back to the index

back to the index of the Northern Africa revolution

LETTERS FROM THE READERS

A Reader’s letter

02/18/2012

A Suez Channel worker’s view about the Revolutionary socialists in Egypt
February 18th, 2012

In the city of Giza you can find the premises of the Revolutionary Socialists, an actively intervening party in the Egyptian revolution, since the end of January 2011.
A few days ago I had a chance encounter with one of its militants. In a brief conversation he summed up what his party is developing in Egypt and what are its future prospects.
The first thing mentioned on the present time of the revolution in Egypt is that a battle between two great fronts is being waged: the Revolutionary Front (composed by themselves, the April 6th Movement, the National Front for Democracy and Justice, independent labor unions and social movements), and the opposite front (composed of the military corps and the Islamic forces).
He added that today Egypt has two challenges: how to continue with life through an equitable distribution of wealth, and how to get democracy.

The way to achieve this, for him, is that all the revolutionary forces are organized in a single front and establish good contacts in the labor movement. Ahead, he sees that there are two challenges: presidential elections and elections to the constituent.  They are currently discussing whether to participate or not, under what program, what candidate, etc.

One of the steps, he said, is to continue with the organization of labor committees. He said that before the revolution, State control of the labor movement was total. But two years ago they began organizing independently. Already there are about 300 worker committees, in which about 2,000,000 workers are grouped.

To this militant of RS, the workers were organized to fight for a distribution of wealth, by throwing down the bosses and the corrupt people and for wage improvements. But the political fights are in the hands of parties, movements and social organizations, so it remains the task of uniting workers with political struggle.

"Political struggle" under RS, is to establish a program, (according to them "of the people"), based on five points:

When I consulted him about his vision of the revolutionary processes in other countries, he said that his party supported the revolutions in the Middle East and around the world, when they are anti-imperialist, to which all the support had to be given.

He pointed out that while it seemed a great gesture of internationalism the fact that among Libyan militia there were hundreds of Egyptian combatants, he justified this by saying that the borders were open at the time of the Libyan uprising, but that today with Syria it is different. To support this revolution he saw as effective measures, such as a protest to the Embassy, or international meetings between various parties who call themselves revolutionaries of the area to discuss what actions proceed, to help the people martyred by Bashar al - Assad.

He finally told me that still not have discussed any plan of measures or future fights, but while there is no single agency that gathers all the revolutionary forces, they are in contact within the various parties and movements to take forward new actions.

My vision, as revolutionary worker is that RS’s policy clearly shows to be a reformist one, and we should not lose sight that this organization is a section in Egypt of the British SWP. So that they not only have a reformist program for expropriation with compensation and only of the large factories (without saying anything about oil, gas, land, etc.), but it does not raise a prospect of power with the masses fighting for self-organization (soviet-like) organs,. They are not even given a policy to stand them up, having all the possibilities to do so as they lead or influence two million workers and stay in touch with the rest of the movements which aim at youth and other social sectors. I think that they could very easily call a Congress in Tahrir Square of all combatants of the revolution, the Revolutionary Youth and organized workers and this Congress would take place, but they refuse to do so. Their policy reveals that what they want is rather a single front of parties, "from the top” to avoid any vestige of self-organization and direct democracy.

I categorically maintain that they remain with its policy of having the worker's movement well separated and divided, subjected to an economic struggle, without any intention that it rises to a political struggle.
This is also expressed in that there is no mention to follow the path of our class brothers and sisters in Libya, of dividing the army and disarming it, defeating the armed forces, setting up committees of soldiers and militias, which ultimately was what remained outstanding in our revolution. For them it is just a matter of democracy, so that the military Junta does not govern. Not to speak of brigades for going to combat in Syria. Peaceful rallies, yes, but please, not international brigades!