Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

What do you think of Nasser?

POST REPLY

What do you think of Gamal Abdel Nasser?

All good
6
25%
Mostly good
13
54%
Neutral
2
8%
Mostly Bad
2
8%
All Bad
0
No votes
Other
1
4%
 
Total votes : 24
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 18 Nov 2011, 17:55
What are your impressions of Gamal Abdel Nasser and his leadership of Egypt? Was he mostly good, mostly bad, or neutral as a leader and politician?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 18 Nov 2011, 18:10
I'm not really sure about him yet. I liked the previous Egyptian government better. The whole 'Arab Spring' thing just un-did everything Sadat accomplished.

There hasn't been a war between Israel and Egypt yet, and Egypt has actually helped Israel with the Gaza situation several times since the change of power, so I am slightly optimistic. I'm not sure how long the current situation will hold though... It seems volatile.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 18 Nov 2011, 19:00
Sadat came after Nasser...
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10786
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2011, 19:01
Positive. Good ally of the USSR, anti-imperialist (including Zionism), leader of NAM, standing up to the British, and Pan Arabism with the UAR gives him a pretty good record in my book. Much better than Sadat.. Nasser was a third world nationalist and was not a communist hence the periodic persecution of the communist in Egypt & Syria.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 18 Nov 2011, 19:11
Whoops! Sorry about that, I was thinking of the new regime.

So Nasser was the one that just got deposed?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 18 Nov 2011, 19:15
No, that was Mubarak. Nasser was the President of Egypt in the middle of the 20th century.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4484
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 18 Nov 2011, 19:21
Ditto to everything Red Rebel noted. Sadat was a traitor to secular and progressive Arab nationalism, and it's ironic that he was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood, the very people he empowered after Nasser's death.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 291
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2011, 06:40
Komsomol
Post 18 Nov 2011, 19:37
Egypt suffered pretty bad in the wars with Israel though, didn't they? I know they lost their Air Force, their ground troops were pretty much over run, and they lost the Sinai Peninsula. I acknowledge I could be wrong (I'm no expert on Egyptian politics), but it seems to me what Sadat did was good for Egypt.

I'm curious to see what happens with this revolution, and to see how Egypt changes as a result.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 28 Nov 2011, 02:10
Quote:
Good ally of the USSR


Quote:
persecution of the communist in Egypt & Syria


A good ally of the USSR AND a committed anti-communist. What does this tell you about the nature of the USSR at this point?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 28 Nov 2011, 22:44
I voted mostly good because Nasser stood against Zionism and persecuted the Muslim Brotherhood. However he created a personality cult and left an unstable system, which allowed the likes of Sadat and Mubarak to gain power and made concessions to Israel, and now the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to win power in Egypt.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 29 Nov 2011, 09:09
Sholokhov wrote:
A good ally of the USSR AND a committed anti-communist. What does this tell you about the nature of the USSR at this point?


It confirms for me the existence of a balance of power, the existence of geopolitics and nothing else. Why, what should it be telling us?
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 30 Nov 2011, 02:16
That the worlds greatest socialist power was quite happy to have communists imprisoned and tortured? Death of internationalism and that?

I mean I agree, its a geopolitical move, but it shows the extent of the isolation of the USSR that it had to play these balancing acts. hell I'm not even saying I would have been some sort of ideological purist had I been in power then, it just shows frustration of the revolution and its degradation into power politics.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4484
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 30 Nov 2011, 02:39
I don't think the government was 'quite happy'. In fact official Soviet complaints were launched in a number of Arab nationalist countries that imprisoned their communists, which often resulted in the successful release of communists from jails, and in some cases even saw them joining coalition governments (as junior partners). One must also remember that Egypt was one of the USSR's first forays into the non-communist world after the death of Stalin, and so uncertainty or nervousness about making requests or demands could be understood. With regard to degradation to power politics -that's one possible way to look at Soviet policy, but it did pay definite dividends for progressive transformations around the world. Decolonization, with all its problems, was a massive global achievement where the USSR played a very important role. That the non-aligned movement, which included most of the developing world, categorized the USSR positively, is another important accomplishment of Soviet pragmatism. Many of the third world's present-day injustices exist in part because there is no Soviet counterweight to US and West European hegemony, no pressure to alleviate poverty and neocolonial relations, no possibility of official or clandestine trade or aid for socialist or communist governments or opposition forces.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 30 Nov 2011, 02:50
I agree with a lot of what you say. But on the imprisonment of communists, I mean, a socialist country shouldn't countenance allying with a nation that kills workers like that.

Decolonisation, yes 100% agreed, awesome job. Trot criticisms fail with the USSRs role in decolonisation, especially with regard to the liberation of Cuba (Cubas survival basically being guaranteed by Soviet strength) and 'Nam.

My issue is that for a lot of the power politics - it doesn't make the USSR any more socialist, or anyone else for that matter, if you know what I mean. Aside from decolonisation, a gargantuan counterweight capitalist power could theoretically solve your dilemma when you say "Many of the third world's present-day injustices exist precisely because there is no Soviet counterweight to US and West European hegemony"

All you are asking for is a counterweight, not neccesarily a socialist one.

Its a similar line of argument when people say, "sure, the USSR crushed the soviets and slaughtered communists and anarchists and workers, but it developed the country!", and the stock answer to should be yes! sure! But capitalism could do that as well! I think its easy to get caught up in the red flags and geopolitics and forget that what we are fighting for really, is an egalitarian workers democracy, and the 20th century experiments of state socialist powers playing geopolitics with the big boys didn't really manage to do that. HOWEVER, I don't dispute that many advances in living standards, and decolonisation etc were made. fo sheezy
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron