Egypt anti-government protests grow

[elbows]

A petition is no less legitimate than an election which is simply a series of different petitions in a wooden box or electronic screen. However because they seek stability and a mostly politically silent population for 4.5 out of a 5 year cycle, Western capitalist democracy tends to place the election as the prime form of democracy not the petition.

Regardless of whether its seen as more or less legitimate, its certainly harder to verify and observe than well-run elections are. To take the figure at face value with no means of verification is as stupid as to take crowd figure estimates from partial sources at face value.

Its totally fair enough to say that very large protests against Morsi were observed, large enough to have massive implications. But to throw these huge numbers around as if they are established facts, as if the exact sizes add real weight to a position, that doesn't stand up in my book. Why would I happily and naively join in with the numbers game that is simply part of a crude battle to claim the crown of legitimacy? None of he players we have been talking about have really earned legitimacy, in fact the side with the upper hand right now have been prepared to spend some of their remaining legitimacy stocks in order to get themselves into a position where they are in control and can attempt to manufacture more going forwards. Whereas the MB were so clueless about these sorts of games that they thought they had enough in the bank and didn't need to invest in maintaining such illusions.

 

[sihhi]

I don't think they ever made that assumption, no matter how many of their public statements in the past suggested they were prepared to give the MB the benefit of the doubt. The liberals would have known from day one that their main problem was how the hell the liberals could possibly win under a democratic system at that moment, especially when there were not only splits within each flavour of the opposition, and between liberals and leftists, but also that a huge chunk of the non-Islamist vote would back people associated with the Mubarak regime. To win requires a situation more like what is emerging now, where all these groups are more united and aligned with the military, and the MB given reasons not to engage with the future elections.

The military has changed alliance maybe is a better way of putting it - it started swinging in March/April 2013 and properly asserted itself by June 2013 - and the record of the Brotherhood in office is part of it. No one knew exactly what the Brotherhood would or wouldn't push when in office.

Also several figures within the Brotherhood are collaborators with the Mubarak regime as much as some judges described as falouls.

The central point is that the deal the SCAF and Brotherhood stitched up back in 2012 for the electoral and law-making system wasn't democratic in any meaningful sense anyway. It was heavily presidential (good for the Brotherhood) and retained military political power (good for the military).

Morsi and the MB stayed true to form, with all the horrors and mistakes that entailed. But that doesn't mean I have to ignore the usual signs of liberals being very bad losers who love a rigged game. Oops, sorry, I mean they are the only ones with a strong enough idea of what democracy really is to set the rules

'Liberals are bad losers'. Are leftists bad losers too - they signed the Tamarrod petition aswell after all?
We might more properly say the Brotherhood are the bad losers - they help set up a system with wide military powers, then increase military spending and give effective military power over issues of defence to the military, then complain when Brotherhood power is eliminated from the social and economic side.
They play with the devil (the military) but when they lose out they attack the Copts.

 

[sihhi]

Regardless of whether its seen as more or less legitimate, its certainly harder to verify and observe than well-run elections are. To take the figure at face value with no means of verification is as stupid as to take crowd figure estimates from partial sources at face value.

This means token elections every five years win out as against protest and petition - the model not dissimilar from Iran.

Its totally fair enough to say that very large protests against Morsi were observed, large enough to have massive implications. But to throw these huge numbers around as if they are established facts, as if the exact sizes add real weight to a position, that doesn't stand up in my book.

It appears like stating 'I want to ignore the numbers' because I only like numbers measured down to the very last cross.

None of he players we have been talking about have really earned legitimacy, in fact the side with the upper hand right now have been prepared to spend some of their remaining legitimacy stocks in order to get themselves into a position where they are in control and can attempt to manufacture more going forwards.

How can you manufacture legitimacy? Are you saying the opposition NSF have manufactured and invented more legitimacy than the Brotherhood?

Whereas the MB were so clueless about these sorts of games that they thought they had enough in the bank and didn't need to invest in maintaining such illusions.

I believe the MB pump the illusions to their territory.
The Brotherhood-linked websites are going on about how one general has a Jewish daughter-in-law, how Sissi studied for a short while in the foreign US, although Morsi who appointed him on purpose, studied for far longer in the foreign US.

 

[Poo Flakes]

The Tamarrod petition is there with 22m signatures if you doubt its veracity offer something instead of re-repeating the insinuation.
Morsi received 5.7m in the first round, and 13.2m in the second round (notwithstanding the irregularities that judges were replaced to stop investigation). Since then the approval rating of the President has sunk to around 20%.
The Brotherhood response - the party leader Farid Ismail declaring in advance that “June 30 protests do not have anything to do with the performance of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in power”.

We might aswell raise the reality to your very hypothetical scenario that the Brotherhood would inescapably try to hitch onto the armed forces aswell.
Once again to recap - the Brotherhood leadership tries to expand the power of the army - to detain and try civilians not in service - when it's on their side, but now when it's not it complains that these MB-expanded armed forces powers have their effect in terms of a corrective coup to bring military justice against Brotherhood governors and leaders.
According to the Brotherhood the whole of Egypt should be subject to military justice and trials when necessary, except them.

Once again for you what point are you making with your hypothetical?

I actually have 25 million Egyptians signatures that wish Poo Flakes to be appointed supreme ruler of Egypt. I have checked them against the electoral roll. If you doubt the veracity of this claim prove that I do not.

 

[sihhi]

Alexandria yesterday - apparently it's Brotherhood supporters fighting "young secularists"

 

[audiotech]

In Alexandria, 12 have been killed and more than 300 injured during clashes between Pro-Morsi supporters, Anti-Morsi protesters and police officers. In this video, Morsi supporters are caught on tape firing live ammunition at security forces and Anti-Morsi protesters.

 

[sihhi]

I actually have 25 million Egyptians signatures. I have checked them against the electoral roll. If you doubt the veracity of this claim prove that I do not.

I thought the Brotherhood had these signatures in your mad hypothetical.

I suppose all the Zogby polling is wrong aswell.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/06/18/comment/columns/tamarrod-morsi-government-in-deep-trouble

One year ago, despite having been elected by a minority of eligible voters, Mohamed Morsi was being given the benefit of the doubt by a majority of all Egyptians—with 57 per cent saying his victory was either “a positive development” or “the result of a democratic election and the results need to be respected.”

Today, that support has dropped to only 28 per cent, with almost all of it coming from those who identify with his Muslim Brotherhood party. And yet despite this narrow base of support, the president and his party now hold most of the levers of executive and legislative decision-making authority and are using them to crack down on the press, civil society, and most forms of dissent. In addition, there are worrisome signs of still more over-reach by the presidency. As a result, over 70 per cent of the electorate now expresses concern that “the Muslim Brotherhood intends to Islamise the state and control its executive powers.”

In each of these areas, only about one-quarter of the electorate expresses some degree of approval with the actions of the government, while almost three-quarters disapprove. In each instance, the support for the government comes almost exclusively from those who identify with the Muslim Brotherhood, while the rest of the population is nearly unanimous in their disapproval.

elbows Of course this doesn't mean that the full programme of the opposition parties is respected:

What also comes through quite clearly is that the opposition to Morsi suffers from a crisis in leadership and organisetion. Of the nine living Egyptian figures covered in the ZRS poll (including all those who ran for president and/or who lead opposition political parties), none are viewed as credible by more than a third of the electorate, with most seen as credible by only a quarter. Only Bassem Yousef, a popular TV satirist who has been indicted by the government and charged with insulting the “presidency” and Islam, is viewed as credible by a majority of Egyptians.

 

[elbows]

This means token elections every five years win out as against protest and petition - the model not dissimilar from Iran.

I don't think electoral democracy does the term democracy justice, and not just in places like Iran. That doesn't mean I have to buy into every interpretation of a petition or protest when it is clearly being used to further a particular agenda that may be quite different from the agenda of many of the people who took part in the protest or petition.

It appears like stating 'I want to ignore the numbers' because I only like numbers measured down to the very last cross.

I dont ignore the numbers, but neither do I ignore what the numbers are being used for.

How can you manufacture legitimacy? Are you saying the opposition NSF have manufactured and invented more legitimacy than the Brotherhood?

Stop trying to make this some kind of crude battle - I am not giving each side points and hoping to prove that the MB are somehow the winners. No matter how shit the MB are, that doesn't stop me looking at the flaws and agendas of those who oppose them.

The sort of legitimacy, as a propaganda tool, that I am talking about is certainly possible to manufacture, and to destroy. Thats why I brought up colour revolutions, and its also why I won't take the petition figures at face value because those sorts of numbers, when not exposed to scrutiny, are an excellent example of legitimacy manufacturing.

I believe the MB pump the illusions to their territory.
The Brotherhood-linked websites are going on about how one general has a Jewish daughter-in-law, how Sissi studied for a short while in the foreign US, although Morsi who appointed him on purpose, studied for far longer in the foreign US.

Their propaganda is very crude and bloody. Its one of the reasons they struggled to play the democracy game beyond having a well organised party apparatus to fight elections with. Given enough time in power and enough Islamist 'constitutional reform' they could have bent parts of the system like the judiciary and 'national values' into a form more compatible with their beliefs & propaganda, but they didn't have that luxury. Nor was the revolution against Mubarak a perfect fit for their rhetoric, they couldn't really make murderous rants against Jews and Copts fit with the idea of 'upholding the revolution and guarding against counter-revolution', especially as fears of regime remnants lost some of their potency over time. And despite the ludicrous manner in which the army has successfully managed to associate itself with he revolution and being on the side of the people, all political groups that through perceived necessity have to make a bargain with the military will end up tainted as a result of such dealings. In the past el-blah blahs main triumph was keeping himself free from the stench of such bargains, so I wait with interest to see if he quickly gets soiled by his new relationship with the army. Others like Sabahi are somewhat in bed with the army now too, but if it all goes pear shaped then they can somewhat limit the taint by having el-Blah blah as the public firewall.

 

[sihhi]

Nor was the revolution against Mubarak a perfect fit for their rhetoric, they couldn't really make murderous rants against Jews and Copts fit with the idea of 'upholding the revolution and guarding against counter-revolution', especially as fears of regime remnants lost some of their potency over time.

Regime remnants are over - they're finished - but they will be used to tar by association people around

And despite the ludicrous manner in which the army has successfully managed to associate itself with he revolution and being on the side of the people, all political groups that through perceived necessity have to make a bargain with the military will end up tainted as a result of such dealings. In the past el-blah blahs main triumph was keeping himself free from the stench of such bargains, so I wait with interest to see if he quickly gets soiled by his new relationship with the army. Others like Sabahi are somewhat in bed with the army now too, but if it all goes pear shaped then they can somewhat limit the taint by having el-Blah blah as the public firewall.

Of course the NSF - that includes Baradei and Sabbahi - are in bed with the army now - they had a chance to publicly dissociate themselves from the army as soon as the ultimatum was pronounced but, they didn't.
Instead you have their supporters of "the opposition" riding on top of armed people carriers - perfect Brotherhood fodder.

Having said that it remains to what extent things go good or bad whether the taint deepens or not. All elected parties are tainted in mainland Britain by sending peers into the wholly antidemocratic House of Lords - from Greens to UKIP - but they retain their social power in the field of politics.
Just about all parties have done a deal with the military so far in Egypt - except anti-Nasserist socialists and other fringe are tainted. How many parties rejected the SCAF takeover after Mubarak - very few iirc.

The problem as you suggest is the Brotherhood will paint this military takeover as bad but the first one as good, whilst the opposition will paint both as good possibly leading to the deadly embrace of the military in wider public perception - the loose 30% of (mostly) 'conservative' traders, sellers, unorganised small plant/shop workers if they can't provide the economic goods.

The economic goods might be provided by borrowing and credit against the future - that's often the way capitalism is in a semi-technologically-developed economy.

 

[elbows]

Regime remnants are over - they're finished - but they will be used to tar by association people around

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, especially as we have the complication of the army being very much a part of almost any regime very much including the old one. We shall see.

The economic goods might be provided by borrowing and credit against the future - that's often the way capitalism is in a semi-technologically-developed economy.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the IMF etc stuff now, whether terms are relaxed to facilitate stability for the kind of democracy the west likes or not. Apparently some though the IMF terms were part of a plot to make the MB fail in power quickly, but since most of it seemed to be the usual IMF stuff and the globe is still stuck in this 'era of austerity' I can't see it in such simplistic terms myself.

Anyways....

Meanwhile the army issued a statement on its Facebook page denying that some of its field commanders were putting pressure on the commander-in-chief to reinstate President Morsi.
"These rumours... come within the context of the continued attempts to spread rumours and lies as one of the methods of the systematic information warfare being waged against the armed forces with the aim of dividing its ranks and striking at its strong cohesion...," the statement said.

Middle East analyst Sakhr al-Makhadhi: "Morsi's removal was in some ways a democratic coup"

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23209183

 

[elbows]

'Liberals are bad losers'. Are leftists bad losers too - they signed the Tamarrod petition aswell after all?

I'm sure they can be. But in my lifetime they've not tended to have enough clout or had their ideologies sufficiently embedded into the national institutions or rhetoric in order to be able to do anything about it, with some exceptions including parts of south america. So its the liberal edition of poor sportsmanship and game rigging thats easiest to observe and comment on.

 

[sihhi]

I dont ignore the numbers, but neither do I ignore what the numbers are being used for.

They've been used for ill, agreed - the aim is for people to try and reclaim the purpose of that petition - a civil request for Morsi to resign his constitution and presidency and set a timetable for new elections.

Stop trying to make this some kind of crude battle - I am not giving each side points and hoping to prove that the MB are somehow the winners. No matter how shit the MB are, that doesn't stop me looking at the flaws and agendas of those who oppose them.

Sure but a large part of the opposition is neither breakaway Noor nor Sabbahi nor El Baradei - they see themselves as 'the people' against the selfish Brotherhood.
The underlying jostling - and reluctance to really strike against the Brotherhood - comes from how large a part of this opposition is otherwise "apolitical" people. These people don't mind the Brotherhood in their squares but have a problem with them attacking things whether police or opposition shops so give consent to the politicised opposition groups to do the fighting against the Brotherhood supporters when they attack.
The politicised opposition seem to regret not being there outside the Morsi Presidency demanding justice from Morsi, which allowed the Brotherhood to mount a house-arrest break of Morsi to which the army opened live fire and 3 were killed.

They also regret not being in greater numbers in Alexandria, whilst others less politicised from the opposition camp have reached the stage of 'screw them all' let the army have tanks everywhere penning them in, let their leaders face full justice, these people are terrorists, if the western world is going to call it a coup we might as well make it a proper one. My twitter impressions only hopefully will listen to (maybe speak) 2 Egyptians tomorrow.

Both the opposition parties and the army are fighting to claim the mantle of the wider anti-Brotherhood people - the army leadership trying to do it by appearing as equidistant and neutral as possible to maintain the idea of the corrective coup revolution.

The sort of legitimacy, as a propaganda tool, that I am talking about is certainly possible to manufacture, and to destroy. Thats why I brought up colour revolutions, and its also why I won't take the petition figures at face value because those sorts of numbers, when not exposed to scrutiny, are an excellent example of legitimacy manufacturing.

People can see through things if they are simply propaganda tools. I urge you to follow the link to the article on the Zogby polls. Reading those results creates a solid background for a petition at the 22 million level.

The fact that the Cairo June 30 protests were billed as the largest contiguous protests in world history is propaganda yes, but that claim also seems to be true according to the aerial photographs.

 

[sihhi]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, especially as we have the complication of the army being very much a part of almost any regime very much including the old one. We shall see.

That would be a new root military regime being formed if it emerges in the wake of this stuff - not the same as the NDP loyalists the type who consider Sadat and Mubarak as equal heroes believe Mubarak should be released etc etc.

 

[sihhi]

I'm sure they can be. But in my lifetime they've not tended to have enough clout or had their ideologies sufficiently embedded into the national institutions or rhetoric in order to be able to do anything about it, with some exceptions including parts of south america. So its the liberal edition of poor sportsmanship and game rigging thats easiest to observe and comment on.

I want to see if I have this right - do you believe the Egyptian opposition/liberals would have rigged the game tried to incite a military coup whatever the Brotherhood had done - however good the Brotherhood were at running the country?

 

[ayatollah]

What strikes me as a very insightful article, is worth a read, "Who will control the Egyptian State", by one Prof Mark LeVine, on the opinion bit of the al Jazeera website. Don't know the prof's politics, but he seems to me anyway to ably capture the broad brush dynamics of the current struggle - and the very varied social forces in play , in some cases temporarily "allied" but with wildly differing longer term agendas - without being hypnotised with the formalism of the sterile "but is it "democratic - is it a coup " arguments that litter the UK discussions. See www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201374131418638208.html.

Looking on with fascination at the ongoing revolutionary "process" in Egypt is certainly a graphic real life illustration of the fundamental difference between the complex social dynamics being acted out right across Egyptian society , and the much more familiar "manageable/manipulable" (by the well organised and economically powerful) processes of bourgeois democracy in times of relative social stability . At its fundamental base , materialist" , causal level until either the various factions of the military/bourgeois capitalist class that has systematically built its grossly corrupt and grossly unequal economic/state institutional powerbase since Nasser's Young officer coup find a way to smash the rising tide of expectation and demands for social justice (ie, radical wealth redistribution), by the majority, and hence safeguard the wealth distribution status quo - OR the confused , shambolic, but growing awareness of its power in sheer numbers as a "class of the dispossessed" drives the various elements of the "Egyptian masses" into ever sharper conflict with the wealthy, this struggle will grow in tempo and ferocity. That by its tactical incompetence and arrogance the military finds itself now at daggers drawn with the Muslim Brotherhood, is I think an excellent development - since the Brotherhood had all the characteristics potentially as a social force - steeped in social and ideological conservatism - but with deep organisational and ideological/religious roots in the Lumpen Poor - to serve the same role as mass Fascism in crushing the Working Classes and Left during the 20's and 30's in Europe.

The developments in Egypt should serve as a strong reminder that desirable as bourgeois democracy of course is for the Left - in contrast to fascism , Stalinism ,or other authoritarian state forms - once the deep fundamental issues of wealth ownership and social class-based power are placed clearly on the national agenda on the basis of active mass mobilisation - bourgeois democracy becomes ever more clearly just a mechanism to demobilise, constrain, and manipulate the political process - by those with strong organisation, money, and ownership of the mass media. The current level of revolutionary struggle in Egypt seems now to be operating at a sheer pace, and the shifting alliances and modifications in levels of class consciousness amongst major social classes and groupings, changing so significantly by the day, that bourgeois democratic processes are left flatfooted in the historical dust as brutal class conflict over basic issues of poverty and wealth are fought out on the streets. It is hard not to see a major falling out looming in very short order between the capitalist/military "deep state ruling bourgeois elite" and their temporary allies amongst the newly aroused masses demanding fundamental economic change. Splits in the state "bodies of armed men" along the various lines of ideological and class allegiances must also be a distinct possibility as the society fractures further - finally driving a wedge into the so far remarkably stable military apparatus which underpins the corrupt military/capitalist economic elite in Egypt.

 

[Poo Flakes]

I want to see if I have this right - do you believe the Egyptian opposition/liberals would have rigged the game tried to incite a military coup whatever the Brotherhood had done - however good the Brotherhood were at running the country?

It goes without saying that a lot of liberals hate the muslim brotherhood, and probably resent the social safety nets they provide for the poor. If the muslim brotherhood and their coalition partners were so terrible they would have been thoroughly thrashed in the next election (and various amendments to the constitution could of occurred). Whether the Copts could wait that long is a good question but I doubt their position in Egyptian society will change very much in the next four years of IMF rule.

All I am saying is look at this with some neutrality. There are a lot of power players taking sides and a lot of subterfuge. A bunch of unpopular islamists have been ousted by a bunch of capitalists. It looks like Egypt will be divided for the forseeable future and perhaps even a looming insurgency beckons. You seem to be suggesting that one side in this emerging conflict has legitimacy based on a petition and protest numbers that sound far less convincing than an Iranian election result.

 

[butchersapron]

Why do you say ousted by a bunch of capitalists? Were/are the brothers anti-capitalist? Can we get some clarity here.

 

[frogwoman]

the Brotherhood had all the characteristics potentially as a social force - steeped in social and ideological conservatism - but with deep organisational and ideological/religious roots in the Lumpen Poor - to serve the same role as mass Fascism in crushing the Working Classes and Left during the 20's and 30's in Europe.

that's been my view of Islamism for quite a while tbh.

 

[elbows]

I want to see if I have this right - do you believe the Egyptian opposition/liberals would have rigged the game tried to incite a military coup whatever the Brotherhood had done - however good the Brotherhood were at running the country?

No because in a fractured Egypt a great part of the judgement about whether the MB were doing a good job would involve the very question of how much they let the opposition, including liberals, have a say/a meaningful share of power that went beyond that reflected in voting share. Since the MB made almost no attempts to seek consensus at any point, we were never able to properly test liberals etc to see how they would react if they given some say in regards things like the constitution, but no trump card. I expect they would have struggled to compromise very much over key questions, in part because of the gulf between islamist views of what a constitution should contain and liberal ones. But the MB were so rubbish at understanding this game that they never gave the liberals much chance to show off their flaws.

In any case my insulting liberals by suggesting they like a rigged game was a general point that goes far beyond Egypt, and due to the multitude of factors there including army power its not the best country to pick to witness this phenomenon. But I still think its relevant to events of recent days, and if circumstances allow I fully expect to witness more examples of it in future. The disproportionate attention to their voice that they demand requires troublesome sections of the population to be marginalised by the system. While the preferred liberal implementation of such disenfranchisement usually involves many years of demoralising opponents and binding them up in legal, economic and ideological straight-jackets, they are clearly prepared to resort to other means if necessary. Anyway they are obviously just one of many players in Egypt but I pick on them in particular right now because the military coup route is so obviously incompatible with their standard rhetoric, I cannot watch them squirming desperately to justify things in their usual 'democratic' terms without taking the opportunity to point it out.

 

[sihhi]

Why do you say ousted by a bunch of capitalist? Were the brothers anti-capitalist? Can we get some clarity here.

The Muslim brotherhood are mosque network-based capitalists.

It goes without saying that a lot of liberals hate the muslim brotherhood, and probably resent the social safety nets they provide for the poor.

You failed to answer the point, also the Brotherhood provide a form of religious based charitification of social services - you can have your child study in a steady boarding school built by tax-free charity operations of Brotherhood firms, stocked with purchases from ihwan shops, operated by ihwan jemat teachers (sex-segregated naturally) but yes they'll be doing their 5 a day prayers and skewed religious instruction there - or they can stay in your twin-bed home attending a hugely overcrowded primary school and not attend secondary school miles away - your pick.

All I am saying is look at this with some neutrality. There are a lot of power players taking sides and a lot of subterfuge. A bunch of unpopular islamists have been ousted by a bunch of capitalists.

What neutrality - neutral? Who decides the non-neutral? What is this?

Power players take sides? I don't understand what you're getting at. Is this a reference to John McCain urging the USA to suspend all aid to Egypt with the coup.

You seem to be suggesting that one side in this emerging conflict has legitimacy based on a petition and protest numbers that sound far less convincing than an Iranian election result.

You seem to suggest that the non-coup and anti-coup mass of people against the Brotherhood have no legitimacy.

If the muslim brotherhood and their coalition partners were so terrible they would have been thoroughly thrashed in the next election (and various amendments to the constitution could of occurred).

If the Brotherhood and Noor were so A.O.K. - they wouldn't have needed an emergency presidential decree to ram through the articles of their Constituion.



The Brotherhood are shutting NGOs and bringing cases against opposition parties for subversion and betraying the revolution, starting on a very specific type of neoliberal road. Protest against them was justified in October in November in December in March and in June. Waiting for the next 5 years could only help the Brotherhood/IMF etc.


The liberals in Japan hated the Emperor-tenno-fanatics for their charity to the poor.

Whether the Copts could wait that long is a good question but I doubt their position in Egyptian society will change very much in the next four years of IMF rule.

What does this mean? What are you describing about Egyptian Christians, what position of where?

It looks like Egypt will be divided for the forseeable future and perhaps even a looming insurgency beckons.

Who is this insurgency against please? Why are Brotherhood activists setting fire to Coptic churches, throwing under-18 'secularists' from towers and charging bullet-and-pellet headlong into opposition parties gatherings and squares?
Why are they not admitting some mistakes like the constitution and jailing the NGOs and the new court cases against opposition figures with their loyal-appointee judges?
Even after all of their ceding of money and political power to the army in office, why are they not breaking apart this coup by working on a counter-coup from the lower conscripts?
In your kind of questions, they should be able to do both these things given how democratic and accountable they were?
So many questions you have failed to answer across this whole thread.

 

[sihhi]

While the preferred liberal implementation of such disenfranchisement usually involves many years of demoralising opponents and binding them up in legal, economic and ideological straight-jackets, they are clearly prepared to resort to other means if necessary. Anyway they are obviously just one of many players in Egypt but I pick on them in particular right now because the military coup route is so obviously incompatible with their standard rhetoric, I cannot watch them squirming desperately to justify things in their usual 'democratic' terms without taking the opportunity to point it out.

Well yes of course most liberals betray their liberalism very quickly. The Liberal party in Italy voted for Mussolini's enabling law in 1923, some liberals welcomed Motorman at first.
But some liberals in the West judging by Guardian CIF comments seem to believe if the West (IMF EU etc) hadn't been so harsh on the Brotherhood none of this would have happened. I also remember Jon Snow's twitter around February 2011 around the time Mubarak was on the verge of going him tweeting something like 'I am not joking but a military takeover tonight please...'

 

[elbows]

The fact that the Cairo June 30 protests were billed as the largest contiguous protests in world history is propaganda yes, but that claim also seems to be true according to the aerial photographs.

I don't know as the timing of that claim was very good considering some of the footage from Brazil recently.

 

[elbows]

why are they not breaking apart this coup by working on a counter-coup from the lower conscripts?

In your kind of questions, they should be able to do both these things given how democratic and accountable they were?

They might be working on such things but we'll only find out about it if they manage some success on that front. The statement from the army earlier moaning about rumours of field commanders pressuring al-Sisi is intriguing but impossible to decode the truth just yet.

In any case that particular front has little to do with how democratic and accountable the MB were in power.

I have been trying to get a sense of just how many people the MB are able to get onto the streets, obviously quite a few but at various points in recent years some of the suggestions about quite how much muscle they can summon up seem overblown and now doesn't seem to be any exception, at least so far.

 

[sihhi]

They might be working on such things but we'll only find out about it if they manage some success on that front. The statement from the army earlier moaning about rumours of field commanders pressuring al-Sisi is intriguing but impossible to decode the truth just yet.

In any case that particular front has little to do with how democratic and accountable the MB were in power.

It would suggest they'd be able to tap into the ordinary conscripts' desires for democracy.
So far there are no reports of the coup breaking apart, if anything the bizarre protest in Sinai governorate office being disbanded.

Instead from the Brotherhood we get straight-out supporter clashes, plus essentially innocent targets almost specifically designed for a counter-reaction.

I have been trying to get a sense of just how many people the MB are able to get onto the streets, obviously quite a few but at various points in recent years some of the suggestions about quite how much muscle they can summon up seem overblown and now doesn't seem to be any exception, at least so far.

They would have gotten many, many more a year ago, don't you think.

 

[Poo Flakes]

Why do you say ousted by a bunch of capitalists? Were/are the brothers anti-capitalist? Can we get some clarity here.

I assume that the clerics would be beneficiary strata from the muslim brotherhood while the military-industrial complex (i.e. where the money is) is wholly run by the military. I could be wrong in that. ayatollah could be right when he says the military missed a good chance to get the clerics onboard.

 

[Pickman's model]

I assume that the clerics would be beneficiary strata from the muslim brotherhood while the military-industrial complex (i.e. where the money is) is wholly run by the military. I could be wrong in that. ayatollah could be right when he says the military missed a good chance to get the clerics onboard.

'the military-industrial complex is wholly run by the military'

think about it, poo flakes. think about it. do you really really think that?

 

[butchersapron]

I assume that the clerics would be beneficiary strata from the muslim brotherhood while the military-industrial complex (i.e. where the money is) is wholly run by the military. I could be wrong in that. ayatollah could be right when he says the military missed a good chance to get the clerics onboard.

Seriously - what is this mess supposed to mean? Why have you avoided the straight question? Why do you say ousted by a bunch of capitalists? Were/are the brothers anti-capitalist? Can we get some clarity here. You really need to get this sorted before you post again. Once more to see if you can:

Why do you say ousted by a bunch of capitalists? Were/are the brothers anti-capitalist? Can we get some clarity here.

 

[Buckaroo]

Young lad sums it all up nicely.

 

[sihhi]

I assume that the clerics would be beneficiary strata from the muslim brotherhood while the military-industrial complex (i.e. where the money is) is wholly run by the military. I could be wrong in that. ayatollah could be right when he says the military missed a good chance to get the clerics onboard.

Firms with investments by the military only cover 35-40% of the economy by GDP. There's money outside the military-industrial and military-owned and military-invested service and industrial sector.

 

[Poo Flakes]

Seriously - what is this mess supposed to mean? Why have you avoided the straight question? Why do you say ousted by a bunch of capitalists? Were/are the brothers anti-capitalist? Can we get some clarity here. You really need to get this sorted before you post again. Once more to see if you can:

I would have thought that in a country like Egypt the military circle would be controlling most of the important industries in Egypt so would also compose a significant component Corporate elite (i.e. the capitalists). I also would have though that the religious elite, controlling the muslim brotherhood and their allies, can be differentiated from that. I suppose that elite would be "anti-capitalist" as far as the corporate-military elite counteracted their interest. In other words, if they were not anti-capitalist, they will be increasingly so as long as they are excluded from positions of influence.