If Karl Marx were resurrected and visited Egypt he would have reconsidered many aspects of his theory. Marx witnessed one of the most important stages of European capitalism in the 19th century. That stage was characterized by a high degree of cohesion and solidarity within the capitalist and working classes. Therefore, he believed that history is driven by the conflict between those classes.
If Marx saw the Egyptian capitalists, the so-called businessmen, he would have reworded his theory. Conflicts among them have exceeded the bounds of reason and imagination. This is evidenced by many facts. These conflicts exceeded all limits after accusing construction tycoon Hisham Talaat Moustafa of inciting the murder of Lebanese singer Suzanne Tamim. The conflict is heating up between those who seek to inherit Talaat Moustafa’s empire which they try to undermine by all possible means.
In the midst of such disputes, supporters of the accused businessman are propagating the claim that steel tycoon Ahmed Ezz is the mastermind of this heinous crime to get rid of Moustafa.
Disputes between the producers of steel and those who depend on steel in construction projects are very understandable. The higher the price the more benefits steel producers will reap at the expense of consumers.
It is reasonable that those who have been harmed by the high prices of steel search for a solution like importing from abroad, or trying to enter the market of this product which represents the cornerstone of their interests.
But it is not understandable in any way that the conflict would reach a stage where the beneficiary of the high price of steel hatches a plot to eliminate his fellow businessman, someone one who belongs to his own class, as Marx had imagined.
It is not reasonable that Moustafa’s supporters propagate such stories that further harm the image of businessmen. There are no legal advantages to a loose story that has no evidence. It also lacks any political benefit, because it does not help improve the public image of Moustafa. It’s still difficult to sympathize with him even if they believe that he was the victim of a conspiracy.
The public is angry with him not only because he is accused of inciting murder, but also – and primarily – because of his image as a businessman who has invested his relationship with the state to build a huge economic empire and has taken advantage of the difficult conditions of the people to accumulate a great amount of wealth.
Therefore, his image as a predator preceded the charge of inciting the murder against the Lebanese singer.
An image of this type cannot be changed by a conspiracy theory, especially if the conspirator is another businessman whose image does not differ substantially from that of the one now detained at Tora prison.
Therefore, Moustafa has no legal or political interest in propagating this story. The only expected, and perhaps guaranteed, result is casting more shadows on the entire businessman community, fueling the hatred of Egyptian society towards them.
This majority, however, is doing nothing to change the bad image of businessmen in their entirety for reasons Marx could not even imagine: the common denominators between capitalists in Egypt are much less than what separates them. They are part of the increasingly fragmented Egyptian society. The different sectors of this society, whether at the top of the social hierarchy, like the ones we are talking about, or anywhere on the hierarchy, are even divided among themselves.
Years ago, an observer of the state of Egyptian society noted that it is socially and culturally disintegrated, in the sense that the basic social classes which had their own characteristics, interests and common denominators, are now being fragmented into smaller groups.
This diagnosis, however, is no longer enough today to understand what happened to the society as a whole. The concept of disintegration is no longer a valid analytical tool, as the community has entered a new stage and the concept of fragmentation seems to be the best expression to describe it.
Fragmentation is when something fragments into small parts that have nothing in common except by coincidence. It is therefore no longer possible to talk about businessmen as a single social category, as this category disintegrated into lots of smaller groups beyond the normal differences of interests.
Following the disintegration, stage businessmen have undergone a state of fragmentation; they no longer have anything in common except their deteriorating reputation, and the repercussions of the society’s growing hatred towards them.
This environment almost contrasts with the one where Egyptian capitalism was created in the early 20th century by Talaat Harb.
Once upon a time in Egypt there used to be pioneering capitalists who have benefited from their work and efforts, not from the money of ordinary Egyptians whose savings were stolen by some of those businessmen through defaulted bank loans.
This early generation of businessmen never exploited their influence or sought power in an desperate relationship to the extent that Egypt itself could become its price.
Dr Waheed Abdel Meguid is an expert at Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
