A very interesting article, which can be related to what might be going on in Egypt and Syria, and hopefully Libya as well [Note Ghaddafi's worry about 'Bolshevism' in Tunisia: so much for his 'leftist' leanings].

It may be that one tragedy of Arab/'Middle Eastern' countries is, as the author notes, '[t]he bourgeoisie in late developing capitalist countries is incapable of undertaking the bourgeois revolution.' The other tragedy is that the working class is usually far too weak and fragmented to do the job either.

So political activity degenerates into support for rival Bonapartisms, one patron, or strong-man, over others, and nationalist movements turn towards fascism. In turn, their brutal rule provokes tiny but incredibly brave progressive movements, and more would-be-Bonapartes, as well as Islamist movements which try to seize the moral ground, the price of which is the further erosion of human rights and obfuscation of any class movements.

So, before they can even begin the bourgeois revolution, for formal equality and freedoms of speech and assembly, progressive movements seem to have to sacrifice themselves [cf. Iraq, Iran] to the tasks of overthrowing their dictators, after which, while the progressive movements lays exhausted, a new Bonaparte (or Islamist movement: see Iran, Lebanon) seizes power and sets about exterminating them.

It must be a short life, to be a progressive Middle Easterner, and there must have been some incredibly courageous people in those Sisyphean struggles.

Joe

Hi Joe :) this is a most interersting turn of events,as is your take on it. I find it interesting because another world leader of yesteryear made very similar observations...

//the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every social demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to make an effort towards improving labour conditions, (led to more people embracing the Marxist Social Democrats)//

So it seems...the Ben Ali regime has acted?

But we also should never forget another of his observations:

1/ I had learned to distinguish between the Trades Union as a means of defending the social rights of the employees and fighting for better living conditions for them and, on the other hand, the Trades Union as a political instrument used by the Party in the class struggle.

2/ The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extermination.

So.. these observations appear to be true of Tunisia but it looks like the 2 groups who are involved against the elite bourgeoise are the Communists(Trade Unions) and the Muslim brotherhood.

These groups had their analoguous forms of the Marxist Social Democratic party and National Socialists of pre war Germany.

We also know from history, that these two groups are only using each other until one can kill the other. (Germany and Iranian revolution)

In both cases the Marxists lost.

Here is Robert Fisk's take on the situation: "The brutal reality about Tunisia"
http://muslimvillage.com/2011/01/23/the-brutal-reality-about-tunisia/

<<Islamist movements which try to seize the moral ground, the price of which is the further erosion of human rights and obfuscation of any class movements.>>

A return to Arab socialism? I think the MENA countries have had their fill of socialist policies..just look at the pathetic state of their economies as well as their human rights record (Baath Party, Nasserites, etc).

The claim that there would be a "further erosion of human rights" is the same pretext used by the West to actually undermine democratic change in Algeria and Palestine (read Fisk's article) and excuse used to support these dictators.

salaams

Thank you, Grateful, that Fisk article is brilliant, as one would expect from him.

AGiR, yes, as you write,

"it looks like the 2 groups who are involved against the elite bourgeoise are the Communists (Trade Unions) and the Muslim brotherhood."

Yes, there are usually three or more major players, or groupings of players, in such disputes: those who claim to represent the haves, those who claim to represent the have-nots, and the Islamist vultures waiting to feed on the carcases. I wouldn't give so much prominence to 'your' Communists - in MENA countries, actual real-life Communists are far too few, so let's reconfigure your definition of three or more parties:

* the customary elites, patrons, compradors, conservatives, reactionaries, whatever you want to call them;

* the progressives, unionists, human rights activists, supporters of women's and ethnic groups' rights, and the usual assortment of leftists, including Communists;

* the moderate Islamists, the conventional Islamists and the hard-line Islamists.

As Fisk suggests, the most likely outcome of this complex and depressing picture is more of the same, a rotation between dictatorship, overthrow and new dictatorship, with the Islamists ready to step in when the secular enemies exhaust each other.

Joe

Well said Joe....

But in all of that.. the ONE bit which should concern all those who claim that 'moderate' Islam is the mainstream ... is this:

PART A
//Yes, Tunisian youths have used the internet to rally each other – in Algeria, too – and the demographic explosion of youth (born in the Eighties and Nineties with no jobs to go to after university) is on the streets.//

Firstly... no one in Government seems to have suggested to the 'breeding like rabbits' populace that any more than 3 children max is ultimately dangerous for the exact reasons in Part A above.. LOTs of people NO jobs.

PART B
//But the “unity” government is to be formed by Mohamed Ghannouchi, a satrap of Mr Ben Ali’s for almost 20 years, a safe pair of hands who will have our interests – rather than his people’s interests – at heart.//

Secondly... exactly as the Bourgeousi were criticized on my previous post's quote, the Tunisian Gov't are the same it appears, and for the same reasons "Parliamentary advantage and interests"...i.e..'their' interests and those of their Western sponsors.

PART C
//Then when it looked like the Islamists might win the second round of voting, we supported its military-backed government in suspending elections and crushing the Islamists and initiating a civil war in which 150,000 died.//

QUESTION .... speaking specifically of "Islamists" ie.. radical.. fundamental.. wahabi/Muslim brotherhood types... if they could WIN... then it is suggestive of a rather LARGE portion of the population..is it not ?

So.. Western definitions of "Mainstream" Islamic societies are in fact based on our deliberate supression of 'true' Islam for the sake of our own economic interests.

This of course has bearing on our own Muslim population...does it not?

(Specially when you know how to decode Gratefuls apologetics)

Hi again Al,

Yeah, it's been an absolute tragedy in Algeria ever since, and perhaps even before, Ben Bella was jailed abd a succession of big-men ran the place, Boumedienne, Benjedid, Bouteflika, etc., coopting and destroying the 'progressives' and the unions, to the point where - as I tried feebly to describe above - the secular political forces were played out, exhausted, bankrupt, leaving the field to the Islamists.

It seems as if, in Arab politics (please excuse any over-statements which follow) no force is powerful enough to gain power for long, the old-establishment, the unions and progressives, the army, the bureaucracy, and even the Islamists on their own.

So this ultimately arid see-sawing of power between groups, until the Islamists take power and exterminate the rest, the unbelievers.

Including the half-witted Left which helped to bring them to power. 'Including' ? Christ, they are the first to go; look at Iran. Yes, look at Iran, you idiot 'Left', and weep.

Joe