The Arab Revolution – Manifesto of the IMT. Part One

Cairo, January 31. Photo: Darkroom ProductionsWhat
we see opening up before us is the early stages of the world socialist
revolution. The same general process will unfold, albeit at different
rhythms, around the globe. There will inevitably be ebbs and flows,
defeats as well as victories, disappointments as well as successes. We
must be prepared for this. But the general tendency will be towards a
greater acceleration of the class struggle on a world scale.

The marvellous movement of the masses in Tunisia and Egypt is only
the beginning. Revolutionary developments are on the order of the day
and no country can consider itself immune from the general process. The
revolutions in the Arab world are a manifestation of the crisis of
capitalism on a world scale. The events in Tunisia and Egypt show the
advanced capitalist countries their future as in a mirror.

Tunisia

Tunisia was apparently the most stable Arab country. Its economy was
booming and fat profits were being made by foreign investors. President
Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali ruled with an iron hand. Everything seemed to be
for the best in the best of all capitalist worlds.

The bourgeois commentators look at the surface and do not see the
processes that are taking place in the depths of society. Hence they
were blind to the processes at work in North Africa. They denied any
possibility of a revolution in Tunisia. Now all the bourgeois
strategists, economists, academics and “experts” make a public
exhibition of their perplexity.

The country erupted after the self-immolation of the unemployed youth
Mohamed Bouazizi. Hegel pointed out that necessity expresses itself
through accident. This was not the only case of suicide by a desperate
unemployed youth in Tunisia. But this time it had unexpected effects.
The masses poured onto the streets and started a Revolution.

The first reaction of the regime was to crush the rebellion by force.
When that did not work, they resorted to concessions, which only served
to pour petrol on the flames. Heavy police repression did not stop the
masses. The regime did not use the army because they could not use it.
One bloody clash and it would have broken in pieces.

The Tunisian working class launched a wave of rolling regional
strikes, culminating in a national strike. It was at this point that Ben
Ali had to flee to Saudi Arabia. This was the first victory of the Arab
Revolution. It changed everything.

When Ben Ali fled, there was a vacuum of power which had to be filled
by revolutionary committees. They took power at local and in some
places at regional level. In Redeyef, in the Gafsa phosphate mining
basin, there is no authority other than that of the trade unions. The
police station was burnt down, the judge fled, and the town hall was
taken over by the local union which has its headquarters there. Mass
meetings are held in the main square and addressed by the trade union
leaders on a regular basis. They have set up committees to deal with
transport, public order, local services etc.

The masses were not satisfied or pacified by their initial victory.
They have been out in large numbers on the streets against any attempt
to recreate the old order under another name. All the old parties have
been completely discredited. When Gannouchi tried to install new
governors in the regions, the people rejected them. Hundreds of
thousands protested and they had to be removed.

In Tunisia the lava of revolution has not yet cooled. The workers are
demanding the confiscation of the wealth of the Ben Ali family. Since
they controlled vast sections of the economy, this is a direct challenge
to the rule of the capitalist class in Tunisia. The confiscation of the
property of the Ben Ali clique is a socialist demand.

The Tunisian workers have kicked out unpopular bosses. The left-wing
January 14th movement have called for the convening of a national
assembly of revolutionary committees. This is a correct demand but so
far no concrete steps have been taken to implement it. Despite the lack
of leadership the Revolution continues to advance with giant strides,
toppling Gannouchi and raising the movement to new heights. Our slogan
must be: thawra hatta’l nasr! – Revolution until victory!

The Egyptian Revolution

Tunisia opened up the Arab revolution, but it is a small country on
the margins of the Maghreb. Egypt, on the other hand, is a huge country
of 82 million, and it stands at the heart of the Arab world. Its
numerous and militant proletariat has shown its revolutionary spirit
many times. The Egyptian Revolution undoubtedly reflected Tunisia’s
influence but was also based on other factors: high unemployment,
falling living standards and hatred towards a corrupt and repressive
government.

Tunisia acted as a catalyst. But a catalyst can only work when all
the necessary conditions are present. The Tunisian Revolution showed
what was possible. But it would be entirely false to assume that this
was the only, or even the main, cause. The conditions for a
revolutionary explosion had already matured in all these countries. All
that was required was a single spark to ignite the powder keg. Tunisia
provided it.

The movement in Egypt showed the amazing heroism of the masses. The
security forces could not use bullets against the main demonstrations in
Tahrir square for fear that a Tunisian scenario could develop. The
regime imagined that it would be enough, as in the past, to crack a few
heads. But it was not enough. The mood had changed. Quantity changed
into quality. The old fear was gone. This time it was not the people but
the police who had to flee.

This led directly to the occupation of Tahrir Square. The regime sent
in the army, but the soldiers fraternized with the masses. The Egyptian
army is made up of conscripts. The upper ranks of the army, the
generals are corrupt. They are part of regime, but the rank and file are
drawn from among the workers and poor peasants. And the lower and
middle ranks of the officer corps are drawn from the middle class and
open to the pressure of the masses.

Opposition parties demanded reforms, including the dissolution of the
parliament installed in December after fraudulent elections, the
holding of new elections, and a declaration from Mubarak that neither he
nor his son would run for president in the elections scheduled for
September. But in reality the leadership was lagging far behind the
masses. The movement went far beyond these demands. The revolutionary
people would accept nothing less than the immediate removal of Mubarak
and the complete dissolution of his regime.

Beginning with such elementary demands as an end to the emergency
laws, the firing of his interior minister, and a higher minimum wage,
the demonstrators, emboldened by numbers, raised their slogans to a
higher, more revolutionary, level: “Down with Mubarak!” “The people
demand the fall of the regime!” or simply: “Go!” In this way, the
revolutionary consciousness of the masses was raised by leaps and
bounds.

The state and revolution

It is futile to attempt to explain the events in Egypt and Tunisia
without the central role of the masses, which was the motor force of
events from start to finish. Bourgeois and petty bourgeois “experts” now
try to play down the importance of the action of the masses. They see
only what is happening at the tops. For them it is only a question of a
“coup”, of “the army passing power to itself.” The same bourgeois
historians assure us that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was “only a
coup”. They are not capable of looking history in the face, but instead
are fascinated by its hindquarters.

Their “profound” analysis is superficial in the most literal sense of
the word. For the bourgeois philosophers in general everything only
exists in its outward manifestations. It is like trying to understand
the movement of the waves without bothering to study the submarine ocean
currents. Even after the masses had taken to the streets of Cairo,
Hilary Clinton insisted that Egypt was stable. She based her conclusion
on the fact that the state and its repressive apparatus remained intact.
But in just two weeks it was in ruins.

The existence of a powerful apparatus of state repression is no
guarantee against revolution, and may be just the opposite. In a
bourgeois democracy the ruling class has certain safety valves that can
warn it when the situation is getting out of control. But in a
dictatorial or totalitarian regime there is no opportunity for people to
voice their feelings within the political system. Therefore upheavals
can happen suddenly, with no warning, and immediately take an extreme
form.

The armed forces constituted the main basis of the old regime. But
like any other army it reflected society and came under the influence of
the masses. On paper it was a formidable force. But armies are composed
of human beings, and are subject to the same pressures as any other
social stratum or institution. In the moment of truth, neither Mubarak
nor Ben Ali could use the army against the people.

The armies of many Arab countries are not the same as the armies of
the developed capitalist world. They are, in the last analysis, also
capitalist armies, armed bodies of men in defence of private property,
but at the same time they are also the products of the colonial
revolution. Of course the generals are corrupt and reactionary. But the
rank and file conscripts are drawn from the workers and peasants. The
lower and middle ranks of the officer caste reflect the pressure of the
masses, as was shown with Nasser’s coup in 1952.

The revolution provoked a crisis in the state. Tensions were growing
between the army and the police and between the police and the
protesters. This is why the army council in the end decided to ditch
Mubarak. The army was clearly shaken by the events and showed signs of
cracking under the pressure of the masses. There were cases of officers
dropping their weapons and joining the demonstrators in Tahrir Square.
Under these circumstances there can be no question of using the army
against the revolutionary people.

Role of the proletariat

During the first two weeks power was in the streets. But having won
power in the streets, the leaders of the movement did not know what to
do with it. The idea that all that was necessary is to gather a large
number of people in Tahrir Square was fatally flawed. Firstly, it left
the question of state power out of account. But this is the central
question that decides all other questions. Secondly, it was a passive
strategy, whereas what was required was an active and offensive
strategy.

In Tunisia, mass demonstrations forced Ben Ali into exile and
overthrew the ruling party. That convinced many Egyptians that their
regime might prove equally fragile. The problem was that Mubarak refused
to go. Despite all the superhuman efforts and courage of the protesters
the demonstrations failed to overthrow Mubarak. Mass demonstrations are
important because they are a way of bringing the formerly inert masses
to their feet, giving them a sense of their own power. But the movement
could not have succeeded unless it was taken to a new and higher level.
This could only be done by the working class.

This reawakening of the proletariat was expressed in a wave of
strikes and protests in recent years. This was one of the main factors
that prepared the Revolution. It is also the key to its future success.
The dramatic entry of the Egyptian proletariat on the stage of history
marked a turning point in the destinies of the Revolution. That is what
saved the Revolution and led to the overthrow of Mubarak. In one city
after another the workers of Egypt organized strikes and factory
occupations. They drove out the hated managers and corrupt trade union
leaders.

The revolution moved onto a higher level. It turned from a
demonstration into a national insurrection. What conclusion must be
drawn from this? Only this: that the struggle for democracy can be
victorious only to the degree that it is led by the proletariat: the
millions of workers who produce the wealth of society, and without whose
permission not a light bulb shines, not a telephone rings and not a
wheel turns.

Reawakening of the Egyptian nation

Marxism has nothing in common with economic determinism. Mass
unemployment and poverty are an explosive issue. But there was something
else present in the revolutionary equation: something more elusive,
which cannot be quantified but it is a no less potent cause of
discontent than material deprivation. It is the burning feeling of
humiliation in the hearts and minds of an ancient and noble people
dominated by imperialism for generations.

There is the same general feeling of humiliation in all the Arab
peoples, enslaved and oppressed by imperialism for over 100 years,
subordinate to the dictates, first of the European powers, then of the
transatlantic giant. This feeling can find a distorted expression in the
guise of Islamic fundamentalism that rejects everything western as
evil. But the rise of Islamism in recent years was only the expression
of the failure of the Left to offer a genuine socialist alternative to
the pressing problems of the Arab masses.

In the 1950s and 60s, Gamal Abdel Nasser’s dream of Arab socialism
and Pan-Arabism aroused the hopes of the Arab masses everywhere. Egypt
became a beacon of hope to the oppressed and downtrodden Arab masses.
But Nasser did not carry the programe to its logical conclusion and
under Anwar Sadat it was thrown into reverse. Egypt became a pawn in the
great power politics of the USA. In the three decades of Mubarak’s rule
these tendencies were multiplied a thousand fold. Mubarak was a stooge
of the USA and Israel who shamelessly betrayed the Palestinian cause.

In the last three or four decades the Arab psyche was coloured by
disappointment, defeats and humiliation. But now the wheel of history
has turned 180 degrees and everything is changing. The idea of
revolution has a very concrete meaning in the Arab world today. It is
capturing the minds of millions and is becoming a material force. Ideas
which connected with only a few are now convincing and mobilizing
millions.

Revolutions are great clarifiers. They test all tendencies. Overnight
the ideas of individual terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism have been
swept aside by the revolutionary torrent. The Revolution has reawakened
half-forgotten ideas. It promises a return to the old traditions of
socialism and pan-Arab nationalism, which have never completely
disappeared from the popular consciousness. It is no accident that songs
of resistance from the past are being revived. Images of Nasser have
appeared on demonstrations.

We are witnessing a new Arab renaissance. A new consciousness is
being forged in the heat of struggle. Democratic demands are fundamental
for the people under such circumstances. People who have been enslaved
for a long time finally cast aside the old passive and fatalistic
mentality and raise themselves up to their full stature.

One can see the same process in every strike, for a strike resembles a
revolution in miniature and a Revolution resembles a strike of the
whole of society against its oppressors. Once they get active, men and
women rediscover their human dignity. They begin to take their destiny
into their own hands and demand their rights: we demand to be treated
with respect. That is the essence of every genuine Revolution.

The Revolution is raising consciousness to a higher level. It is
cutting the ground from under the feet of the reactionaries who have
confused the masses and befuddled their senses with the poisonous fumes
of religious fundamentalism. Despite the lying propaganda of the
imperialists, the Islamists played little or no role in the Revolution
in Tunisia and Egypt. The Revolution despises sectarianism. It cuts
across all divisions and unites men and women, young and old, Muslim and
Christian.

The revolutionary movement cuts across religion. It cuts across
gender. It brings the Arab women onto the streets to fight alongside
their men. It cuts across all national, ethnic and linguistic divisions.
It defends oppressed minorities. It gathers together all the living
forces of the Arab nation and unites them in common struggle. It enables
the revolutionary people to rise to its full height, to recover its
dignity and to rejoice in its freedom. Men and women can raise their
heads and say with pride: “We will no longer be slaves”.

The limits of spontaneity

The Revolution in Tunisia and Egypt came from below. It was not
organized by any of the existing political parties or leaders. All of
them were left far behind by a movement they had not foreseen and for
which they were completely unprepared. If there is one lesson to be
drawn from the experience of the Egyptian Revolution, it is this: the
revolutionary people can trust nobody but themselves – trust in your own strength, your own solidarity, your own courage, your own organization.

When we look at Egypt the historical comparison that immediately
comes to mind is Barcelona in 1936. With no party, no leadership, no
programme, no plan the workers marched on the barracks with
extraordinary courage and smashed the fascists. They saved the situation
and could have taken power. But the question is precisely: why did they
not take power? The answer is the lack of leadership. More accurately,
they were let down by the anarchist leaders of the CNT in whom they
placed their trust. Whoever has illusions in anarchism had better study
the history of the Spanish Revolution!

At first sight the movements in Tunisia and Egypt appear to be a
spontaneous revolution with no organization or leadership. But this
definition is not really exact. The movement was only partly
spontaneous. It was called into being by certain groups and individuals.
It has leaders who take initiatives, put forward slogans, call
demonstrations and strikes.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on the role of social networks as
Facebook and Twitter in Tunisia, Egypt (and earlier in Iran). There is
no doubt that the new technology has played a role and is extremely
useful to revolutionaries and made it impossible for states such as
Egypt to retain the information monopoly they once enjoyed. But those
who exaggerate the purely technological side of things are distorting
the real essence of the Revolution, that is, the role of the masses and
the working class in particular. That is because they wish to portray
the Revolution as a mainly middle class affair, led exclusively by
intellectuals and Internet enthusiasts. This is entirely false.

In the first place, only a small proportion of the population have
access to Internet. Secondly, the regime practically disconnected the
Internet and disrupted mobile telephone services. This did not stop the
movement for a single minute. Without Internet and mobile phones the
people organized demonstrations using a very old technology, which is
known as human speech. The same technology was used to bring about the
French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, which sadly had no access
to Facebook or Twitter but did a tolerably good job anyway. An even
bigger role than Facebook, however, was played by Al Jazeera. Millions
of people could watch the events as they unfolded, day by day, hour by
hour.

As we have seen, it is not true to say that the Egyptian Revolution
had no leaders. There was a kind of leadership right from the beginning.
It consisted of a loose coalition of more than a dozen small parties
and activist groups. It was they who issued a Facebook call for a “day
of rage” to coincide with Police Day on January 25th. Some 80,000
Egyptian web-surfers signed up, pledging to march on the streets to
voice demands for reform.

Both in Tunisia and Egypt initially the demonstrations were convened
by groups of mainly young people who provided the leadership that the
“official” opposition parties failed to provide. The Economist refers to
“the emergence of loosely related groups pressing for reform, run via
the internet by youths of generally secular outlook but no particular
ideology. Some coalesced around labour rights. Some promoted human
rights or academic freedom.”

These actions, then, were carried out by a decisive minority and
therefore they were not purely spontaneous. But this was just the tip of
a very large iceberg. Public sympathy was on the side of the
protesters. The nationwide protest turned into a general uprising
against the Mubarak regime, with simultaneous mass protests all over
Egypt. So in fact, there was a kind of leadership, although not with
very clear ideas. However, in both Tunisia and Egypt the response from
the masses took the organizers by surprise who did not dream of the
extent of this support they would get. None of the organizers
anticipated the huge numbers that answered the call, and fewer still
expected the riot police to let them get very far.

It is true that the “spontaneous” character of the Revolution
provided a certain protection against the state, and in that sense it
was positive. But the lack of an adequate leadership is also a serious
weakness that has very negative effects later on.

The fact that in both cases the masses succeeded in overthrowing Ben
Ali and Mubarak without the aid of a conscious leadership bears eloquent
witness to the colossal revolutionary potential of the working class in
all countries. But this statement does not exhaust the question under
consideration by any means. The weakness of a purely spontaneous
movement was seen in Iran, where despite the tremendous heroism of the
masses, the Revolution ended in defeat – at least for the time being.

The argument that “we do not need leaders” does not bear the
slightest scrutiny. Even in a strike of half an hour in a factory there
is always leadership. The workers will elect people from their number to
represent them and to organize the strike. Those who are elected are
not arbitrary or accidental elements, but generally the most courageous,
experienced and intelligent workers. They are selected on that basis.

Leadership is important, and the party is important. A child of six
could understand this proposition, which is the ABC of Marxism. But
after ABC there are other letters in the alphabet. There are some who
call themselves Marxists who imagine that unless and until a Marxist
party stands at the head of the proletariat, there can be no question of
a revolution. Such ridiculous pedantry has nothing in common with
Marxism. The revolution will not unfold in an orderly manner, with the
revolutionary party conducting the masses with a baton.

In 1917 Lenin said that the working class is always far more
revolutionary than even the most revolutionary party. The experience of
the Russian Revolution proved that he was correct. Let us remind
ourselves that in April 1917 Lenin had to appeal to the workers over the
heads of the Bolshevik Central Committee, which adopted a conservative
attitude to the question of proletarian revolution in Russia.

The same conservative mentality, the same aristocratic distrust of
the masses, can be seen in many of those who regard themselves as the
“vanguard” of the class, but who, in practice, act as a break on the
movement in a decisive situation. It is sufficient to refer to the sorry
role of the old so-called “vanguard” in Iran, who had survived from the
1979 revolution, but who stood aloof from the revolutionary masses who
came onto the streets in their millions to challenge the regime in 2009.

Do Marxists say that unless and until the revolutionary party is
built and stands at the head of the working class, revolution is
impossible? No, we have never said such a thing. The revolution proceeds
according to its own laws, which develop independently of the will of
revolutionaries. A revolution will occur when all the objective
conditions are present. The masses cannot wait until the revolutionary
party has been built. However, once all the objective conditions are
present, the factor of leadership is indeed decisive. Very often it
means the difference between victory and defeat.

Revolution is a struggle of living forces. Victory is not
predetermined. In fact, at one point, the Egyptian Revolution came very
close to defeat. Tactically speaking, staying in Tahrir Square was not
the best option. This showed the limited outlook of the organizers.
Mubarak almost outmanoeuvred the movement, buying off some layers, and
mobilizing the lumpenproletarian thugs for vicious attacks. It could
have succeeded. Only the decisive intervention of the masses, and
particularly the intervention of the working class, prevented defeat.

The problem of leadership

The masses never have a finished plan at the beginning of a
revolution. They learn through struggle. They may not know exactly what
they want, but they know very well what they do not want. And that is
sufficient to propel the movement forward.

Leadership is a very important element in war. This is not to say
that it is the only element. Even the most brilliant leaders cannot
guarantee success if the objective conditions are unfavourable. And
sometimes it is possible to win a battle with bad generals. In a
Revolution, which is the highest expression of the war between the
classes, the working class has the advantage of numbers and its control
of key parts of the productive apparatus of society. But the ruling
class possesses many other advantages.

The state is an apparatus for maintaining the dictatorship of a
minority of exploiters over the exploited minority. The ruling class
holds many other powerful levers in its hands: the press, radio and
television, the schools and universities, the state bureaucracy and also
the spiritual bureaucrats and thought police in the mosques and
churches. In addition it possesses an army of professional advisers,
politicians, economists and other specialists in the arts of
manipulation and deception.

In order to fight against this apparatus of repression, which has
been built up and perfected over many decades, the working class must
develop its own organizations, led by an experienced and determined
leadership that has absorbed the lessons of history and is prepared for
all eventualities. To argue that it is possible to defeat the ruling
class and its state without organization and leadership is like inviting
an army to go into battle untrained and unprepared to face a
professional force led by experienced officers.

In most cases, such a conflict will end in defeat. But even if the
Revolution succeeds in overwhelming the enemy in the first charge, it
will not be enough to guarantee ultimate victory. The enemy will
regroup, reorganize, modify its tactics, and prepare for a
counteroffensive, which will be all the more dangerous because the
masses will have been lulled into believing that the war has already
been won. What at first appeared to be a moment of triumph and joy turns
out to be the moment of extreme danger for the fate of the Revolution,
and the lack of an adequate leadership in such cases will prove to be
its Achilles’ heel, a fatal weakness.

The leadership of the protest movement contained diverse elements and
different ideological tendencies. In the last analysis, this reflects
different class interests. In the beginning this fact is disguised by
the general appeal to “unity”. But the development of the Revolution
will inevitably give rise to a process of internal differentiation. The
bourgeois elements and the middle class “democrats” will accept the
crumbs offered by the regime. They will compromise and enter into deals
behind the backs of the masses. At a certain stage they will desert the
Revolution and pass over to the camp of reaction. This is already
happening.

In the end it is the most determined revolutionary elements that can
guarantee the final victory of the Revolution: those who are not
prepared to compromise and are willing to go to the end. New explosions
are implicit in the situation. In the end one side or the other must
triumph. The objective situation is ripe for the assumption of power by
the working class. Only the lack of the subjective factor – the
revolutionary party and leadership – has prevented this from taking
place so far. The overcoming of the problem of leadership is therefore
the central problem of the Revolution.

Intrigues at the top

It was the national insurrection that persuaded the generals that
only Mubarak’s departure could calm Egypt’s streets and restore “order”.
This was, and remains, their overriding obsession. All talk of
democracy is merely a fig-leaf to disguise this fact. The generals were
part of the old regime and participated in all the dirty work of
corruption and repression. They fear the Revolution like the plague and
want only a return to “normality” – that is, a return to the old regime
under a different name.

The ruling class has many strategies for defeating a Revolution. If
it cannot do so by force, it will resort to cunning. When the ruling
class faces the prospect of losing everything they will always offer
concessions. The overthrows of Ben Ali and Mubarak were a great victory,
but they were only the first act of the revolutionary drama.

The representatives of the old regime remain in positions of power;
the old state apparatus, the army, police and bureaucracy, is still in
place. The imperialists are intriguing with the tops of the army and the
old leaders to cheat the masses out of everything they have won. They
offer a compromise, but it is a compromise that would maintain their
power and privileges.

Defeated on the streets, the old regime is striving to strike a
bargain, that is, try to fool the leaders of the opposition, so that
they in turn could fool the masses. The idea was that once the
initiative was in the hands of the “negotiators”, the masses would
become mere passive onlookers. The real decisions would be made
elsewhere, behind locked doors, behind the backs of the people.

The men of the old regime are slowly beginning to recover their
nerve. They have begun to feel more confident and redouble their
manoeuvres and intrigues, basing themselves on the more moderate
sections of the opposition. The masses feel uneasy. They do not want the
movement to be hijacked by professional politicians and careerists who
are bargaining with the generals like merchants haggling in a bazaar.
But the question remains: how to carry the Revolution forward? What
needs to be done?

As the movement becomes more radicalized, some of the elements who
played a leading role in the early stages will fall behind. Some will
abandon it; others will go over to the enemy. This corresponds to
different class interests. The poor people, the unemployed, the workers,
the “men of no property” have no interest in maintaining the old order.
They want to sweep away not only Mubarak but the entire regime of
oppression, exploitation and inequality. But the bourgeois Liberals see
the struggle for democracy as the path to a comfortable career in
parliament. They have no interest in carrying through the Revolution to
the end or of disturbing existing property relations.

For the bourgeois Liberals the mass movement is only a convenient
bargaining chip, something with which they can threaten the government
to give them a few more crumbs. They will always betray the Revolution.
No trust whatever can be placed in these people. El Baradei now says
that he opposes the constitutional amendments, but instead of demanding
an immediate constituent assembly, he says that elections should be
postponed, that the conditions are not present, that the time is not
right, and so on and so forth. For these gentlemen the time for
democracy is never right. For the masses who have shed their blood for the Revolution, the time for democracy is now!

The IMT says:

No trust in the generals!
No trust for self-appointed ‘leaders’ who call for restoring “normality”!
Keep the mass movement in being!
Organize and strengthen the revolutionary committees!
For a clean out of all the supporters of the old regime!
No deals with the old regime!
The
current "interim regime" has no legitimacy and should be removed
immediately. Demand the convening of a Constituent Assembly now!

The Muslim Brotherhood

Some, including Khamenei in Iran, say that the revolutionary movement
we are witnessing is about religion, that it is “an Islamic
reawakening”. But this is clearly not the case. Even the main clerics in
Egypt admit it. They fear being swept aside if they try to portray the
Revolution as a religious movement. It is a movement of all religions,
and therefore of no religion. There was no animosity against Christians
on the demonstrations. There was not even a hint of anti-Semitism.

Religious sectarianism is a weapon used by reactionaries to confuse
the people. The December attacks on the Coptic Christians were clearly
engineered by the secret police in order to create a sectarian divide
and divert attention from the real problems of the masses. They are
resorting to the same dirty tactic now in order to divide the masses on
sectarian lines, fomenting conflict between Muslims and Copts in an
attempt to split and disorient the people and undermine the Revolution.

The revolts in Tunisia and Egypt are largely secularist and
democratic, and often deliberately excluding the Islamists. The notion
that the Muslim Brotherhood was the “only real opposition” was false to
the core. The basic demands of the Egyptian demonstrators are for jobs,
food and democratic rights. This is nothing to do with the Islamists and
is a bridge to socialism, which has deep roots in the traditions of
Egypt and other Arab countries.

Some misguided people on the left have described the movements in
Tunisia and Egypt as "middle class" revolutions. These same so-called
left-wingers have been flirting with reactionary groups like Hezbollah,
Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood for a long time. They try to justify
this betrayal of Marxism on the grounds of the so-called
anti-imperialist stance of the leaders. This is false from start to
finish. The so-called Islamlists are anti-imperialists in words only,
but in practice represent a reactionary trend. They are, in fact, the
fifth wheel of the cart of the old regime.

The imperialists have tried to use the Islamists as a bogeyman to
confuse the masses and conceal the real nature of the Arab Revolution.
They say: “Look! If Mubarak goes, al-Qaeda will take his place.” Mubarak
himself told the Egyptian people that if he went it would be “like
Iraq”. These were all lies. The role of the fundamentalists and
organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood has been grotesquely
exaggerated. Such organizations do not represent a force for progress.
They pose as anti-imperialists but they stand for the interests of the
landlords and capitalists. In the last analysis they will always betray
the cause of the workers and peasants.

It is frankly a scandal that certain European left groups, and even
some who call themselves Marxists, have supported the Islamists. This is
nothing less than a betrayal of the proletarian revolution. It is true
that the Muslim Brotherhood is divided along class lines. The leadership
is in the hands of conservative elements, capitalists and wealthy
businessmen, while its rank and file members include more militant
sections of the youth and those who come from poorer and working class
backgrounds. However, the way to win the latter over to the side of the
revolution is not by making alliances with their capitalist leaders, but
rather to subject them to implacable criticism, in order to expose
their hollow claims at being anti-imperialist and pro-poor.

This is precisely the opposite of what these groups did when they
made an alliance with the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in
organising the Cairo anti-war conference. In effect, these left
organisations were providing the Muslim Brotherhood leaders with a left
cover, approving their false anti-imperialist credentials and thus
strengthening their grip on their own membership.

In the past the Muslim Brotherhood were backed by the CIA to
undermine the leftward moving nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Islamic
fundamentalism was a creation of John Foster Dulles and the US State
Department, to cut across the left after the 1956 Suez War. But when
Sadat and Mubarak became American stooges their services were no longer
required. Hilary Clinton and others have said that the Muslim
Brotherhood are not a threat, that they are people who can be worked
with. This is a clear indication that the imperialists will once again
try to use the Islamists to head off the Revolution.

Similarly, Hamas and Hezbollah were originally set up to cut across
the PFLP and other left tendencies in Palestine. Later, the CIA created
Osama bin Laden as a counterweight to the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
And now they are again intriguing with the leaders of the Muslim
Brotherhood to head off the Revolution in Egypt and deceive the people.
But the Muslim Brotherhood is not a homogeneous movement and is now
splitting into different factions along class lines.

The poor people who support the Brotherhood are one thing. The
leaders are another thing altogether. In the 1980s leaders of the
Brotherhood were key beneficiaries of economic liberalization – the
programme of infitah or “opening” – under which Sadat and then
Mubarak dismantled the state sector, favouring private capital. One
study of Brotherhood businessmen suggests that at this point they
controlled 40 percent of all private economic ventures. They are part of
the capitalist system and have every interest in defending it. Their
conduct is not determined by the Holy Qur’an but by class interest.

The “hard line” Islamists are as frightened of the revolutionary
masses as the regime itself. The Muslim Brotherhood declared that it
would not negotiate with the government until Mubarak stepped down. But
the moment the regime beckoned with its little finger, they changed
their minds. One of their leaders went onto Tahrir Square, where the
protestors were standing firm and preventing the tanks from occupying
the Square with their bodies, appealing to them not to clash with the
army.

Our attitude to such people was worked out long ago by Lenin who warned at the Second Congress of the Communist International:

“11) With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which
feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it
is particularly important to bear in mind:

first, that all Communist parties must assist the
bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that
the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with
the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or
financially dependent on;

second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which
strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American
imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans,
landowners, mullahs, etc.” (Lenin, Draft theses on the national and colonial questions, 5 June, 1920, our emphasis)

That is the real position of Marxism towards reactionary religious trends. It is the position that the IMT firmly defends.

The IMT says:

• Defend the unity of the revolutionary people!
• Down with the pogrom-mongers and hate-merchants!
• Oppose all discrimination based on religion!
• No compromise with reactionary and obscurantist trends!
• Every man and woman must have the right to hold any religious belief or none!
• For the complete separation of religion from the state!