The split at Tahrir Square

Reads: 63  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Booksie Classic
The demands of “secular” opposition are limited to partial reforms within the framework of the old bourgeois system.
The demand of Shariah and Islamic state means in fact the demand of radical breaking of the that system

Submitted: August 19, 2011

A A A | A A A

Submitted: August 19, 2011




The split at Tahrir Square

I already wrote in the article “Revolution in the Middle East” (February 2011) that events of February 2011 in Tunisia and Egypt (i.e. overthrow of dictators Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak) are in fact only the beginning of revolution, there was only changing of signboards as yet (like February 1917 in Russia), because pro-imperialist dictatorship of the military remain unharmed. In the same article I wrote that that revolution will go further, and in the ranks of opposition naturally the split into “Bolshevik” and “Menshevik” wings will occur, and that radical Islamists are “Bolshevik” wing in that revolution, while “secular” opposition, liberals and “socialists” are “Menshevik” wing in that revolution, compromisers (the fact which our “Marxists” which stew in the juice of middle class and think within the framework of the past can’t understand and don’t want to understand).

And that split is occurred. Let’s consider the article “Political groups denounce violation of unity agreement in Egypt”, July 29, 2011 ( The author of the article which sympathize with “secular” wing of revolution condemns Islamists for the fact that they, as he assert, violated “unity agreement” which was signed by political groups, and, thereby, slogans demanding implementation of Shariah and turning Egypt into an Islamic state, which were “peripheral to the revolution” dominated at Tahrir Square at Friday, July 29, 2011.

What was “unity agreement”? What demands did that “united front” have? What parties and movements were represented in that front?

According to the article, its demands were recompensing the martyrs’ families, setting a minimum and maximum wage, replacing the Attorney General, setting a timeline for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to hand over power to a civil body and putting an end to the military trials of civilians.

As we see, the demands are limited to partial reforms within the framework of the old bourgeois system and not provide for revolutionary demolition of that system.

The “unity agreement” was signed by 33 organizations, majority of them are “socialists”, “democrats” and “social-democrats” of all kinds (in above-mentioned article I already wrote that such “opposition”, which is far from the masses of people in the Middle East, which is close to neocolonial elites, which is penetrated with eurocentrist prejudices, was constantly up to the neck in compromises with military-police regimes, considering “The dictatorship of the military is better than Islamists”).

From the article of that author it is not quite clear whether Islamists signed that “unity agreement” or not (there are no Islamists in the list of this agreement’s signers, as I see).

The author cites the representatives of various political groups. From these citations it follows that Muslim Brotherhood (in Egypt it is rather moderate organization) don’t violate this agreement, this agreement was violated by radical Islamists – Salafis (similar to radical Islamists of North Caucasus which are incorrectly called “Wahhabis” by Russian mass media).

It is strange: how the demands of a “particular sect in society” were able to “dominated Tahrir Square” and “hushed all others” (the author describes this event exactly with such words)? Perhaps, it was so, because these demands were supported by masses?

Really, why it happened that slogans which was “peripheral” at Tahrir Square in February, became dominating today?

Let’s try to clear up.

Russian left newspaper “Bulletin Internationalist”, the organ of “Marxists-Leninists” (opportunists in fact), the majority of articles in which are the translations from Italian “Lotta communista”, which usually gives little attention on the “3rd world”, in this spring because of events in the Middle East in two numbers in a row gave close attention on that region and the “3rd world” in general (evidently, in order that nobody can accuse that newspaper of saying only about imperialist nations). In following numbers it was silence again, there was nothing about “3rd world” again, everything was in old fashion. But here we take interest in another matter. In one of the articles which concerned Egypt, “Bulletin Internationalist” noticed correctly that the percentage of people masses, of Egyptian proletariat who was involved in February events in Egypt was insignificant, and the involvement of the body of masses is yet to come. Of course, “Bulletin Internationalist” consider industrial workers, not the poor of the large cities, as proletariat; nevertheless, above-mentioned thought is correct. In February of this year the masses in Egypt were weakly involved in the struggle and followed petty-bourgeois leaders. But today the split in movement begin to show; the masses get out from petty-bourgeois influence.  

As I remember, in February (or in March) of this year at internet server “Rambler” there was an article of one perfunctory liberal scribbler, where he praised Middle East “revolutionaries”, contrasting them with Islamic “terrorists”: he alleged that the former have reached more by “revolution” than the latter have reached by “terror”. Author didn’t distinguish between currents within Islamic “terrorism” absolutely - all Islamic “terrorists” for him were associated with Al-Qaida (although, for example, such Islamic “terrorists” as talibs condemns Al-Qaida for individual terror and even intended in 2001 before September 11 to try Ben Laden through Shariah court). I.e. in fact the author praised the change of the sign-board, which gave nothing in itself, while covering really revolutionary movements in mud. And just such really revolutionary movements emerged in forefront of Middle East revolution today.

The demands of “secular” opposition (which are in fact bourgeois intellectuals, who inclined to collaborate with imperialists through the whole circumstances of their existence, their education etc.) are limited to partial reforms within the framework of the old bourgeois system  as we said above. But what means in fact the demand of Shariah and Islamic state? Is it means the demand of theocratic state, monarchy, the return to dark Middle Ages, as bourgeois mass media and their yes-men within the ranks of “Marxists” frighten philistines (“If they are Marxists, then I’m not Marxist”, as Marx said about such ones)?

No. The demand of Shariah and Islamic state means in fact the demand of radical breaking of the old bourgeois system, the demand of liberation the “3rd world” (which is mainly Muslim) from the clutches of neocolonial slavery which is actually the old colonial oppression under the mask of “independence”.

Incidentally, in the article which we discuss there is a quotation of Jamaa Islamiya’s representative: “There had been an agreement, but the agreement was a trap made for the Islamists to lure them away from their original demands. The seculars were manipulating the Military Council to uphold their demands”. 

The statement that “secular” opposition is the puppets of military-police dictatorship (like “socialists” from Provisional Government in Russia at 1917 were the puppets of landlords and capitalists) seems very credible.


Let’s say few words about Libya and Syria. We see the division of these countries between western (USA, Europe) and eastern (Russia, China) imperialist blocs. No wonder that politicians and mass media focus the attention on Libya, more than on Egypt, although the population of Egypt roughly tenfold bigger than that of Libya: of course, it is related with the fact that Libya is very rich in oil.

In that quarrel Russia poses as “peacemaker”, opposing western invasion. But actually, while the West tries to take away these spheres of influence from Russia and China under the pretext of “the defense of democracy”, Russia tries to hold them under the pretext of “the defense of legitimacy and stability”.

Putin, who indignant over western “crusade”, alleges hypocritically, that despotism of Middle East regimes, particularly that of Muammar Qaddafi, is rooted in the “mentality” of Libyan people (although Libyan people have rebelled against this despotism). This scoundrel passes over silence that Russia has armed Qaddafi and other Middle East dictators to the teeth last decades (for example, about Saddam Husain BBC asserted that Russia armed him on credit, didn’t relying on its repayment) – here is the root of that despotism, not “mentality”.

Syria is the similar case. It was the sphere of Soviet influence, and today it is the sphere of Russian and Chinese influence. At early 1980’s Syrian regime have suppressed Islamist insurrection by the force of Russian armament.

Russian capitalists have divided into two camps on the matter of Libya. One part of them (who are more clever) understand that Qaddafi’s regime disgraced itself utterly in opinion of Libyans, and it is necessary to seek contacts with the moderate wing of opposition (Russia’s representatives already met with Libyan oppositionists). Other part (who are more die-hard), advocates Qaddafi: for example, the former Russian ambassador in Libya, who blabs out in his indignation that Russia invested in Libya tens billions (!) dollars, and now it risks losing everything there.

This contradictoriness in the position of Kremlin is ridiculous when in TV news Syrians which are killed by Asad’s regime are called sometimes “victims”, sometimes “terrorists”.

About two weeks ago internet server “Rambler” reported that Syrian rebels have burnt up Russian flag because Russia supports Asad’s regime (though in covert manner). We, conscious Russian proletarians are glad to see that peoples of the world begin to understand that Russian imperialism is the same predator as western ones.


August 5, 2011

A. G.































© Copyright 2018 Gachikus. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

More Non-Fiction Articles