Egypt: Which way forward for revolutionary socialists? - Part two

In the second part of this article we take a look at the contradictions of Egyptian capitalism, which are hindering it from solving the most basic tasks that it is posed with. Only a socialist revolution can solve the tasks of the revolution. But how do we connect the struggle for socialism with the day to day struggles of the masses?

[Part 1]

Democracy and Socialism

Without a clear class position it is impossible to move forward. Seen from the point of view of advancing the revolution, the presidential elections were the most important political struggle. The RS comrades demonstrated that they were not prepared for the tasks that lay before them and therefore they were cut off from a whole layer of workers and youth who at that time were moving into the field of organised politics.

The massive growth of Sabahi’s tendency is a reflection of the possibilities that were present. These opportunities will occur again, but in order to seize them, a correct class stance is needed. It is not enough to be able to say who to support or not - in fact that is only the ABC. What Marxists must be able to do is to present a coherent programme that takes as its starting point the concrete situation that the revolution is in.

Unfortunately, again we must say comrade Naguib comes short when it comes to developing such a programme. In comrade Naguib’s critisism of the Brotherhood and the Liberals he points out,

“It is unimaginable that a revolution on this scale can simply be contained by a limited and superficial democratic transition without deeper changes in terms of the redistribution of wealth and power in the country. This is the root of the Brotherhood's crisis. The protests over the constitution are not just about defending democracy, but also reflect people's anger as the expectations that the Brotherhood themselves had fostered are being dashed. People expected that wages would rise and that life would get better and this hasn't happened.” (Egypt: the Muslim brotherhood under pressure)

Apart from the fact that we do not believe that the size of a revolution tells us much about its course and character, we fully agree with the comrade that the revolution was not “just” for democracy. The main underlying factors that caused the revolution were poverty, unemployment, corruption as well as the suffocating Mubarak dictatorship.

Neither the SCAF nor the Muslim Brotherhood were able to address these problems and therefore the masses, through direct action, have been trying to address the problems themselves. Over the course of 2012 there were more than 3400 strikes in Egypt, of which 2400 took place after Morsi’s election as president. This is compared to approximately 1200 the year before - which was a historical record in itself.

The question remains though. How can we address the question of bread?

Comrade Naguib has the following explanation:

“The problem for the Brotherhood and for the liberals is that they cannot even start taking limited steps to ease the impact of the crisis on ordinary people without breaking the deal with the army and big business. That populist road is closed because the world has changed. [When the global economy was growing] during the 1950s and 1960s there were opportunities for reformist and populist policies which don't exist today. Without genuine progressive taxation, they can't spend money on hospitals, schools, housing or create new jobs. They are even refusing to renationalise the corrupt monopolies which were directly connected to Mubarak.

People keep asking,"Where are we going to get the money from?" There is no shortage of money in Egypt: we have a thousand families of billionaires. There is no way to win even a degree of social justice without making these people pay.”(Egypt: the Muslim brotherhood under pressure)

So, what we understand is that the liberals and the Brotherhood cannot “ease the impact of the crisis” because they have a deal with the army and big business, which they are not willing to break. The populist road is closed because there is a world crisis (We do not really know what the comrade means, but we assume in the context that he means the path where the wealth of the rich is untouched is not possible. Although we must add that this has never been the case, not even in the 50s and 60s). And so the only way forward to be able to “spend money on hospitals, schools, housing” and the creation “of new jobs” is progressive taxation - that is, Tax the Rich! This is a slogan that the sister organisation of the RS in Britain - the SWP - is also very fond of. Oh, and we shouldn’t forget, that we should also allow the re-nationalisation of the few Mubarak companies that the Egyptian courts have re-nationalised, but that the Brotherhood has opposed.

Before we pass our judgement over these demands, let us look at the real situation in the economy, which is the single most pressing issue in Egypt today.

According to the Financial Times, GDP growth in 2012 was 1.9 per cent whereas in the few years immediately preceding the uprising, it ranged between 4 to 7 per cent. The countries foreign exchange reserves are at a 15-year low and there is even the possibility of a complete collapse of the economy in the near future.

According to the planning ministry, the budget deficit for 2012 is likely to reach 10 per cent of GDP by the end of the financial year in June. Some private banks even estimate the real figure to be around 12-13 percent.

In the final half of 2012 alone $5 billion in foreign investments had left the country during the second half of 2012. Tourism in 2012 brought in $10bn, an improvement over the previous year, but still below 2010 when revenue was $12.5bn. Industry has also been hit. In the Investment Zone of Port Said, where 35.000 workers are employed, around 4000 workers were fired last year as around 10 percent of factories had to close down.

What does this mean for the masses? The latest official figures show that unemployment had risen to 13 per cent in the last quarter of 2012. In comparison, unemployment on the eve of the 2011 revolt, which toppled Hosni Mubarak as president, was 8.9 per cent. According to government figures, among people under 30, which is 74 per cent of the population, the IMF puts joblessness at 25 percent.

As is the tradition in Egypt these figures are misrepresentative of the real situation - which is, to be sure, much worse - but the tendency that they reveal is very real. Since the beginning of the revolution there has been a steep and constant rise in unemployment.

As we can see, the economic outlook is not looking bright. Now to solve this problem, our comrade proposes that we tax the rich - we assume this means the capitalists. To see the effect of this measure we really only have to travel a few thousand kilometres north to France. Here, the recently elected president Francois Hollande came to power on a similar programme that our comrades are proposing: tax the rich, expand spending on public services and stimulate the economy - that is “create new jobs”.

But the immediate effect of Hollande trying to introduce these measures was the flight of several prominent capitalists into economic safe-havens where their savings and pocket money would be safe. In the end the result was a deepening of French state debt and the necessary introduction of a massive package of spending cuts.

The problem in  the way our comrade poses the question is as if the question of policies is only a question of will. The Muslim Brotherhood, he implies, performs neoliberal policies because it chooses to do so. If it did not want to do so, and if it would merely break its deal with the army and big business, it could tax the rich and build a welfare state as well as create jobs.

To start with, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders are capitalists themselves. Therefore, they are in politics to defend the interests of that section of the ruling class they represent (a section that under Mubarak did not have direct access to political power). To think that the MB leaders can act in any other way is extremely naïve. All of their demagogy, and that is all it is, pure demagogy, is aimed at winning support from the poor sections of society with the intention of getting electoral support so that they can carry out policies that benefit their class. They are in an alliance with the Army and big business because that is also part of their class. They are not interested in “alleviating the impact of the crisis on ordinary people”, even if that were possible.

But the problem is that capitalism as a whole and as a global system is in a crisis. This crisis, in essence, is a crisis of overproduction which in the last analysis is caused by the inability of the workers to buy back the full product of their labour. In today’s world economy this is reflected in massive overcapacity in production. In the Chinese car industry, for instance, by the end of 2011 there was 6.000.000 units of overcapacity. That is twice the number of cars sold in Germany in 2012. In general the whole of Chinese industry, according to the IMF is only working at 60 percent of potential capacity.

In Europe the situation is not much better. According to the Financial Times, capacity utilisation at European car plants is running at an average of 66 per cent, with excess capacity totalling 10m units – the same as 26 car plants

The same tendency can be seen in all industries. And this is why the bourgeoisie in general is not investing in new production and are therefore not creating new jobs.

Marx explained this process in the Communist Manifesto:

“Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.”

The question of bourgeois politics is in fact not a choice, but an imperative under capitalism. Of course the more crisis ridden society is, the less space is there for manoeuvring. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Liberals first of all carry out bourgeois policies, because they are themselves bourgeois or they are the direct representatives of parts of the bourgeoisie. But secondly, and most importantly at this stage, because there is no other way out for them. In order to keep Egyptian capitalism afloat, what should they do if not attack living standards? The Turkish “utopia” that they have talked about is not possible in Egypt today where there is a massive crisis. In fact, even in Turkey the crisis has gradually sifted through and is now pushing the government to make cuts in welfare.

It is correct that the impulse to the crisis in Egypt came through the political instability of the past few years, but it is also true that it would have come sooner or later. Egypt, just as all other countries, is dominated by the world market and cannot place itself outside this system.

To raise taxes in Egypt would not have any effect on this, but to place Egyptian capitalism in an even weaker position would cause a bigger flight of capital and investments. Setting in motion public works would not solve the problem either since the money from these works must come from state coffers which are again going to get the money from either the workers or the capitalists, which again brings us back to square one.

Why would Egyptian capitalists invest in the car industry for instance, if there is 35-40 percent over capacity on the world market as there is? On top of that, sales in the internal market have dropped 29 percent since 2010.

So what would make Egyptian car manufacturers invest more? Let us say for instance that car sales were to go up, due to a programme of expanding public transportation. This would firstly have to ‘fill’ the overcapacity that already exists and secondly the auto sector would again be hit by the increased taxes which the government would have to introduce in order to finance its spending. This would be either A, more taxation of the workers, resulting in lower car sales or B, taxation of the capitalists which would mean a lower profit and lower incentive for investment in general and hence resulting in higher unemployment and thus again lower demand.

Expropriate the Bourgeoisie

The problem is that the bourgeoisie could not find a quick way out of the present crisis even if its existence depended on it. Look at the world today - the crisis is resulting in mass revolutionary movements all over the world and the bourgeoisie can only sit back and watch as it happens.

The main problem with Capitalism is that it is an anarchic system that cannot be controlled by anyone. Despite the fact that there is at the disposal of humanity immense productive capacity, along with an army of unemployed - many of them highly skilled - who are ready to work and a wealth of technological resources to alleviate all the major problems of society, the majority of all humanity live in barbaric or semi barbaric conditions while productive capacity is wasted in a thousand and one way.

The comrade himself, almost in passing though, proposes the nationalisation of parts of the economy. We think this is a very good proposal. But this cannot solve the problem alone either, because it would immediately result in a vast flight of capital that would leave the economy paralyzed. In order to solve the problem of the economy, the wealth of the rulers, that is the capitalists, must be expropriated and put under the democratic control of the working class. In a country like Egypt this would mean the nationalisation of the all the banks and insurance companies, all major industries and the media.

Through the establishment of a planned economy a massive plan of industrialisation could be set in motion using the idle resources of the millions of Egyptian unemployed. The profits that now disappear into the pockets of big business could be used to reinvest in healthcare, education and to radically raise living standards. All other measures, besides expropriating the bourgeoisie, would leave their system intact and would mean that society would still develop in accordance to the laws of that system.

Linking the Struggles

The whole question of democracy is intimately bound up to this question of the economy. Comrade Naguib, in his article, portrays the democratic revolution and the social(ist?) revolution as two separate events. But what is democracy for a worker? It is exactly the right to demand a higher living standard. A demand that, as we have seen, cannot be met under the present system and that therefore ultimately demands from the working class that it moves beyond the framework of the current system.

But it is equally important to understand that the dictatorships that have ruled in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world have not been arbitrarily set up. They are exactly an expression of the inability of the system to offer tolerable living standards and the resulting necessity to keep the masses subjugated by sheer force.

Let us look at the present situation in Egypt. In the context of the world crisis of capitalism, with unemployment and poverty on the rise and with the confidence from the initial revolutionary victory, the workers are on the move to secure better conditions, wages, etc. There have never been as many strikes as now. But the capitalists, trying to protect their profits and their place in competition with other capitalists, are hit by this. If they could, they would grant a few concessions in order to try to buy social peace, but due to the crisis, they are not able to do that.

Thus, sooner or later, they will want to use their state to ensure a calm business environment and to beat the workers back into accepting their forever falling living standards. But the more the state intervenes to stabilise the economy, the more it will radicalise society and prepare for its own revolutionary overthrow, which then again forces it to step up repression.

Today, the Egyptian bourgeoisie is severely weakened by the crisis. One of them, Alaa Arafa, who is a top garment exporter, complained to the Financial Times “What we are finding is that clients are wary about coming here. If they still are prepared to take the risk of delays in delivery because of labour or port strikes, they demand a benefit in the shape of a financial reward.” He told the paper that that business is about 20 per cent less than it was before the revolution.

It would be wrong to think that there are not many people like Mr Arafa, all of whom are putting pressure on the government. They are demanding that it acts and clamps down on strikes and protests in order to guarantee a “stable business environment”.

So here we see again that the clamping down and the attempted move towards a dictatorship is not rooted in the choices that the Brotherhood make, but more than anything else upon the narrow framework that the system that they defend leaves for them to manoeuvre in. Obviously we are not claiming that there will be a strong dictatorship right now. At this moment the masses are too strong and the bourgeoisie too weak. But that is the reason why any bourgeois government would gravitate in that direction. Thus the fight for democracy and democratic demands is completely linked to the struggle for socialism.

We, as Marxists and revolutionaries, must first of all tell the truth. We cannot sow illusions in the capitalist system and nourish the utopian idea that full blown democracy can be maintained today without breaking with the system. It is our duty as Marxists and revolutionaries to boldly explain to the workers and youth who want democracy, that the only way to achieve real democracy is by taking power themselves.

How do we approach the workers and youth?

It is important to adopt a clear socialist and revolutionary programme and have clear ideas, but how do we present this programme and the ideas? For the workers who have not read the Communist Manifesto or ever even heard of Karl Marx to be approached by us with an isolated slogan of ‘Socialist Revolution’ can be very alienating. At the same time we cannot hide the fact that the system needs to be changed.

Unfortunately, reading the main resolutions and articles of the RS, one does not find a solution to this problem. It seems that we have to make quite an effort to find any mention of a need to break with the capitalist system at all. And when it is mentioned at all it requires a very abstract and detached character.

In the resolution made on 26th of January called “The year the masks fell: Egyptians against the alliance of the Brotherhood, military and capital“ (Arabic) the comrades raise the following slogans:

“Therefore we call on the revolutionary youth in the Front to fight for the cleansing of its ranks. Participate with us and all the revolutionaries in building a genuine revolutionary front which can achieve the aims of the revolution of bread, freedom, social justice and human dignity. Join the work in the factories, the streets, the neighbourhoods and the independent unions to prioritise the social interests of the millions of poor and low-income manual and office workers, peasants, and all those who work for a wage. They overthrew Mubarak and will topple any regime which stands in their way.

Glory to the martyrs and the injured!

All power and wealth to the people!”

So the demands raised on this very important day of action where the masses in Port Said, Ismailia and Mahalla were on the streets were merely: Cleanse the National Salvation Front [from the felool], Build a revolutionary front [whatever that means], Work in the factories, the streets, the neighbourhoods and the independent unions to prioritise the social interests of the toiling masses, All power and wealth to the people.

Of course we are sympathetic to the aims of the comrades, but the correct message is not getting across here. Except for the correct demand of cleansing of the NSF, there is not a single concrete demand amongst those raised above on a day where hundreds of thousands are on the streets in the major industrial areas of the country. Instead of calling for a general strike against the measures of the Brotherhood, the comrades are calling for people “to work” to “prioritise the interests” of the workers and poor(??!). And in the end they call for “all power and wealth to the people” - a statement that does not mean anything although the idea behind it seems correct.

The most important thing when developing a slogan, from a Marxist perspective, is to raise class consciousness and through the experience of the masses to bring them closer to the programme of the party. This is done by taking the starting point in the concrete struggles and connecting these to the question of socialist revolution.

In The Transitional Programme, Trotsky explained:

“...It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demands and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.

“Classical Social Democracy, functioning in an epoch of progressive capitalism, divided its program into two parts independent of each other: the minimum program which limited itself to reforms within the framework of bourgeois society, and the maximum program which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite future. Between the minimum and the maximum program no bridge existed. And indeed Social Democracy has no need of such a bridge, since the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying. The Comintern has set out to follow the path of Social Democracy in an epoch of decaying capitalism: when, in general, there can be no discussion of systematic social reforms and the raising of the masses’ living standards; when every serious demand of the proletariat and even every serious demand of the petty bourgeoisie inevitably reaches beyond the limits of capitalist property relations and of the bourgeois state.”

The Bolsheviks followed this method in 1917 when they took power. Step by step through each and every struggle of the workers the Bolsheviks participated, generalising the struggles and connecting their demands with the question of power.

Land, Bread and Peace, is a well known slogan, but it was at all times placed next to that of All Power to the Soviets. That is, the Bolsheviks patiently explained to the workers and youth that they supported their main democratic demands but that these could only be achieved if the workers took power themselves.

The same is our task today in Egypt. The main problems of the revolution is Bread and Freedom, ie. democracy and higher living standards. These are both reformist demands in the sense that they are both in theory possible under a capitalist system. But what we must explain at every junction of the revolution is that they cannot be achieved without the workers taking power themselves.

If strike movement develops, we must at a certain point put forward the demand for the nationalisation under workers control of the factory.

When the reformists defend the re-nationalisations of the old state companies, we defend them and call for the complete renationalisation of all privatised sectors under workers control as a first step towards the full expropriation of the bourgeoisie

If the democratic rights that that the revolution has won are in danger, we must explain how only a complete break with capitalism can guarantee a free and democratic society.

If the movement is under attack from thugs, we must put forward the demand for the movement to form defence committees as a first step towards the formation of a people's militia.

In every struggle we must take as our basis the real and concrete situation on the ground and link it with the question of power and the question of property. If we patiently explain these ideas in a friendly manner, the workers and youth, under the hammer blows of great events, will come to the same conclusions as us and will join our banner in the struggle against the bourgeoisie.

But if we are too abstract or too timid, we will not gain the ears of those who are fighting in the streets. They are looking for radical ideas, but only radical ideas that fit with the real world that they live in and not an imaginary utopia.

For a Revolutionary Organization

We hope that the above discussion will serve to clarify some of the main issues regarding the Egyptian revolution and the tasks of revolutionary socialists.

But, as Trotsky once said, ideas without organisation are like a knife without a blade. We are not Marxists because the ideas of Marxism are interesting, but because they are the only ideas that can explain capitalist society and show a way out of its impasse. These ideas are absolutely necessary in order to lead the Egyptian revolution to victory.

We believe that the Revolutionary Socialists contain some of the most talented and dedicated revolutionary youth in Egypt, but we also believe that due to the mistakes of the leadership, the organisation has been sidelined within the revolution and is facing the possibility of disappearing into complete oblivion.

It is necessary to have an honest discussion on the balance sheet of the revolution and the positions that has been taken. And it is necessary to immediately correct the mistakes that have been made.

In this context a campaign must be waged for the education of the activists in the classics of Marxism in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Only on a correct ideological platform can a real revolutionary party be built.

It is necessary to do this through regular weekly meetings in cells that embrace all members. As far as we are informed today there are only sporadic meetings for rank-and-file members while all decisions and main discussions are taken at higher levels.

We have also been informed that the committees that exist are split up in workers and student wings. Of course, many times it is most practical to have workers cells at factories or student cells in universities. But this must not be to the extent that we are basically talking about two separate organisations. And in any case the youth that are won at universities must be turned towards the factories and working class neighbourhoods.

All of these issues are connected and in the end paint a picture of why the organisation is headed in the direction it is. It does of course not help that the organisation, as far as we are aware, never had a proper congress or a representative body to discuss the balance sheet and the way forward.

This is an absolutely unacceptable situation. Two years after the fall of Mubarak, there is no excuse for not having a democratic congress. The present leadership has never been held responsible for and has thus never had to properly defend the decisions that it has made. This very critical, especially when they have had such grave implications on the state of the organisation and its standing in the revolutionary camp.

A congress should be called immediately to discuss the pressing issues that many members are correctly worried about.

Only one Way

It is clear that the situation has changed in Egypt. Especially after the brutal attacks of the past few months the mood has completely changed. A serious attitude is developing amongst the activists of the revolution towards matters of theory that seemed irrelevant before.

But the heavy blows that the revolution has received have been a wake-up call. A revolution is no joke, and the price for mistakes is paid for with blood. But we do not have the luxury to spend time moaning and crying. We must channel our anger into studying our experiences and those of the past - so as not to make the same mistakes again.

If we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to make them again. That would make the mistakes unforgivable. But if we do learn from them, we can turn those temporary setbacks into a prelude for a great offensive. That is the best way to honour the lives of those who have fallen.

Today the masses of Egypt are learning with lightning speed about the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, the nature of Capitalism and the nature of bourgeois democracy.  The youth especially are searching for ideas that can give a deeper understanding of the situation.

The situation is tailor made for the ideas of Marxism. If we study these ideas and on this basis correct the mistakes that have been made, the ground is fertile for us to reach the ears of first the best elements of the workers and youth and from there arm the broader revolutionary masses with our ideas.

What is demanded from us is not demanded by any individual but by history itself. It is that we work correctly to bring about the birth of a new world to replace the rotten system of capitalism which is clogging up every pore of human society.