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

Yes AIR,some of the Islamists are no better than Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld and all the other facists that seek to enslave us,but we cannot label all Muslims or all Christians as being facist.

I think you are all being unfair towards John Passant.While I don't agree with the socialist philosophy,he is genuine in his passion for a better world.So open you minds and look for better solutions for a world on the brink of self destruction.Corporatism and greed has been a monumental failure.

Hi Arjay,

The word is 'fascist'. And of course, not all Muslims are fascist, far from it. However, as with fundamentalists in other religions, including christianity at various times over the last thousand years when it was at its most reactionary and fascist, if you like, some Muslim believers have been persuaded that the entire world should be Islamic, in accordance with the Book, and some factions of those believers do seem to believe that any means are okay to achieve this end. Any means. And that life on earth, especially for unbelievers, is ultimately immaterial, the sooner it's over the better.

So yes, some Islamists are no better than the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world. Some may be even worse.

I don't understand what you mean about being unfair to Mr Passant - for one, I don't have any major quarrel with his views, and I'm surethat he would agree that the tasks ahead of progressive forces in Tunisia and Algeria and other MENA countries are formidable.

Jo

Yes people! religion is the answer:)

OH dear:)

BLUE

Ummm - where did you get this from, Boaz?

>>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.<<

Tunisia's TFR is 2.1 - down, incidentally, from 7.2 in 1962.

Compared with Australia, it looks like this:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:TUN&dl=en&hl=en&q=tunisia+total+fertility+rate#met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:TUN:AUS

So this is "breeding like rabbits" in your terminology? That's a bit harsh.

True to form, you never check your facts.

Just a word on the use of the term "Islamist". According to the web (and this is Western term) it refers anyone "supporting or advocating Islamic fundamentalism".

It is not a fair description of the bulk of the Muslim population. Keep in mind that most people deliberately targeted by these fundamentalists have been Muslims.

Yes, exactly, Grapefruit, not all Muslims are fundamentalists, any more than adherents to any other religion or similar backward body of thought.

However, once we differentiate Islamists from 'normal' Muslims - and then differentiate those Islamists who preach exclusion and superiority from those who preach violence and extermination, and put those calls into practice - we have to admit that many Islamists around the world do seem to resort to pretty brutal tactics to get their point across: blowing up market-places, schools, bus-queues is a bit more extremist than counter-arguments to letters to papers, or cartoons, or anti-Islamic speeches.

The right to free speech extends to Islamists, they can express their repugnant opinions, but only up to the point where they hint at violence against non-believers: that's the limit. Offensive speech is a necessary part of free speech, certainly, as any OLO contributor knows, but not speech which incites to violence or contempt. Democracy may trump backward philosophies such as religions, but it does not have to tolerate calls for its own suspension or overthrow.

Joe Lane

Joe Lane,
How can you imagine yourself to be progressive when you need to resort to such insults? Very childish.

"Grapefruit" ? :) I must say.. that was creative. But Grateful.. I don't find it an insult... I see it like "Jonesy" for Jones..get over yourself please.

Pericles.. good lad.. I'll take that one on the left cheek and offer you the right.. in this case, I confess..I didn't check the fertility rate.

But your: "True to form, you never check your facts." is in fact flaming.. I generally do check my facts.. given the number of posts I've done.. the number of times you've demonstrated a weakness there is pretty small.

But now.....like my hero the Count of Monte Christo.. It's my turn to swing this around on you..and deal you a loving 'slap' of a factual nature.

1/ The Age of the 'troubled youth' on Tunisia's streets ? 18-30 I'd guess.

2/ What was the fertility rate 20 years ago when they were BORN ?

1988 Fertility=4 for the 20 yr olds
1978 Fertility=6 for the 30 yr olds

The fertility rate NOW is 2.1 that only effects the future generation not the present.

So...on reflection..I withdraw my offer of 'the other cheek' and in turn give you a stern 'Woe to you oh Pharisee' type rebuke :)

Not at all.

>>But your: "True to form, you never check your facts." is in fact flaming<<

It is an observation that I can justify many times over. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to pull you up over some ridiculous and outlandish claims on topics you know nothing about.

I'm still waiting to hear about your Scottish ancestry and those family tombs, by the way.

>>I think I'll send you to Inverness for some re-education. It will begin with a trip to my forebears tomb "Fortrose Cathedral" where you can ponder why it lies in ruins<<

Or was that also just more of your usual bluster.

Incidentally the excuse for your 'breeding like rabbits' jibe is thin, to the point of complete transparency.

>>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.<<

Given you are now trying to defend that position by quoting historical birth rates,

>>The fertility rate NOW is 2.1 that only effects the future generation not the present<<

...it makes a nonsense of your claim that "no one in Government seems to have suggested..."

Clearly, they have.

Typical, though, that you felt the need to try to find some retrospective loophole.

Flaming? I don't think so. Merely trying to keep you a little bit honest.

Just a little bit.

The follow is part of an article written by Yvonne Ridley
Wednesday, 29 November 2006

QUOTE
...Well it is high time Ben Ali and his revolting crew of craven ministers and hyprocrites are exposed and so I hope this column is copied and published elsewhere.

It is important that Westerners learn about the cruelty and brutality of this leader. Perhaps they will think twice about heading out to the North African country to holiday now that they know not far from the postcard images there is real misery and torture.

The Holy Quran has been banned and desecrated in the cages and dungeons where prisoners of conscience are beaten if they dare to pray outside of allotted times.

...........
Like every dictator, his time will come and the sooner the better.

If he seriously wants the support of his people, their respect and a long term future as leader then he has to seriously change his style of government.

The first thing he can do is empty the prisons of political prisoners which accounts for around 30,000 of the 10 million population and start working alongside his political opponents, instead of trying to silence them.

As a priority I would also call on him to apologise to all of my Tunisian sisters and return their veils so they can wear them once again without fear in schools, universities, offices and factories.

I find it difficult to believe this man could hate the hijab so much that he even ripped it off the heads of pregnant women. I was astounded to learn that no one wearing a hijab is allowed into a maternity ward or hospital.

His deliberate plotting against Islam will come back to haunt him either through revolution on the streets of Tunisia or in the Hereafter. Personally speaking, I prefer revolution - bring it on!

http://yvonneridley.org/yvonne-ridley/articles/torture-tyrants-and-tunisia-4.html
ENDQUOTE

..and so it came to pass! :-)

Yeah, sorry Grateful, that was pretty childish :( No offense intended. Back to topic ....

Yes, you're right: even during this past week in Iraq, 150 ordinary people who happen to be Muslim have been the targets of bombings, mostly Shi'ite Muslims probably killed by Sunni groups, probably including supporters of fundamentalist groups such as al Qa'ida.

I'm sure that, like most Christians, most Muslims wear their faith fairly lightly, amongst other identities, while a minority takes it all much more literally, as do many Christian fundamentalists. And some of those take it a few steps further, by a process of crazy logic: that, if the Book is perfectly correct and the word of god, etc., then nothing should exist that conflicts with it, nobody should be outside its scope or its rules. So whoever persists in staying outside of its scope is not worthy of living and 'therefore' it is the duty of true believers to extirpate them from the face of god's earth. I guess that's you and me, Grateful :)

Yes, free speech would include the right of such people to talk about, promote and advocate strict observance of religious rules, but I don't think that it extends further, to exhortations to punish or exterminate non-believers.

Joe

On the subject of the three-way struggle between conservatives (bourgeoisie, landowners, patronage networks, mafias), progressives (unions, women's groups, students' groups, genuine-left-wing, social-democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists), and reactionaries (Islamists, pseudo-left), this article in today's Australian is highly relevant:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/tunisian-women-fear-islamist-return/story-e6frg6so-1225993882511

In the real dirty world of power, choices have to be made: should the progressives side with ANYBODY to overthrow conservative and/or corrupt governments like ben Ali's, or Boutelfika's, or Mubarak's, or Berisha's, etc.?

Does one ultimately side with snakes (conservatives) or with vultures (Islamists) ?

Do progressive forces need to side with any other anti-government forces, including Islamist reactionaries ? The tragedy of Mediterranean politics seems to be that the progressive forces are never strong enough to carry out changes on their own.

But let's hope that this time, it's a different ball-game :)

Joe

Joe,
Your apology is as appreciated as it was unexpected, so I should also apologise for forming too harsh an opinion of you. I believe the person who finds relief in being sincere and honest with themselves is a person whom Allah has blessed with His guidance. And although you might not call yourself a believer...don’t believe it :-) Insha'Allah, we’ll meet soon!

salaams

Thank you, Grateful - but I hope that 'Yvonne Ridley' is not a pseudonym for a spokesperson for Islamist groups who are skilful enough politically to try to insert themselves into the changes in Tunisia as the 'revolutionary' alternative.

Ultimately, the struggle in countries like Tunisia will still be between the secular progressive forces, including moderate Moslems for whom their Islam is one thing but their rights as day-to-day citizens are another - and the Islamist forces, aided by their dumb-@rse 'leftist' allies.

The Islamists - as in Iran, and as with al Qa'ida - are not a progressive alternative, but a force which will drag countries and people back into pre-capitalist, pre-bourgeois, semi-feudal societies. It's amazing that anybody should have to actually spell that out.

Joe

Joe,
What do you make of Turkey?

@ Joe

Talk turkey with care.

Grateful qari ride Trojan

steeds, snort houris dreams.