Behind the Egyptian Revolution
by: Jan Garrett on March 8th, 2011 | 34 Comments »
Apart from academic specialists, business and government personnel with experience in the Middle East, and U.S. residents who have emigrated to the U.S. from the area, Americans are poorly informed about the Middle East, although Tikkun readers are probably much better informed about the Israel/Palestine issue than the average person thanks to Michael Lerner’s efforts to educate us over the years.
But ignorance about the Arab world is great, and so it is not surprising that a deep understanding of the causes of the recent revolt has not emerged from contributions to Tikkun Daily on the topic in recent days. To begin to address that gap, I call to your attention an article by Ali Kadri, “A Period of Revolutionary Fervor”, that appeared February 24, in The Bullet, the E-Bulletin of Socialist Project in Canada. Kadri is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics; he formerly served as an economic analyst for the UN regional office in Beirut. I limit myself to partial summaries, representative quotations, and a few comments of my own based mostly on recent studies of global political economy.
Two Phases of Egyptian History
“Egypt’s recent [i.e., post-1953] economic and social history could be split in two phases. A golden phase of high equitable growth, which ended in the mid seventies [this phase was associated with Nasser's nationalist regime - JG], and a leaden period of lower inequitable growth – it was lower but still high growth relative to other developing countries… “
The first phase involved a controlled economy with massive “spending on social projects financed by local means.” The second phase represented a retreat to reliance on the private market. Anwar Sadat’s “openness” to the world market caused a rise in the prices of basic necessities while “wages remained stagnant in the mid seventies.” Sadat’s economic policies were about privatizing what had been socialized and undoing Nasser’s social reforms that had characterized the previous phase.
Two Historical Agents
Kadri points to two historical agents at work in Sadat’s Egypt. First was the incompleteness of the Nasser revolution, which had its origin in a military coup in 1953. Egyptian workers did not fully participate in the process of social reform. The second agent was the role of the captains of the world political economy, which include the U.S. in its geostrategic persona. The Camp David Accords of September 1978 produced a peace dividend for Egypt – more exactly, for Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat and his allies in the Egyptian elite, including Sadat’s eventual successor Mubarak. As the article notes, “for more than thirty years, income grew” but in such a way that the workers were stripped of their rights and resources were shifted to the top two percent of the population.
Accumulation by Dispossession
In the aftermath of the Camp David Accords, much of Africa and the Arab world were “exposed to imperialist plunder,” what many analysts have called accumulation by dispossession. By direct military intervention or the threat of it the U.S. and other capitalist centers stripped peoples of the rights to own and control their own resources, to be sure with the cooperation of the local allies of the global elite.
This subordination of the local elites to the capitalist centers was rendered possible in the late 20th century thanks to the “five monopolies” of the center frequently noted by Egypt-born economist and political analyst Samir Amin: control over finance, technology, the earth’s resources, the media, and weapons of mass destruction.
The Role of Local Elites
The function and position of local elites, notes Kadri, “became so well entrenched that there is not a single Arab ruler who could retire in his own country, unless protected by tanks.”
In the states of the Arab region, Kadri tells us, the fundamental political structure is determined by a security apparatus whose head is identical to the head of state. Yet, “security arrangements in the…region are rarely the result of domestic developments or even of regional developments; they have to be understood in the context of the international division of political power, of which the Arab world represents the periphery…. The international powers have…an interest in determining [the area's] security arrangements and thus [restricting] its autonomy over its own policy.”
How Egypt Matters to the Global Power Centers
And, further, “Egypt matters more in the way it buttresses control over the geostrategic Middle East than the social surplus that would be extracted from the exploitation and pauperization of its laboring classes. The U.S. has invested several hundred billions of dollars in the Egyptian army and the security apparatus since the inception of Camp David….”
Daily Life in Egypt in Our Time
Daily life in Egypt was profoundly affected. The massive dismantling of social programs designed to support and maintain a decent quality of life for the working population, pauperization of the working class, and growth in the unemployed population reinforced commodification of human life, reducing the laborer to a completely alienated state. The process that Kadri calls commodification represents “a loss of humanity and human dignity.” That given, it is not surprising that the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia was followed by several young Egyptian men setting themselves on fire in protest of living conditions in their country.
A Surrogate Factory Floor
Kadri presents a fascinating hypothesis for understanding the spread of the revolution in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. “It is my contention that impersonal internet communication of the modern age became a surrogate factory floor, which served as the shop floor of the days past. It was received theory that the growing division of labor, its becoming more discrete, and the power of elites to divide and disperse labor have [undermined] the chances of revolution. The old factory shop floor in which workers of similar skills organized, debated, and formed a strategy for the struggle no longer represented the meeting stage of the working class…. There was what appeared to be an insuperable sociological impasse until the virtual world provided a platform for participation. It provided the possibility for communication to become impersonal and anonymous….Talking from behind a mask allows people to bare the essentials and cut through the fog to reveal primary concerns…. The internet provided the capacity in terms of numbers for the individual to hide behind and the impersonal medium or ‘mask.’”



Jan,
We discussed Egypt earlier today. You write this garbage and claim that we as Americans are ignorant of the Middle East? I’m sorry, in an earlier post addressed to me; you claim that Nasser’s Egypt was neutral until aligning itself with the US. Well I called you on that. Nasser’s Egypt was hardly neutral They were firmly in the Soviet camp, as evidenced by the Soviet supplied military,.
Nasser as a leader was NO more than a military dictator just like Sadat or Mubarak. And don’t forget, he was trying to elevate Egypt to leader of the Arab world by wiping Israel off the map. Please do not make him out for more than he really was. I am old enough to remember his rhetoric leading up to the 6 day war. I remember him kicking the UN peace keepers out of the Sinai.
Jan:
“In the aftermath of the Camp David Accords, much of Africa and the Arab world were “exposed to imperialist plunder,” what many analysts have called accumulation by dispossession. By direct military intervention or the threat of it the U.S. and other capitalist centers stripped peoples of the rights to own and control their own resources, to be sure with the cooperation of the local allies of the global elite.”
Oh my, what is this about? Sadat makes the incredibly bold move, flying to Israel, speaking in front of the Knesset, and causes a firestorm in the Arab world. He makes peace with Israel and you see this as a negative for the Arab world and Africa. It is the most positive event in contemporary Middle East history. Do you hate Israel that much? Do you hate peace that much? Sadat paid for his courageous move towards peace with his life. Nasser drove Egypt into costly humiliation.
This is what angers me about the Tikkun bloggers,. They produce works of fiction that fits their indefensible opinions and call it history. You do not come off as any expert on the Middle East and I dare there is little to learn from Michael Lerner. , You have to peel though the deception to find an ounce of truth in your narrative.
I suggest try not to deceive that Tikkun faithful. As for Michael Lerner, i suggest anyone read his material and look at it with a huge grain of salt. I trust his expertise on Middle East history as much as I trust FOX News in accurately reporting the news.
I suggest that any Tikkun reader seek multiple sources to enhance their knowledge of the Middle East rather than trust Michael Lerner and Jan Garrett and self anointed experts
I can agree with David that Tikkun readers should seek multiple sources to enhance their knowledge of the “Middle East.” But rather than restrict the issue to the “Middle East,” which is after all a Eurocentric or West-centered concept, I would argue that we need to think globally. In that connection, I recommend books by Samir Amin, one of which Global History: A View from the South (2010), was implicitly referenced in my blog. Another, which I found very informative, is Vijay Prashad’s The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (New York: The New Press, 2007), which places Nasserism and neutralism of the Cold War era in the rich historical context of its time. Apart from Nasserism, it also tells the story of Sukarno’s Indonesia and Tito’s Yugoslavia, as well as events and movements in Latin America (and elsewhere in the period 1945 to 1980 or so. One more reading, this one concerning the global capitalist offensive that brought an end to the movement described in Prashad’s book, is David Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford, 2005). I cannot recommend Harvey’s books too highly.
Jan, I will remind you that Nassar’s Egypt was not a neutral party. Loaded down with Soviet weapons, how can you insist they were neutral? When you base a blog on a false premise, you remove what ever legitimacy it has.
“Remind” me all you like. The word “neutral” does not occur in the main blog article, although it does in a discussion we were having of another blog, one by Mike Ignatowski. The word “nationalist” does. As far as accepting weapons from the Soviet Union is concerned, that proves only that the Egyptian regime of the time thought they were getting a better deal from the Soviet Union than alternative arms suppliers. Your line of argument gives evidence of the old Cold War mentality (according to which “neutrals” are really Reds in disguise), which has been revived recently in a modified form in the so-called War on Terrorism, according to which anyone who refuses to jump on board the military or economic projects, however conceived, of the global superpower is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.
Correction: it was from a previous post of yours
“The shift from Nasser’s neutrality in the Cold War to alignment with the U.S. happened under Sadat. Mubarak continued the same policy”
And factually wrong
“As far as accepting weapons from the Soviet Union is concerned, that proves only that the Egyptian regime of the time thought they were getting a better deal from the Soviet Union than alternative arms suppliers.”
Free of charge is a better deal, but it comes with strings attached. Nasser maintained a close relationship with the Soviets that included military advisors. Soviet pilots apparently flew Egyptian planes in the War of Attrition. Does that sound neutral?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/69soviet.html
I’m sure you’ll question the source.
David,
I’m sorry to say this, but you have sunk to an all-time low:
“This is what angers me about the Tikkun bloggers,. They produce works of fiction that fits their indefensible opinions and call it history. You do not come off as any expert on the Middle East and I dare there is little to learn from Michael Lerner. , You have to peel though the deception to find an ounce of truth in your narrative.
I suggest try not to deceive that Tikkun faithful. As for Michael Lerner, i suggest anyone read his material and look at it with a huge grain of salt. I trust his expertise on Middle East history as much as I trust FOX News in accurately reporting the news.
I suggest that any Tikkun reader seek multiple sources to enhance their knowledge of the Middle East rather than trust Michael Lerner and Jan Garrett and self anointed experts”.
You need a nice, long vacation… after which you could apologize to everyone you have smeared.
Shalom!
No apology forthcoming.I meant everyword I said. Creating myths to support ones extreme ideology I wrong whether coming from the right or left. Nassar’s Egypt as a neutral party is a myth BIG myth.
David,
May I direct you to another post on Tikkun Daily, by Virginia, who writes: “If we cannot talk, respect each other’s views in spite of differences, what does this say about us as a people? Acceptance is not contingent upon agreement, and through a willingness to see an issue through another’s eyes, new perceptions can arise. This is not compromise, but strategic common sense!”
Shalom
I will accept FACT based views. Claiming that Nasser was neutral is not FACT based. I called Jan Garrett on it and supported my view with FACTS. Jan Garrett was unable to refute my FACTS. If some come up to me and tells lays out an argument that the Holocaust was a myth and all the Jews in Europe were either held in humane camps or were transferred east, I would not respect the “view” based on myth. I will not try to see it through the eye of the claimant. Yes, this is an extreme example used to drive my point home to you.
No apology is forthcoming
Oh…. because Monsieur has a monopoly on “ze facts” while the rest of us poor slaves “produce works of fiction that fit their indefensible opinions”!!!
For the third time, I say SHALOM to you, David.
May you find SHALOM in the deepest sense of the word, i.e. completeness, wholeness, health, peace, welfare, safety, soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord.
Good point, Louie. It’s ungrammatical to speak of “my” or “his” facts. Facts don’t belong to anyone. Where I differ with David is chiefly the conclusions he draws from *his* premises. He doesn’t seem to understand that, in the context of the Cold War (1950′s and 1960′s), it was possible–indeed natural–to understand “neutralist” in a way that would cover the Nasser regime. Of course, I never suggested that the Nasser regime was neutral on the founding of the state of Israel or the issues that arose between Israel and the Palestinians.
Jan, I really can’t account for you claim. It is dead wrong. There is no getting around it. During the Cold War, the presence of Soviet military advisors and a military based on Soviet technology hardly makes the country neutral. Claiming Egypt was a neutral country is a myth the Jan seems to lie to use to support his own opinions. Too bad he tries his hand at history; he has a far better future as a fiction writer. I also heard the moon landing was a myth, I bet Jan can support that opinion as well
No apology forth coming,.
And I cannot account for (find a rational explanation of) your obsession on this historical fact (or error, whatever).
Jan, Perhaps correcting that premise and issuing an explanation would help. Or perhaps you can tell me why the Soviets seemed intent on equipping the Egyptian army. Why would Soviet pilots participate in the War of Attrition on behalf of Egypt.?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/69soviet.html
Claims of neutrality by Nasser was a joke
David,
If you alone have “THE FACTS” and the rest of us, as you so quaintly put it, “”produce works of fiction that fits (sic) their indefensible opinions”, either you are one of the greatest minds of this century and should be lecturing at Harvard and la Sorbonne OR you are delusional and should seek help.
Louie, I backed my information up with a link to a reputable source. Any questions?
David,
I’m not talking about your Nasser obsession/fixation. Very few people care about that. I’m talking about your all-out assault against Rabbi Lerner, Jan Garrett and all Tikkun bloggers. To quote you once again:
“This is what angers me about the Tikkun bloggers,. They produce works of fiction that fits their indefensible opinions and call it history. You do not come off as any expert on the Middle East and I dare there is little to learn from Michael Lerner. , You have to peel though the deception to find an ounce of truth in your narrative.
I suggest try not to deceive that Tikkun faithful. As for Michael Lerner, i suggest anyone read his material and look at it with a huge grain of salt. I trust his expertise on Middle East history as much as I trust FOX News in accurately reporting the news.
I suggest that any Tikkun reader seek multiple sources to enhance their knowledge of the Middle East rather than trust Michael Lerner and Jan Garrett and self anointed experts.”(March 8)
So have you decide where will you be lecturing first? Harvard or La Sorbonne? Or perhaps the London School of Economics?
Shalom
David,
I’m not talking about your Nasser obsession/fixation. Very few people care about that. I’m talking about your all-out assault against Rabbi Lerner, Jan Garrett and all Tikkun bloggers. To quote you once again:
“This is what angers me about the Tikkun bloggers,. They produce works of fiction that fits their indefensible opinions and call it history. You do not come off as any expert on the Middle East and I dare there is little to learn from Michael Lerner. , You have to peel though the deception to find an ounce of truth in your narrative.
I suggest try not to deceive that Tikkun faithful. As for Michael Lerner, i suggest anyone read his material and look at it with a huge grain of salt. I trust his expertise on Middle East history as much as I trust FOX News in accurately reporting the news.
I suggest that any Tikkun reader seek multiple sources to enhance their knowledge of the Middle East rather than trust Michael Lerner and Jan Garrett and self anointed experts.”
So have you decide where will you be lecturing first? Harvard or La Sorbonne? Or perhaps the London School of Economics?
I call it as I see it. Perhaps Rabbi Lerner can defend himself. He is noticeably absent in light if a brutal attack on a family of Jewish settlers 2 young children and an infant were stabbed to death along with their parents. Sad FACT is, Rabbi Lerner cannot find it in himself to have compassion for Jewish victims. BTZelem certainly found compassion to express their sorrow and rightfully so.
David-
On March 13th, Rabbi Lerner condemned “in the strongest possible terms” the Itamar massacre. Here is the link: http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/condemnation-of-itamar-massacre. We launched a new website last week, and Rabbi Lerner’s commentary and editorials are generally listed there in the “Political Vision and Spiritual Wisdom” box.
Thank you, It’s appreciated
David
“Thank you, it’s appreciated”: Is that all you have to say after spewing your venom on Rabbi Lerner :
“Sad FACT is, Rabbi Lerner cannot find it in himself to have compassion for Jewish victims”.
That, David, is CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, not based on FACT as you claimed but on IGNORANCE of the facts.
And to think that you always claim to be the only man on Tikkun who knows THE FACTS! All the rest of us you dismiss as producing “works of fiction that fits (sic) their indefensible opinions” (see your first post above).
“Thank you, it’s appreciated”: Do you really think that will do? It takes a man to recognize that he has thoughtlessly smeared another’s character. It takes a man to publicly apologize for doing so and if you had a shred of decency you would be doing so right now.
Yesterday, as you well know, a heinous crime has once again been committed against Rabbi Lerner’s home by Zionist extremists. Why not take this opportunity to publicly denounce this hate crime, apologize for all the garbage you have personally written about Rabbi Lerner over the years (see, for example, your first post above) and pay a heartfelt homage to this great man that we are truly blessed to have in our midst.
You need help, David. Shalom.
I would cut your losses, your borderline inappropriate
Friends,
I propose we end this particular conversation. I don’t see how anything I say will mollify David, whose operative values I at most slightly share. He’s free to start his own blog, “Anti-TikkunDaily” (probably on an another host site). If we are interested in his thoughts, we can subscribe to it.
I suspect Jan is trying to drive an oppsoing view off the site. How sad and how very narrow minded.
David, you really should take Jan’s excellent suggestion and start YOUR OWN BLOG. After all, you and you alone have all the FACTS, the rest of us are “self-anointed experts” lost in our “works of fiction” and our “indefensible opinions”… How in the world have you, the Infallible One, been able to put up with us foolish mortals for so long? Retreat to the ivory tower of your Infinite Wisdom and dazzle the world with the endless flow of your “oppsoing views”(sic).
Louie, I do hope I make you feel uncomfortable. It’s a humbling feeling, I’m sure
OK, David. Perhaps I am not being sufficiently compassionate with you. I’ll ask you in the context of this discussion a question of the type that Dave Belden recommended in another recent blog entry. My question for you is whether your your insistence on deciding in your preferred negative way the issue of whether the Nasser regime was neutralist (in spite of my clarification, multiple times, about the context of interpretation that I believed legitimated that label), reflects any deep-seated fear you have about me or my perspective. If there are other, unstated issues lurking, and we can discuss them civilly, it will be better than going around in circles.
P.S. I may not be very good myself at this sort of discourse that Dave recommends but I’m willing to try.
Your revisionist history does not worry. There are far worse, David Irving comes to mind. But here are a few points that I find disturbing
“Egypt’s recent [i.e., post-1953] economic and social history could be split in two phases. A golden phase of high equitable growth, which ended in the mid seventies [this phase was associated with Nasser's nationalist regime - JG], and a leaden period of lower inequitable growth – it was lower but still high growth relative to other developing countries…”
How do a military dictator and lunatic represent a golden era? Are you suggesting that some dictatorship can be tolerated?
“In the aftermath of the Camp David Accords, much of Africa and the Arab world were “exposed to imperialist plunder,” what many analysts have called accumulation by dispossession. By direct military intervention or the threat of it the U.S. and other capitalist centers stripped peoples of the rights to own and control their own resources, to be sure with the cooperation of the local allies of the global elite”
Please explain in great detail what the Camp David Accords; a solid and positive development in the ME exposes Africa and the Arab world to capitalist plunder. I never really connected Arab North Africa and the rest of Africa in that framework. Please explain. Is accommodating Israel’ existence with internationally recognized borders viewed that dimly by you.
No, I don’t fear you or your ideas. There are far more concerns I have from the myths of the extreme left and right.
[Moderator's note: ad hominem slur removed. See our comments policy].
But here are a few points that I find disturbing
“Egypt’s recent [i.e., post-1953] economic and social history could be split in two phases. A golden phase of high equitable growth, which ended in the mid seventies [this phase was associated with Nasser's nationalist regime - JG], and a leaden period of lower inequitable growth – it was lower but still high growth relative to other developing countries…”
Regarding the first quoted paragraph: You forget I was introducing an article by Ali Kadri–this language is from a quote from him–my addition was the part within brackets.
Re “How do a military dictator and lunatic represent a golden era? Are you suggesting that some dictatorship can be tolerated?”
I don’t know where you get that Nasser was a lunatic. I understand that you wouldn’t agree with his position on Israel. I do not endorse everything he may have said on every occasion. As for tolerating dictatorship, the whole article (mine and Kadri’s) is about not tolerating dictatorship, about a revolution against dictatorship, a revolution with which I am obviously in sympathy. If you read it carefully, the limitations of the regime that came into power in 1953 are referred to–not discussed at length, true, but that’s because the focus was on the Mubarak regime, since Mubarak was the dictator in question. But getting rid of Mubarak does not in itself address the institutional underpinnings of dictatorship–as long as the security apparatus remains and the army, which to some extent remained above the fray in the recent events but whose elite has supported the dictator, remains unreformed. The evidence I’ve seen is that the U.S. (and probably the Israeli government) don’t really want major changes in Egypt toward real democracy.
Re your quote beginning “In the aftermath of the Camp David Accords. . . ”
** Again, this is a paraphrase, with some explanation by me, of what Kadri was saying. The Camp David Accords occurred around the same time that the U.S. and other major Western powers–like Thatcher’s Great Britain–undertook the shift from the global economic system (not a really just one but less one-sided than what followed) that had prevailed from 1945-1980, i.e., to a much more aggressive and exploitive approach toward the global South. The rapprochement with the U.S. that accompanied the Camp David Accords (without leading to a solution of the situation of the Palestinians) made Egypt a closer partner of the designs of Western economic and military elites. But allusions to this explanation is already in the article.
As for the Camp David Accords, I don’t see the Camp David Accords as a real solid solution, since it did not lead to anything approaching justice for the Palestinians. Probably it led to the development of inappropriate tactics of struggle on the part of the Palestinian resistance (since they felt abandoned by their supposed Arab supporters), which accompanied the growing popularity of Islamist tendencies. I remembering my own reaction to the Camp David Accords at the time as a sign of much hoped for progress, but I was beginning my academic career at the time and was unable to study the situation closely. The question of accommodating Israel’s existence within internationally recognized borders is OK as a goal, but b/c of the lack of follow-through –we will probably disagree about where the responsibility for that lies–that hasn’t happened; it has failed (so far at least) along with the two-state solution.
I see these events in their larger global contexts. Recent events in the Arab world clearly show the connections between Arab North Africa, Egypt, and the predominantly Arab societies in Western Asia, where a spark motivated by a desire for real democracy seems to have jumped from one country to another in a matter of days. If you want to understand that part of the world, you need to recognize those connections.
Shalom, Salaam.
I meant to delete what appeared the first sentence in my latest response to David. It is in fact from his previous response to me and forms no part of my latest comment.
Making peace with Israel was one of the boldest, most enlightened moves any Arab leader ha made in the modern era. Sadat and Egypt was sick of spilling blood on behalf of the Palestinian, They go the land back and in exchange the promised a quiet secure border for Israel. Sadat paid with hi life.tne
I see no cracks in regimes that really could use it, Syria and Saudi. Libya s no more than a civil war between tribes. For all we know, Gaddafi’s opponents may not be any better that Gaddafi.
Youmadea couple