The Egyptian Revolution - Part 9

The final group that should be mentioned here, is of course, the bourgeoisie proper. In a society like Egypt, where the Capitalist Mode of Production is established, and where the State is a Capitalist State, but a Capitalist State under the control of a military-bureaucratic elite, the bourgeoisie proper does what it has always done – it adapts. The Bourgeoisie's most prized possession is the Capitalist State. As Lenin, argues the best political shell for Capitalism is the democratic Republic, but where the bourgeoisie is weak either absolutely because economic development is at an early stage, or relatively because of the strength of other classes – the Landlords, or the Proletariat – then the State bureaucracy is able to rise up above the contending classes, and exercise control over the State, forced to protect the Mode of Production, and to ensure the conditions of its reproduction, but doing so in a way so as to ensure its own narrow interests. In France, it did not take long, after the Nazi occupation, for the French Capitalists to adjust so as to continue exploiting French Labour Power under a different political regime. In that respect, the position of the Egyptian bourgeoisie is little different to that of its foreign brethren. A Bonapartist regime, that is always prone to severe and unanticipated disruption, that is corrupt, and therefore, presents Capital operating under its remit with additional and unknown costs, which drains considerable sums, from the pool of Surplus Value, into unproductive consumption, as huge revenues, appropriated by the bureaucratic elite, and which can change its allegiances at a whim, is not a preferred option for Capital. But, even such a Capitalist State is better than no Capitalist State, it calculates. For the domestic bourgeoisie, limited in the extent to which it can simply relocate its operations overseas, and for sections of multinational Capital, which because of its sphere of operation can or has little choice, but to do business with such a regime, the options are limited. The domestic bourgeoisie are, even in a developed economy, a relatively weak force in terms of their numbers. They can only effect changes if they can win over, or attach themselves to, larger social classes. Despite the fact that some “anti-imperialists” seem to believe that “Imperialism”, has some God like power to install whatever, political regime it desires, the same is true. It is impossible to install bourgeois democracy on a society where the basic requirements for its existence – a reasonably developed economy, a secure bourgeoisie, and a sizeable middle class – are missing.

In fact, the differing parts of “Imperialism” understood properly respond in different ways. A Multinational company whose main operations are related to mineral extraction, or to commerce might well be able to operate within the confines of such a regime quite happily, because it is the kind of regime such Capital has grown up with from the days of Mercantilism. Large multinational firms, producing industrial products may be more than happy to do business with such a regime in so far as selling goods to it, or into its markets, but may fight shy of actually locating production within its borders. Yet other companies, for example Telecom companies, may look to locating most of their production outside its borders, but will have to conduct some production and other activity within its borders in order to establish communication networks etc. which they seek to sell to the regime. But, Imperialism is not just made up of Capital. Imperialism as a global system of Capital, also implies the existence and operation of all those other necessary elements of the Capitalist Mode of Production – states, be they national or supra national, and quasi state bodies - and in an age of multinational corporations, and transnational finance, the old coincidence between Capital and the nation state is broken, as many Marxist economists such as Radice, Lipietz, and others have long since demonstrated. Ford in its operations in Britain, Belgium etc. does not look to the US State to protect and further its interests. Under modern Imperialism, it is able to look to the British State, or the Belgium State, or the EU proto state to look after its interests just as adequately as the US state will look after the interests of British, Belgian, or EU capital invested in the US.

But, in turn these state formations, no longer have interests synonymous with multinational Capital. Indeed, they may have contradictory interests. Multinational companies, and transnational banks, may well look to the establishment of wider international bodies that better serve their interests in operating on a global scale, whereas the nation state has other interests. It has to continue representing the interests of Capital as a whole within its own boundaries. And, as a consequence it also has to take into account wider considerations, such as the integrity and defence of the state, its longer term strategic interests in relation to its own economic development and welfare, its secure supply of energy and raw materials etc. As a consequence, whatever the interests of various multinational companies, nation states will continue to have diplomatic relations, and strategic alliances with all kinds of states, in order to further these interests. And, of course, in addition to the longer term view, and strategic policies of the State, has to be taken into consideration the shorter term limitations and regulation of such states imposed upon them by the political process within every bourgeois democracy i.e. the point made by Paul Mason that unlike State officials, politicians have to get elected!

In short the bourgeoisie as a whole has a clear and historical incentive to see Bonapartist regimes replaced by bourgeois democracy, particularly where it has space to be able to buy off a sufficiently large section of society, but it will only act decisively to bring about such change, where and when it is confident of success. That is why in Egypt, its preferred method of transition is to be able to persuade the existing military-bureaucratic elite that its time is up, and that its privileges can be largely protected under the new regime. In fact, if it is unable to do that, if the Bonapartist regime attempts to cling to power, then as I have written in my blog Egypt – What Is To Be Done, the concept of Permanent Revolution, may become applicable. Under those conditions, the nature of the revolution will be much more thoroughgoing, and reach down deeper into the social relations of the society. The elite, could then only be overthrown by a mobilisation of the workers, and under those conditions, the workers would necessarily have to push forward their separate interests, and the divisions between the workers and the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie would be forced wider. It is under those conditions that the bourgeoisie would take fright, throw its support behind the regime, and a new clampdown would begin. In the last few months, and over recent days, we have seen those divisions begin to open up inside Egypt, as it has become clear that the Generals do not intend to simply hand over power, and have sought to establish new social support, by doing deals with the Muslim Brotherhood, which represents the most organised bourgeois political force within the country.

Back To Part 8