David Rieff on grub, ethics, and revolution.
On the New Republic‘s Web site, one of the best things I’ve seen on the uprisings in the Middle East:
[I]f there was a proximate cause…to the Tunisian uprising, it was that least virtual of political acts—the decision of Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor in the central Tunisian city of Sidi Bouzid who burned himself to death in protest over the police seizing his cart and the produce he was trying to sell, and, more generally, over police brutality and grinding unemployment, poverty, and lack of opportunity. That was the action that provoked the first anti-government demonstrations in Tunisia and soon spawned other self-immolations from Egypt to Mauritania.But self-immolations do not fit into the cyber-utopian narrative. Like suicide bombings, they are simply too far removed from almost all of us who come from the West. In contrast, tweets and Facebook and the rest of life in cyberspace are essential to the way we now live…. So, in rooting for the tweeters in Tahrir Square, we are actually rooting for ourselves.
But what’s wrong with that, you may ask, if what we are supporting in Tunis or in Cairo, and hoping for in Algiers and Tripoli and Sana and Nouakchoutt, are the best of our ideals both personally and as societies—our belief in individual freedom and in representative democracy? To which the answer is: nothing, so long, that is, as we do not confuse our situation with theirs. My fear, though, is that this is precisely what we are doing.
Democracy, freedom of expression, individual rights, and the rule of law are all wonderful things. But, without economic justice—that is, without the hope of making a decent living, receiving adequate medical treatment, and no longer living in squalor—these democratic dreams are likely to benefit only a small minority of the population, even if, in a country as populous as Egypt, that is still a great many people in absolute numbers. One does not have to be a Marxist to see the force of Bertolt Brecht’s bitter axiom in The Threepenny Opera, “First grub, then ethics.” It will be a fine thing if, as has been promised in both Algeria and Egypt, the army makes good on its promises to end decades-old states of emergency. But will these changes from the top down, from which the upper middle classes—the Bluetooth, tweeting classes, to be blunt—stand to benefit almost immediately, do anything to improve the lot of the Mohamed Bouazizis of the world? Will they find it easier to find a job, feed their families, in short, to live with dignity? On that, surely, the verdict is very much still out.
Read the whole thing here.
Thanks, Matthew, for posting this. Rieff’s questions deserve serious consideration. We do tend to be self absorbed and want to see ourselves mirrored by others, even if the “mirroring’ is a matter of smoke and mirrors.
As I see it David Rieff is concentrating on the wrong things. Yes there are problem with democracies. But for Egypt et alii democracy would be a paradigm change of startling magnitude. For all our problems this is a great country. Or as Churchill said democracy is not perfect, but it is the best we have had. Whether one agrees with the Tea party or not it is quite refreshing that the electorate can show its power in an election. And Rieff makes no sense as to the vercdict is still very much out. If you have a democracy their lives will be better. Period. Will it be perfect. Is our democracy perfect? No. But the foundation is here. With both areas the internet will always help. Certainly, some people will benefit. But that is what elections are for.
As far as how these revolutions became effective we might look at Gene Sharp in whom the people in these countries found a plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17sharp.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage
Along those lines, it’s worth remembering that for significant parts of the 18 days in Egypt, internet access was virtually eliminated by the state authorities. Despite that (and despite police raids and detentions of key organizers), the April 6 Youth Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, El-Baradei’s supporters and others were able to continue organizing and strategizing.
It’s an organizing truism that power comes from organized people and organized money. Technologies (the printing press, fast horses, the telephone (landline and cell), the computer) can help, but the bottom line is sufficient people and money to take concerted action towards a common goal.
Bill Mazzella, thanks for your post, and especially the link to the Gene Sharp article; it’s well worth reading. I would, however, temper your assertion that “the internet will always help”. The internet, like any tool, can be used for good or for evil. The same technology that allows democracy activists to communicate instantaneously with allies around the world also allows dictatorial regimes to identify, track, spy upon and disrupt the actions of democracy activists.
A year from now what will we be seeing in these countries? Whomever takes over in which countries experience a revolution will be doomed to economic failure. The necessary number and kind of jobs that the young people are clamoring for simply cannot be created overnight or even with a year of two. (Ask Obama.) Will the youth be satisfied to patiently wait, or will they throw out the buggers and look for different buggers?
Jimmy Mac, those are great questions.
My (amateur) view is that jobs are generated by entrepreneurial risk-takers who need investment capital. Entrepreneurs tend to be young, educated and ambitious, and I would guess that Egypt has no shortage of them. One of the barriers to attracting investment funding in the Arab world has been the perceived instability and corruption of the political structures. If the Egyptians can figure out how to erect a functional and stable democracy, I believe it would do wonders for attracting foreign investment. It wouldn’t be an overnight turnaround but it would be a step that could lead to long-term prosperity, stability and peace.