RSS Feed
Sep
6
0

What is to be done: The Website as an Organizer #RevSoc

 

The Revolutionary Socialists Movement launched its new website on 7 August. The site represents a qualitative change in our propaganda work, but it also presents some major challenges to the membership of the movement as a whole and not only to the comrades in the media committee alone. This is the necessity to provide content on an organized basis for publication and the necessity for comrades to continue to act as correspondents for the site, and to extend this with written reports, pictures, videos, artistic works (cartoons, stencils, comics). Correspondence with the site is not a luxury or only the responsibility of the small number of comrades who run the site, but should continue to be the task of the largest possible number of comrades in the movement, if not all of them.

The site is still an experimental stage, and there are a number of technical problems and tasks which are not finished, and the technical team is working on solving them or completing them, and developing the site to move to the next phase of the project which includes the establishment of a special multimedia section and a discussion forum for members of the movement.

The transition to the next phase of the site may take several months, as the challenge before us is not just technical, but also political and organizational, as the site will not be able to raise its performance and take on the role it should play without reorganizing the ranks of the movement to serve this new approach to revolutionary work. To clarify this, let’s go back a little and give some background on this issue.

Despite the presence of a number of well-known comrades from the movement in the citizen-journalism (blogging) movement since 2005, and the increasing use of “alternative media” tools by the youth of the Revolutionary Socialists since 2008, in general they took individual initiatives, and the movement did not have a general strategy for dealing with the internet and social networks which were spreading, although there was a degree of organizational co-ordination between the RS labor organizers and the movement’s bloggers over the Mahalla strike of September 2007, the Mahalla uprising of April 2008, the tax-collectors’ sit-in in December 2007, a battle which led to their formation of the first independent union in Egypt’s history since 1957.

The launch of the old site (www.e-socialists.net) on 6 April 2009, the first anniversary of the Mahalla uprising, was a step forward, because for the first time in the movement’s history, a committee to manage the site and organize propaganda work on the internet was formed. At the time, the site provided a good opportunity, to the extent available at the time, to spread our ideas on the internet, and to provide an archive of literature, and win a number of young people to the movement and its ideas, and develop some initiatives and activities which were happening on an individual level, and link them to the general orientation of the movement.

However, there were many problems and shortcomings in the work of the group, such as:

  • The site was often an isolated island and the members of the site team had to “hunt down” comrades in order to get reports from them, which often appeared late, or did not even make it onto the site.
  • The old site was not able to highlight audiovisual content such as photos and videos.
  • Despite the rich content of the site, it was difficult for the visitor to browse or find the desired material because of its complexity and the poor organization of its sections.
  • The site suffered a number of technical problems because of its irregular maintenance and development and it kept collapsing under the number of visits.
  • The focus was on the official website, and there was no clear plan for propaganda on the social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Scribd, Diigo and YouTube, despite the establishment of official accounts for the movement on them.

These problems also had a political nature:

  • The design of the site with a single large photo in the center with no other visual content highlighted in the form of images, videos, and the design highlighted written content in the form of columns … this reflected the traditional political outlook on the nature of the site, which was that it was no more than an online companion for the content of the print edition of The Socialist newspaper which at that time appeared monthly.
  • The lack of interest comrades in the movement had in acting as correspondents for the site did not only reflect the fact that the site was badly-designed or difficult to browse, but it also had political roots, which can be summarized in the lack of political awareness of the political task that a website must play in a revolutionary movement … that of an organizer.

Lenin’s book “What is to be done?” represents the theoretical basis for building Marxist organizations from the last century. In this book, Lenin tries to answer the question which was facing revolutionaries in Russia at the time, and which faces revolutionaries in Egypt today and at any time: how can we build our organization? How can we transform co-ordination between groups of geographically-dispersed revolutionaries. How can we ensure unity and centralism in reality, and at the same time create channels of democratic debate between revolutionaries?

Lenin’s answer at the time was a revolutionary newspaper. Every member of the revolutionary organization was at the same time a reporter for the revolutionary newspaper, and their job was to supply the newspaper with reports. But how were these reports produced? The revolutionary correspondent would get involved in any struggle or activity where he lived or worked, and follow these with reports sent to the newspaper, so that this experience would be generalized to all the comrades who read them in other sectors and areas, and the newspaper would create an opportunity for him to connect with this audience and to engage them in his issue.

When you read a report about a factory in an issue of The Socialist, it means that a comrade went to the factory, interacted with the workers and created links with them, and then returned with the report. The process of journalism is a process of organization. It is easy for anyone to sit in the office, browse the net and write a news story about the factory, but this is not the kind of journalism we want. You sending a report to the paper means you are engaged on the ground at the same time you are connected to the rest of the members of the movement, and that you are engaged through the channel which is open between you and the editorial board of the newspaper.

The revolutionary correspondent is not “impartial” and doesn’t pretend to be. The revolutionary correspondent is biased – in favor of the workers in their struggle with management, and biased in favor of the masses in any battle with the authorities. But that doesn’t mean biased in the sense of lies and exaggeration. That is the task of the bourgeois media, and not the revolutionary. Sometimes, unfortunately, we see some activist journalists who exaggerate the size of demonstrations, so a demonstration of 20 workers suddenly becomes 2000, or a defeat of workers in a strike is reported as a victory. The people who do this think mistakenly that they are helping the workers and that this will raise their spirits. But in reality, they are misinforming their audience and their exaggerations could be easily debunked leading to loss of credibility.

The organizing revolutionary newspaper, as Lenin explains, plays a role in unifying the stances of the members of the movement in different parts of the country. So a revolutionary socialist, in any place in Egypt, from Alexandria to Aswan, can see through the newspaper, the official position of the movement on this issue or that.

But when Lenin wrote these words at the beginning of the 20th century, news traveled from city to city by postmen on horseback. Even in 1917, when the Russian Revolution broke out, news of the revolution in Petrograd and Moscow could take weeks or even months sometimes to reach the rest of the Russian empire.

The situation is different today. News travels at lightning speed and not only inside the country, but even between the five continents of the world. Over the internet and satellite channels it is possible to sit in Cairo and follow news of the Tunisian revolution minute by minute. You can be in Alexandria and connect with British clerical workers having a sit-in at their office in a small town in Scotland over Twitter and Facebook. You can be in Assuit and follow the demonstrations by the Spanish miners by live-streaming over the internet.

The development of the communications sector in Egypt is a glaring example of the “uneven and combined development” of capitalism that Trotsky talked about.

[Photo above by Mohamed Ali Eddin: A brick factory worker in Meit Ghamr has his mobile phone hanging from his turban during the work shift.]

For in a country which has a population of around 90 million, where 40% of them live below the poverty line, the number of mobile phone subscribers in Egypt has reached 92 million, or saturation surpassed 100% of the population according to the latest report from the Ministry of Communications this May!

According to the same report, the number of internet users has risen to roughly 31 million.

It is very interesting to observe the relative distribution of internet users, for we find that the lion’s share of them get online via mobile phones and USB modems, which are constantly falling in price.

The spread of this method of access is progressively enabling social classes beyond the bourgeoisie and the middle class to get online. It is this segment of users which is most likely to increase in a rate surpassing the other sectors.

The tempo of work in every revolutionary movement is set to a large extent by the central organizer. In the 1990s, the newspaper Revolutionary Socialism was the organizer for the movement and it appeared monthly. This was appropriate to the low level of class struggle and was also reflected in the small size of the Revolutionary Socialists movement. Today, if we consider the website as the organizer it means that we must update this site minute by minute, and follow political events and activities that occur in Egypt before any traditional source of expertise. The arrival of reports and updates for the site around the clock translates organizationally into the presence of revolutionary correspondents on the ground, getting involved with events and then sending a report to the “center”, which is the site editorial board, which imposes in turn, a faster rhythm of organizational work.

For example, if Al-Masry Al-Youm publishes a news story about a strike in a factory in Mansoura and this doesn’t appear on our site, then we need to ask ourselves why. If the Revolutionary Socialists have any presence there or connection with the factory why did they not send the news immediately to the site? It is just as critical for a worker (who is in these circumstances a revolutionary correspondent), to contact the site to spread the vital news of the strike, as it is to build barricades to defend the sit-in. Contacting the site at this moment means that the revolutionary worker correspondent is included in a communication network, and the experience of what he does in Mansoura is generalized immediately to the rest of the members of the movement as well as all militants interested workers’ struggle. This means they are always ready to offer solidarity and co-ordinate what they are doing in their own areas with what their comrades are doing in Mansoura.

This once again gives a tremendous push to the acceleration of the rhythm of communication between the different sections of the movement. The presence of revolutionary correspondents on the ground in every province, tasked with supplying the site round the clock with reports, and accountable when we hear news from their areas via the traditional media rather than from them, means that there are activists on the ground, assigned round the clock to throw themselves into events that are happening, and under constant pressure to expand the network of revolutionary correspondents in their provinces, which means gains for the membership of the movement.

Suppose a military coup took place today. Would revolutionary socialist cadres across Egypt wait for two or three weeks until the paper appeared to know our position? Or would the leadership of the movement phone and travel to meet each comrade to tell them the line? Here we return to the role of the site as organizer again. It is obvious that the site will offer a quick way to connect and announce to the official position to members of the movement in different provinces on this or that issue which requires a rapid, unified reaction. Already it’s the situation today that whenever the Revolutionary Socialists’ members, sympathizers or even enemies, want to know about the group’s official position towards any political development, they instinctively go to our site, our Facebook page or Twitter account. They do not (and it would be ridiculous to expect them to) wait till The Socialist is out a week or two later.

Newspaper journalists care about written content, but comrades who are correspondents for the site should pay special attention to audio visual content alongside written reports about the events they are involved in. Photographs and videos are not a luxury, but it is the duty of every comrade involved in a event to make efforts to take photographs or film it on a mobile phone. In general, the movement must pay special attention to passing on skills in photography and training in the secure use of email and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to as much of the membership as possible.

The site will not be a substitute for the paper, and comrades must continue in the hard work of distributing the paper at events, to the network of members, and to sympathizers. Despite the increasing numbers of workers using the internet (whether via mobile or via a link at home on in cyber-cafés), the paper will continue to be an essential means to interact with them, and we must do our utmost to ensure that it is published regularly, but the paper will be a complementary rather than a central, organizing publication. It may be that the adoption of the website as an organizer is the first step towards the modern answer to the same question posed by Lenin in the last century: what is to be done?

Jul
11
0

Marxism Festival 2012: The Egyptian Revolution

 

My talk at the Marxism Festival 2012…

Jun
30
4

Morsi, SCAF and the revolutionary left

 

As soon as the news broke last Sunday that Mohamed Morsi was officially declared Egypt’s first elected civilian president, I could hear loud happy chants and cheers in my street. The janitors in my neighborhood gathered around the corner in their galabiyas, jumping up and down, in the same fashion I usually see them when the Egyptian national football team scores a goal in some match. Their children, in bare feet, were running up and down the street, chasing posh cars that passed by, chanting “Morsi! Morsi!”. While, fellow citizens in “working class districts in Cairo celebrate[d]… with fireworks, marches, dancing and sweets amid hopes of a brighter future,” reported my friend Lina el-Wardani of Ahram Online.

For many, including those who boycotted the elections or nullified their votes, for sure there was a sigh of relief. I, as well as millions of other Egyptians, were certain the ruling military junta will rig the vote in favor of General Ahmad Shafiq, who was to be crowned as Egypt’s next president. I am happy we turned out to be wrong.

Although SCAF mobilized Mubarak’s National Democratic Party network in favor of Shafiq, and attempted to directly intervene to rig the final count, their efforts failed. Some activists are circulating conspiracy theories along the lines of Morsi being the “real SCAF candidate” or that he won by a deal–which I disagree with. The blunt fact is, although SCAF is in still in control, they might not be as confident and powerful as most revolutionaries think.

The majority of those who are cheering the electoral results are not necessarily happy about Morsi’s victory, as much as they are relieved that Shafiq, the representative of the SCAF-backed counterrevolution is not in office.

Shafiq’s victory could have meant a wide level of demoralization among section of the people to see the regime’s loyal man coming back in power, with full force and vengeance. For example, a comrade in Assuit spoke to me in details before the second round about how former State Security officers in his town were sending messages to activists: “Wait till Shafiq gets inaugurated you sons of X#$%, you’ll disappear the following day.” Similar threats were made against activists in other provinces. Remnants of the old regime had felt confident to reappear once again. Shafiq’s loss caused mass demoralization and disarray among their ranks.

The Muslim Brothers have put themselves in a critical position now. Some on the left and in the liberal circles are more than happy to label the Brotherhood as a “fascist” organization and “just another face of Mubarak’s regime.” This social analysis of the movement is incorrect and will entail, in my view, wrong political positions to be taken vis a vis the Islamists.

The MBs are not a unified block. While the organization is in effect run and controlled by multi millionaires like Khairat el-Shatter, seeking compromise and reconciliation with the regime, their base cadres who hail from middle, lower middle and section of the working class are a different story. Across its history and with every twist and turn the Brotherhood were subject to splits.

For el-Shatter, Islamic Shariaa means neoliberal reforms and an economic program which could even be more right wing than Mubarak’s, but Shariaa for the MB worker translates into achieving social justice. Renaissance for Morsi may well include anti-union measures, but for the MB workers I meet, the Renaissance project means nothing but more union freedoms, higher wages, and social justice. Those different interpretations of what the MB stands for is directly influenced by the class (and on occasions generational) background. It is completely off the wall to claim that since Shatter and the leadership are pro-neoliberalism, then their followers in the provinces are up in arms defending privatization or it’s part of their daily discourse to go around bashing unions. This is how a fascist organization would behave.

A fascist organization is solely dedicated to the destruction of working class organizations. The MB is a reformist organization, whose leadership is just as reactionary and opportunistic as any of their reformist counterparts from other tendencies. The MB leadership which refrained for an entire year from mobilization in the streets, collaborated with the junta, for a share of the cake, was only forced to return to the streets recently, after it became clear they were being cornered. The junta dissolved the MB-led parliament in one day and the Egyptian people did not rise up to defend the “Revolution Parliament.” Why would they? What did they see from that parliament except laws banning porno websites, personal scandals that amount to soap operas involving Salafi deputies, failure on all levels to hold SCAF or the cabinet accountable for the state the country has gotten into? The clouds of war had already been looming. The MB leadership understood if Shafiq wins they will be subject to crackdowns and attacks worse than ever witnessed under Mubarak’s reign, and the 1954 scenario was invoked in almost every conversation about the MBs.

But there is no mobilization by the MB that does not put them into a crisis, because of their internal contradictions. To counter Shafiq, the MB leadership had to step up the revolutionary rhetoric, presenting Morsi as the only salvation for the revolution and the one who can achieve its demands. As it became clear SCAF was staging its coup, with the constitutional declaration that stripped the coming president from real power over the army or national security, dissolution of the parliament, the deployment of tanks in and around Cairo and the provinces, the ultra-sensationalist media smearing campaign against the MBs, the mobilization en masse in Tahrir Square was executed under the slogan: Down with military rule!”–a slogan chanted by hundreds of thousands of their rank and file members, repeated by supporters in Morsi’s campaign press conferences.

Is the MB leadership sincere when they mobilized this latest wave of protests? Is the Guidance Bureau willing to go all the way till the end in order to bring down military rule? Of course not. Those opportunists were mobilizing in Tahrir, with figures known to be close to the revolutionary forces like the charismatic Mohamed el-Beltagi making fiery statements about continuing the sit-in till the constitutional declaration and Justice Minister’s decrees allowing military police and intelligence to arrest civilians are nullified (a demand achieved following Morsi’s victory), while at the same time Saad el-Katatni (the parliament speaker) and el-Shatter were conducting negotiations and talks behind closed doors with SCAF.

The MB leaders were and are sandwiched between the pressure coming from above (from SCAF), and that coming from below from the streets and from their own base cadres whose expectations are being skyrocketed. It is the same people who fought to death in the Battle of the Camel, and have broke the ranks of the MBs on occasions to join the confrontations with the army or the police last year in Mohamed Mahmoud Street and the Occupy Cabinet sit-in. Any compromise the MB leaders make will be the function of the pressures coming from those two sides, and it will cost them a new layer of disillusioned supporters.

Morsi’s speech on Friday, even when ridiculed in the social networks by secular activists, did strike a chord with ordinary citizens following the speech on TV screens, impressed that “their president” is a “simple man,” who doesn’t wear bullet proof vest, making all those rosy promises to the public, even when he in effect evaded mentioning SCAF. Morsi keeps on raising everyone’s expectations, including the young and poor members of his group–promises he will completely fail to deliver, whether because he has been stripped of all authority thanks to the constitutional declaration, or because of the neoliberal Shatter-devised approach towards the economy.

Some revolutionaries, including leftists, have been quick to call for united front with Morsi, and to support him in his fight with SCAF. For them, a front led by Morsi against SCAF is a must at the moment to confront the military coup. I stand against that. The end result of those meetings with Morsi up until now are photoshoots, PR stunts where Morsi can be polished up to appear he has the support of all the political forces.

On another front, others are still pretending this is a fight on another planet. Since there is “no difference between the MB and SCAF,” so they say, we should not bother about the outcome of the current confrontation. But this position is dangerous and can tacitly translate into support for SCAF, the stronger party in that equation.

While most leftist activists boycotted the protests in Tahrir over the past week, the Revolutionary Socialists were present every day, to the dismay of some revolutionaries on the left who accused the RS of being “manipulated” by Morsi. This is wrong. The RS have no illusions about Morsi.

The Revolutionary Socialists refused to attend meetings with Morsi when they were invited. Instead the RS have been active with other forces in trying to build a third block building on the constituency that ended up voting for Hamdeen Sabahy in specific, largely the industrial base. But at the same time understanding the contradictions within the MBs, the RS refused to treat Tahrir as some leper colony to be avoided like what other leftists did. The RS were present in the marches and the square with their own red flags, with their newspapers (which made record sales), with their statements that were distributed widely all over the square. The RS were not and are not interested in reaching out to Morsi and the MB Guidance Bureau, but in reaching out to the middle and lower ranking organizers and supporters of the group. The RS presence in Tahrir provided a golden opportunity for opening up discussions with young MBs. The RS activists who went to the square in general reported positive feedback by the young MBs regarding the RS statement and position. Revolutionaries, I believe, must be present at any mobilization against SCAF, even when we know that the MB’s leadership is opportunistic and will not continue the fight till the end. We do not have illusions about the nature of the MB leadership, but their base cadres and sections of the population do. And we must do our best to reach out to them if we want this revolution to succeed.

The first time the presidential guards and the military police showed up at Morsi’s house as part of his security team, his supporters reacted immediately by showering them with stones. It was a natural reaction coming from those young poor members who are part of this revolution at the end of the day and have no love for the army nor the police. Yesterday Morsi entered Tahrir with the presidential guards and the police, via Mohamed Mahmoud Street–the same street that saw bloody battles with the police and the army on several occasions. The RS and others withdrew from the square in protest. But how many other members from the MBs must have also been angry by the army’s presence? How do the young MBs, who’ve been chanting “Death to Tantawi” recently feel about Tantawi remaining the minister of defense, assisted by the notorious General Hassan el-Reweini of the army’s Central Command, who oversaw the Tahrir massacres?

As soon as Morsi’s speech ended in Tahrir, the square echoed strongly with anti-SCAF chants, including one directed at Tantawi, asking him to give the military salute to his president Morsi. In reality, and that’s what will those in the square will discover in the coming days, Morsi has no power whatsoever vis a vis Tantawi and SCAF. And every compromise he will make will cost him and his group disillusioned supporters and splits.

The revolution hasn’t ended and will not be diffused by Morsi’s victory. Morsi and the MBs have opened the pandora’s box, and the coming days will only exacerbate their contradictions. And it’s a process the left cannot be separate from. While continuing to build its base independently, and building alliances with other forces who seek an alternative different from what SCAF and the MBs could provide, the revolutionary left must continue to tactically intervene in any confrontation between SCAF and the MBs.

May
11
10

The MOD sit-in: Sometimes with the Islamists, Never with the State…

 

During the Monday march in solidarity with the Abbassiya detainees, a young comrade I know from Cairo University, a medical student who was among the field hospital doctors during the MOD sit-in, approached me, and told me the story of a Salafi woman in niqab, who kept on kissing the Revolutionary Socialists red flag during the sit-in, while shouting: “Forgive me I didn’t know about you before!”

I replied back with the story of another comrade, who was entering the MOD sit-in and was being searched by a Salafi sheikh. When the latter found in the student’s bag the flag of the Revolutionary Socialists, Marxist books, as well as issues from The Socialist newspaper, he told the young student: “Come in son, May God be with you!”

[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/mo7amedamin/status/198342037307789313″]

These were just two stories, among many, witnessed by our comrades during the controversial MOD sit-in which lasted for a week, during which it was subject to attacks by knives, swords, firearms, machine guns, fired by plainclothes thugs working closely with the army, and was finally suspended by a crackdown by the military police and army’s special forces last Friday, resulting in the arrest and torture of hundreds.

The sit-in started by a group of supporters of the disqualified Salafi presidential candidate Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, who marched on the Ministry of Defense Friday night, 27 April, and decided to stage a sit-in calling for the dissolution of the Presidential Electoral Committee, which they blamed for the disqualification of their candidate, but the SCAF-controlled committee has also been the target of the revolutionaries’ wrath from all shades of the political spectrum.

If you think Islamophobia is on a worrying rise in Europe, you should have seen the Egyptian twittersphere during that week of sit-in, with liberals and leftists reacting in the most disgustingly way..

There are those who by default will stand against anything Islamist, anything with a beard or niqab, and will avoid them like a plague. Hence their position varied from neutrality, as if this fight between the Islamists and the army is happening on another planet; or praying that the two sides by some miracle will finish one another off; or support the army’s crackdown on those Islamists.

And of course you got the usual “مش وقته” chorus, which always comes up whenever there are clashes with the police and the army, shouting “It’s not the time for this, we have other important matters.” And usually those “important matters” are elections, or another SCAF-sponsored milestone in the political process.

But the “Islamists” are NOT a unified homogenous block. We are talking about millions of Egyptians from different backgrounds and provinces who are part of the Muslim Brotherhood and the different Salfist groups. It’s even wrong to lump “Salafists” all in one basket. Let’s remember that young Salafis took part in the January 2011 uprising contrary to virtually all the Salafi celebrity sheikhs’ pro-Mubarak position. Many of the workers I have been bumping into during strikes from 2007 onwards have beards that almost reach their bellies and are followers of Salafi sheikhs. The latter had prohibited strikes and demonstrations, yet their poor followers obviously were moving in a different direction. Already the salafi movement is splintered, and the dismal performance of Abu Ismail in the crisis, including disowning repeatedly his supporters, is bound to create a disillusioned base. Isn’t there a critical mass that could be won to the side of revolution? Of course there is, and the revolutionary socialists have to play a role in influencing this base as much as they can, according to their capabilities and political weight.

There is nothing more farcical than the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is an iron fist organization whose members are following the Supreme Guide’s orders blindly. The organization has been marred with factions and splits for years along generational and class lines. Despite refraining from mobilizing an entire year following February 2011, there is not a single time a serious clash happened with the state without stumbling on a group of young MB members who attended the protests or the clashes contrary to the group’s line. And I personally witnessed that on several occasions.

What do you do as a revolutionary socialist in the midst of this? One should not stop exposing the hypocrisy and the counterrevolutionary politics of the MB leadership, but we should not give up on trying to attract the youth and those in the MB who are sincerely pro-revolution once again to the revolutionary camp and even winning them to socialist politics, something that I’m also increasingly witnessing. And that’s not going to happen by sitting on Twitter and ranting about the MBs like many leftists are doing, but by physically being present on the ground in the events they organize, and continuously argue and debate with their young members. And when a fight breaks out with the state, you don’t withdraw and say may God burn them both, you have to take sides. But you take sides, while still maintaining your organizational independence and fight under your own red banner and shout your own chants.

The MOD sit-in presented a step forward for the revolution, not a regress, despite the army’s onslaught that saw several comrades detained, and brutally tortured. We have taken the fight to a new level, breaking a great taboo, which is staging sit-ins and direct actions in front of the headquarters of the counterrevolution itself; as well as reaching out to and earning the respect of the most revolutionary wing of the Salafist movement. I salute the bravery of all the comrades who took part in the sit in and in resisting the army’s crackdown.

All Revolutionary Socialist activists and sympathizers are now out of prison, but there are hundreds of Islamists, independent activists and ordinary citizens who are still languishing in custody and await military prosecution. We must do our best to stand by them and secure their release. We will continue to organize against SCAF and we should be more than keen to reach out to the Islamist cadres who are willing to join this fight. The polarization within the Islamist movement will only increase with every betrayal and compromise the Islamist leadership brokers with SCAF, with every confrontation with the state, with the growth of a revolutionary left that could provide an alternative for the disillusioned youth, and more importantly with the escalation of the strike wave… But in all cases, we must be vigilant enough to remain organizationally independent, move under our own banners, with our own literature, and compromise none… Sometimes with the Islamists, never with the state…

Feb
19
0

Film – The Arab Awakening – Tweets from Tahrir

 

Feb
13
0

VIDEO – AUC Strike Talk

 

My talk to the local and foreign students and faculty, at the American University in Cairo, 12 February 2012.

Feb
9
0

الإضراب العام هو الحل

 

Dec
19
1

برنامج آخر النهار مع حسين عبد الغني ١٨ ديسمبر ٢٠١١

 

Dec
15
0

كلمتي في ندوة مركز الدراسات الاشتراكية: معركة شارع محمد محمود ومستقبل الثورة المصرية

 

Dec
15
1

سامح نجيب: التحرير والانتخابات و مستقبل الثورة