left party, formation or network in the US of the line that Binh has proposed. The context in the US, with the Occupy movement putting class struggle back on the table, seems ready – and, indeed, to call out for the organised left to step up to the plate. But it's not guaranteed that such a formation is going to work, and it's definitely not going to be much "like" the RSDLP – asides from the vast material conditions on the ground, the contexts of 100+ years of splitting amongst "leninist" and "trotskyist" parties and organisations means that the main divides between left forces no longer line up with the fundamental questions like bourgeois democracy as they once did.

But Binh's (and others') criticism that those parties and organisations haven't succeded or taken as good advantage of the opportunities that the "Occupy moment" presents as they could have is well-founded. Nor is the outright criticism of such a formation, or D'Amato's comment that "There are no genuine revolutionary parties; indeed, there are no examples yet of successful new “broad-based” left parties”, well-founded. The experience of Die Linke shows that the global context today doesn't invalidate a broad left electoral approach and shows that the chaotic infighting within such a formation envisaged in the ISO's responses isn't guaranteed.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the experience of the Socialist Alliance in Australia, which initially formed as a similar proposal to what Binh is proposing. I'll start this section with another disclaimer - that I didn't join the Alliance until 2008, so much of this history I didn't witness firsthand.

As comments on "Mangling of Tony Cliff" showed, the Alliance was initially successful in drawing together most of Australia's socialist groups into a joint electoral front, with the following organisations endorsing it: "the Democratic Socialist Party, the International Socialist Organisation, the Freedom Socialist Party, Workers Power, Workers Liberty, the Workers League, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq, Socialist Democracy and Socialist Alternative." - pretty much all of the Australian socialist left forces I can think of today, bar one.

However, the failure of the initial excitement of such unity to translate into immediate electoral success was a setback, and fed into the reservations about the future direction of the Alliance from some members or organisations. Socialist Alternative were the first to withdraw their support for the formation; although the above debate put several reasons on the table for this (I'll get to these below), the context of an expected Labor electoral victory in 2001 and a new sustained anti-capitalist mass movement to relate to both never materialised. S11 in Melbourne gave way to 9/11 and the defeat of the anti-Iraq war movement. This question is perhaps worth thinking about regarding Binh's proposals and the current American context – will the "Occupy moment" be sustained? This question needs to be asked and thought about, even if no definitive answer is possible, for the socialist left to begin considering how it should relate to it or reorganise around it. 
  
In the letter from the Australian ISO national executive stating their decision to withdraw from the Alliance, they cite these factors as the reason (as well as "sectarianism" towards disillusioned segments of Labor). There's another point which gets brought up in the ISO executive's letter, as well as in the early days of the Alliance and by fellow Sydneysider James Supple in commenting on my earlier piece on this topic – the actions of the late Democratic Socialist Party in eventually dissolving into the Alliance. The fact that socialists previously not part of organisations who joined the Alliance were themselves calling for this to happen, a majority of the Alliance's members, not just the DSP, is apparently not worth remembering.

But despite these concerns about the timing and significance, the Alliance was (and is) still a worthwhile exercise, IMHO; it succeeded in drawing  a significant number of previously non-aligned socialists into organised political activism. The DSP's eventual dissolution into the Alliance (at the only DSP congress which I attended) was a small step towards putting aside "leninist" sectism to work in a slightly broader & more open formation – and although there is ongoing debate about how to organise, ro teach marxism in a formation without such a tight line, etc, the balance sheet 10 years later is, I feel, in the positive. The experience of the Alliance has been a step forward, even though it didn't succeed as a multi-tendency party as Binh proposed - the ISO's disaffiliation was the final nail in the coffin of this vision of dissolving old party boundaries. But instead, something else has come out of it, which I think is the healthiest of the far left "sects" today. (Dave Riley has elaborated good points as to why; this can also be seen in the electoral socialist unity campaings of 2011/12 Socialist Alliance has been involved in, such as the broad ticket for the 2011 state elections, the Community Voice campaign in the council elections, and the Community Party of Australia (CPA's) strong campaign in the SA state elections.)

The response of a Socialist Alternative member in the comments on D'Amato's article were less enthusiastic and more dismissive of the Alliance. I'll respond to some of these points which I feel are significant to the debate about how we move forward in Australia today.

Wed, 02/29/2012 - 20:08 — Lewis T 
"The simple fact is that the 'broad party' model has failed everywhere it has been tried....
It was formed on the initiative of the DSP, then the biggest group on the far-left, a Stalinist group which supports the Vietnamese and Cuban governments."

- This dismissive comment reflects what I think Binh was trying to get across – sectism results in the ossification of socialist politics around points of differentiation, rather than building dynamic unity over what is to be done here today. We (Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative) share a critique of Stalinism as running counter to the principles of socialism, although members disagree on exactly how Stalinism developed and assumed power. Yet that label still gets thrown around as the reason we couldn't possibly work together here in Australia today in challenging the rule of capital. For the record I'm going to make a post regarding taking a position Vietnam, of which the Socialist Alliance has none AFAIK.

"The reality almost everywhere is that revolutionary Marxists are in a small minority. This makes it easy for us to get frustrated and look for shortcuts like the broad party model. But the model has been a failure everywhere, so to insist on it as the new way forward is sheer dogmatism. It requires patience, hard work and dedication in the slow periods, combined with an ability to throw oneself into action and relate to mass movements and radicalisations when they do happen, to rebuild revolutionary Marxism."

Despite the lip service paid to the idea that "We are well aware that recruiting a couple of people here and there isn't a timeless strategy that we will pursue until the revolution", Lewis isn't willing to concede that there could be any other strategy than sectism in this moment; any attempt to open up a space to consider new ways or initiatives to organise is a "shortcut". 

"All of the broad parties are well to the right of the social-democratic movement that Lenin considered himself a part of. Furthermore, after Stalinism has held back the left for over 50 years, why would we want to unite with it? We should be trying to consign them to the dustbin of history where they belong."

This is exactly the mindset which breeds under conditions of sectism. You can recruit from those not yet involved in marxist politics and give them the correct line on every issue; those who disagree with you on those points are enemies to be defeated and eliminated. The idea that you could convince other committed revolutionaries to change their positions on anything is anathema. The idea that you yourself could have the wrong ideas about anything is anathema. The point isn't making the correct tactical judgements or convincing broader layers of people but Being Right (as I've said, I'm going to post further on this). This mindset helps to ensure we will make the kind of mistakes Binh pointed out that the US socialist left made in relating to #Occupy, or perhaps how we in Australia related to different opportunities such as the climate movement in its peak (where the involvement of a group like Socialist Alternative or other socialists who abstained from it might have meant the movement didn't fall in behind Labor's emission trading scheme that Abbott is calling a tax).

I'm not going to say that Socialist Alternative hasn't gotten some things right and build up a solid amount of cadre – they have. Perhaps Lewis is even right are even right that sectism is the only choice, and broader formations are just a "shortcut". But thinking back on Road Maps, Dead Ends, and the Search for Fresh Ground: How Can We Build the Socialist Movement in the 21st Century?, Dan Dimaggio's article on finding new forms of left organisation which I found an intensely uplifting breath of fresh thinking about socialist organisation (and written before the #Occupy moment!):

"Even if it is the case that “micro-sects” are all that can be built now, then let them be less pretentious, less sectarian, more open to working with one another, and more aware of their own inherent weaknesses (not to demoralize them but rather to help better understand the role they might play). Let them critically evaluate all their methods, search out more effective forms, and really ask if they are preparing the way toward something better in the future."

This is something I feel is an intensely important component of the activism and thinking (praxis, dare I say it) of all of us in the sects of today. But What, concretely, am I proposing Is To Be Done?

Right now Australian socialists of the leading organisations (SA, SAlt, Solidarity, SP) do work together in the vision of Le Blanc's "united front" or DiMaggio's "local groups" – on a whole bunch of issues and campaigns like equal marriage rights, refugee rights, Palestine solidarity, in various unions – I'm finishing this piece in the 2012 Climate Action Summit (CAS), where two socialist organisations and a whole variety of anti-capitalist activists beyond them are represented. But like Des Derwin, I think we need to explore a space beyond this level of unity (which at times is anything but united, as socialists who have been involved in the above listed campaign groups can attest!) while less than a single multi-tendency party of socialists. The decisions like where resources are priorities in which campaigns, activist calendars broader than those drawn up within campaigns, decisions regarding clashing events are all being made within each sect right now, and the only form of dialogue between them is through more or less hostile discussions when we see each other in movement groups (the clash between Marxism 2012 and the Eastern Convergence in Darwin being a prime example of this). We need to take some further steps now to break out of "sectism" and find some organisational forms or actions that we can take towards making us, our involvement in broader campaigns and united fronts, and convincing broader layers of the vision of a socialist Australia, more effective.

On this step, seeing a published form of the principles document, Towards a Socialist Australia, with beautiful design and layout, getting around as a pamphlet at the CAS and other activist events in recent days (and selling like hotcakes!) is heartening. Getting this document and  launching into the "upcoming consultative discussions" will hopefully prove a step forward in developing this kind of common vision for what a socialist Australia could look like more broadly. I've got some feedback of my own (editorial, but also some ideas for how we could more strongly sketch out the positive vision of democratic socialism) which I might post at a later date. But rather than do so in this already lengthy post, I'd like to raise that through the forums listed above. Let's get the conversation started!  

Socialist Alternative's Marxism 2013 could also be another prospect for developing such a joint vision? Sue Bolton's review of the 2012 conference outlines the potential for expanded left discussion and including climate relate issues. Many of the internationl speakers have come from a variety of tendencies with diverse views on Marxism; even at least one workshop strand or session with Australian speakers as a multi-tendency/open discussion on different ways Marxists organise would be a step forward for the left more broadly.

Dimaggio advances some concrete ideas which I'm not so confident of, esp in the Australian context -  joint publications, for example. Wollongong's Broad Left exists in this kind of way, as an open network publishing circle reincarnated from a former paper publication (but such projects are often prone to material/resource/time issues). Perhaps it's worth pointing out that LINKS has sofar hosted this debate, and it is set up as a project in this vein of socialist renewal; there is an inevitable need of any publication or resource to be actively supported and organised if it is going to actually interact with and play a role in real world politics, or even maintain itself.

Dimaggio also proposed a roster of talented speakers on joint tours organised by socialist groups – this kinda does happen between groups in the current form (Malalai Joya's recent tour of Australia was organised in this way, with Socialist Alternative booking her for Marxism 2012 and other engagements being arranged due to her presence) – but such things exist within the boundaries of the sects, sometimes with competing organisations "poaching" each other's speakers for tours, otherwise "boycotts" of relating to speakers if they are speaking for a group you are hostile to, otherwise exlusive tours just in the places it benefits whichever group that "gets" the speaker  – democratic broad left forums or organisations of one sort or another could actually plan and discuss such proposals democratically, weighing up benefits of which left speakers are being toured, etc, as with the benefits of intervention into movements, etc.

The successful examples of Broad Left (the lack of posts for 6 months notwithstanding) & Community Voice in Wollongong and Left Unity in Adelaide (see here and here for some more info on the Adelaide experience, with which I'm not as familiar) show us what is possible when the left actually does attempt to move beyond sectism. I think that it requires national replication, or attempts towards it that may take remarkably different forms, in as many cities as possible. Multi-tendency forums, networks or councils, short of a party or even an organisation which exists in its own right, but networks or space to have discussions re the questions I outlined above about movement work, strategic aims, electoral candidates, etc in a democratic forum rather than simply in our own sects is, I think, entirely achievable even in today's context. There are formations which do serve this role already (such as Sydney's Politics in the Pub) but I think we need to ensure these are not just discussion or social circles, but formations actually focussed on some form of activism (or even just left activist networking, not just talkfesting). And ultimately, such projects could open the way towards some sort of national network of left forces.

The question of unity on the basis of ideas is an important first step, and one which underpins almost all of the current forms of organisation we have – however, the American debate amongst is playing between people who would seem to largely agree on how socialists should relate to democrats, occupy, unions, etc but not to agree on what structures they should agree on those things in! Obviously, agreement around ideas is important, but the more important thing is unity in action. The kind of "united front" work that Le Blanc suggested we concentrate on (ie business as usual) to me is an attempt to avoid the minefield that building unity based on ideas between the competing socialist groups right now could be; but ultimately, it falls short of setting up a constructive framework for building unity through joint action. Ultimately, this means that not only will business will continue as usual, but when the shining moment comes when there is a crisis that shifts mass consciousness so much that there is a big enough layer of people convinced of revolutionary ideas around that we actually could start to build the revolutionary party that will lead the fight to overthrow capitalism, as the IST comrades have suggested will be the case, the party won't be ready for them, and the socialists who've lived through this period of history will be found wanting.

Monday, 23 April 2012

Arab Spring Meeting Notes #3 - from Caracas to Cairo

This is the latest in my series of posts of notes from talks I have given at meetings here in Australia since my return from the middle east last year. This one was written immediately after I returned in December 2011 to a meeting of the Illawarra branch of the Socialist Alliance. There are some mistakes &or gaping holes in this one, which I've made it my mission to try and fill so that all of these posts can be developed some form of comprehensive article on the Arab Spring. So telling me I'm wrong, and especially pointing out how, would be much appreciated - as well as constructive criticism of any other sort. Feel free to plagarise all of these talks as much as you want, although read the aforementioned point about getting things wrong first! :p

The situation: A global economic crisis leading to spiralling prices of food and fuel, neoliberal reforms that pulled the support network out from underneath the people and pushed more and more below the poverty line – all at the behest of western institutions like the IMF and World Bank. A  pro-western government responsible for torture, ill-treatment, extrajudicial killings, political disappearances and political corruption, happy to follow these mandates to the letter. The result: a mass uprising, brutally repressed by the regime with hundreds of deaths. This scenario could be used to describe the regimes of the Arab world and the overthrows of 2011, but it's equally describing the situation in Venezuela in 1989, when the Carazaco uprising took place, the regime suspended constitutional order, and anywhere between 500 and 2000 demonstrators were killed. Three years later, Lieutennant Colonel Hugo Chavez led an abortive coup attempt, and the following year President Perez was impeached by the Supreme Court. Why am I raising this in a talk on the Arab Spring? In many ways the example is a useful one to understand the process going on in Egypt, Tunisia & the broader middle-east right now. But I'll come to that later.

Background

When Mohammed Bouazizi doused himself with petrol in front of a police station on December 17, 2010, it was the final straw for many of those suffering under oppressive police states across the region. Decades of neoliberal economic reforms and spiralling oil prices since 2001 had been making life harder and harder for the vast majority living in the Arab world. This situation, this pressure, saw a variety of expressions over the first decade of this century. At first, this took forms which were relatively acceptable to the regimes – especially in Egypt, where solidarity mobilisations with the second Palestinian intifada in 2000-2001 and against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 brought street politics back to the region where it for the main part had been forced underground. These protests were the first for a new layer of young people who'd spent their whole lives living under the dictatorship.

However, when these young Egyptians and veteran leftists started campaigning for democratic reforms in 2004, forming the Egyptian movement for change (or "kefaya", enough), they began to face major harrasment from the regime. This came to a head in 2005, with the Mubarak regime organising a referendum approving constitutional changes allowing for multi-party elections while still ensuring the process was entirely sewn up by his National Democratic Party (NDP). Despite a strong grassroots campaign, Kefaya, as part of the National Front for Change coalition, only won 12 seats, with the NDP holding a super-majority of 388 seats and the Muslim Brotherhood winning 88. This reflected an important dynamic of this decade, which evolved out of imperialist interventions in the late 20th century; perhaps the majority of the population in most of the region, or at least a large section, saw political Islam, in one form or another, as the natural opposition to the pro-capitalist pro-Western pro-war on Terror regimes. Like the Venezuela comparison, we'll come back to this point; however, for now it's worth noting that, of all the region's countries, this support for political islam movements was perhaps weakest in Tunisia.

After this, and with the worsening of unemployment, poverty & other social conditions, a large layer of Arab youth & workers became increasingly radicalised. This came to a head in 2008, with radical workers in the key textile manufacturing city of Mahalla in Egypt leading a call for a general strike which for the first time articulated the demand for the revolutionary overthrow of the regime, as opposed to reforms or parliamentary change, and pitted the people against the state's apparatus of repression. Asides from poor pay and the corruption of the regime, basic economic issues – especially the major food shortage – were factors in this uprising; the little reportage it got in the Western media oversimplified this episode into a "bread riot", just one of many around the world occuring. In Tunisia, too, there were strikes and demonstrations by workers and the unemployed  in the Gafsa mining region, which were likewise heavily repressed. These struggles gave birth to the revolutionary social movements which found their expression in what's been called the "Arab spring" – for example, Egypt's leading April 6 Youth Movement takes their name from the date of the 2008 Mahalla general strike. And they were also an important test of strength for the revolutionary workers movement, amongst which most of the underground leftists could be found.

So when Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself on December 17, there was a huge layer of young Tunisians with whom this act resonated – who had all personally experienced the repression, corruption and harrasment of the regime's police officers, who had personally felt the desperation of being young, unemployed and with little hope for changing their situation, and who had seen how revolutionary action could hurt the regime. The final factor was the technological revolution which had seen cheap broadband internet and internet-ready mobile phones spread through the population in the course of little more than a year. The limited space for digital freedoms was taken up by citizen-journalist bloggers such as Lina Ben Mhenni, Slim Amamou and Azyz Amami. When protests broke out in Bouazizi's city of Sidi Bouzid (not Sidi Bou Said!), young people began posting videos of the spontaneous protests and the following repression on Facebook, and these three bloggers were crucial components, alongside the revolutionary workers, in growing this episode from just another chapter of repression to the point of nadir, the lowest point of the regime's excessed – the final straw.

Overthrowing the Dictators

So with the combination of these different factors, the Sidi Bouzid uprising spread like wildfire in a way the 2008 Gafsa protests had not been able to. And they brought a critical mass of people to the streets, shutting down the country until elements of the regime – including key military leaders – decided to cut their losses and temporarily side with the movement. This triggered Ben Ali's sudden departure – as documented by an air traffic controller at Tunis airport, part of the internet freedom movement, who tracked Ben Ali's plane as it attempted to land in France, the neo-colonial power with the biggest stakes in Tunisia's economy, before he was rejected and eventually fled to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he remains – hopefully to live out his days in the city as Idi Amin did!

This victory in Tunisia inspired many young Egyptians, who turned out in their thousands for the January 25 protest against police violence on national "police day". In the words of Basem Osman, a young member of the Socialist Party who I interviewed in Egypt: "Before January 25 I didn't think it would work – just like every other time, we would go, maybe 4-500 people, and the police will arrest a lot of us. But on this day, all of us were surprised – I thought I would go to Tahrir Square and just see my friends, but there were 3000 people in the square. It was the first time I'd seen a demonstration of that size! We didn't think it would continue, but at 1am the police attacked the demonstration, injured and arrested many of us, and the rest of us escaped. But when we fled, we didn't all go to our homes – most of us went to the poor neighbourhoods in Cairo like Abdeen, Shubra – very poor neighbourhoods – and when the police attacked again, many of my friends hid in the houses of ordinary people and told them about the demonstrations. I think this was as important as Facebook or Twitter in building the revolution. "

"I think that the Tunisian Revolution inspired people everywhere, gave people hope, and after that they were ready to demonstrate. Even my family, who normally didn't know anything about politics in Egypt, were asking me, "Are you going to the demonstrations on the 25th of January? We want to go."

The following days saw the Egyptian police respond with far greater savagery than their Tunisian counterparts did, and likewise, protests grew increasingly radical. Thus, on January 28, the first Friday of Anger, hundreds of thousands of protesters stormed and sacked the NDP headquarters. In Basim's words: "I don't believe in armed revolution, but the NDP headquarters is a huge building, which is very conspicuous; I see it every day when I go to work and so do many people, it's very central, and when we see it we feel so bad – it's a symbol of the regime. So when we saw it on 28 January, everyone just wanted to burn it."

I won't speak about the ins and outs of the following 18 days in Egypt; however, it's worth noting that the final blow to Mubarak's rule was not the inability or unwillingness of the military to carry out repression as the police were for fear of triggering a civil war, but the uprising of workers starting with the call for a general strike on February 6.

However, in both Tunisia and Egypt, the overthrow of the dictators themselves as well as their personal cronies who had personally profited from draining the nation's coffers – such as the Trabelsi family in Tunisia, who have fled the country one by one – has not translated into an end to neoliberal policies or breaking free of the imperialist enclosure. The regional political revolution against corrupt regimes has not yet been succesfully in fully removing them. Thus, we can compare the situation to the 1989 Carazaco uprising; the beginning of the ascendancy (potentially, anyway) of a revolutionary mass movement. As Hossam el-Hamalawy, blogger & member of the Revolutionary Socialists put it: "The Egyptian revolution will not be settled in 18 days or months. It’ll take “years” for the dust to settle, may be four or five, I don’t know. There will be waves, ebbs and flows, battles to be won and others lost."

The question, thus, is will these revolutions win their demands? That's the question I was asking myself when I went to Egypt in September; that's what I will now try to answer.

The Revolutionary Movements
Egypt


Arriving in Egypt the day before the September 9 protests that brought tens of thousands to Midan Tahrir, marching to the Ministry of Interior and the Supreme Court, and then thousands storming the Israeli embassy, certainly threw me in at the deep end! But arriving in Cairo at almost any point would have been like that.

After February 11, Friday protests -- in Cairo's Tahrir Square and nationwide -- continued more or less every week, with protesters reclaiming it for major sit-ins during July in the hundreds and then again in November in the thousands. These protests have also taken on the regime in more radical ways as the year has progressed; first over a guaranteed transition to civilian rule, then demanding the end to political repression, especially military trials for protesters, then after the October 9 massacre of dozens of Coptic Christians, openly calling forGeneral Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (the real power behind the throne; personally members control around 25% of the economy – us aid), to step down. #noscaf and #fuckscaf are the Twitter tags of this movement!

But even outside of what could be called the "democracy" movement of bloggers and activists, there has been mass democratic struggle in almost all layers of society, and the Tahrir protests are really only the tip of the iceberg. Most days when I walk around the city or meet various people there are little sit-ins or protests or speakouts happening outside ministries or public buildings. More than once I was simply spending time in my room and saw protesters marching past from my balcony that I had heard nothing about!

New workers' movement


The lion's share of these protests are by parts of the new workers' movement, which, as I outlined, were growing for several years before 2011. The official trade unions and syndicates, more than 4000 in total, were sewn up by the NDP, but in the last few years underground independent unions have been forming out of wildcat struggles within Egypt's major factories and businesses. Now there's more than 150 independent unions, and more are being established all the time; some of these unions have won official recognition, and are leading struggles – both for economic demands like better pay and conditions, but also for structural reforms, to get rid of Mubarak's cronies and for more worker control of workplaces.

For example, one protest march I saw was by secondary school teachers, who are striking for better pay, demanding the removal of the minister and more funding for public education – a major issue, as all Egyptian families have to shell out for either private schooling or extra tuition due to the inadequacy of the state schools. These protests broke out into a close to general strike in October, just one example of the many sectors of the economy where strikes & labor activity have occured. The Egyptian Socialist Party and other revolutionary socialists have prioritised working in this area, which is one of the reasons why it's been growing so successfully.

Cronies

The key figureheads of the old regime are imprisoned or on trial in absentia, but in pretty much every big business, ministry or government department and public service – Mubarak-era cronies are still in power, and the networks of corruption still exist. The repression of protest and activism may have eased up since February 11, but corruption – such as the bribes to get things done in the system – have worsened. And in some ways, such as the military trials – which have imprisoned over 12,000 activists, and sentenced 8000, as well as subjecting all female protesters to "virginity tests" – are worse than anything carried out under Mubarak.

On this basis, it's clear to most Egyptians that the revolution hasn't changed much yet, but the revolutionary movement still seems to have the support of most people on the street. The trade union movement is a big part of this – revolutionaries aren't just talking about the nebulous structure of the whole political class, or rights and class in an abstract way, but also conducting campaigns against specific individual figures at all levels of power, who ordinary people know are corrupt and are stooges of the rich and the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (which, thanks to years of billion-dollar blank cheques from the US, owns of huge swathes of industry).

The Elections

The most recent occupation of Tahrir has largely petered out in recent days, especially given that the expected suspension of November 28's elections never materialised. Mostafa Ali, of Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists, has said:
"THE political sentiment in Tahrir is ahead of the country. You can think of it as the revolutionary vanguard in society among students and workers and youth--but it is much larger than in January. Political consciousness has developed tremendously.
These are people who understand that the SCAF is the continuation of the Mubarak regime. They are beginning to understand the connection between political and economic issues. They are beginning to grapple with the role of police in society. And they are the ones who understand that the ruling class played a trick on them by using Mubarak as a scapegoat in order to save the rest of the political system.
So you have a minority in society--symbolized by Tahrir--which has advanced politically and in terms of its consciousness. And it's ahead of the rest of the country in that sense. Back in January, a majority of people in the country wanted Mubarak to go, so they supported Tahrir. At this moment, that isn't the case regarding the SCAF.
The revolutionary vanguard is much, much larger. Its willingness to fight is unbelievable--it fought five days against the police. But the majority of the workers and poor people have not yet concluded that the SCAF must immediately return to its barracks. Or they don't think we have the power yet to push the SCAF to return the barracks."

While the RS are in some ways taking an ultra-left line on the struggle, this assessment is spot-on.

Most Egyptians are willing to put their faith in Ikhwan, in the parliament, and in SCAF's administration of the transition; they know that, if these is outright manipulation or a backwards step by the government, they have the power to get rid of them. But this is a dangerous situation, as the military regime has signalled its intent to enshrine its power under the new parliament & president, ensuring that its budget and authority will not be under civilian mandate or scrutiny. The coming period is a test for the revolutionary movement, and calls for a display of leadership to take this fight to the new parliament and SCAF and expose them as stooges of imperialism with no desire to break from the neoliberal consensus.

Revolutionary left

Meeting with comrades of the Egyptian Socialist Party (a socialist unity project which seems like the closest thing here to Germany's Die Linke or Australia's Socialist Alliance) was really illuminating, especially for putting the particular struggles in context and finding out more about what's been going on with the independent trade union movement.

Key leaders of the democracy movement are also affiliated to one or another of the socialist parties which have formed post-February 11; the Revolutionary Socialists have been joined by several of the leading blogger/democracy activists, while the Egyptian Socialist Party, for example, has joined by many of the leaders of the Kefaya movement.

Another aspect has been pro-poor work on a more direct level; revolutionary youth have been going into poorer communities, especially the informal slum settlements on the edge of Cairo, and helping to establish committees and networks simply to fight for access to basic infrastructure, jobs, food, etc. This is very exciting; there's a big layer of revolutionary "Tahrir" youth who are joining the organised left now that it's out from underground and openly propagandising.

While I was meeting with a comrade at the downtown Cairo office of the Egyptian Socialist Party, there was a meeting of around 20 young members, some with pre-January experience in politics but most without, debating the best ways to take the revolution forward. It was certainly a world away from some of the sleepy education meetings I've been part of in Australia! Many of the "Tahrir" youth can tend towards an ultraleft emphasis on protest, occupation and confronting the state – to what extent to embrace this tendency instead of emphasising the many kinds of party-building and activism needed to grow the movement has been something of a debate among the left here.

The revolutionary left in Egypt is well aware of the need to keep this struggle growing; to strengthen the parties and forces of the left so they can lead the struggle is everyone's primary task – while at the same time doing as much as possible to work towards unity, such as opening joint party offices in smaller cities where the left was unable to organise during the underground Mubarak years. However, over the elections, there have been some significant splits; the ESP and some other revolutionary groups, including a split of radical youth from the Muslim Brotherhood, still contested the elections, while the RS and some of the other Tahrir protesters called for a boycott, which basically failed.

Tunisia

Travelling to Tunisia was a bit of a shock after the turbulent revolutionary spirit of Cairo. When I first arrived, I was especially shocked by the fact that Avenue Habib Bourguiba and the Kasbah square (the two sites of major protest in the capital Tunis) are under occupation by the police, with razor wire set up outside the prime minister's office, the Ministry of Interior, the French embassy and pretty much anywhere that people will specifically protest against. The army is on the streets too; I've got no idea if they still have a pro-revolutionary image here, despite its US funding, but it is much smaller than the police forces. Either way, the streets are definitely under wraps at present, and mass struggle has been much more successfully contained.

Mass protests and strikes definitely slowed down in Tunisia, at least in the major urban centres of the coast, over the course of the constituent assembly elections, which took place on October 23. The assembly brought the islamist Ennahda (rennaisance) to power, although only with 37% of the vote. This timetable is designed, as far as I can tell, to tread the line between reining in the revolutionary energy of Tunisia's youth and winning enough legitimacy among the majority of the population to avoid a "second revolution" protest wave breaking out. However, Tunisia's revolutionary movement has seen a resurgence post-elections, with a wave of labor activism including strikes & an unemployed movement occupying for more jobs for local communities starting in the final days of October, as well as mass demonstrations in Tunis outside the new parliament.

But the Tunisian revolutionary struggle wasn't ended, despite the election sucking up the energy of a good number of democracy activists and the organised left. Like in Egypt, there are struggles within every element of society to get rid of corrupt figures from the old regime. For example, on my second day in Tunis I saw two protests: one, a group of around 650 graduate secondary teachers staging a sit-in at the Ministry of Education to demand the government create jobs for them, I saw on my way walking to another demanding the release of a police officer whistleblower who revealed that two recently appointed figures were corrupt and were responsible for killing protesters.

Tunisian left

One factor that made a difference in Tunisia's revolution beginning first was the difference in unionism; unlike in Egypt, where the state unions and syndicates were quite tightly controlled, leftists were able to hide under the umbrella of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT, Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail) at the local branch level under Ben Ali dictatorship, although the top leadership was bought off by the regime. The UGTT was one of the key bodies, along with the blogger-journalist-activists, in spreading the uprising from the rural town of Sidi Bouzid, to the bigger cities along the coast, due to the slightly greater leeway for activity at the local branch level.

There have been some initiatives to set up independent trade unions, including by the police, which have been quashed by the regime; I'm yet to hear of any purging of the UGTT of Ben Ali collaborators, but I really don't know what the state of play is there or whether the UGTT remains a functional body actually leading the workers' movement. I know that a conference is taking place in December for revolutionary unionists to discuss how to help grow the movement, so stay posted on that one.

One exception worth mentioning is the national union of students; it had some leeway to struggle under the first post-colonial dictator Bourguiba, but was totally infiltrated by Ben Ali and became totally useless. Since January 14 it's been reclaimed and is leading struggles on campuses, over basic things like money for textbooks or students unfairly dismissed by the corrupt administrations still in place at most universities.

Due to the closeness of the relationship with France, many exiled left organisations organised among the diaspora in France for the last 10 or 20 years and have now returned; some of the more radical of the centre-left formations, which look likely to do well in the elections, such as Ettakatol (Democratic Forum for Labour and Freedoms), are in this category. Revolutionary groups have returned since Ben Ali's downfall. The Left Worker's League (LGO), the main Trotskyist group, seems to fall into this category; most of the democracy activists and young people I've spoken to here don't even know who they are, and I haven't been able to get in touch with them or meet them yet.

Communist Workers' Party of Tunisia

I did manage, however, to meet with a member of the central committee of the Communist Workers' Party of Tunisia (PCOT), which played an essential role in the uprising against Ben Ali (largely through their involvement in the UGTT) and who seem to be the biggest and best force on the left here. Despite their affiliation to the Hoxhaist (Albanian Maoist) international tendency, they have the sharpest line on the ongoing revolution and how to keep advancing the struggle of anybody that I've spoken to here. It is definitely the only big-name party in Tunisia that didn't switch to safe rhetoric due to the approaching election, and it is still talking about revolution!

The biggest weakness that I'd identify of the PCOT is that it isn't as well respected among democracy activists, or as big a part of that movement as, for example, the revolutionary socialists in Egypt are. Indeed, many of the leading blogger-journalist-activists here, such as Slim Amamou (who was named the minister of youth within the second post-January 14 government, although he recently resigned that post) and Azyz Amami, are leaders of the Tunisian Pirate Party, which seems to be taking on the role of groups like April 6 or the Coalition of Revolutionary Youth in Egypt. And still more are standing for election as independant candidates.

The PCOT is a very old party, which struggled underground for a long time, which means it is well positioned to organise for the elections – this, I think, may have deterred people who are rightly cynical of the electoral process. However, revolutionary young people are definitely looking to the organised left, and to the PCOT especially (the local "goth" subculture in Tunis, for example, is full of PCOT militants!). The PCOT's main office in Tunis was absolutely bustling with young people doing various things for the election campaign.

And post-election campaign, PCOT has played a massive role in leading the resurgence of revolutionary struggle; their activists were central to organising Tunisia's #occupy protests on 11th November, as well as the ongoing Bardo sit-in outside the parliament building where the new Constituent Assembly, demanding that the new constitution be put to a referendum, the prosecution of police officers responsible for killings during the uprising against Ben Ali, suspending international debt repayments incurred by Ben Ali's regime, and community democracy reforms very similar to Community Voice's platform! Live broadcast of assembly sessions, etc.



So – will these struggles win? I've tried to paint as accurate a picture I can of these movements, their strengths and weaknesses, and their sway in the population as a whole. The struggle may take years, and it may never bring revolutionary parliaments or governments like Chavez. Each revolutionary process has to confront and break down the power of the state in its own way. But I am optimistic and confident that yes, these movements will win.