💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-egypt-today-tomorrow-the-world.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:29:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Egypt Today, Tomorrow the World
Author: CrimethInc.
Date: February 2, 2011
Language: en
Topics: Egypt, 2011, Arab Spring, Read All About It
Source: Retrieved on 9th November 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2011/02/02/egypt-today-tomorrow-the-world

CrimethInc.

Egypt Today, Tomorrow the World

North Africa is in revolt. As usual, the most striking thing is how

familiar everything is: the young man with the prestigious degree

working at a coffee shop, the unemployment and bitterness, the protests

set off by police brutality—for police are to the unemployed what bosses

are to workers. These details cue us in that what is happening in Egypt

is not part of another world, but very much part of our own. There are

no exotic overseas revolutions in the 21^(st) century. Make no

mistake—though these events dwarf the riots in Greece and the student

movement in England, they spring from the same source.

To keep up with events, we urge you to read our comrades’ dispatches

from Egypt and anti-authoritarian perspectives from the Middle East in

general. But for these uprisings to offer any hope, we have to

understand ourselves as part of them, and think and act accordingly. To

that end, we’ve solicited this analysis from a comrade in North Africa.

The Revolution in Egypt: The End of the New Pharaohs?

What is happening—first in Tunisia and now in Egypt—is the beginning of

the wave of full-scale revolutions that will inevitably follow the

global financial crisis of 2008. Taking place in the wake of the failed

“War on Terror,” these revolutions combine the latent force of massive

numbers of unemployed youth with the dynamism of modern communication

networks. They signal the conclusion of the decade of counter-revolution

that followed September 11, 2001. Although they continue the exploration

of new technologies and decentralized forms of organization initiated by

the anti-globalization movement, the form and scale of these new

revolutions is unprecedented. Largely anonymous groups are using the

ubiquitous World Wide Web to spark leaderless rebellions against the

pharaohs of the global empire of capital.

The self-styled rulers of the world are truly at a loss as to how to

understand the new social and technological forces at play; the aging

dictator Mubarak is a perfect example of this, but he is hardly the only

one of his kind. One can almost smell the fear, not only amongst the

despots of China and Saudi Arabia but also the supposed leaders of

representative democracies. The contortions the US government has been

going through are the most grotesque of all; it isn’t lost on the

Egyptian people that the bullets striking down their comrades came from

the USA. Egypt receives $1.3 billion dollars of military aid from the US

every year. The suppression of “democracy” in the Middle East has been a

deliberate policy of the US government: they know popular sentiment

would never support their agenda as the military enforcement of global

capitalism.

The best efforts of Mubarak’s dying regime to put its fingers in the

ears of the world have not silenced the people on the streets of Cairo.

Even blocking cell phones and trying to turn off the entire Internet

have proved futile. For generations, Arabs and Africans have been

silenced, represented by various colonial governments and portrayed as

“primitive” and “terrorist” in Europe and the US. Now the people of

Egypt are speaking in thunderous unison for freedom—not for political

Islam, as demagogues from Iran to Israel would have the world believe.

In doing so, they are realizing the ideals to which the US government

pays only hypocritical lip service.

Today, the common condition from Egypt to Tunisia is approaching

universal unemployment—especially among the younger generations, which

comprise the vast majority of population. This is increasingly the case

in the United States and Europe as well. Unemployment is no accident,

but the inevitable result of the last thirty years of capitalism.

Capitalism reached its internal limits at the end of the 1970s; now the

factories of every industry produce ever more commodities, while

increasing automation renders workers less and less necessary. The only

way to make profits off these commodities is to eliminate workers or pay

them next to nothing. To discipline the skyrocketing unemployed

population and prevent revolt, the police wage a never-ending war on the

population. We live in a world overflowing with cheap shit, in which

human life is the cheapest of all.

In these conditions, people have nothing to left to lose. Nothing, that

is, but their dignity—and it turns out they will not surrender that. It

was precisely this innermost core of dignity that led Mohammed Bouazizi

to light himself on fire rather than face humiliation at the hands of

the police, who in seizing his fruit-selling cart took away the only way

he could feed his family. The blaze lit by Mohammed Bouazizi has spread,

carried by other unemployed people who thereby transform themselves from

abject beggars into world-historical heroes. The people of Egypt are not

only burning police cars, they are organizing popular committees to

clean the police and other trash off the street, and the streets of

Cairo have never felt safer.

It is not surprising that a wave of revolutions should begin now. Not

since the days of pharaohs and monarchs has the world been controlled by

as senseless a force as the global financial market. As capitalists

became less and less able to produce profit from industrial production

over the past decades, they had to invent means of profiting based on

expected future returns. But in a world of increasingly cheap

commodities and poor consumers, how could capitalists keep people buying

stuff and still make a profit? They had to invent a way for consumers to

continue buying even when they weren’t paid living wages: thus the

invention of mass debt. When the sale of real goods can no longer

produce profit, profits must be made on increasingly fantastic expected

future returns—in other words, on finance.

Yet like any house of cards, debt cannot be built up forever.

Eventually, someone wants to be paid back—and so the entire house of

cards collapsed under its own weight in 2008. The financial crisis

signals a deeper metaphysical crisis of our present order: capitalism is

unable to provide for the real material needs of the global population.

The high poverty rates in Egypt are not simply the result of

mismanagement by Mubarak, but the inevitable consequence of the

contradictions of our era.

Their eyes hopelessly clouded by their own ideology and lack of vision,

heads of state can only stand dumb and surprised as the crisis goes on

and on. They lamely hope to re-start the financial markets through

“austerity” or “green” capitalism, refusing to consider systemic change

despite the fact that the system cannot even deliver jobs and affordable

commodities to people—much less a good life. Just as it took an era of

revolution to overthrow the divine right of kings, it will take new

revolutions to overthrow the divine right of things: the power of

financial capital and its puppet dictators.

Revolutions are never brought about by technology, but rather by the

collective action of human beings who radically transform their

relationships with each other and the world they share. However, one

cannot deny what an important role the World Wide Web has played in

Egypt and Tunisia. Especially among cybernetically skilled and

predominantly unemployed youth, it enabled people to call for and

participate in mass mobilizations without any need of leaders. The

demonstrations in Egypt on January 25 were called for by a Facebook page

called “We Are All Khaled Said,” named for a victim of police brutality

much like Alexis Grigoropoulos in Greece. The page itself was set up by

the anonymous “El-Shaheed”—that is, “martyr” in Arabic. Meanwhile, youth

throughout the world are mobilizing as Anonymous; in the battle over

Wikileaks and more recently in actions against the Tunisian government,

Anonymous has showed itself to be a potent new international with an

awakening political maturity beyond the message boards of 4chan.

Demonstrators’ ability to communicate with large numbers of people and

react immediately to events via mobile phones, Twitter, and Facebook is

swiftly making previous forms of Leftist and industrial-based political

organization obsolete, along with other hierarchical formations such as

political Islam.

This revolutionary use of social media should come as no surprise. In

the hands of an elite few, expensive communications technology will

naturally be used for self-aggrandizement and consumerism. In the hands

of unemployed youth and other excluded classes, this technology can be

re-purposed to organize revolution. The Internet is the new global

factory floor, and we are seeing its first workers’ councils form—a new

kind of collective intelligence that enables people to organize

themselves directly without representation.

The blank confusion of global capitalists as to who is “really behind”

the mysterious resistance in Egypt and Tunisia is revealing. It’s

obvious how desperately US politicians wish they had anyone, such as

Mohamad ElBaradei, with whom to negotiate. These revolts are anarchist

in form if not content—and even the content is becoming increasingly

radical. The absence of any organized group or leader in the early days

of the protests speaks volumes: increased information technology has not

only destabilized the old Leftist forms of organizing, but also the

justifications for having hierarchical government in the first place.

When people can communicate, they can organize their own lives.

Expanding such horizontal structures to a global scale no longer seems

impossible, even if it is not yet well thought out.

To make things even worse for capitalists and nation-states, the massive

secret apparatus of the state has been revealed in all its incompetence

by sites such as Wikileaks. While Wikileaks had nothing to do with the

Egyptian revolution, the cables describing Ben Ali’s pet tiger being fed

a luxurious diet while Tunisians starved further stoked the flames in

that country. Wikileaks has produced paranoia in the global state

apparatus itself, as the state cannot function without the subjugated

population believing that it is necessary and according it the right to

exercise violent force. Now the empire has no clothes—and its naked

corrupt power is disgusting to behold. There is a growing consensus that

the state apparatus is an archaic holdover no longer worthy of respect.

The Mubarak regime made the classic mistake of conflating technological

structures with the people using them, an error typical of Silicon

Valley and certain theorists as well. In a poorly thought-out move, the

regime shut down all four ISPs in the country, effectively turning off

the Internet. In addition, cell phones have been intermittently blocked

before major demonstrations. If anything this only enraged the Egyptian

people more. It may even have interrupted their spectatorship—it is

easier to watch a demonstration over the Net than to participate—and

driven more and more people into the street.

The lesson here is clear: the supposedly decentralized Internet is quite

centralized, and while it may be useful, it is a mistake to depend on it

as long as it remains in capitalist hands. Yet rulers such as Mubarak

face a no-win situation. If they keep communications technologies up and

running, these will be used to organize against them—but if they take

them down, it will provoke worldwide outrage.

How do you organize without the Net? You might start with existing

social institutions; in Egypt, this meant the mosques. The “Days of

Wrath,” characterized by street-fighting with the police far more

intense than the Greek insurrection of 2008, culminated in the torching

of the headquarters of Mubarak’s party. Afterwards, in a brilliant move,

the protesters called for people to gather after prayer at mosques—where

most Egyptians would be gathered anyway. In this regard, the mosques

served the same purpose that social centers and squats did during the

Greek insurrection, only for a much greater part of the population.

So while communications technology may be advantageous in the early

stages of organizing, a movement must become powerful enough not to need

the Internet once it takes to the streets. In Egypt, the revolt actually

grew in intensity after the Internet was shut off.

If there is one regard in which the Internet is indispensable, it is in

spreading the news of disorder elsewhere. As the Empire’s power has

become increasingly spectacular, it has become more vulnerable to being

damaged on the terrain of the spectacular. Obama’s first response to the

uprising was to call for the “violence” to cease—even though his

government routinely administers violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan

and inflicts it on US citizens through the world’s largest prison

system. He and Mubarak are not against violence, but they appear to be

afraid of images of violence. If these images escape, they undermine the

state’s cover story about maintaining order.

At the same time, the state desperately needs people to distrust and

fear each other. This explains why Mubarak released undercover police in

civilian uniforms to pose as looters in order to justify his crackdown.

When that failed, he turned off the Internet and denied media access in

order to prepare the conditions for the kind of massacre it would take

to restore his control. Yet now it seems doubtful that the army is

willing to carry out such a massacre.

The insurrection that began by burning down police stations then shifted

to massive peaceful demonstrations intended to win over the army.

Pamphlets that have circulated indicate that Egyptian organizers planned

from the beginning to pit the army against the police. Insurrectionists

in Europe and the USA should take note of this clever strategic move.

After the front line of the party of order was effectively defeated, the

Egyptians clearly understood that the only force capable of stopping

them was the army. Instead of attacking it directly, which would surely

have resulted in a massacre, they undertook to win over the hearts and

minds of the soldiers. Thus far they have been successful in this,

demonstrating that they can self-organize and maintain a leaderless yet

disciplined rebellion that makes the streets of Cairo safe and clean for

the first time in years.

This leaves the army without a reason for existence, let alone any

excuse for a massacre. Once an insurrection has reached a certain phase,

as a friend has said, weapons are unnecessary. For a revolution to

succeed in overthrowing the state, the army must refuse to shoot its own

people and instead join them in revolt. In Egypt, the army is at least

paralyzed enough right now not to start shooting; it may yet join the

people, or more likely attempt to broker a transition to representative

democracy.

All this shows that billions of dollars of military equipment can’t stop

a revolution. Once things reach a certain point, military force is no

longer the determinant factor. If the Egyptian people persist in revolt,

the military can hardly bomb its own cities.

Yet even if a military defeat is avoided, the insurrectionary process

begun on the “Days of Wrath” is more likely to be side-tracked into

representative democracy than to end in a genuine communization of

society—that is, in the immediate sharing of all production for the

survival of the people. This is not to be pessimistic—already the

neighborhood assemblies and defense committees resemble nothing more

than the Paris Commune. But Mubarak is a dictator, and the youth of

Egypt have not yet tasted the bitter fruits of representative democracy.

They may have to learn about them the hard way. Even if a representative

democracy is established, it will not be the end of the story—witness

the continuing protests in Tunisia. There would inevitably be another

insurrection sooner or later, although that could take years or decades.

In this context, it is promising that many young Egyptians seem aware

that representative democracy will only limit their movement and

redirect into yet another form of enslavement. This is visible in many

ways—for example, in the message sent to self-appointed leaders like

ElBaradei, “Shall we just call your mobile when we have finished the

revolution for you?” The insurrection has also seen unparalleled action

and power of the Egyptian women, who will not go back to being

subservient under the Muslim Brotherhood after these upheavals.

Yet the popular occupation of Tahir Square cannot last forever; there

must come a moment when food will be produced, train lines reactivated,

and the Internet turned back on. These are the real keys to the success

of the insurrection and to preventing the return to capitalism, even

under the mantle of representative democracy. It seems that the steps in

this direction have not yet begun.

Let’s step back now and ask larger questions. If Egypt is not

fundamentally different from Europe and the US, why haven’t such

insurrections happened there as well? First, let us not be too hasty—the

dominos are already falling, with massive protests in the streets of

Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, and Mauritania. One reason the insurrection has

such popular power in Egypt is that, as many Arabic-speaking countries,

the Egyptian form of life has not yet been fully subsumed into

capitalism. For example, in many cases one only pays as much as “one

feels” one should pay for goods. Haggling is not so much a way to

maximize micro-profits as to ascertain an affordable and ethical price

for an exchange. The commodity exchange itself is often less important

than the social relationships that the commodity symbolizes. The

collective responsibility and power of the family knits people together

over generations, in contrast to the alienated individuals of the United

States and most of Europe. The vibrant and public street life of the

Middle East is a natural fomenting ground for insurrection.

Yet are there not dark forces waiting in the wings? This seems unlikely,

as the protest is clearly focused on “freedom” rather than Islam, with

those wanting to lead religious chants being shouted down on occasion.

This is not to say that Egyptians are not Islamic—indeed they are—yet

there are subtle distinctions. Political Islam is effectively the Tea

Party of Egypt, a hierarchical religious movement mostly of the older

and conservative generation; but Islam exists in other variants, binding

social relationships and promoting a collective ethics. One can even

interpret the giving of alms in Islam as a ritual to avoid excessive

centralization of wealth. “Allah” does not necessarily denote a

commanding deity; the notion may also point to the ineffable, the

invisible excess of life that denies reduction and resists the

catastrophic harnessing of all to the imperatives of profit.

Of course, currents far older than Islam hold sway in Egypt as well.

Unlike many in Europe and America, many Egyptians are profoundly aware

of their history from antiquity onwards, and feel deep shame at their

present state of impoverishment. The dignity and respect they show each

other in the streets in midst of the insurrection attests that this

revolution is not abstract, but rooted in everyday lives; it is the deep

metaphysics of these forms of life that provide the subjective

conditions for transformation.

Communism is older than Marx, just as anarchy is older than Proudhon.

The age of revolutions did not begin with the Paris Commune, nor did it

end with the fall of the Berlin Wall. As capitalism now encircles the

earth, the one thing that could unite the world would be a common

rejection of it and the police that defend it. The communism of Marx was

trapped in the abstract metaphysics of economics and poisoned by a

misunderstanding of the danger posed by the state; this sabotaged the

revolutions of the early 20^(th) century, bringing about the catastrophe

of Soviet-era state capitalism.

But the age of revolutions is not over; on the contrary. In a song of

the Tuareg—“the desert is our mother, and we will not sell her”—we can

glimpse a form of communism far more alien and hostile to capital than

anything imagined by Lenin. Many of the calls for “freedom” in Egypt

have little to do with the freedom to elect a president or choose among

commodities on the market, but resonate with a common desire to live

with their heads high and not cowed to any ruler. For this they are

ready to die, whether by self-immolation or in the streets together.

Yet one can sense a profound need at this time for a common

international revolutionary purpose that resonates outside of the Middle

East, for something truly universal to fill the void left by capitalism.

The nationalist flags of the protesters were tactically effective at

confusing the army, but they also reflect a lack of critique of the

conceptual apparatus of capital and the state. While the conditions are

right for revolution, over the last thirty years revolutionaries have

largely failed to create and spread the organization and analysis

necessary for insurrections to become genuine anti-capitalist

revolutions. What does it take for people to realize that the true

potential of their neighborhood defense committees is not as a means of

temporarily replacing the police, but of prefiguring the abolition of

all police, in every country?

No event occurs in a vacuum; events originate in concrete conditions,

and consequently they tend to come in waves. The events in Egypt show

that the center of revolutionary impetus is no longer “the West”; this

new age of revolution will culminate first in areas where the living

conditions are becoming unbearable and the ways of life are not yet

completely colonized by capital. However, it would be a mistake to see

this as merely the conclusion of an unfinished anti-colonial revolt. It

is something much bigger and deeper. The financial crisis is a sign that

capitalism is on a declining trajectory. The conditions that

precipitated the events in Egypt are rapidly becoming universal across

the globe, spelling another cycle of revolution and possibly war.

Eventually these same forces will hit Saudi Arabia, Europe, China, and

finally even the United States with the strength of a tidal wave.

Make no mistake about it, we are entering an era of revolt. These

revolts will reject and attack capitalism in their concrete practice,

even if the systematic destruction of earlier revolutionary currents has

left a vacuum. Hopefully the participants will realize that freedom is

impossible without the destruction of capitalism and the state, and a

new generation of revolutionary thought will update the concept of

revolution for the dawning era. We are at a point now where it should

become clear to all that we can direct our own lives—that the state is a

historical fossil holding us back. As shown in Egypt, the stranglehold

of the state and capitalism must be broken in the streets; over the

coming decades the results of this ultimate struggle will likely decide

the fate of humanity itself.

All Power to the People!

— A dissident exiled in North Africa with assistance from the

CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective