A Statement on the Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood Recently Killed in Egypt

The politics of the class struggle must be primary in any analysis of the recent attack by the state on the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Politics are always primary. A dialectical analysis of the situation illustrates a contradiction between two ideologies that both support Capitalism’s ability to control the state and for different particular imperialists and regional powers to hold sway over whatever group of bosses emerges as the dominant group. Though it is a tragedy that hundreds of workers have been killed over the past two days, the real tragedy continues to be the fact that the working class is still being mislead into supporting one or another group of bosses’ ideology.

The Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters have begun to shoot back and are coopting the language of the left as they try to paint their religious fundamentalism with a progressive veneer. They have regional allies with Turkey and Qatar, both hegemons that are arming and supporting one rebel faction in the imperialist proxy war in Syria. No religious ideology will ever emancipate the working class from exploitation, not Islam or Catholic based liberation theology. The politics that one particular mass is supporting and being killed for will only subjugate them further and empower regional players like Turkey.

This massacre further illustrates the hypocrisy of the US. The US is in a win win situation. If the state completely fails and chaos reigns, then they don’t have to go through the hassle of bombing it into oblivion and then shrugging their shoulders as they say they have to carry on with the rebuilding and fight terrorism as their actions with their humanitarian imperialism has illustrated. If the state does not fail and the army maintains power, then they have an ally that will function as counter weight to the Saudi’s rival, Qatar, and a loyal and submissive client state.  Either way that his resolves, we will probably see US troops stationed in Egypt – either under the auspices of the UN, some ad hoc alliance, or outright as part of the over 1.3 Billion dollars in military aid they currently receive.


The Progressive Labor Party does grieve for the innocent workers who have been killed over the past few days by the state, but we do not support the political aim of those workers nor do we support their ideology.  We are further grieved by the lack of a mass Communist Party capable of turning the tables on capitalism and beginning a Communist revolution for the true liberation of the working class by setting up a wageless egalitarian society.  The friends and allies of PLP in that part of the world as well as anybody interested in creating a lasting change need to intensify the struggle for Communist revolution so that we can bring this dark night where hundreds of workers are slaughtered for false consciousness to a close. 



Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 thoughts on “A Statement on the Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood Recently Killed in Egypt

  1. I noticed that your article on Egypt mentions the State and the Army. A point of clarification would be that the Army and Police are the State. When Engels speaks of the eventual rise of the State over society he is not discussing some abstract notion consisting of ideas about Government and its institutions as a new super behemoth of evil. He is speaking of the Generals (or Sergeants) eventually figuring out that they can supplant their employers. For my presentation of this fact of human sociocultural evolution see my (Jason W. Smith) books Archaeology and Primitive Communism, Karl Marx Second Magnum Opus and The ABC’s of Communism, Bolshevism 2013 chapters one through ten (Kindle Books http://www.amazon.com ).


    • The Army and the police are the agents of the state, or the state apparatus if you will. Whereas, in dialectical terminology, the state is the abstraction and the army and the police are the concrete manifestations of the organization of force and control over the means of production that the state represents. The court system and all of the other aspects of the state apparatus are the concrete elements that constitute the state apparatus as well. So, again, dialectically speaking, there is a sameness and intertwining of the state with the army and the police, yet there is also a difference where we separate them to understand them as distinct in and of themselves while still understanding that they are a part of the overall contradiction/process of the state.

      There are also different methods of control over the state and internecine capitalist struggle constantly brewing to control the state in order to have greater control over the means of production and, thereby, access to greater profit.


  2. In archaeology when we look for evidence for State emergence we look for evidence of standing bodies of armed men. Such evidence comes in the form of barracks, barracks-squares, arms rooms, and mess halls. This originates as armed thuggery, along several different routes well documented, and becomes the Army and the Police. We do not identify various proofs of Government structures as such evidence. Why? Because Government, meaning administrative command of many social functions, had existed for at least 1000 years prior to State emergence in all the areas of origin of the State (China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica and the Central Andes.) This Advanced Theocratic Stage was the second of two distinct transitional stages.
    The task of dialecticians is to strip away all extraneous matters to see the core causes and their processual interaction. Your example of courts is irrelevant. Courts simply codify processes but the underlying State is what we are looking for. That is, standing bodies of armed men in the pay of the richest families and sodalities.
    What fundamentally makes the emergence of the State possible is the change from altruism to sadism in the mental template of society. That change in worldview has a history now well understood and clearly seen in the archaeological evidence for the transition of Simple Chiefdoms to their Advanced Theocratic Stage. It was Karl Marx by the way who identified Chiefdoms as the period in social evolution where society began to come apart into classes and where armed force in the private pay of the richest ranks first makes its appearance (See the Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx, 1972 edition by Lawrence Krader).
    The key point being not to get confused by all the falderal about courts, etc. as part of a state apparatus because even if true it is irrelevant to the key fact that social order is now being imposed by force in the hands of a few who dictate to the many. That is the Army and the Police. Such an instrument is necessary if a society is not to fall apart into simple chiefdoms and tribes and continue upwards to the Stage of Slavery (Civilization.) A choice all Advanced Theocratic Chiefdoms will eventually have to confront and resolve in one of these two ways.
    We had to establish both police and an army in the very first days and weeks of the October Revolution to suppress our enemies at home and abroad. The Bolshevik State had many fascinating advanced features but at bottom it, like all State apparati, it was based on armed force, in this case in our pay.
    Again space being limited in this format I suggest that for those few interested in the process of “State Origins” to read my monograph Archaeology and Prehistoric Communism, Karl Marx’s Second Magnum Opus in e-reader form from Kindle Books at amazon.com.
    Finally, these may appear to be minor differences and indeed they are in some ways. On the other hand it never hurts to remember that our struggle is for State Power in order to achieve our objectives. That means our struggle is to have our own police and army and to destroy the enemies police and army. The rest of the “trappings” will come along as needed.


    • The PLP upholds the key fundamental principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a requirement for Communist Revolution. In Road to Revolution IV and other documents, we reaffirm the fact that we will need a Red Army and state power, with the requisite apparatus, in order to build a Communist society.

      We are not arguing about the fact that the Ruling Class of a particular period organized force in order to control the means of production. We agree on that. The nature of the organization of the state was based upon the needs of the particular ruling class to control the producing class and fight off rivals.


  3. Agreed. Keep up the good work.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: