Socialists Say: Stop the Massacres, Political Violence in Egypt!


The military coup was not aimed at deepening the revolutionary process but to contain the revolutionary waves. The current atrocities committed by the military is not just aimed at crushing the Muslim Brotherhood, but is also part of a plan to derail the Egyptian revolution and bring back Mubarak-era repressive rule.

Today, supporters of Muslim Brotherhood have become the target of the violent crackdown, but tomorrow any other forces that pose a threat to the military ruling elites will by [meant be] also subject to brutal repression.

Source: Malaysian socialists: Stop the massacres and political violence in Egypt! | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal

The military establishment represents the mainstay of the ruling class, the regime and the state. It is the spearhead of the counter-revolution that imposes itself on the mass movement as a fait accompli, even while it sows panic about the possibility of the development of the mass movement and strives by every possible means to either contain it within a narrow framework that does not threaten its class interests or to directly repress it, as has happened in the past.
The army was really caught between two fires. The first was the fire of the mass movement, and the possibility of it breaking through its limits in the event of Morsi continuing in power. The second was the fire of the Brotherhood and the Islamists in the streets--and with the opening of complex fronts in Sinai to a greater extent and some areas of Upper Egypt to a lesser extent--in the event of Morsi's overthrow. Not to mention the differences that would develop with the U.S. administration and the threat of what they call "the democratic path."

The army chose to avoid the fire of the mass movement, despite the consequences. It decided to knock out Morsi, while absorbing the masses and stopping the development of their movement, and face the fire from the Brotherhood, which was less threatening than that of the masses. As for the U.S. administration and to a lesser extent the EU, they have long-term strategic relations with the Egyptian military establishment that are capable of absorbing any tensions caused by the overthrow of Morsi.
Today we are subjected to a great deal of criticism of our position condemning the violence of the institutions of repression against the Islamists and for our attacks on Al-Sisi as the leader of the counter-revolution. But this will not lead us to dilute our position by creating a kind of "balance" in our attacks on the military and the Islamists, as if there were equality between them in terms of the danger they represent to the revolution. We are in the process of a comprehensive and sweeping counter-revolution, and the crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood's sit-ins and protests is only the first step. We will not waver in our firm position against the military and its fierce repression. ...

...Nor can we stop recalling the military's crimes, issuing warnings about the Interior Ministry, and demanding the prosecution of their criminals at every opportunity. Likewise we must warn of the return of Mubarak's state and its repressive institutions in full force and direct our attacks against it.
...The army, police and old regime elements did not intervene, not even once, during the last few weeks, to protect local people or protesters in any of the clashes. It is in this context that the Tamarod (Rebel) movement and the left, which is stuck to the military's boots, is calling for popular committees to protect the state and the institutions of repression and to help them crush the Islamists. These are fascist calls, and we cannot accept them or repeat them.

...In addition, we hear hateful racist rhetoric against the Palestinians and the Syrians.

Source: Revolutionary Socialists: Letter to Egyptian revolutionaries

Australian socialist Michael Karadjis,...stated..."The coup regime has now revealed itself to be a bloody, anti-working class, anti-democratic, anti-Palestinian regime of reaction."
On August 17, Egyptian-Canadians in Vancouver convened a demonstration against the coup d'état and police/army violence in Egypt. The remarks of Roger Annis to this action provide a guide for socialists in Canada in expressing our solidarity:

We demand that the governments in Canada, United States and Europe cease their complicity with the criminal, military regime and its July 3 coup d'état. They must scrap all military assistance to the Egyptian military. They must condemn the coup and they must support a return to legal and constitutional government. They must demand that political prisoners be released forthwith, including President Mohamed Morsi and other leaders of his party. The draconian, emergency measures by the coup regime that effectively outlaw civil liberties must be ended. They must also demand that the punitive measures against the Palestinian people in Gaza who are suffering as a result of border restrictions by the military regime be ended. Emergency aid should be provided as needed. Israel must end its treatment of Gaza as an outdoor prison that it can bomb or cut off at will....

Source: John Riddell on Egypt: Socialists need to rethink the military takeover

The Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights posted a detailed critique on its website, entitled "A Constitutional Coup Against the Principles of the Revolution". It protests that there was no consultation with the political forces that spearheaded the June 30 demonstrations over the contents of the constitutional declaration. Moreover, it says, the charter "ignored ... economic and social rights, such as the right to housing, health, medical treatment, food, drink, clothes, insurance, pensions, social security and the minimum and maximum wage. It failed to link wages to prices or to specify the right to worker representation on corporate boards and in profit sharing."

Source: Egypt: Workers' hopes dashed after military coup


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.