So the white european upper-class and ruling-class saviors of women and faux-“feminists” have spoken once again. The icelanders have decided to outlaw businesses exploiting women and having them strip naked for the perverted pleasure of a bunch of dirty, lecherous old pieces of shit. This kind of thing is no different, and I find it repulsive that some have praised it because it was apparently “justified” on “feminist” grounds, and not on religious grounds…as if that changes anything! In fact, I despise the decision that much more because they exploit and defile something which I love in the process. But it does make a point: it shows how, once again, bourgeois “liberal” democracy’s implementers love to find things that are detrimental to people or “immoral” and legislate it’s banning…as if these SOCIAL problems didn’t develop BECAUSE of the government and economic system which they serve.

To outline a few examples: drug use and prostitution. People use drugs for specific reasons, many of them a result of the economic or social situation in which they exist. Now we all know the main victim of drug use: the user. Now when drug use is criminalized, what happens to the position of the drug user? It deteriorates, obviously. Just because the drug is banned/outlawed doesn’t mean that they stop using it! It is a DRUG, it is addictive, plus: the REASON for their use of drugs is not eliminated, but rather the legality of their use of the drug. OK, so they will continue to use the drug/s, but now the drug trade is underground, and the quality and cleanliness of the drug will lastly decrease, while the price will skyrocket. So not only will they now be using horrible quality drugs, but they will have to pay more for them, and also they could be arrested at any time for possession or purchasing of illegal drugs. Now let’s take prostitution: if it is not regulated or criminalized in any way, the women will have horrible lives obviously, but if it is criminalized in any way, they, the VICTIMS of prostitution, will be the ones to suffer. Then they won’t be able to report if they are beaten or mistreated, it will be harder to get examinations regularly, and they will be forced to deal with their disgusting “customers” in much less safe areas and manners, and they can also be imprisoned at any time now, simply for trying to stay alive.

Now let me return to the iceland case. The reason for these women to sell their bodies has not changed, but now it is illegal. Of course this does not mean that it will stop, nor that these women will stop either, for they obviously have very good economic reasons which force them into these type of exploitative occupations. If anything it will push them into prostitution, or else into “performing” in illegal venues, which would only decrease their job security, and exponentially increase the chance that they would be mistreated or raped, which now they couldn’t even report, because what they are doing is “illegal.” And even if the law provided for “rehabilitation” and jobs for these women who would lose their jobs, which seemingly isn’t the case (the fact that they ignore the women completely in the reporting of this law shows that, and is really very telling), then still, the young women who would have gone into this line of work after a few years, would now be forced to work illegally, or prostitute themselves fully, with the obvious negative effects on them. For, again, the social and economic CAUSES have not been addressed, but simply the legality of it.

But this is what bourgeois faux-“feminists” like to do: speak down to the women who are really suffering, and increase their suffering and exploitation exponentially because they get offended and squeamish at the thought of prostitution and other such exploitative sexual occupations which many poor women are forced into to survive. These despicable pieces of shit have no interest in giving up any of their own power and wealth by working for the creation of a new society in which all are equal, and wealth is governed by the idea “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” NO! But they are fully willing to pass despicable laws and claiming they are “progressive,” fully willing to increase the oppression and exploitation of the most vulnerable and destitute women, and then shamelessly claim they are helping these women…yes they are willing to do that.

I routinely get emails from AUC, and I am just as routinely pissed off greatly by the colonialist, amerikkkan-loving, and mubark-loving bullshit that I read, and which of course, is what colonialist, cowardly AUC is really all about.  So it helps my rage to have some kind of outlet, in this case writing, and hopefully also it is of some value to other people what I write.  So, after this email, which I send to Comrade As’ad with a comment, and after receiving yet another letter, this time even worse, I have decided that for the sake of my health, so I don’t die young of a heart attack, I will publish these beautifull letters here once in a while when I receive one that’s worth mentioning.  Here is the latest, I just got it a half-hour ago (am quoting email in full):

“Dear Members of the AUC Community,

It is my pleasure to invite you to attend the “Police Force Memorial” in the presence of General Ismail El Shae’r on behalf of the Minister of Interior, General Habib El Adly. The celebration will take place tomorrow Monday, February 22nd at 12:30 pm in Bassily Auditorium.

At this event, AUC will be honoring the families of the policemen who died on duty. General Ismail El Shae’r has also graciously agreed to take questions addressed by members of the AUC Community.

I look forward to your participation in this noble event.

David Arnold”

I mean who are these stupid fucks kiding???? Why not just bend over and be sodomized by fucking mubarak and obama??? And by the why, this fucking symbol of what a white man is, “President” David Arnold, knows NO arabic whatsoever, which is really not surprising because he is after all the head of a racist, colonialist institution, and he has NO experience or relation to the arab world at all, and was probably just picked by the right-wing, white man, colonialist “board of trustees” because he is an unintelligent idiot who just does what he is told.  Also, I should mention that he actually has a BODYGUARD!  Seeing that white man walking around with a bodyguard is the most comical thing you have ever seen, let me assure you…I mean when you feel physically threatened by the gucci-wearing rich brats at AUC you have some serious fucking problems!  But to get back to what I was saying…When any idiot starts talking about how “independent” or “liberal” AUC is, please just re-read this email and reassure yourselves that it is as un-independent and ill-liberal (or is honoring rapists, molesters, torturers, and brutal murders “liberal”? I admit, I could be wrong…) as is fucking possible.  I don’t know what is more offensive about this event: that AUC aligns itself with the most reactionary, repressive, and brutal parts of mubarak’s regime, that it calles “noble” an event which is celebrating the legacy of violent rapists, phsycopaths, torturers, brutal, disgusting murderers (not to mention that this Isma’il el-Sha’er is one of the most prominent pieces of shit in the repressive, torturing “security” apparatus of mubark’s fucking regime: he is assistant to the minister of the interior [i.e. minister of torture and repression], and the director of “security” for the cairo governorate), or that this isn’t even surprising, and that it is just another example of how AUC does all it possibly can to be an agent of amerikkkan imperialim and colonialist aims, and also takes great pleasure in prostrating itself before fucking mubarak’s brutal, traitorous regime, even employing it’s old torturers to run it’s security.  Well FUCK YOU auc!!!  That’s all I have to say for now, and i’m a little calmer now…

So I wanted to write a more extensive post about this, but reading through anything el-Baradei writes or says is a powerful sedative, so I decided to just focus on one interview to show why he is a piece of shit, a fucking amerikkkan servant, and an all around “liberal”:

“I came here [amerikkka] in the sixties to see the land of the free…I was able to go anywhere, accepted anywhere, nobody cared where I came from, what religion I have. It was a fantastic experience. I thought, This is the world as it ought to be.” [Dec 2009]

-So first of all he is fucking blind and deaf.  Anyone with eyes and ears who has been to amerikkka for even a day knows that it is a thoroughly racist, bigoted country in regards to….everything: race, religion, skin color, ethnicity…And we also see that if el-Baradei runs for the presidency, he seemingly wants to turn Egypt into amerikkka: a horrifying and insane idea to say the least.  All this would really entail would be greater penetration of capitalism, racism everywhere, and even further submission by the Egyptian state to the demands and wishes of the amerikkkan regime.  Please el-Baradei fuck off back to the “land of the free” and spare Egyptians your crap, which honestly sounds worse than mubarak.

“I once got a full lecture from the foreign minister of North Korea that since 1850, the U. S. is after the Korean peninsula. Saddam Hussein, he always believed that he was being targeted by the West. In Iran, they’ll give you stories on how the West is trying to manipulate the Iranian system.” [Dec 2009]

-Yes, didn’t you know? The amerikkkan entity isn’t imperialist! It hasn’t invaded, murdered, intimidated, threatened countries for it’s whole criminal existence! Nope!  These are just imaginations of the north korean and Iranian regimes!  Anyone who lies and fabricates this much in favor of the amerikkkans is obviously an even worse amerikkkan puppet than mubarak.

“Threatening with sanctions or using force will simply empower the hard-liners.” [Dec 2009]

-So you see what we can expect in terms of economics.  For to el-Baradei it’s not important that MILLIONS died because of sanctions in Iraq, and thousands are dying now in Iran for the same reason, NO!  All he cares about is that it doesn’t serve his political agenda!  So if el-Baradei ever comes to power, be sure he will implement his (and his masters’) neo-liberal, brutal capitalist agenda, without any worries about the lives it will claim, for after all, as long as it doesn’t “empower the hard-liners” it must be good!

“Everyone in the Middle East pretty much wants to come and be an American citizen, but pretty much everybody is angry with the U. S. foreign policy. At least until recently [Dec 2009].”

-This is just fucking unbelievably stupid.  Does he really believe this, or is he just trying to kiss some amerikkkan ass? Either way it is quite telling of what an idiot he is, and the degree of his abject subservience to the amerikkkans, which after all, is what kept him in his position for such a long time.  And notice here that he is implying that people in the “middle east” are now, in the age of his highness house negro obama, not oppossed to amerikkkan foreign policy…I think el-Baradei belongs in a fucking mental hospital, not a position of power!!!

That I even am writing something about this is ridiculous and despicable, it should be common fucking knowledge and elementary fucking logic.

One of the idiocies that is used against the resistance in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan is the idea that religion, in these cases Islam, is the REASON for these movements existing. And this argument is used across the political spectrum with minor, inconsequential variations. And even more annoying are those who use this, or at least emphasize religion, when supporting resistance movements. For both of these groups I would like to break some OBVIOUS news that you may or may not have the logic and thinking skills to understand: resistance to occupation has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with OCCUPATION. Wherever there is occupation, wherever there is violent repression, there will be violent resistance. It is that fucking simple, OK? I know it is crazy, but people don’t like being shot to death, beaten, humiliated, or have bombs dropped on their heads, they are crazy like that. When they have these things done to them, they want to resist, to violently put an end to what is oppressing them. To quote Ulrike Meinhof: “Resistance is when I put an end to what I don’t like.”

Violent resistance to oppression is not some novel thing that those crazy ay-rabs and mozlums do cause apparently the Quran was written by a religious Che Guevara. No, the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghanis are fighting against occupation because they are human and thus when someone tries to grind them into the dirt, to physically eliminate them, they resist. And people in the west understand this concept quite well, because they seemed to have no problem with violent resistance when most of europe was occupied by the nazis. True most resistance was not religious, because, you know, the catholic church really liked all the jew killing, they killed christ, didn’t you know? But even in regards to religious resistance the west seems to perfectly understand the Irish resistance, which was very religious. So I guess the logic is that mozlums don’t have the right to resist occupation, especially when the resistance groups are religious and not secular, but the Irish I guess are different, they can be supported especially because their resistance was often couched in religious terms. And for western socialists: many priests picked up guns at fought against Franco, right? And I assume you support the resistance that fought against Franco? But if muslim religious leaders take up arms against repression or occupation, it is wrong and not worthy of support? Try and explain the fucking logic of that!

The other side of this is just as fucking stupid. Some people inflate exponentially the religious aspect of the resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan to confirm their own prejudices and religious beliefs. They portray these resistance movements as if resistance to oppression is somehow specific to muslims, or that muslims are somehow “special” because they resist oppression. That is idiotic, the only “special” thing about muslims in this respect is that they have the “good fortune” to be discriminated against by the western imperialist nations, and that they happen to have natural resources the west is willing to secure by force. These type of people also try to claim that supporting these movements is some kind of “religious” duty. This attitude is also illogical, why should muslims in Indonesia give a fuck about Palestinians, but not South Africans? Or the Irish? Or Italians? Or Columbians? Here is what As’ad AbuKhalil says about this:

“I am VERY bothered when somebody–anybody–tries to suggest that Palestine is an Islamic cause or question. One member of the audience in one talk said just that. I had to tell him: Islamic matter? You think that Palestinian Christians care less about Palestine than Palestine Muslims? I had to tell him that I knew Palestinian Christians who gave their lives for Palestine. George Habash cares less about Palestine that Mr. Muhammad Dahlan? That angers me when I hear it.”

Of course I agree completely with this. Supporting the resistance is not a “religious” duty, and has nothing at all to do with religion, and has everything to do with fucking decent humanity. Muslims shouldn’t support these resistance movements, HUMANS should. I mean what if the external organization of these groups was arab (or afghan) nationalism instead, but the members of the resistance were still muslims? Would it still be the duty of muslims to support them? Or if the groups were socialist? Obviously, you either are going to support resistance or not support resistance, and if your opinion of violent resistance changes because the groups that happen to be resisting are socialist not religious, or religious not socialist, then you are obviously just a fucking hypocrite who never really believed in the right to violent resistance to oppression in the first place.

Which leads me to the final point: resistance movements ORGANIZE and UNITE people through the use of religious or secular ideologies and beliefs. This really doesn’t mean shit, if you couldn’t reason that out for your self. These ideologies and/or beliefs are simply used to unite a group of people together in a solid movement, it has very little to do with the actual aims of the organization, or the reason for it’s creation. The reason resistance movements are created is to fight against oppression and occupation, it doesn’t matter whether it is religious or secular. And the main reason members of the resistance fight is always the same: they don’t like occupation or repression, they are not fighting because they believe in this god or that god or this ideology or that. It is very simple, resistance may be ORGANIZED differently in different circumstances, but the very reasons for it resisting and even existing, are always the same.

And now let me say that I am human, and thus support violent resistance to oppression and occupation wherever it is in the world, it doesn’t matter to me who is resisting, and it doesn’t matter to me how they organize their resistance movements. And if you think that one group of people deserve to be supported (or are more worthy of support) in their right to violently resist oppression, but not another group, then FUCK OFF, you are nothing but a fucking hypocrite, who obviously is not a real supporter of resistance.

I thought I would contribute a short criticism of the current Iraq massacre inquiry currently taking place in the UK.  This is a short selection from Italian Socialist Dario Fo’s famous play The Accidental Death of an Anarchist.  The characters are discussing the role of scandals.  The “Maniac” character is a Minstrel/Harlequin type character which is very common in comedia dell’arte, and and they are used to expose the truth plainly and through the use of humor.  The other character is the “Journalist,” who was supposed to represent the reformist Italian Communist Party, whom Fo used to criticize for not being radical and revolutionary enough. Here is the extract:

“Maniac: It means: ‘Whether they want it or not, I shall impose truth and justice. I shall do what I can to make sure that these scandals explode in the most public way possible; and you need not fear that, in among the rot, the power of government will be undermined. Let the scandal come, because on the basis of that scandal a more durable power of the state will be founded!

….Journalist: So in other words he’s saying that even when there aren’t scandals, they need to be invented, because it’s a good way of maintaining power and defusing people’s anger.

Maniac: Correct. A liberatory catharsis of tension…You remember the ‘Profumo’ scandal in England? A minister of defence, caught up with drugs, prostitution, and spying…!!! Did the state collapse? Or the stock exchange? Not a bit of it. If anything they came out of it stronger than before. People thought: ‘The shit is there, so let it float to the surface…’ Were swimming in shit – even swallowing some of it – but nobody comes round telling us that everything’s fine and dandy, and that’s what counts!….

Scandal is the fertilizer of social democracy! In face I’d go even further: scandal is the best antidote to the worst of poisons – namely when people come to realize what’s really going on. When people begin to realise what’s going on, we’re done for! But look at amerikkka – a truly social-democratic society. Did they ever try to censor the true facts about the massacres carried out by amerikkkan troops in Vietnam? No they did not! It was on the front pages of all the papers – photos of women butchered, children massacred, villages destroyed. And do you remember the scandal of the nerve gas? The amerikkkans had manufactured enough nerve gas in the u.s. to wipe out the entire population of the world three times over. But did they try to hide the fact? Not a bit of it! In fact, when you turned on the TV, there they were. Trains. ‘And where are those trains going?’ ‘To the seaside.’ ‘And what are those trains carrying?’ ‘Nerve gas. It’s going to be dumped at sea…A few miles off the shoreline!’ So that supposing there’s a little earthquake one day, the containers will crack, and the nerve gas will come bubbling up to the surface, glug-glug-glug, and we’ll all die. Three times over!

They’ve never tried to hush up these scandals. And they’re right not to. That way, people can let off steam, get angry, shudder at the thought of it…’Who do these politicians think they are?’ ‘Scumbag generals!’ ‘Murderers!’ And they get more and more angry, and then, burp! A little liberatory burp to relieve their social indigestion.

Journalist: But excuse me – you say amerikkka is so free, but what do you have to say about the calculated murder of terrorists, with their families, and the burning of an entire black area in Philadelphia?

Maniac: I was talking about the ‘right of liberatory burps’, not the ‘right to life’….the important thing is to have a good scandal!…So that the Italian nation can march alongside the amerikkkans and the english, and become a modern and social-democratic society, so that finally we can say: ‘It’s true – we’re in the shit right up to our necks, and that’s precisely the reason why we walk with our heads held high!”

So, when I wrote this post a week ago, I was mocking all of the opposition parties, especially the liberal ones and the Muslim Brotherhood.  But right away, the new “general guide” of MB had to go and prove how well founded my satire was!  Just read what Muhammad Badee’ (the new “general guide”) had to say yesterday about the direction of MB:

إننا نؤمن بالتدرج في الإصلاح، وأن ذلك لا يتم إلا بأسلوب سلمي ونضال دستوري قائم على الإقناع والحوار وعدم الإكراه؛ ولذلك نرفض العنف وندينه بكل أشكاله؛ سواءٌ من جانب الحكومات أو من جانب الأفراد، أو الجماعات اأو المؤسسات.

[We believe in gradual reform, and that will not be accomplished except through peaceful methods, and constitutional struggle, based on persuasion and dialogue and non-coercion. And therefore, we reject violence and we condemn it in all of its forms, whether from governments or individuals or groups or organizations.]

Now I really did not make this up, but it is good to show how useless and reformist MB is, at least on a leadership level. But given their belief in “gradual reform” and “constitutional struggle (نضال دستوري)” they really should change their name to: The Party of Moderate Progress within the Limits of the Law.

OK, I was planning on writing about this months ago, but I forgot, and then I was talking to a comrade about “charity” and also it is an especially relevant subject now after the earthquake in Haiti, so I figured I would actually write a post this time…

Charity is many things:

1) Cheap public relations for corporations, the rich, and imperialist governments i.e. they pay a little money to a charity, or else start a charitable organization, and then they get a lot of good articles written about them, and some people may think that they are not criminals whose entire wealth was and is illegitimately gotten, and that they should be fucking killed in the street for having this wealth, not praised for giving a little of it away. For instance, in this latest disaster we have seen grade-A hypocrites like fucking child-murder clinton, and stupid ass bono, make “appeals” for donations when they have millions of dollars in wealth which does little except: sit in the bank uselessly, or is used to buy expensive cushions for their delicate asses, or obscenely expensive food for their delicate tummies, i.e. the money is used to keep up these rich fucks’ extravagant lifestyle, which they justify, I presume, by imagining that they are more important and deserving than the majority of the people in the world. My response to these hypocrites and criminals using charity for public relations is: give up all your money, which you don’t need or deserve in the first place, and then you can talk about “charity” and doing “good.”

2) Good Business, i.e. someone starts a charitable group, they hire themselves (obviously), or appoint themselves the chairwoman/man of the board. They may also put some of their friends or relatives on the “board” or otherwise add them to the payroll. Then of course they will hire some normal employees, and then they give themselves and whoever they want large salaries, and sit on their asses collecting money for “the poor” or whatever else, while the money really just pays them a big salary, with little to no money actually going to the advertised target.

3) A drug to relieve pressure, i.e. “if we feed some of the poor, or use charity to give them just enough food to live and function somewhat normally, they will thank us and be somewhat contented, so that they won’t be mad or rebellious,” i.e. just like the use of drugs, television, sports, etc…, to distract people and let some of the pressure out of the pressure cooker which is capitalist society. Of course not saying this is all bad, I mean if charity is used to fulfil an immediate need, like helping the Haitians after the earthquake, or feeding starving people, this is obviously a very good thing. But that does not mean that it is always done with good intentions, mostly it is just done for good publicity and propaganda. But in the end, the real solution for poverty is an end to imperialism and capitalism, and the best solution for Haitians would obviously be a revolutionary government which refused to follow the dictates of the imperialists, and which aimed to create a socialist society.

4) A brutal crime, i.e. if you have ever heard about amerikkkan food aid to Africa, just one among many of such cases, you will know what I mean. The amerikkkan goverment basically does this: they buy up extra food in the domestic market (often times it is so-called “over” production, i.e the food that corporations normally destroy to keep prices high), and then ship in overseas and call this “aid.” That is where the amerikkkan food aid comes from, it is propaganda which isn’t even slightly charitable in reality, but which only fits with capitalist and imperialist policies.  This however is not the worst of it. The food aid destroys local agriculture, and has the effect of keeping the population literally starving, because the food aid is brought in, not bought in the place of need, and so with a massive influx of food, local agricultural production is kept at a pitiful level, such that it can’t even close to supply the populations food needs. It is another one of the sick ironies of capitalism that food aid doesn’t actually feed, it starves, and this is what many international organizations even admit, including the UN, which is normally so eager to kiss the ass of any amerikkkan.

In conclusion, I think it is obvious that charity is not the solution to any problem, at most it is a temporary means to keep people alive and to help people out (although often enough it has detrimental effects, as I outlined above). But charity is at base reformist, and is not a useful method AT ALL for really solving any problem, all it does is band-aid it until the next crisis comes along. That being said, we should realize that the solution is REVOLUTION, a complete end of imperialism and capitalism, and a real redistribution of wealth, and anything less than that will never create a truly equal and just society.

This issue I will be writing about here is the role of parliamentary politics, “liberal” democracy, and reformism in the struggle for a socialist society. For someone who is critical, like me, of leftist, socialist, and communist parties taking part in “democratic” elections, the easiest place to look for examples of the political selling out that results is by far Europe. Many countries in europe have had parties in power who claimed to be socialist, such as the ruling party in Spain, and even the current ruling “communist” party in greek cyprus. But take a look at any of these parties, and all they do is continue the capitalist policies, and often imperialist policies, which are inherent under liberal “democracy,” and the only difference between them and out and out reactionary parties is that they claim to be working under the banner of socialism, while in reality doing nothing but defiling the name of a revolutionary ideology. These parties don’t even claim to be revolutionary, they are openly reformist, and their thirst for power leads them to continually betray the principles on which their parties claim to stand.

Trotsky describes these european parliamentary “socialists” very well in his autobiography when he describes his encounters with the leaders of the Austrian Social Democratic Party:

“I listened with intense, and one might almost say, respectful interest to their conversation in the “Central” café. But very soon I grew puzzled. These people were not revolutionaries. Moreover, they represented the type that was farthest from that of the revolutionary. This expressed itself in everything – in their approach to subjects, in their political remarks and psychological appreciations, in their self-satisfaction – not self-assurance, but self-satisfaction…I was surprised to find that these educated Marxists were absolutely incapable of applying Marx’s method as soon as they came to the big problems of politics, especially its revolutionary turns…

“In informal talks among themselves, they revealed, much more frankly than in their articles and speeches, either undisguised chauvinism, or the bragging of a petty proprietor, or holy terror of the police, or vileness towards women. In amazement, I often exclaimed, “What revolutionaries!”

The other region which has a fairly long history of parliamentary “socialism” is Latin America, although it does manifest itself there is somewhat better form than in europe. Without doubt there are several outstanding leaders (at very least in contrast to other world leaders) there who are the products and beneficiaries of the parliamentary road to socialism (which inevitably leads nowhere). The most well known of these socialist/parliamentarian leaders being Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales (currently in power), Manuel Zelaya (removed from power in a 2009 military coup) and the greatest symbol of parliamentary socialism in Latin America: Salvador Allende (killed during the 1973 military coup led by Pinochet). Now, as socialists, I think it is very important to support these governments against their enemies, both the foreign imperialists, local puppet leaders, and the domestic and expatriate bourgeois. This does not mean, however, that criticizing them is off limits. Of course these leaders are far from perfect, and criticism is essential if we want to achieve true socialism and not sell out our principles for seats in a parliament.

So: Where are these governments going? What security do they have that they won’t be deposed by a coup? Or that the “liberal” democracy they have founded their rule on won’t be used (as it normally is) to sell the election to the highest bidder?

In regards to the question of security, Chavez has already had a military coup launched against him, which he thankfully defeated, and Zelaya was deposed by another military coup, and it doesn’t look as if he will ever return to power, and Allende was killed during Pinochet’s coup. The only lesson some socialists draw from this is that military coups are bad, as if we did not know that before. The much more important point to make, however, is that reformist/parliamentary socialism will never work. We need a revolution, not an election, and if there is no revolution, but rather a selling out to the structures of state that the capitalists themselves have built, there will be little to no protection from military coups and no reliable security on which to base and support the restructuring of society.

Also, a key point to be made about these leaders, and parlimentary “socialism” in general, they being its outcome, is that their rules’ are supported to a great extend by their individual characters and leadership. And no this is not a complement. It is not a complement, because what will happen when these leaders die? Most likely the system they have worked towards creating, far from perfect though it may be, will die as well, or will be killed by the accession to power of an “ally” or “fellow” party member of the said leader, who will then proceed to undue everything that their predecessor had worked to build. If we focus on the individual, we will never be able to achieve socialism, as socialism is the focus on the collectivity, not the individual. When we start talking about “the leader of the revolution,” you can be quite sure that the revolution will fail. Likewise, when we put our faith and hope for change in one person, or even several people, we will either be disappointed with the result, or have to lie to ourselves. For our revolution to succeed and survive, it needs to be based on the masses of the people, the exploited and the oppressed, and be lead by them!

Another issue with parliamentary “socialism” is its reliance on institutions and a system created by the people they should be enemies of. We are not attempting to build half-hearted-kind-of-like-socialism and use the prevailing system, a system created by and for the upper classes, to achieve our goal of a complete transformation of society. No! If we say we are socialists, then let us be socialists and say NO, unequivocally, to reformism and selling out. As we have seen with the people and groups who have gone down the road of parliamentary “socialism,” we will be able to change very little in the long run, and will be left yelling empty slogans in the streets during election time. A real change of society, a complete and utter shattering of the previous system and norms, is what we need to accomplish to truly change our world for the better. If we choose instead to engage in parliamentary politics, it means nothing less than that we are selling out to the capitalists and upper classes who want nothing more than to co-opt revolutionary movements and turn them into neutered, tamed parliamentary parties.

I have heard, comrades, that a new party has been created some weeks ago, and will surely add to the rich variety of opposition parties in Egypt which aim for the noble and ennobling task of re-organizing the government of Egypt from an aristocratic dictatorship, to a democracy of aristocrats.

Here is an official press release I received from a friend who joined the new party:

Our new party was named, after long and fruitful consideration and after conscientiously weighing all the positive and negative consequences of our linguistic duty to our to-be-formed party, we decided upon naming our noble, struggling, party, which will fight for human rights and democracy in Egypt, The Party of Moderate Progress Within the Bounds of the Law (PMPWBL)*.

What we are fighting for is very simple: Moderate Progress within the bounds of the law. What does this mean? This means we will strongly fight for the moderate and cautious, but nevertheless existent, reform of a handful, i.e. several, or in other words a number of, ministries and other entities of the current Egyptian state, entities both internal and external, many of which have a small or big, often medium, role in determining the fate, or outcome, of the average Egyptian citizen’s life, or rather his condition and livelihood. But we hasten to assure, and reassure, and in general to notify, our noble and respected fellow Egyptian citizens, that we will at all times respect the law, or in other words the constitution, and of course we should hasten to add that we will never break the criminal law, or personal status law, or any of the other just laws we have currently written down and which are printed by our press, and which the lawyers who are currently attending Cairo University for instance are reading and studying, and basically all the laws, for we respect them greatly, and feel that without laws there would be chaos and anarchy and violence, and we are not anarchists, we have great respect for the law, and we will defend it.

In other words, beloved citizens, we will work within the bounds of the law. Yet, citizens, we do believe that some of the laws currently on the books, and in the books, and which are being printed, and also the ones being studied by the students of the various law faculties in our country, need to be changed, and that is to say reformed, to adapt to our modern world, or rather to be moulded to the demands, and of course requests, of the urgencies of the implementation and bequeathment of human rights and democracy, which are of course, and predictably, and without doubt not only, and not exclusively, the main tenets, i.e. principles and pillars, or our party, but rather, and to the contrary, and further over, these things are the main demands, and near sole focus and single thing that draws attention most, from among, and between, our fellow, dear, citizens. But during, or throughout, and especially in the heart of, our struggle and fight, or pushing ahead to realize the dream, and also the reality and implementation of, human rights and democracy, we will proceed and go ahead with our plans, and designs, and commitments to our electors, in a resolute yet respectful way, that is to say within the bounds of the law.

We would also, that is to say we the members of the Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law, would like to take some time to address, and disprove, and of course confront, some to the perfidious lies, the baseless distortions, and of course the treacherous baiting of some of the other parties, and of some of the writers, and also the journalists, who are currently writing at some of our nation’s papers, from whom a certain quantity, not very many of course, but a few, have been attacking our party without rest or stop or any let up or time to recover our breath.

We would like to address this now. Some people, or rather hate-mongers and deceivers, and in general hirelings and paid attack dogs, have been criticizing our party, that is The Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law, of doing and being numerous things, that is to say several things, which we will herein, and subsequent to the completion of this sentence, list and outline for our respected and dear citizens who have no need for these lies and who know that truth and righteousness are firmly a part of, and inherent in our party. First we would like to give our response to the perfidious lies and distortions, and faulty analyses which have lately been spread about our party, to the extent that we are legitimizing the ruling regime, that is to say we are providing them material for defence and legitimization, by running in elections, i.e. votes, and serving in elected bodies, which, these hirelings claim, are only for show and have no legitimacy or power and which are used, and manipulated by the ruling, prevailing, and current political, and economic regime, which is headed by our respected colleague Mr. Hosni Mubarak, who we are of course all familiar with. We deny this most vehemently, and categorically, and condemn the miserable rumor-mongerers who spread these type of wretched and abject lies. While we do believe that Mr. Mubarak’s policies are somewhat misguided, that is to say they demonstrate a certain impracticality and lack of experience, we are committed to moving our great country forward on the wings of the law to the moderate progress we all so strongly desire. We take the upright road of respect for the law and respect for our glorious country when we are struggling for the much praised, righteous goal of moderate progress. And our righteous path, the path of our fellow citizens and our great nation, being in the bounds of the law, we take advantage of the political voice and participation ability, and of course power, that Mr. Mubarak has kindly granted us, and we must use this kind favor to build upon, and of course slightly alter the glorious vision and reality which Mr. Hosni has graciously bestowed on our glorious motherland.

Although we are a new party, our boldness, courage, unstoppable will, righteousness, and sense of justice have resulted is us taking a very important and prestigious place in the Egyptian political sphere of involvement in the daily affairs of both state and society and the regulation and implementation and maintaining of the laws we all respect, and prize, and which we hold close to our hearts, although in fact they do need moderate revisions. This situation, or current condition of our party, the Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law, has led to us being reviled in some of the un-sophisticated press which publishes any disgusting filth they set their eyes on, even stooping so low, to such a disgusting level, wading in sewage, as to harm the irreproachable honor and security of our country by printing lies and fabrications about our great national leader, Mr. Mubarak. And thus, we do not feel we need to respond to these ridiculous claims and fabrications and invented stories, and cheap novels which our enemies circulate about us, and we will continue our selfless, that is not say non-selfish and sacrificing of selfness type struggle which we launched only a few short weeks ago, approximately two and a quarter, and which we will continue until we have brought our glorious motherland the much dreamed of thing which is often written of by poets, i.e. writers of poems, and what I am referring to is of course Moderate Progress, and we assure the public, our beloved citizens, that we will achieve this in, that is to say within, the bounds of the law, which we will continue printing and continue training lawyers in, and without which there would be no order, there would be anarchy, and we are not anarchists, we are moderate progritists fighting under the banner of respect for the law and aiming for the complete moderate progression of society and of the state, and of the internal and external entities therein implied.

–The executive board of decision making in the committee for political affairs and strategies, The Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law.

*I took from the Czech satirist Jaroslav Hasek the name for the party

I have written about prostitution before, but I thought it would be a good idea to introduce some brief, but excellent, excerpts from Lenin on this subject, which I have enjoyed reading, and hopefully you will too:

“Millions upon millions of women in such families [i.e. lower class families] live (or, rather, exist) as “domestic slaves”, striving to feed and clothe their family on pennies, at the cost of desperate daily effort and “saving” on everything—except their own labour.

It is these women that the capitalists most willingly employ as home-workers, who are prepared for a monstrously low wage to “earn a little extra” for themselves and their family, for the sake of a crust of bread. It is from among these women, too, that the capitalists of all countries recruit for themselves (like the ancient slave-owners and the medieval feudal lords) any number of concubines at a most “reasonable” price. And no amount of “moral indignation” (hypocritical in 99 cases out of 100) about prostitution can do anything against this trade in female flesh; so long as wage-slavery exists, inevitably prostitution too will exist. All the oppressed and exploited classes throughout the history of human societies have always been forced (and it is in this that their exploitation consists) to give up to their oppressors, first, their unpaid labour and, second, their women as concubines for the “masters”.

Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are identical in this respect. It is only the form of exploitation that changes; the exploitation itself remains.”

And here is an excerpt from a somewhat satirical article that Lenin wrote about prostitution:

“The fifth international congress for the suppression of the white slave [I know it is a very odd term, but apparently “white slave” means: “a woman who is sold or forced into prostitution”] traffic recently ended in London.
Duchesses, countesses, bishops, priests, rabbis, police officials and all sorts of bourgeois philanthropists were well to the fore! How many festive luncheons and magnificent official receptions were given! And how many solemn speeches on the harm and infamy of prostitution!

What means of struggle were proposed by the elegant bourgeois delegates to the congress? Mainly two methods—religion and police. They are, it appears, the valid and reliable methods of combating prostitution…

One lady from Canada waxed enthusiastic over the police and the supervision of “fallen” women by policewomen, but as far as raising wages was concerned, she said that women workers did not deserve better pay.

One German pastor reviled present-day materialism, which, he said, is taking hold among the people and promoting the spread of free love.

When the Austrian delegate Gartner tried to raise the question of the social causes of prostitution, of the need and poverty experienced by working-class families, of the exploitation of child labour, of unbearable housing conditions, etc., he was forced to silence by hostile shouts!

But the things that were said about highly-placed personages—among groups of delegates—were instructive and sublime. When, for example, the German Empress visits a maternity hospital in Berlin, rings are placed on the fingers of mothers of “illegitimate” children in order that this august individual may not be shocked by the sight of unmarried mothers!
We may judge from this the disgusting bourgeois hypocrisy that reigns at these aristocratic-bourgeois congresses. Acrobats in the field of philanthropy and police defenders of this system which makes mockery of poverty and need gather “to struggle against prostitution”, which is supported precisely by the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie….”