Friday, November 30, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Who are the thugs?
By Oil Wars
Two weeks ago when violence broke out at the campus of the Universidad Central de Venezuela the Venezuelan opposition and the international press acted as if the world was coming to the end. Never mind that it later turned out that students opposed to Chavez had initiated much of that violence. Never mind that no one was killed. Despite that supporters of Chavez would portrayed as violent thugs.
Yesterday Venezuela saw who the real thugs were. Anti-Chavez protesters were blocking streets in the central Venezuelan state of Carabobo. Why they felt the need to block streets and attack passersby is beyond me - it seems to me they should express their opinions by voting next Sunday.
Nevertheless, blocking the streets they were. Upon this roadblock came a truck full of workers for the local Petrocasas factories. These were pro-Chavez workers of a Chavez initiated industrial project and they wanted to pass. What exactly happened next is a little confused - some say the truck simply turned around and was leaving others say the passengers got out of the truck and got in an altercation with those manning the barricade.
But one thing is known. The anti-Chavez protesters shot one of the young workers in the back three times killing him instantly. That is right, the supposedly peacefull anti-Chavez protesters, you know the ones the international press tell us go around with their hands peacefully held up in the air, had guns and were willing to use them to shoot people. Here you can see some of the video of the young man's relatives and co-workers discussing this outrageous and murderous event.
Of course, those not in Venezuela can be forgiven if they haven't heard about these events - they barely rate an article in the international press.
So the international press largely ignores it. The opposition controlled press in Venezuela slanders the man saying he was a criminal trying to rob the protesters.
But the bottom line is one more person is dead from political violence in Venezuela. People on both sides of the divide have lost their lives. But unfortunately most people will only ever hear about one set of victims. It seems dark skinned workers from poor backgrounds apparently don't count as much as affluent university students in some peoples minds.
Sad, but true.
RENEGADE EYE
Two weeks ago when violence broke out at the campus of the Universidad Central de Venezuela the Venezuelan opposition and the international press acted as if the world was coming to the end. Never mind that it later turned out that students opposed to Chavez had initiated much of that violence. Never mind that no one was killed. Despite that supporters of Chavez would portrayed as violent thugs.
Yesterday Venezuela saw who the real thugs were. Anti-Chavez protesters were blocking streets in the central Venezuelan state of Carabobo. Why they felt the need to block streets and attack passersby is beyond me - it seems to me they should express their opinions by voting next Sunday.
Nevertheless, blocking the streets they were. Upon this roadblock came a truck full of workers for the local Petrocasas factories. These were pro-Chavez workers of a Chavez initiated industrial project and they wanted to pass. What exactly happened next is a little confused - some say the truck simply turned around and was leaving others say the passengers got out of the truck and got in an altercation with those manning the barricade.
But one thing is known. The anti-Chavez protesters shot one of the young workers in the back three times killing him instantly. That is right, the supposedly peacefull anti-Chavez protesters, you know the ones the international press tell us go around with their hands peacefully held up in the air, had guns and were willing to use them to shoot people. Here you can see some of the video of the young man's relatives and co-workers discussing this outrageous and murderous event.
Of course, those not in Venezuela can be forgiven if they haven't heard about these events - they barely rate an article in the international press.
So the international press largely ignores it. The opposition controlled press in Venezuela slanders the man saying he was a criminal trying to rob the protesters.
But the bottom line is one more person is dead from political violence in Venezuela. People on both sides of the divide have lost their lives. But unfortunately most people will only ever hear about one set of victims. It seems dark skinned workers from poor backgrounds apparently don't count as much as affluent university students in some peoples minds.
Sad, but true.
RENEGADE EYE
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Blog Salad Du Jour
Louis Proyect at The Unrepentant Marxist, has a great post about the leftist tradition in Yiddish Theater. It attributes the decline of Yiddish Theater to assimilated Jews, identifying more with Zionism and Hebrew.
The Coen Brothers presented a movie with shades of Tarantino and Terminator, in the desolate Rio Grande. Dave at The Red Mantis has a review of the movie No Country for Old Men. This movie generally received great reviews, and there was the few who hated it. Discussion centers on its ending.
At Troutsky's Thoughtstreaming, I got involved in a heated discussion of Anarchism vs Marxism, which started by him mentioning reading Rudolph Rocker. I was the heel.
I've been reading blogs based in the South Pacific, dealing with the indigenous struggles. I like Whenua, Fenua, Enua, Vanua and IndigenistIntelligenceReview. Maori activists have been facing repression under New Zealand's new anti-terror law.
I enjoyed a new movie I saw at a screening called Juno. The storyline is,"Faced with an unplanned pregnancy, an offbeat young woman makes an unusual and bizarre decision regarding her unborn child." It is great fun. The writer is Minneapolis based Diablo Cody, who has her own blog.
Nation Magazine writer Ian Williams, attacks ex-Trotskyist turned Cold Warrior Irving Howe from the right. I wonder if Williams knows "The Nation," accused Trotsky of faking assasination attempts, that occured in Mexico.RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
For Maryam: Persopolis
I saw this trailer at my local art movie house. Who else could I have thought of other than my blog team member Maryam Namazie, who has a biography much like Marjane Satrapi. Maryam shows us everyday that both imperialist intervention and Islamism can be fought simultaneously. This synopsis is from the website Wild About Movies, a source of admission to free movie screenings.
"Persepolis" is the poignant - animated - story of a young girl coming-of-age in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. It is through the eyes of precocious and outspoken nine-year-old Marjane that we see a people's hopes dashed as fundamentalists take power - forcing the veil on women and imprisoning thousands. Clever and fearless, she outsmarts the "social guardians" and discovers punk, ABBA and Iron Maiden. Yet when her uncle is senselessly executed and as bombs fall around Tehran in the Iran/Iraq war the daily fear that permeates life in Iran is palpable.
As she gets older, Marjane's boldness causes her parents to worry over her continued safety. And so, at age fourteen, they make the difficult decision to send her to school in Austria. Vulnerable and alone in a strange land, she endures the typical ordeals of a teenager. In addition, Marjane has to combat being equated with the religious fundamentalism and extremism she fled her country to escape. Over time, she gains acceptance, and even experiences love, but after high school she finds herself alone and horribly homesick.
Though it means putting on the veil and living in a tyrannical society, Marjane decides to return to Iran to be close to her family. After a difficult period of adjustment, she enters art school and marries, all the while continuing to speak out against the hypocrisy she witnesses. At age 24, she realizes that while she is deeply Iranian, she cannot live in Iran. She then makes the heartbreaking decision to leave her homeland for France, optimistic about her future, shaped indelibly by her past.
"Persepolis," the animated French film gets a dubbed United States release Christmas Day, featuring the voices of Sean Penn and Iggy Pop.
RENEGADE EYE
"Persepolis" is the poignant - animated - story of a young girl coming-of-age in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. It is through the eyes of precocious and outspoken nine-year-old Marjane that we see a people's hopes dashed as fundamentalists take power - forcing the veil on women and imprisoning thousands. Clever and fearless, she outsmarts the "social guardians" and discovers punk, ABBA and Iron Maiden. Yet when her uncle is senselessly executed and as bombs fall around Tehran in the Iran/Iraq war the daily fear that permeates life in Iran is palpable.
As she gets older, Marjane's boldness causes her parents to worry over her continued safety. And so, at age fourteen, they make the difficult decision to send her to school in Austria. Vulnerable and alone in a strange land, she endures the typical ordeals of a teenager. In addition, Marjane has to combat being equated with the religious fundamentalism and extremism she fled her country to escape. Over time, she gains acceptance, and even experiences love, but after high school she finds herself alone and horribly homesick.
Though it means putting on the veil and living in a tyrannical society, Marjane decides to return to Iran to be close to her family. After a difficult period of adjustment, she enters art school and marries, all the while continuing to speak out against the hypocrisy she witnesses. At age 24, she realizes that while she is deeply Iranian, she cannot live in Iran. She then makes the heartbreaking decision to leave her homeland for France, optimistic about her future, shaped indelibly by her past.
"Persepolis," the animated French film gets a dubbed United States release Christmas Day, featuring the voices of Sean Penn and Iggy Pop.
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, November 16, 2007
Ireland: Basque Marxist speaks at meetings of socialist republicans
By The Plough
Monday, 12 November 2007
Recently three successful meetings were held on the Irish and Basque Peace Processes in Belfast, Strabane and Derry (25-27 October). The meetings were organised by the International Left Solidarity Committee, a group composed of republicans socialists and Marxists, dedicated to looking at issues of international significance for the working classes.
Ibon Artola, Editor of Euskal Herria Sozialista, gave a detailed examination of the current state of the struggle for Basque independence from a Marxist perspective and his analysis of the so-called Basque Peace process. For his Irish audiences Ibon gave a brief history of the Basque struggle.
The Basque Country is made up of seven provinces, Labourd, Basse Navarre, and Soule all located in an area governed by France, and Viscaya, Guipuzcoa, Alava and Navarre all under the control of Spain.
Following the overthrow of the Spanish Republic by a military coup led by Franco and supported by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany the ancient and unique Basque language was banned. The Spanish state refused funding for the Basque language and culture, workers were denied their right to use the language and even the graves of Basque martyrs were interfered with to replace the Basque language on tombstones with Spanish inscriptions. Also under the Franco dictatorship Communists, Socialists but also Basques, were executed for their resistance to the regime.
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom" ) was formed in 1959 originally as a cultural response to the dictatorship's attempts to impose Spanish language and cultural values on the Basque people. From painting slogans on walls and buildings, ETA eventually became an armed Basque nationalist organisation.
Ibon pointed out that at the beginning of the 20th century there were those socialists who claimed that the rise of capitalism would solve the national question. The reality has been different. The Irish national question still has not been resolved. In Belgium national differences are once more coming to the fore. In essence capitalism is incapable of solving the national question. On the contrary Capitalism uses the national question and the existence of minorities to divide and thus weaken all sections of the working class regardless of their nationality. Imperialism wishes to impose itself on small countries and the fight to overcome this was essential.
The fall of the Franco dictatorship did not solve the national question in Spain. After the death of Franco a new constitution gave limited autonomy to three of the Spanish controlled Basque provinces called the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) while Navarre was not allowed to opt into the BAC but made into a separate autonomous region. By 1983 the BAC had limited autonomous powers including its own elected parliament, its own police force, its own school system and control over taxation. (It is worth noting that all of these except most notably the control over taxation have all been granted to the current Stormont administration.)
Theses changes while accepted and worked by the more conservative nationalists in the PNC Partido Nacionalista Vasco , a Christian-Democrat political party and which has been the dominant power in the BAC, was rejected by the Abertzale Left because it did not satisfy the national aspirations of many Basques, nor did they bring peace to the Basque Country.
Spain still exerts extensive influence over Basque life, some spheres of which, such as harbour authorities, customs, employment, the armed forces and foreign relations, remain entirely under jurisdiction of the central government. The central state apparatus, including politicians, police including the local Basque police, army and prisons, have continued to persecute members and sympathizers of the Abertzale movement and to obstruct Basques' attempts to construct their own political structures and to articulate and defend a national sovereignty project.
The Spanish and the Basque ruling class, in the form of the PNV, showed their reactionary nature by supporting the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. They also endorsed the electoral fraud perpetrated by the Mexican ruling class aided and abetted by USA Imperialism.
The rise of ETA and a broadening of its support base in the beginning was because of the failure of the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) to do anything. It was not in their interests because the Basque bourgeoisie was and still is firmly bound with the Spanish bourgeoisie. This is similar to the way the Irish bourgeoisie despite its so-called formal freedom is intrinsically tied in with the British ruling class and also subservient to USA Imperialism.
Ibon pointed out that 65% of the population of Spain is in favour of a solution to the situation in the Basque country. In March 2006 ETA declared a ceasefire. Hopes were raised for a settlement and not only was there comparisons with the so-called Irish Peace Process but clergy involved in facilitating the IRA ceasefires became involved in delicate negotiations in the Basque Country. Sinn Fein leaders including Gerry Adams also visited the Basque Country encouraging militants to follow the Sinn Fein(P) example.
However, the People's Party (PP) in Spain began arguing that the Spanish ruling class was granting too many concessions to ETA. Its leader Rajoy called on the government to continue, "fighting terrorism" and reject negotiations. Zapatero, the Spanish prime Minister in fact stepped up repression. Despite the calls from left Nationalists for round table talks there was little movement from the Spanish Government. ETA militants were still being harassed and detained and there was no movement on the issue of the prisoners. It is the policy of the Spanish government to imprison political prisoners at least 600 kilometres from their homes and some as far as the Salto del Negro prison in the Canary Islands . So prisoners' families often travel hundreds of kilometres to prisons to visit them, either in Spain or France. This has resulted in a great financial burden being placed on many families. Many have been killed in road accidents travelling the long distances.
Much to the astonishment of his Irish audiences Ibon pointed out that the oppression included political prisoners not being released as planned, with some having their sentences increased. Following the Barajas bombing when ETA attacked an airport the Spanish Government banned the Basque left nationalist youth organisation Segi, declaring it to be a terrorist organisation because both Segi and ETA have the same stated goals of independence and socialism. ETA had bombed the airport in an attempt to put pressure on the Spanish government. This had the adverse effect and resulted in a series of repressive measures by the Spanish ruling class including a widespread propaganda campaign aimed at undermining ETA. Batasuna leader Ortegui summed up the new departure of Batasuna when he said "How can we have a peace process with bombs going off?"
There are some on the left, as Ibon pointed out, who argue that the problem in the Basque Country is "terrorism". They do so from the safety of their well-paid parliamentary jobs without any understanding of national oppression. The Basque problem is the interference of the Spanish government in the affairs of the Basque Country.
Ibon pointed to the example of Russia prior to the 1917 October. There had existed a group called the Narodniks. The Narodniks believed the peasantry was the revolutionary class that would overthrow the monarchy and they regarded the village commune as the embryo of socialism. However, they believed that the peasantry would not achieve revolution on their own, but instead that history could only be made by heroes, outstanding personalities, who would lead an otherwise passive peasantry to revolution. They hoped that their acts of violence would lead to spontaneous uprisings and social upheaval. Despite their assassination of the Tsar, for which Lenin's brother was executed, no such uprisings took place. Instead it was the building of a revolutionary party with mass support that eventually saw off feudal Russia.
There are also some militant youth who have launched attacks against the offices of Spanish trade unions. Ibon pointed out the importance of winning over the Spanish and French working classes to support and solidarity with the Basque people and therefore it is wrong to antagonise them by attacks on the organisations that the workers regard as theirs. It is of the greatest importance that these young people are won over to genuine Marxist politics. As revolutionaries we cannot turn our backs on the militant youth.
Ibon then went on to point out something that should be a salutary lesson for Irish republicans. Every September there is a demonstration in favour of the prisoners. This year it was banned with little explanation. Basque policemen were sent to deal with the demonstration and over 100 people were injured. Having Basques in the police force ‑ or Catholics in the PSNI ‑ is no victory when these same forces are used to protect the status quo.
The PNV defend their own interests which are the interests of the ruling Class. They may talk about independence but the bottom line is that the PNV in the Basque Country, have no interest in independence for the Basque country. They share the same interests as the Spanish ruling classes have. Only the working class can solve the national questions, whether it's in the Basque country, Ireland, the Balkans or anywhere else.
During the Russian revolution the Bolsheviks managed to overthrow the old order, despite Russia being a country with dozens of different nationalities.
When Ibon Artola had finished his presentation in all three venues there were discussions and questions and answer sessions. Naturally some of these questions focussed on the issue of prisoners, their actual conditions in jail and if they had any input into the Basque Peace Process. Other questions included if the prisoners or their organisations had tried to use the denial of human rights and torture used by the Spanish government to take Spain to European courts. It was pointed out that those who tried to see comparisons between the peace processes in Ireland and the Basque Country failed to see that the Republican struggle in Ireland had been defeated and that in accepting both the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement republicans settled for less than the Basque Country had achieved years ago.
A prominent feature of the meeting was that unlike many other meetings on international issues organised by other groups the audience at these meetings were overwhelmingly working class and had an instinctive grasp of the class issues thrown up by the struggle in the Basque Country.
[Originally published in The Plough, E-mail newsletter of the Irish Republican Socialist Party.
RENEGADE EYE
Monday, 12 November 2007
Recently three successful meetings were held on the Irish and Basque Peace Processes in Belfast, Strabane and Derry (25-27 October). The meetings were organised by the International Left Solidarity Committee, a group composed of republicans socialists and Marxists, dedicated to looking at issues of international significance for the working classes.
Ibon Artola, Editor of Euskal Herria Sozialista, gave a detailed examination of the current state of the struggle for Basque independence from a Marxist perspective and his analysis of the so-called Basque Peace process. For his Irish audiences Ibon gave a brief history of the Basque struggle.
The Basque Country is made up of seven provinces, Labourd, Basse Navarre, and Soule all located in an area governed by France, and Viscaya, Guipuzcoa, Alava and Navarre all under the control of Spain.
Following the overthrow of the Spanish Republic by a military coup led by Franco and supported by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany the ancient and unique Basque language was banned. The Spanish state refused funding for the Basque language and culture, workers were denied their right to use the language and even the graves of Basque martyrs were interfered with to replace the Basque language on tombstones with Spanish inscriptions. Also under the Franco dictatorship Communists, Socialists but also Basques, were executed for their resistance to the regime.
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom" ) was formed in 1959 originally as a cultural response to the dictatorship's attempts to impose Spanish language and cultural values on the Basque people. From painting slogans on walls and buildings, ETA eventually became an armed Basque nationalist organisation.
Ibon pointed out that at the beginning of the 20th century there were those socialists who claimed that the rise of capitalism would solve the national question. The reality has been different. The Irish national question still has not been resolved. In Belgium national differences are once more coming to the fore. In essence capitalism is incapable of solving the national question. On the contrary Capitalism uses the national question and the existence of minorities to divide and thus weaken all sections of the working class regardless of their nationality. Imperialism wishes to impose itself on small countries and the fight to overcome this was essential.
The fall of the Franco dictatorship did not solve the national question in Spain. After the death of Franco a new constitution gave limited autonomy to three of the Spanish controlled Basque provinces called the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) while Navarre was not allowed to opt into the BAC but made into a separate autonomous region. By 1983 the BAC had limited autonomous powers including its own elected parliament, its own police force, its own school system and control over taxation. (It is worth noting that all of these except most notably the control over taxation have all been granted to the current Stormont administration.)
Theses changes while accepted and worked by the more conservative nationalists in the PNC Partido Nacionalista Vasco , a Christian-Democrat political party and which has been the dominant power in the BAC, was rejected by the Abertzale Left because it did not satisfy the national aspirations of many Basques, nor did they bring peace to the Basque Country.
Spain still exerts extensive influence over Basque life, some spheres of which, such as harbour authorities, customs, employment, the armed forces and foreign relations, remain entirely under jurisdiction of the central government. The central state apparatus, including politicians, police including the local Basque police, army and prisons, have continued to persecute members and sympathizers of the Abertzale movement and to obstruct Basques' attempts to construct their own political structures and to articulate and defend a national sovereignty project.
The Spanish and the Basque ruling class, in the form of the PNV, showed their reactionary nature by supporting the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. They also endorsed the electoral fraud perpetrated by the Mexican ruling class aided and abetted by USA Imperialism.
The rise of ETA and a broadening of its support base in the beginning was because of the failure of the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) to do anything. It was not in their interests because the Basque bourgeoisie was and still is firmly bound with the Spanish bourgeoisie. This is similar to the way the Irish bourgeoisie despite its so-called formal freedom is intrinsically tied in with the British ruling class and also subservient to USA Imperialism.
Ibon pointed out that 65% of the population of Spain is in favour of a solution to the situation in the Basque country. In March 2006 ETA declared a ceasefire. Hopes were raised for a settlement and not only was there comparisons with the so-called Irish Peace Process but clergy involved in facilitating the IRA ceasefires became involved in delicate negotiations in the Basque Country. Sinn Fein leaders including Gerry Adams also visited the Basque Country encouraging militants to follow the Sinn Fein(P) example.
However, the People's Party (PP) in Spain began arguing that the Spanish ruling class was granting too many concessions to ETA. Its leader Rajoy called on the government to continue, "fighting terrorism" and reject negotiations. Zapatero, the Spanish prime Minister in fact stepped up repression. Despite the calls from left Nationalists for round table talks there was little movement from the Spanish Government. ETA militants were still being harassed and detained and there was no movement on the issue of the prisoners. It is the policy of the Spanish government to imprison political prisoners at least 600 kilometres from their homes and some as far as the Salto del Negro prison in the Canary Islands . So prisoners' families often travel hundreds of kilometres to prisons to visit them, either in Spain or France. This has resulted in a great financial burden being placed on many families. Many have been killed in road accidents travelling the long distances.
Much to the astonishment of his Irish audiences Ibon pointed out that the oppression included political prisoners not being released as planned, with some having their sentences increased. Following the Barajas bombing when ETA attacked an airport the Spanish Government banned the Basque left nationalist youth organisation Segi, declaring it to be a terrorist organisation because both Segi and ETA have the same stated goals of independence and socialism. ETA had bombed the airport in an attempt to put pressure on the Spanish government. This had the adverse effect and resulted in a series of repressive measures by the Spanish ruling class including a widespread propaganda campaign aimed at undermining ETA. Batasuna leader Ortegui summed up the new departure of Batasuna when he said "How can we have a peace process with bombs going off?"
There are some on the left, as Ibon pointed out, who argue that the problem in the Basque Country is "terrorism". They do so from the safety of their well-paid parliamentary jobs without any understanding of national oppression. The Basque problem is the interference of the Spanish government in the affairs of the Basque Country.
Ibon pointed to the example of Russia prior to the 1917 October. There had existed a group called the Narodniks. The Narodniks believed the peasantry was the revolutionary class that would overthrow the monarchy and they regarded the village commune as the embryo of socialism. However, they believed that the peasantry would not achieve revolution on their own, but instead that history could only be made by heroes, outstanding personalities, who would lead an otherwise passive peasantry to revolution. They hoped that their acts of violence would lead to spontaneous uprisings and social upheaval. Despite their assassination of the Tsar, for which Lenin's brother was executed, no such uprisings took place. Instead it was the building of a revolutionary party with mass support that eventually saw off feudal Russia.
There are also some militant youth who have launched attacks against the offices of Spanish trade unions. Ibon pointed out the importance of winning over the Spanish and French working classes to support and solidarity with the Basque people and therefore it is wrong to antagonise them by attacks on the organisations that the workers regard as theirs. It is of the greatest importance that these young people are won over to genuine Marxist politics. As revolutionaries we cannot turn our backs on the militant youth.
Ibon then went on to point out something that should be a salutary lesson for Irish republicans. Every September there is a demonstration in favour of the prisoners. This year it was banned with little explanation. Basque policemen were sent to deal with the demonstration and over 100 people were injured. Having Basques in the police force ‑ or Catholics in the PSNI ‑ is no victory when these same forces are used to protect the status quo.
The PNV defend their own interests which are the interests of the ruling Class. They may talk about independence but the bottom line is that the PNV in the Basque Country, have no interest in independence for the Basque country. They share the same interests as the Spanish ruling classes have. Only the working class can solve the national questions, whether it's in the Basque country, Ireland, the Balkans or anywhere else.
During the Russian revolution the Bolsheviks managed to overthrow the old order, despite Russia being a country with dozens of different nationalities.
When Ibon Artola had finished his presentation in all three venues there were discussions and questions and answer sessions. Naturally some of these questions focussed on the issue of prisoners, their actual conditions in jail and if they had any input into the Basque Peace Process. Other questions included if the prisoners or their organisations had tried to use the denial of human rights and torture used by the Spanish government to take Spain to European courts. It was pointed out that those who tried to see comparisons between the peace processes in Ireland and the Basque Country failed to see that the Republican struggle in Ireland had been defeated and that in accepting both the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement republicans settled for less than the Basque Country had achieved years ago.
A prominent feature of the meeting was that unlike many other meetings on international issues organised by other groups the audience at these meetings were overwhelmingly working class and had an instinctive grasp of the class issues thrown up by the struggle in the Basque Country.
[Originally published in The Plough, E-mail newsletter of the Irish Republican Socialist Party.
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Cuba: "One day of the blockade is equal to 139 urban buses."
By Darrall Cozens
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
The large sign on the wall says it all: "One day of the blockade is equal to 139 urban buses."
There is no doubt that Cuba has suffered at the hands of the USA since the blockade was imposed. Yet despite being starved of essential resources the Cuban people have demonstrated a remarkable resilience and inventiveness. As they say here: "Todo se resuelve." Everything will be solved.
When you walk around the streets of the capital, you can see examples everywhere of this creativity in the face of adversity. Buses are often made from tin boxes put together and then placed on the back of a lorry. Children make scooters from old bike parts. Old cars from pre-1958 trundle along on a wing and a prayer. Yet these old models and lorries belch out choking thick black smoke that pollutes the streets.
It is, however, in the area of medicine and health that the blockade takes its greatest toll. Children suffering from kidney problems are denied basic life saving help in drug treatment. This is only one example. In the early 1990s after the collapse of the subsidies from the Soviet Union in exchange for Cuban sugar, some people suffered from blindness resulting from a vitamin deficiency. This was cured from scarce resources.
Cuba's ability to get by whilst at the same time help others has to be admired and it is an indication that the Cuban revolution is still alive despite all the difficulties it faces. Despite being isolated at the behest of the USA, Cuba has a patient doctor ratio that is the envy of even so-called advanced countries. And while Cuba takes care of its own in terms of health care, it also exports its skills and personnel to other countries.
The Granma newspaper of October 28th reported just one example. The retired Bolivian officer Mario Teran, who fired the fatal shot that killed Che Guevara, was cured of blindness in Bolivia under Operacion Milagro staffed by Cuban doctors. Since 1963 Cuba has sent medical teams to help others even more unfortunate than itself. Some 42,000 Cuban medical staff are active in 102 countries around the world and 53,000 young people are being trained in medicine both in Cuba and in their own countries. 60 million people world wide are benefiting from this medical help and since the programmes began some 300 million have been treated. In Nicaragua alone since Daniel Ortega was elected back in January some 10,000 have received eye treatment and for many it is the first time that they have been able to see. The whole of Misión Barrio Adentro which provides basic primary health care in the poor communities in Venezuela would not have been possible without the 20,000 Cuban doctors and nurses who participate in it.
The vote therefore at the United Nations to call on the USA to end its blockade of the island was welcomed in Cuba. 184 countries voted against the USA blockade and only four in favour of it. The USA was able to muster voting allies in favour of its policy from Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Yet the question that has to be asked is why the blockade has not ended already, since the UN has voted by majority since 1992 against it. On the one hand it is clear that the UN's decisions can be vetoed by powerful members and therefore it is an instrument of the status quo on a world scale, used as a fig leaf when it suits the interests of imperialism, discarded when it goes against them. On the other hand the need is raised for an international campaign based on workers organisations that can truly defend the gains of the Cuban revolution.
Despite the heroic attempts by the Cuban people to carry on under extremely harsh conditions, problems remain. In the capital Havana many buildings are in a state of collapse yet provide homes to many Cubans. Roads are full of potholes and when it rains, they fill up with water that lies stagnant, a breeding ground for mosquitoes. There are regular disinfestations of commercial premises using smoke machines.
The blockade of Cuba has also meant that many traditional industries like sugar have reached the stage of collapse. However, unlike in capitalist countries, all workers from the sugar industry have been either re-employed elsewhere or been given access to full time education.
The sugar workers of Cuba were like the miners in the UK. Thatcher set out deliberately to destroy the mining industry in order to destroy the NUM. The sugar industry here has collapsed due to a combination of the end of subsidised purchases from the Soviet bloc and the collapse of prices in the world market, with the result that the most militant section of the working class has been dispersed.
There are two currencies working side by side; the official national currency and convertible pesos which are exchanged on par with the US dollar at a rate of 1:1. The local currency will pay for newspapers, public transport and is used in some food and clothes shops. Even if you are working and getting paid in the national currency, most find it very hard to make ends meet. If you want shoes or many items of clothing, you need convertible pesos. How do ordinary Cubans get them?
Firstly, there are remittances sent to families by Cubans abroad. Secondly, you work in the growing tourist industry and get tips from foreigners. Thirdly, you hustle. It is called "jineterismo". You are approached all the time by mainly young men, but often young women, who start by asking the time. If you respond, the play continues until you are hooked. And this is a problem. How do you know if a Cuban wants to speak to you because they are interested in what you think or wants to find out where you are from? You don't until gradually the motives become clear. On my second day here 6 young men tried to hustle me. Initially I engaged in conversation and it soon became clear what the main gripe was.
People also get by selling sandwiches on street stalls or by directly begging, especially the old.
The worst aspect of all of this is that on almost every street corner in the tourist centre of Havana there are pimps and prostitutes, while on opposite corners there are one or two police, some with dogs and some without, stopping and checking the IDs of anyone they want to stop. Yet prostitution is illegal and severely punished.
There is also a growing problem of street thefts using physical violence, something that previously did not exist. But people have to survive by any means possible.
On every street corner and in every doorway there are groups of young people, especially men, with nothing to do. Some of them might be receiving money from relatives abroad so they can live without working. Poverty is evident in terms of diet and clothing. Sections of society have become marginalised and therefore many seek a solution to their problems not in collective action but as individuals against the system
Almost every building has one or two guards in case someone tries to steal something. I walked past a very small organic garden in the old part of the city and there was a guard with a dog. He explained that it was his job to ensure that no plants were stolen!
This fear of theft reflects a growing unease and malaise. People have to survive and will find any and every method in order to do so.
While these problems exist in Cuba, they are nothing compared with the situation of poverty, destitution and crime one finds in any Latin American country and by comparison living standards (in terms of health care, access to education, living expectancy, etc) are still much higher in Cuba.
The other thing that strikes you is the growing level of disbelief between government pronouncements and the reality at street level. The papers are full of targets that have been met in different areas of the economy, but many basic needs remain unmet at street level. Even the TV voices occasional criticisms where for example a theatre has been closed for 6 months for minor repairs that should only have taken a few weeks, yet when wood was needed to effect the repairs it was not available.
People in the street realise that many of the shortages are due to the blockade, yet they are also beginning to realise that the way society is organised also has a lot to do with it.
On the one hand the planned and state owned economy has enabled Cuba to enjoy free education, free health care, very cheap housing and public transport that is so cheap it is practically free. Yet on the other hand there is almost no opportunity for ordinary Cubans to participate in the running of society. Socialism needs the oxygen of a workers' democracy with all citizens having the right to decide on policy at all levels.
The growing discussion here is therefore, where is Cuba going and what part can everyone play in that discussion? What you don't often hear is a desire to emulate the model of capitalist development that took place in the old Soviet bloc countries, but China is growing in influence here with 3 TV stations that all Cubans can access. Is this a sign that certain sections of the bureaucracy are looking at the Chinese model of capitalist development controlled by a "Communist Party" as a way out of the impasse?
In this context the recent visit of Hugo Chavez provoked some very interesting reactions. In his speech that was televised live he declared that he was a Trotskyist. When the speech was retransmitted that part was edited out and the press also said nothing of it. Yet millions heard it. It was just like the old photo of Lenin on a wooden podium with Trotsky standing on the steps that was airbrushed under Stalinism.
The effect here was electric. On the one hand those who are looking for a revolutionary Marxist way out of the crisis based on defence of the planned economy but seeing the need to extend the revolution to other countries as well as fighting for a genuine workers democracy were emboldened. Those who had perhaps only heard of Trotsky but knew nothing of him were then asking how they could get hold of his writings. Chavez is a hero here, so if he is a Trotskyist then they should be too! Even elements within the military are reading Leon Trotsky in their search for a solution.
There is an opening. Fidel released a speech that was published in Granma, official organ of the Cuban CP, on October 27th. The occasion was the 48th anniversary of the death of a leading revolutionary, Camilo Cienfuegos. Fidel quoted the famous words of Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." The words were directed at the USA but could equally be directed at sections of the bureaucracy here, which have been criticised by Fidel in the past.
What epitomised what is happening was a meeting that I went to on October 31st. It had been billed as a discussion on October 1917. The actual title was the influence of different socialist ideas on the Cuban CP up to 1953. Out of the three speakers on the platform, two of them mentioned the importance of Leon Trotsky and his writings, with one specifically saying that the development of the Cuban Communist Party cannot be understood without people having read the ideas of Leon Trotsky. There were about 70 people at the meeting.
These are early days here. There has been a small opening that is pushed wider by events, such as the visit of Chavez. There is a thirst for ideas at all levels of society. Ideas that will defend the gains of the Cuban revolution, will not mean a return to capitalism, but will mean a growing influence of the ideas of Trotsky. The concept of Socialism in one country has proved to be a fallacy as has the theory of the two stage revolution. Only the idea of the permanent revolution of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky will provide the answer to the Cuban revolution.
Havana
November 1st 2007
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
The large sign on the wall says it all: "One day of the blockade is equal to 139 urban buses."
There is no doubt that Cuba has suffered at the hands of the USA since the blockade was imposed. Yet despite being starved of essential resources the Cuban people have demonstrated a remarkable resilience and inventiveness. As they say here: "Todo se resuelve." Everything will be solved.
When you walk around the streets of the capital, you can see examples everywhere of this creativity in the face of adversity. Buses are often made from tin boxes put together and then placed on the back of a lorry. Children make scooters from old bike parts. Old cars from pre-1958 trundle along on a wing and a prayer. Yet these old models and lorries belch out choking thick black smoke that pollutes the streets.
It is, however, in the area of medicine and health that the blockade takes its greatest toll. Children suffering from kidney problems are denied basic life saving help in drug treatment. This is only one example. In the early 1990s after the collapse of the subsidies from the Soviet Union in exchange for Cuban sugar, some people suffered from blindness resulting from a vitamin deficiency. This was cured from scarce resources.
Cuba's ability to get by whilst at the same time help others has to be admired and it is an indication that the Cuban revolution is still alive despite all the difficulties it faces. Despite being isolated at the behest of the USA, Cuba has a patient doctor ratio that is the envy of even so-called advanced countries. And while Cuba takes care of its own in terms of health care, it also exports its skills and personnel to other countries.
The Granma newspaper of October 28th reported just one example. The retired Bolivian officer Mario Teran, who fired the fatal shot that killed Che Guevara, was cured of blindness in Bolivia under Operacion Milagro staffed by Cuban doctors. Since 1963 Cuba has sent medical teams to help others even more unfortunate than itself. Some 42,000 Cuban medical staff are active in 102 countries around the world and 53,000 young people are being trained in medicine both in Cuba and in their own countries. 60 million people world wide are benefiting from this medical help and since the programmes began some 300 million have been treated. In Nicaragua alone since Daniel Ortega was elected back in January some 10,000 have received eye treatment and for many it is the first time that they have been able to see. The whole of Misión Barrio Adentro which provides basic primary health care in the poor communities in Venezuela would not have been possible without the 20,000 Cuban doctors and nurses who participate in it.
The vote therefore at the United Nations to call on the USA to end its blockade of the island was welcomed in Cuba. 184 countries voted against the USA blockade and only four in favour of it. The USA was able to muster voting allies in favour of its policy from Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Yet the question that has to be asked is why the blockade has not ended already, since the UN has voted by majority since 1992 against it. On the one hand it is clear that the UN's decisions can be vetoed by powerful members and therefore it is an instrument of the status quo on a world scale, used as a fig leaf when it suits the interests of imperialism, discarded when it goes against them. On the other hand the need is raised for an international campaign based on workers organisations that can truly defend the gains of the Cuban revolution.
Despite the heroic attempts by the Cuban people to carry on under extremely harsh conditions, problems remain. In the capital Havana many buildings are in a state of collapse yet provide homes to many Cubans. Roads are full of potholes and when it rains, they fill up with water that lies stagnant, a breeding ground for mosquitoes. There are regular disinfestations of commercial premises using smoke machines.
The blockade of Cuba has also meant that many traditional industries like sugar have reached the stage of collapse. However, unlike in capitalist countries, all workers from the sugar industry have been either re-employed elsewhere or been given access to full time education.
The sugar workers of Cuba were like the miners in the UK. Thatcher set out deliberately to destroy the mining industry in order to destroy the NUM. The sugar industry here has collapsed due to a combination of the end of subsidised purchases from the Soviet bloc and the collapse of prices in the world market, with the result that the most militant section of the working class has been dispersed.
There are two currencies working side by side; the official national currency and convertible pesos which are exchanged on par with the US dollar at a rate of 1:1. The local currency will pay for newspapers, public transport and is used in some food and clothes shops. Even if you are working and getting paid in the national currency, most find it very hard to make ends meet. If you want shoes or many items of clothing, you need convertible pesos. How do ordinary Cubans get them?
Firstly, there are remittances sent to families by Cubans abroad. Secondly, you work in the growing tourist industry and get tips from foreigners. Thirdly, you hustle. It is called "jineterismo". You are approached all the time by mainly young men, but often young women, who start by asking the time. If you respond, the play continues until you are hooked. And this is a problem. How do you know if a Cuban wants to speak to you because they are interested in what you think or wants to find out where you are from? You don't until gradually the motives become clear. On my second day here 6 young men tried to hustle me. Initially I engaged in conversation and it soon became clear what the main gripe was.
People also get by selling sandwiches on street stalls or by directly begging, especially the old.
The worst aspect of all of this is that on almost every street corner in the tourist centre of Havana there are pimps and prostitutes, while on opposite corners there are one or two police, some with dogs and some without, stopping and checking the IDs of anyone they want to stop. Yet prostitution is illegal and severely punished.
There is also a growing problem of street thefts using physical violence, something that previously did not exist. But people have to survive by any means possible.
On every street corner and in every doorway there are groups of young people, especially men, with nothing to do. Some of them might be receiving money from relatives abroad so they can live without working. Poverty is evident in terms of diet and clothing. Sections of society have become marginalised and therefore many seek a solution to their problems not in collective action but as individuals against the system
Almost every building has one or two guards in case someone tries to steal something. I walked past a very small organic garden in the old part of the city and there was a guard with a dog. He explained that it was his job to ensure that no plants were stolen!
This fear of theft reflects a growing unease and malaise. People have to survive and will find any and every method in order to do so.
While these problems exist in Cuba, they are nothing compared with the situation of poverty, destitution and crime one finds in any Latin American country and by comparison living standards (in terms of health care, access to education, living expectancy, etc) are still much higher in Cuba.
The other thing that strikes you is the growing level of disbelief between government pronouncements and the reality at street level. The papers are full of targets that have been met in different areas of the economy, but many basic needs remain unmet at street level. Even the TV voices occasional criticisms where for example a theatre has been closed for 6 months for minor repairs that should only have taken a few weeks, yet when wood was needed to effect the repairs it was not available.
People in the street realise that many of the shortages are due to the blockade, yet they are also beginning to realise that the way society is organised also has a lot to do with it.
On the one hand the planned and state owned economy has enabled Cuba to enjoy free education, free health care, very cheap housing and public transport that is so cheap it is practically free. Yet on the other hand there is almost no opportunity for ordinary Cubans to participate in the running of society. Socialism needs the oxygen of a workers' democracy with all citizens having the right to decide on policy at all levels.
The growing discussion here is therefore, where is Cuba going and what part can everyone play in that discussion? What you don't often hear is a desire to emulate the model of capitalist development that took place in the old Soviet bloc countries, but China is growing in influence here with 3 TV stations that all Cubans can access. Is this a sign that certain sections of the bureaucracy are looking at the Chinese model of capitalist development controlled by a "Communist Party" as a way out of the impasse?
In this context the recent visit of Hugo Chavez provoked some very interesting reactions. In his speech that was televised live he declared that he was a Trotskyist. When the speech was retransmitted that part was edited out and the press also said nothing of it. Yet millions heard it. It was just like the old photo of Lenin on a wooden podium with Trotsky standing on the steps that was airbrushed under Stalinism.
The effect here was electric. On the one hand those who are looking for a revolutionary Marxist way out of the crisis based on defence of the planned economy but seeing the need to extend the revolution to other countries as well as fighting for a genuine workers democracy were emboldened. Those who had perhaps only heard of Trotsky but knew nothing of him were then asking how they could get hold of his writings. Chavez is a hero here, so if he is a Trotskyist then they should be too! Even elements within the military are reading Leon Trotsky in their search for a solution.
There is an opening. Fidel released a speech that was published in Granma, official organ of the Cuban CP, on October 27th. The occasion was the 48th anniversary of the death of a leading revolutionary, Camilo Cienfuegos. Fidel quoted the famous words of Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." The words were directed at the USA but could equally be directed at sections of the bureaucracy here, which have been criticised by Fidel in the past.
What epitomised what is happening was a meeting that I went to on October 31st. It had been billed as a discussion on October 1917. The actual title was the influence of different socialist ideas on the Cuban CP up to 1953. Out of the three speakers on the platform, two of them mentioned the importance of Leon Trotsky and his writings, with one specifically saying that the development of the Cuban Communist Party cannot be understood without people having read the ideas of Leon Trotsky. There were about 70 people at the meeting.
These are early days here. There has been a small opening that is pushed wider by events, such as the visit of Chavez. There is a thirst for ideas at all levels of society. Ideas that will defend the gains of the Cuban revolution, will not mean a return to capitalism, but will mean a growing influence of the ideas of Trotsky. The concept of Socialism in one country has proved to be a fallacy as has the theory of the two stage revolution. Only the idea of the permanent revolution of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky will provide the answer to the Cuban revolution.
Havana
November 1st 2007
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, November 09, 2007
Opposition violence at Venezuelan university - What really happened at the UCV
By Rodrigo Trompiz and Jorge Martin (with eyewitness information from Caracas)
Thursday, 08 November 2007
Violent opposition students outside the School of Social Work (ABN)
According to eyewitness reports from Hands Off Venezuela members, violence broke out yesterday in Caracas when opposition students arrived back from a peaceful demonstration against the proposed constitutional reforms. Apparently frustrated by the lack of violence, a group of about 250 of the opposition students (many from other universities) went straight to the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) to the School of Social Work which is a stronghold of revolutionary students inside UCV.
There, a group of revolutionary students was campaigning for a yes vote in the referendum. They had an assembly for students/teachers/non-teaching staff in the morning and were putting up posters and giving out leaflets.
They were then attacked by the opposition students who surrounded the School. Molotov cocktails and stones were thrown, the toilets were destroyed, the door of the Students Centre (Bolivarian dominated) was burned down, and around 150 people (students, teachers and non-teaching staff) were trapped inside the building for several hours, with the violent opposition students trying to force their way into the building to lynch them.
Some of the students inside the Faculty are nationally known Bolivarian student leaders (including Andreina Taranzon who spoke in the debate with opposition students at the National Assembly earlier this year at the time of the RCTV protests). They managed to call the state TV and reported live on what was happening.
The police are not allowed to enter University premises owing to a law on University autonomy. The Mayor of Caracas offered the possibility of the Metropolitan Police going in to contain violence and allow people in the School to come out, but the rector of the University, a member of the opposition, refused the offer. The University authorities are responsible for security on their own premises and did nothing to prevent violence from escalating.
Violent oppositon supporters at the UCV- picture Reuters
Meanwhile, opposition TV stations were full of reports that masked Chavista supporters had fired on opposition students and that one person had been killed (this was then proven to be false, nine students were injured, most of them from inhaling fumes from the fires started by opposition students).
Finally, the head of emergency and fire-fighting services was allowed by the rector to go into the university and negotiate the safe exit of the people who were trapped inside the School of Social Work by a violent mob of opposition students.
The School of Social Work trashed by opposition students (ABN)
The international media has been "reporting" about these clashes as if "armed Chavista gunmen" had fired on peaceful opposition students. A member of Hands Off Venezuela was present at the University when the violence broke out. He reports that the gunmen who originally opened fire stopped him on his way through the UCV to the Bolivarian University nearby. He reports that the two gunmen on the motorbike did not look like students, but were more likely thugs hired for the occasion and that they were shouting anti-Chavez slogans and boasting of having shot at Chavistas.
Even news agencies now are reporting that Bolivarian armed men arrived at the UCV after the opposition students had sieged 150 people inside the building of the School of Social Work to help those sieged gain safe passage out:
Later, armed men riding motorcycles arrived, scaring off students and standing at the doorway - one of them firing a handgun in the air - as people fled the building.(The Guardian)
What Hands Off Venezuela eyewitness report is that, faced with the inaction of the University authorities, hundreds of students, University workers and people from nearby neighbourhoods finally went into the University to help the people at the School of Social Work escape from the violent mob of opposition students. Some of them were carrying guns, which was only normal considering the extremely violent nature of the situation.
Bolivarian students, teachers and non-teaching staff have now held a joint meeting at the UCV and called for a demonstration against fascist aggressions to take place in the UCV on November 15.
Videos of the violent attack by opposition students can be seen here: RENEGADE EYE
Thursday, 08 November 2007
Violent opposition students outside the School of Social Work (ABN)
According to eyewitness reports from Hands Off Venezuela members, violence broke out yesterday in Caracas when opposition students arrived back from a peaceful demonstration against the proposed constitutional reforms. Apparently frustrated by the lack of violence, a group of about 250 of the opposition students (many from other universities) went straight to the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) to the School of Social Work which is a stronghold of revolutionary students inside UCV.
There, a group of revolutionary students was campaigning for a yes vote in the referendum. They had an assembly for students/teachers/non-teaching staff in the morning and were putting up posters and giving out leaflets.
They were then attacked by the opposition students who surrounded the School. Molotov cocktails and stones were thrown, the toilets were destroyed, the door of the Students Centre (Bolivarian dominated) was burned down, and around 150 people (students, teachers and non-teaching staff) were trapped inside the building for several hours, with the violent opposition students trying to force their way into the building to lynch them.
Some of the students inside the Faculty are nationally known Bolivarian student leaders (including Andreina Taranzon who spoke in the debate with opposition students at the National Assembly earlier this year at the time of the RCTV protests). They managed to call the state TV and reported live on what was happening.
The police are not allowed to enter University premises owing to a law on University autonomy. The Mayor of Caracas offered the possibility of the Metropolitan Police going in to contain violence and allow people in the School to come out, but the rector of the University, a member of the opposition, refused the offer. The University authorities are responsible for security on their own premises and did nothing to prevent violence from escalating.
Violent oppositon supporters at the UCV- picture Reuters
Meanwhile, opposition TV stations were full of reports that masked Chavista supporters had fired on opposition students and that one person had been killed (this was then proven to be false, nine students were injured, most of them from inhaling fumes from the fires started by opposition students).
Finally, the head of emergency and fire-fighting services was allowed by the rector to go into the university and negotiate the safe exit of the people who were trapped inside the School of Social Work by a violent mob of opposition students.
The School of Social Work trashed by opposition students (ABN)
The international media has been "reporting" about these clashes as if "armed Chavista gunmen" had fired on peaceful opposition students. A member of Hands Off Venezuela was present at the University when the violence broke out. He reports that the gunmen who originally opened fire stopped him on his way through the UCV to the Bolivarian University nearby. He reports that the two gunmen on the motorbike did not look like students, but were more likely thugs hired for the occasion and that they were shouting anti-Chavez slogans and boasting of having shot at Chavistas.
Even news agencies now are reporting that Bolivarian armed men arrived at the UCV after the opposition students had sieged 150 people inside the building of the School of Social Work to help those sieged gain safe passage out:
Later, armed men riding motorcycles arrived, scaring off students and standing at the doorway - one of them firing a handgun in the air - as people fled the building.(The Guardian)
What Hands Off Venezuela eyewitness report is that, faced with the inaction of the University authorities, hundreds of students, University workers and people from nearby neighbourhoods finally went into the University to help the people at the School of Social Work escape from the violent mob of opposition students. Some of them were carrying guns, which was only normal considering the extremely violent nature of the situation.
Bolivarian students, teachers and non-teaching staff have now held a joint meeting at the UCV and called for a demonstration against fascist aggressions to take place in the UCV on November 15.
Videos of the violent attack by opposition students can be seen here: RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Venezuela: counter-revolutionary provocations in the run up to the constitutional referendum
By Jorge Martin
Tuesday, 06 November 2007
On Monday, November 5th, the campaign for the constitutional reform referendum in Venezuela was stepped up with the call by retired general Baduel for a NO vote. General Baduel was a close collaborator of Chávez and remained loyal to him during the April 2002 military coup which briefly ousted him. In July of this year he resigned from his position as Defence Minister and retired from active military office. His attacks on the constitutional reform are part of a concerted campaign by the ruling class to prevent it from being approved in a referendum which will take place on December 2nd.
The amendments to the 1999 Venezuelan revolution were announced by Chávez after his election victory in December 2006 with the stated aim of bringing the Constitution into line with "Socialism of the 21st century". They were then formally proposed by Chávez in July, discussed throughout the country and passed with a whole series of modifications and additions by the National Assembly on November 2nd.
Amongst the most significant of the amendments are those dealing with the new power structure, in which legal status is given to the Communal Powers in an attempt to do away with the current structures of the capitalist state. In the field of property of the means of production there are a whole number of articles which have been attacked by the opposition as being an attack on private property rights while at the same time enshrining new forms of collective and social property.
Even though the proposed amendments are limited in their character, in the context of the class struggle taking place in Venezuela they have become the rallying cry for a new clash between the classes, on the one hand the oligarchy and imperialism, on the other hand the overwhelming majority of workers and peasants.
The ruling class is well aware that whatever the actual text of the constitutional reform (and this is certainly an advanced and very progressive proposal which includes the 6-hour working day and a 36-hour week), the proposals are seen by the masses as a step forward towards socialism. And for this reason they have, once again, tried to mobilise all their forces to stop it.
In the last two weeks, a series of small demonstrations by opposition students have been taking place in Caracas and other cities which have often been the scene of violent clashes with the police. There are clearly organised fascist elements present at these demonstrations intent on causing clashes which can then be used as an excuse to paint Chavez's government as dictatorial and repressive.
This has been accompanied by calls for a stoppage of public transport, an incendiary call by the Episcopal Conference to oppose the constitutional reform, articles in the media calling for a military intervention to prevent the referendum from taking place, etc. This, incidentally, confirms what we said after the presidential election in December 2006. At that time some argued that we now had a "democratic opposition" in Venezuela, since Rosales and his supporters had accepted their defeat in the election. We responded that this was just a question of opportunity. At that time they did not have the necessary forces and points of support inside the army to launch a coup, so they were forced by the action of the masses on the streets to accept the results.
Now the talk of a coup and the intervention of the army is again on the agenda. So in his column in El Nacional on November 2, Pablo Medina, one of the main leaders of the opposition and participant in the 2002 coup, made an open appeal: "gentlemen of the National Armed Forces, lets overthrow the reform".
In a move reminiscent of the coup in April 2002 and the lock out in December of the same year, the leaders of business organisations Fedecamaras and Consecomercio have appeared on TV appealing to the people to oppose the reform and the referendum.
At the same time, the opposition is not in a position of strength. The student demonstrations of the last few days have been violent but small. The balance of forces remains enormously favourable to the revolution as was graphically shown by the two demonstrations last weekend. The first, on Saturday, called by the opposition gathered just a few thousand people. The second, on Sunday, called by Chávez, gathered hundreds of thousands, marching through Caracas and filling, yet again, the whole of Bolivar Avenue and the adjacent streets.
At this rally Chávez delivered a very militant speech in which he appealed for the referendum campaign to be organised from the rank and file through the Socialist Batallions, the basic units of the new United Socialist Party. Talking to revolutionary activists from "23 de Enero" and Vargas districts, they agreed in emphasising the fact that the mobilisation for Sunday's demo had been carried out by the rank and file activists rather than the apparatuses of the Bolivarian parties.
The radicalisation of the Bolivarian revolution after the December 3rd presidential elections has also pushed the more right-wing sections of the Bolivarian leadership into the camp of the opposition. "Podemos", the social-democratic party which until recently was part of the government coalition, has now officially joined the opposition. All this is to be welcomed, since it helps to clarify where they really stand.
Baduel's statements have to be seen against this background. As we have explained before on a number of occasions, the situation inside the Army is far from being under control. It remains a capitalist army and if it is not smashed and replaced by the people in arms, it will eventually be used against the revolutionary masses. This is how we described the situation a few months ago:
"It is clear that the most reactionary military officers purged themselves out of the Army in 2002 by participating in the coup in April and the attempted coup in December (when they declared themselves "in rebellion" at the Altamira Square). Of those who remained the majority are probably loyal to Chavez in one way or another, but the reasons why they are loyal to Chavez are varied. Some of them are loyal simply because Chavez represents the official government of the day, others reflect the corrupt nature of the bourgeois state and plead loyalty simply because they are making a lot of money through legal and illegal businesses they have access to by being in the Army, and many of them probably feel uneasy about all this talk about socialism. It is clear that if the situation came to a decisive turning point of taking over the means of production and destroying the capitalist state most of them would be on the side of reaction." (See: The challenges facing the Venezuelan Revolution)
It was already clear from Baduel's parting speech when he resigned as Minister of Defence in July that he was very uneasy with the direction the movement was taking. All the talk about socialism made him very nervous. If what was meant was social democracy, then that was OK, but any talk of nationalising the means of production he could not accept. "The wholesale abolition of private property and the brutal socialisation of the means of production always have a negative effect in the production of goods and services and provoke general discontent amongst the population", he declared.
These are the ideas of the reformists in Venezuela within the Bolivarian movement. "Socialism of the 21st century" yes, as long as what is meant is not genuine socialism, but social democracy. It is significant to note that Baduel wrote an introduction to Heinz Dieterich's book on "socialism of the 21st century" and was the main figure involved in the launch of that book in Venezuela. Clearly the ideas of Dieterich (basically advocating "socialism" without changes in the property of the means of production) provide a "theoretical" cover for the reformists in Venezuela, who, as the revolution becomes more radical, reveal themselves in their true nature as agents of the counter-revolution.
Baduel's statement yesterday, delivered to a press conference to which only opposition media were invited, was only the next logical step. Using the same terms as Pablo Medina and other opposition leaders, he described the proposed constitutional reform as a "coup d'Etat", amongst other reasons because "with the excuse of distributing wealth amongst the people, the Executive does away with private property". He said that what was being discussed were not minor reforms but a "transformation of the state and a completely different model of country".
In what sounded like an appeal for an uprising against the Bolivarian revolution, he added that the constitutional reform should be agreed through "a social pact of broad consensus", otherwise "a wide majority would not accept it, would always try to change it, even if it has to resort to violent means to do it"!
He ended with an appeal not to "underestimate the capacity of Venezuelan military men to analyse and think", in what was a clear appeal to the armed forces to come out against the reform and the referendum. As in previous occasions the ruling class and imperialism are trying to gauge what forces they can count upon. First they will try to discredit and prevent the referendum from going ahead, though they might be forced to participate in it in the end.
In any case, the reaction of the Bolivarian revolution to these statements and counter-revolutionary provocations can only be to go on the offensive. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the balance of forces is extremely favourable to the revolution, but this strength must be put into action in an organized manner. The mobilisation for the December 2nd constitutional reform referendum should not be seen as merely an electoral issue. A widespread revolutionary mobilisation must be mounted, not only to win the referendum but also to implement the measures contained in the proposed reform.
Any companies that participate in sabotage of the economy, particularly transportation and the food distribution chain, should be immediately occupied by its workers and expropriated by the government using the laws that already exist. A serious campaign of political agitation should be launched inside the army with the setting up of Socialist Battalions of the new United Socialist Party composed of revolutionary soldiers and trusted revolutionary officers. This should be accompanied by the setting up of units of the territorial guard in all factories and working class neighbourhoods and for these to be given military training and equipment.
These measures should be seen as the first steps towards taking out of the hands of the ruling class the levers of economic power it still has and is using against the democratic will of the majority. These should be put under workers' control and democratically managed to the benefit of the majority. On the other hand, the structures of the old capitalist state must be smashed once and for all and replaced by a network of Communal and Factory Councils with spokespersons elected and recallable at any time which should cover the whole of the country's territory.
Win a massive "Yes" vote in the referendum, move decisively towards socialism! RENEGADE EYE
Tuesday, 06 November 2007
On Monday, November 5th, the campaign for the constitutional reform referendum in Venezuela was stepped up with the call by retired general Baduel for a NO vote. General Baduel was a close collaborator of Chávez and remained loyal to him during the April 2002 military coup which briefly ousted him. In July of this year he resigned from his position as Defence Minister and retired from active military office. His attacks on the constitutional reform are part of a concerted campaign by the ruling class to prevent it from being approved in a referendum which will take place on December 2nd.
The amendments to the 1999 Venezuelan revolution were announced by Chávez after his election victory in December 2006 with the stated aim of bringing the Constitution into line with "Socialism of the 21st century". They were then formally proposed by Chávez in July, discussed throughout the country and passed with a whole series of modifications and additions by the National Assembly on November 2nd.
Amongst the most significant of the amendments are those dealing with the new power structure, in which legal status is given to the Communal Powers in an attempt to do away with the current structures of the capitalist state. In the field of property of the means of production there are a whole number of articles which have been attacked by the opposition as being an attack on private property rights while at the same time enshrining new forms of collective and social property.
Even though the proposed amendments are limited in their character, in the context of the class struggle taking place in Venezuela they have become the rallying cry for a new clash between the classes, on the one hand the oligarchy and imperialism, on the other hand the overwhelming majority of workers and peasants.
The ruling class is well aware that whatever the actual text of the constitutional reform (and this is certainly an advanced and very progressive proposal which includes the 6-hour working day and a 36-hour week), the proposals are seen by the masses as a step forward towards socialism. And for this reason they have, once again, tried to mobilise all their forces to stop it.
In the last two weeks, a series of small demonstrations by opposition students have been taking place in Caracas and other cities which have often been the scene of violent clashes with the police. There are clearly organised fascist elements present at these demonstrations intent on causing clashes which can then be used as an excuse to paint Chavez's government as dictatorial and repressive.
This has been accompanied by calls for a stoppage of public transport, an incendiary call by the Episcopal Conference to oppose the constitutional reform, articles in the media calling for a military intervention to prevent the referendum from taking place, etc. This, incidentally, confirms what we said after the presidential election in December 2006. At that time some argued that we now had a "democratic opposition" in Venezuela, since Rosales and his supporters had accepted their defeat in the election. We responded that this was just a question of opportunity. At that time they did not have the necessary forces and points of support inside the army to launch a coup, so they were forced by the action of the masses on the streets to accept the results.
Now the talk of a coup and the intervention of the army is again on the agenda. So in his column in El Nacional on November 2, Pablo Medina, one of the main leaders of the opposition and participant in the 2002 coup, made an open appeal: "gentlemen of the National Armed Forces, lets overthrow the reform".
In a move reminiscent of the coup in April 2002 and the lock out in December of the same year, the leaders of business organisations Fedecamaras and Consecomercio have appeared on TV appealing to the people to oppose the reform and the referendum.
At the same time, the opposition is not in a position of strength. The student demonstrations of the last few days have been violent but small. The balance of forces remains enormously favourable to the revolution as was graphically shown by the two demonstrations last weekend. The first, on Saturday, called by the opposition gathered just a few thousand people. The second, on Sunday, called by Chávez, gathered hundreds of thousands, marching through Caracas and filling, yet again, the whole of Bolivar Avenue and the adjacent streets.
At this rally Chávez delivered a very militant speech in which he appealed for the referendum campaign to be organised from the rank and file through the Socialist Batallions, the basic units of the new United Socialist Party. Talking to revolutionary activists from "23 de Enero" and Vargas districts, they agreed in emphasising the fact that the mobilisation for Sunday's demo had been carried out by the rank and file activists rather than the apparatuses of the Bolivarian parties.
The radicalisation of the Bolivarian revolution after the December 3rd presidential elections has also pushed the more right-wing sections of the Bolivarian leadership into the camp of the opposition. "Podemos", the social-democratic party which until recently was part of the government coalition, has now officially joined the opposition. All this is to be welcomed, since it helps to clarify where they really stand.
Baduel's statements have to be seen against this background. As we have explained before on a number of occasions, the situation inside the Army is far from being under control. It remains a capitalist army and if it is not smashed and replaced by the people in arms, it will eventually be used against the revolutionary masses. This is how we described the situation a few months ago:
"It is clear that the most reactionary military officers purged themselves out of the Army in 2002 by participating in the coup in April and the attempted coup in December (when they declared themselves "in rebellion" at the Altamira Square). Of those who remained the majority are probably loyal to Chavez in one way or another, but the reasons why they are loyal to Chavez are varied. Some of them are loyal simply because Chavez represents the official government of the day, others reflect the corrupt nature of the bourgeois state and plead loyalty simply because they are making a lot of money through legal and illegal businesses they have access to by being in the Army, and many of them probably feel uneasy about all this talk about socialism. It is clear that if the situation came to a decisive turning point of taking over the means of production and destroying the capitalist state most of them would be on the side of reaction." (See: The challenges facing the Venezuelan Revolution)
It was already clear from Baduel's parting speech when he resigned as Minister of Defence in July that he was very uneasy with the direction the movement was taking. All the talk about socialism made him very nervous. If what was meant was social democracy, then that was OK, but any talk of nationalising the means of production he could not accept. "The wholesale abolition of private property and the brutal socialisation of the means of production always have a negative effect in the production of goods and services and provoke general discontent amongst the population", he declared.
These are the ideas of the reformists in Venezuela within the Bolivarian movement. "Socialism of the 21st century" yes, as long as what is meant is not genuine socialism, but social democracy. It is significant to note that Baduel wrote an introduction to Heinz Dieterich's book on "socialism of the 21st century" and was the main figure involved in the launch of that book in Venezuela. Clearly the ideas of Dieterich (basically advocating "socialism" without changes in the property of the means of production) provide a "theoretical" cover for the reformists in Venezuela, who, as the revolution becomes more radical, reveal themselves in their true nature as agents of the counter-revolution.
Baduel's statement yesterday, delivered to a press conference to which only opposition media were invited, was only the next logical step. Using the same terms as Pablo Medina and other opposition leaders, he described the proposed constitutional reform as a "coup d'Etat", amongst other reasons because "with the excuse of distributing wealth amongst the people, the Executive does away with private property". He said that what was being discussed were not minor reforms but a "transformation of the state and a completely different model of country".
In what sounded like an appeal for an uprising against the Bolivarian revolution, he added that the constitutional reform should be agreed through "a social pact of broad consensus", otherwise "a wide majority would not accept it, would always try to change it, even if it has to resort to violent means to do it"!
He ended with an appeal not to "underestimate the capacity of Venezuelan military men to analyse and think", in what was a clear appeal to the armed forces to come out against the reform and the referendum. As in previous occasions the ruling class and imperialism are trying to gauge what forces they can count upon. First they will try to discredit and prevent the referendum from going ahead, though they might be forced to participate in it in the end.
In any case, the reaction of the Bolivarian revolution to these statements and counter-revolutionary provocations can only be to go on the offensive. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the balance of forces is extremely favourable to the revolution, but this strength must be put into action in an organized manner. The mobilisation for the December 2nd constitutional reform referendum should not be seen as merely an electoral issue. A widespread revolutionary mobilisation must be mounted, not only to win the referendum but also to implement the measures contained in the proposed reform.
Any companies that participate in sabotage of the economy, particularly transportation and the food distribution chain, should be immediately occupied by its workers and expropriated by the government using the laws that already exist. A serious campaign of political agitation should be launched inside the army with the setting up of Socialist Battalions of the new United Socialist Party composed of revolutionary soldiers and trusted revolutionary officers. This should be accompanied by the setting up of units of the territorial guard in all factories and working class neighbourhoods and for these to be given military training and equipment.
These measures should be seen as the first steps towards taking out of the hands of the ruling class the levers of economic power it still has and is using against the democratic will of the majority. These should be put under workers' control and democratically managed to the benefit of the majority. On the other hand, the structures of the old capitalist state must be smashed once and for all and replaced by a network of Communal and Factory Councils with spokespersons elected and recallable at any time which should cover the whole of the country's territory.
Win a massive "Yes" vote in the referendum, move decisively towards socialism! RENEGADE EYE
Monday, November 05, 2007
Pakistan: The 18th Brumaire of Pervez Musharraf
By Alan Woods
Sunday, 04 November 2007
On Saturday November 3 President Pervez Musharraf declared virtual martial law, imposing a state of emergency throughout Pakistan, suspending the Constitution and replacing superior courts. This amounts to his second coup d'etat after he seized power in October 12, 1999. It is a desperate move that underlines the extremely unstable nature of the regime, which is losing support by the day.
In the proclamation of emergency, the general blamed growing violence by militants and a judiciary which he said was working at "cross purposes" with his government and the legislature. It is a gambler's throw that could plunge the country's political future into chaos.
It does not suit the interests of US imperialism, for which Pakistan now has a key strategic importance because of the war in neighbouring Afghanistan. Washington has been putting pressure on Musharraf to crack down on the pro-Taliban forces that have been crossing the frontier to fight the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan.
This pressure has undermined Musharraf. His army has suffered severe losses in the tribal areas where they have tried unsuccessfully to uproot the militants. There is still a powerful wing of the army and above all the Intelligence Services (ISI) that supports the Taliban and al Qaeda and is protecting them.
Musharraf is powerless to do anything about this. The army is his only basis of support, and that is very shaky. Therefore, the strategists of US imperialism have come to the conclusion that Musharraf is no longer any use to them and is disposable. They were looking to Benazir Bhutto to take over instead.
Benazir has lost no opportunity to pose as a pro-western "moderate". But behind Benazir and the PPP stand the masses who yearn for a change. They are loyal to the original socialist aspirations of the PPP and are demanding Roti, kapra aur makan (bread, clothing and shelter). The attitude of the masses was shown when Benazir returned to Pakistan: at least two million people came onto the streets: the overwhelming majority were workers, peasants and poor people.
In order to avoid any upsets and dampen the expectations of the masses, they were pushing the general to do a deal with Benazir. But this is easier to say than to do. The general is reluctant to resign as head of the armed forces and stand for election as a civilian politician. If he were to put aside his army uniform as the "democratic" opposition is demanding, it would be like placing his head in the hangman's noose.
The personal fate of Musharraf is of no concern to Washington, but it is of considerable interest to the general, who, like most people, would like to die of old age. He has repeatedly stated that his army uniform was "like a second skin" to him. More correctly, by continuing to wear it, he hopes to save his skin. But this is by no means certain.
Pakistan has had a stormy history since it attained formal independence, together with India, in 1947. Since then the weak Pakistan bourgeoisie has shown itself completely unable to take this huge country forward. It remains plunged into poverty and feudal backwardness. The economy is in a mess and the country is going backwards not forwards.
The weakness of Pakistan capitalism has been manifested in extreme political instability. Weak "democratic" regimes have been succeeded at regular intervals by military dictatorships of one kind or another. The last dictator, Zia al Huq was murdered (probably by the CIA). Musharraf fears the same fate, and is clinging to power. But power is slipping through his fingers.
This coup came only 12 days before the expiration of General Musharraf's presidency and the present assemblies and while an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court was in a weekend recess in its hearing of challenges to his election for another five-year presidential term mainly on grounds of his army office.
In the recent period there were signs of disintegration of the state itself. Splits are opening up at every level. The clearest manifestation of this was the rebellion of the judiciary, which is now suspended. Its latest act was to rule the President's actions unconstitutional. But the class struggle cannot be determined by constitutional jiggery-pokery. The general responded by suspending the Constitution and laws of the country.
The Provisional Constitutional Order has put the Constitution in "abeyance". It tries to sweeten the pill by saying the country will be "governed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the Constitution". This means - as far as it suits the convenience of the General. Seven of its articles relating to fundamental rights will remain suspended, and the president is empowered to amend the document "as is deemed expedient" - expedient, that is, for Musharraf.
But Musharraf is running out of options. In this latest gamble, he has put aside not only the Constitution but also his own powers as president, which were already considerable. Instead, he has preferred to act as Chief of the Army Staff. Instead of a dictatorship under the fig-leaf of a constitutional Presidency, we have the open dictatorship of the army: rule by the sword.
However, as Trotsky explained, the army and police are never sufficient to rule society. A regime without a base in society must be an unstable regime - a regime of crisis. In all probability it will not last long. In reality, the Musharraf dictatorship was always weak. Its main strength consisted in the weakness of the opposition.
The actions of the general were "greeted with immediate condemnation at home by opposition parties, lawyers and human rights groups and concern from ‘war on terror' allies like the United States and Britain" says the Dawn. But all this is just so much hot air. The so-called "democratic" opposition has revealed itself as impotent and toothless, utterly incapable of conducting a serious struggle against the dictatorship.
As for the complaints of "democratic" United States and Britain, they carry no weight whatsoever. London and Washington have turned a blind eye to the Musharraf dictatorship as long as it suited their interests.
The emergency proclamation said a situation had arisen where the "government of the country cannot be carried out in accordance with the Constitution" and "the Constitution provides no solution for this situation". As a matter of fact, this is correct. The contradictions of Pakistan society are too deep and irreconcilable to be mediated by lawyers and constitutions. By suspending the Constitution Musharraf is only admitting this fact. He is acknowledging the fact that the class struggle is reaching an unbearable point where it can no longer be contained by formal rules.
The emergency proclamation was immediately followed by change of command at the Supreme Court as well as changes in provincial high courts, crushing any semblance of independence of the judiciary. The fundamental rights suspended by the PCO related to security of persons (article 9) safeguard as to arrest and detention (article 10), freedom of movement (article 15), freedom of assembly, (article 16) freedom of association (article 17), freedom of speech (article 19), and equality of citizens (article 25).
It said the Supreme Court or a high court or any other court "shall not have the power to make any order against the president or the prime minister or any persons exercising powers or jurisdiction under their authority".
Even in the moment of truth, however, the general's hand has wavered. He has not abolished the present federal and provincial governments, and both houses of parliament and the provincial assemblies were kept intact. This is hardly the actions of a man who is sure of the ground upon which he is treading.
In justifying his actions, the general referred to the "visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks". His proclamation also contained a long charge-sheet against the superior judiciary some of whose members, it said, "are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism, thereby weakening the government and the nation's resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace".
"... (T)here has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth, in particular," it said, adding that there was "constant interference in executive functions."
It also blamed the judiciary's interference for having "weakened the writ of the government, the police force ... been completely demoralised and ... fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism, and intelligence agencies ... thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists."
While "some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released," it said and added: "The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies (were) subdued."
The most significant part of this declaration is the open admission that sections of the state are "completely demoralised". It reveals the inner weakness of the state itself - including the armed forces, police and security forces. The real reason for this is that the Pakistan state is split from top to bottom and has been for some time. Musharraf is trying to conceal the split by placing his army boots on the table. But he is leaning on a broken reed.
Lenin explained long ago that every revolution begins at the top, with splits in the old regime. That first condition already exists in Pakistan. The second condition is that the middle class should be in a ferment and wavering between revolution and counterrevolution. In Pakistan the middle class is completely alienated from the ruling clique. This is partly reflected in the protests of the lawyers, although the movement contains contradictory elements.
The other factor is that the working class should be ready to fight and to make the greatest sacrifices to change society. In recent years there has been an upsurge of the class struggle in Pakistan, with major strikes like that of the telecommunications workers and Pakistan Steel. In the last few days there was a national strike of PIA (Pakistan Airways). These strikes have hardly been mentioned by the media outside Pakistan but they are of great symptomatic importance. They show the reawakening of the mighty Pakistan proletariat.
The final and most important condition is the existence of a revolutionary organization and leadership. Does this exist in Pakistan? Yes, it does! The Pakistan Marxists represented by The Struggle have grown in strength and influence in recent years. They have conquered one position after another and have succeeded in uniting the overwhelming majority of the militant youth and working class activists around them. They have a strong and growing presence in every region, every nationality and every important city.
In the struggles of the workers, they have played an outstanding role. Together with the PTUDC (Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign) - the most important militant trade union organization in Pakistan, they have scored significant victories like the defeat of the attempt to privatize Pakistan Steel. In Kashmir they have won over the majority of the students to Marxism and in Karachi and Pukhtunhua (the North West Frontier) they have won many adherents from the former Communist Party.
As readers of Marxist.com will know that the comrades played an active role in the mass demonstrations when millions of workers and peasants demonstrated their support for the PPP on the return of Benazir Bhutto. We were the only ones on the Left to understand the role of the PPP and the only ones to predict how the masses would respond. The Pakistan comrades intervened on these demonstrations, distributing revolutionary literature. They were enthusiastically received by the workers and peasants who want the same things that we want.
The destiny of Pakistan will not be decided by paper constitutions or lawyers' tricks, by hypocritical declarations about "freedom" and "democracy" by people who have no real interest in these things. Neither will it be determined by intrigues and manoeuvres by the bourgeois politicians and imperialists. Only the workers and peasants have a serious interest in conquering a genuine democracy.
The working class will naturally fight for democracy. But the workers will fight for democracy with their own methods, with their own slogans and under their own banners. Only in this way can the movement succeed in its objectives. Only the mass revolutionary movement of the Pakistan workers and peasants can fight the dictatorship and establish a genuine democracy, which can only end in the overthrow of the dictatorships of the corrupt Pakistan landlords and capitalists.
Musharraf's coup is just another act in the drama of Pakistan. It will not be the last act! We are confident that the working class will react to this offensive of the ruling clique as they have done in the past: by stepping up the class struggle on all fronts.
We appeal to all members of the international labour movement to come to the aid of our Pakistan comrades. Move resolutions of protest in the trade unions and workers' parties! Send messages of support to the PTUDC! Raise collections for the PTUDC and send them urgently so that we can express our support not just in words but in deeds!
Please act now!
Workers of the World Unite!
London, 4th November 2007RENEGADE EYE
By PTUDC - Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign
Tuesday, 06 November 2007
The Musharraf regime is brutally attacking lawyers and political activists to curb any voice against the declaration of emergency. In this situation a major attack has been made on the PTUDC (Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign) when the younger brother of Comrade Manzoor Ahmed (Member National Assembly & President of the PTUDC) Chaudhary Munir Ahmed was arrested. Due to the suspension of the constitution and basic human rights no complaint can be filed anywhere and protests of all kinds are also banned.
Munir Ahmed is the president of the Kasur District Bar Association (Lawyers' Association) and he is also a member of the PTUDC. His arrest is part of an attack on the cause of the working class of Pakistan.
The following have also been arrested:
Aitzaz Ahsan, Member National Assembly and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (Lawyers' Association);
Ahsan Bhoon, President Lahore High Court Bar Association (Lawyers' Association);
Liaqat Sahi, General Secretary (CBA) State Bank of Pakistan and PTUDC;
Farid Awan, Famous labour leader of Karachi and PTUDC
Comrade Irshad Shar, Executive Member Malir District Bar Association (Karachi) and the Office Bearer of People's Lawyers Forum ( Lawyers' wing of the PPP) and PTUDC.
We appeal to all comrades and lawyers in all countries to send solidarity messages for these lawyers who are leading the lawyers and activists against the Musharraf regime and the dictatorial rule of the Army.
Send solidarity messages directly to:
Chaudhary Munir: munir_kasurbar@hotmail.com
Aitzaz Ahsan: aitzaz_ahsan@hotmail.com
Ahsan Bhoon: saqi.clc@gmail.com
We also appeal for letters and resolutions of solidarity with the Pakistani workers that can be sent to the PTUDC. Fill in the form here.
Sunday, 04 November 2007
On Saturday November 3 President Pervez Musharraf declared virtual martial law, imposing a state of emergency throughout Pakistan, suspending the Constitution and replacing superior courts. This amounts to his second coup d'etat after he seized power in October 12, 1999. It is a desperate move that underlines the extremely unstable nature of the regime, which is losing support by the day.
In the proclamation of emergency, the general blamed growing violence by militants and a judiciary which he said was working at "cross purposes" with his government and the legislature. It is a gambler's throw that could plunge the country's political future into chaos.
It does not suit the interests of US imperialism, for which Pakistan now has a key strategic importance because of the war in neighbouring Afghanistan. Washington has been putting pressure on Musharraf to crack down on the pro-Taliban forces that have been crossing the frontier to fight the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan.
This pressure has undermined Musharraf. His army has suffered severe losses in the tribal areas where they have tried unsuccessfully to uproot the militants. There is still a powerful wing of the army and above all the Intelligence Services (ISI) that supports the Taliban and al Qaeda and is protecting them.
Musharraf is powerless to do anything about this. The army is his only basis of support, and that is very shaky. Therefore, the strategists of US imperialism have come to the conclusion that Musharraf is no longer any use to them and is disposable. They were looking to Benazir Bhutto to take over instead.
Benazir has lost no opportunity to pose as a pro-western "moderate". But behind Benazir and the PPP stand the masses who yearn for a change. They are loyal to the original socialist aspirations of the PPP and are demanding Roti, kapra aur makan (bread, clothing and shelter). The attitude of the masses was shown when Benazir returned to Pakistan: at least two million people came onto the streets: the overwhelming majority were workers, peasants and poor people.
In order to avoid any upsets and dampen the expectations of the masses, they were pushing the general to do a deal with Benazir. But this is easier to say than to do. The general is reluctant to resign as head of the armed forces and stand for election as a civilian politician. If he were to put aside his army uniform as the "democratic" opposition is demanding, it would be like placing his head in the hangman's noose.
The personal fate of Musharraf is of no concern to Washington, but it is of considerable interest to the general, who, like most people, would like to die of old age. He has repeatedly stated that his army uniform was "like a second skin" to him. More correctly, by continuing to wear it, he hopes to save his skin. But this is by no means certain.
Pakistan has had a stormy history since it attained formal independence, together with India, in 1947. Since then the weak Pakistan bourgeoisie has shown itself completely unable to take this huge country forward. It remains plunged into poverty and feudal backwardness. The economy is in a mess and the country is going backwards not forwards.
The weakness of Pakistan capitalism has been manifested in extreme political instability. Weak "democratic" regimes have been succeeded at regular intervals by military dictatorships of one kind or another. The last dictator, Zia al Huq was murdered (probably by the CIA). Musharraf fears the same fate, and is clinging to power. But power is slipping through his fingers.
This coup came only 12 days before the expiration of General Musharraf's presidency and the present assemblies and while an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court was in a weekend recess in its hearing of challenges to his election for another five-year presidential term mainly on grounds of his army office.
In the recent period there were signs of disintegration of the state itself. Splits are opening up at every level. The clearest manifestation of this was the rebellion of the judiciary, which is now suspended. Its latest act was to rule the President's actions unconstitutional. But the class struggle cannot be determined by constitutional jiggery-pokery. The general responded by suspending the Constitution and laws of the country.
The Provisional Constitutional Order has put the Constitution in "abeyance". It tries to sweeten the pill by saying the country will be "governed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the Constitution". This means - as far as it suits the convenience of the General. Seven of its articles relating to fundamental rights will remain suspended, and the president is empowered to amend the document "as is deemed expedient" - expedient, that is, for Musharraf.
But Musharraf is running out of options. In this latest gamble, he has put aside not only the Constitution but also his own powers as president, which were already considerable. Instead, he has preferred to act as Chief of the Army Staff. Instead of a dictatorship under the fig-leaf of a constitutional Presidency, we have the open dictatorship of the army: rule by the sword.
However, as Trotsky explained, the army and police are never sufficient to rule society. A regime without a base in society must be an unstable regime - a regime of crisis. In all probability it will not last long. In reality, the Musharraf dictatorship was always weak. Its main strength consisted in the weakness of the opposition.
The actions of the general were "greeted with immediate condemnation at home by opposition parties, lawyers and human rights groups and concern from ‘war on terror' allies like the United States and Britain" says the Dawn. But all this is just so much hot air. The so-called "democratic" opposition has revealed itself as impotent and toothless, utterly incapable of conducting a serious struggle against the dictatorship.
As for the complaints of "democratic" United States and Britain, they carry no weight whatsoever. London and Washington have turned a blind eye to the Musharraf dictatorship as long as it suited their interests.
The emergency proclamation said a situation had arisen where the "government of the country cannot be carried out in accordance with the Constitution" and "the Constitution provides no solution for this situation". As a matter of fact, this is correct. The contradictions of Pakistan society are too deep and irreconcilable to be mediated by lawyers and constitutions. By suspending the Constitution Musharraf is only admitting this fact. He is acknowledging the fact that the class struggle is reaching an unbearable point where it can no longer be contained by formal rules.
The emergency proclamation was immediately followed by change of command at the Supreme Court as well as changes in provincial high courts, crushing any semblance of independence of the judiciary. The fundamental rights suspended by the PCO related to security of persons (article 9) safeguard as to arrest and detention (article 10), freedom of movement (article 15), freedom of assembly, (article 16) freedom of association (article 17), freedom of speech (article 19), and equality of citizens (article 25).
It said the Supreme Court or a high court or any other court "shall not have the power to make any order against the president or the prime minister or any persons exercising powers or jurisdiction under their authority".
Even in the moment of truth, however, the general's hand has wavered. He has not abolished the present federal and provincial governments, and both houses of parliament and the provincial assemblies were kept intact. This is hardly the actions of a man who is sure of the ground upon which he is treading.
In justifying his actions, the general referred to the "visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks". His proclamation also contained a long charge-sheet against the superior judiciary some of whose members, it said, "are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism, thereby weakening the government and the nation's resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace".
"... (T)here has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth, in particular," it said, adding that there was "constant interference in executive functions."
It also blamed the judiciary's interference for having "weakened the writ of the government, the police force ... been completely demoralised and ... fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism, and intelligence agencies ... thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists."
While "some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released," it said and added: "The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies (were) subdued."
The most significant part of this declaration is the open admission that sections of the state are "completely demoralised". It reveals the inner weakness of the state itself - including the armed forces, police and security forces. The real reason for this is that the Pakistan state is split from top to bottom and has been for some time. Musharraf is trying to conceal the split by placing his army boots on the table. But he is leaning on a broken reed.
Lenin explained long ago that every revolution begins at the top, with splits in the old regime. That first condition already exists in Pakistan. The second condition is that the middle class should be in a ferment and wavering between revolution and counterrevolution. In Pakistan the middle class is completely alienated from the ruling clique. This is partly reflected in the protests of the lawyers, although the movement contains contradictory elements.
The other factor is that the working class should be ready to fight and to make the greatest sacrifices to change society. In recent years there has been an upsurge of the class struggle in Pakistan, with major strikes like that of the telecommunications workers and Pakistan Steel. In the last few days there was a national strike of PIA (Pakistan Airways). These strikes have hardly been mentioned by the media outside Pakistan but they are of great symptomatic importance. They show the reawakening of the mighty Pakistan proletariat.
The final and most important condition is the existence of a revolutionary organization and leadership. Does this exist in Pakistan? Yes, it does! The Pakistan Marxists represented by The Struggle have grown in strength and influence in recent years. They have conquered one position after another and have succeeded in uniting the overwhelming majority of the militant youth and working class activists around them. They have a strong and growing presence in every region, every nationality and every important city.
In the struggles of the workers, they have played an outstanding role. Together with the PTUDC (Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign) - the most important militant trade union organization in Pakistan, they have scored significant victories like the defeat of the attempt to privatize Pakistan Steel. In Kashmir they have won over the majority of the students to Marxism and in Karachi and Pukhtunhua (the North West Frontier) they have won many adherents from the former Communist Party.
As readers of Marxist.com will know that the comrades played an active role in the mass demonstrations when millions of workers and peasants demonstrated their support for the PPP on the return of Benazir Bhutto. We were the only ones on the Left to understand the role of the PPP and the only ones to predict how the masses would respond. The Pakistan comrades intervened on these demonstrations, distributing revolutionary literature. They were enthusiastically received by the workers and peasants who want the same things that we want.
The destiny of Pakistan will not be decided by paper constitutions or lawyers' tricks, by hypocritical declarations about "freedom" and "democracy" by people who have no real interest in these things. Neither will it be determined by intrigues and manoeuvres by the bourgeois politicians and imperialists. Only the workers and peasants have a serious interest in conquering a genuine democracy.
The working class will naturally fight for democracy. But the workers will fight for democracy with their own methods, with their own slogans and under their own banners. Only in this way can the movement succeed in its objectives. Only the mass revolutionary movement of the Pakistan workers and peasants can fight the dictatorship and establish a genuine democracy, which can only end in the overthrow of the dictatorships of the corrupt Pakistan landlords and capitalists.
Musharraf's coup is just another act in the drama of Pakistan. It will not be the last act! We are confident that the working class will react to this offensive of the ruling clique as they have done in the past: by stepping up the class struggle on all fronts.
We appeal to all members of the international labour movement to come to the aid of our Pakistan comrades. Move resolutions of protest in the trade unions and workers' parties! Send messages of support to the PTUDC! Raise collections for the PTUDC and send them urgently so that we can express our support not just in words but in deeds!
Please act now!
Workers of the World Unite!
London, 4th November 2007RENEGADE EYE
UPDATE Nov. 06, 2007
PTUDC members arrested in struggle against the imposition of emergency rule by MusharrafBy PTUDC - Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign
Tuesday, 06 November 2007
The Musharraf regime is brutally attacking lawyers and political activists to curb any voice against the declaration of emergency. In this situation a major attack has been made on the PTUDC (Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign) when the younger brother of Comrade Manzoor Ahmed (Member National Assembly & President of the PTUDC) Chaudhary Munir Ahmed was arrested. Due to the suspension of the constitution and basic human rights no complaint can be filed anywhere and protests of all kinds are also banned.
Munir Ahmed is the president of the Kasur District Bar Association (Lawyers' Association) and he is also a member of the PTUDC. His arrest is part of an attack on the cause of the working class of Pakistan.
The following have also been arrested:
Aitzaz Ahsan, Member National Assembly and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (Lawyers' Association);
Ahsan Bhoon, President Lahore High Court Bar Association (Lawyers' Association);
Liaqat Sahi, General Secretary (CBA) State Bank of Pakistan and PTUDC;
Farid Awan, Famous labour leader of Karachi and PTUDC
Comrade Irshad Shar, Executive Member Malir District Bar Association (Karachi) and the Office Bearer of People's Lawyers Forum ( Lawyers' wing of the PPP) and PTUDC.
We appeal to all comrades and lawyers in all countries to send solidarity messages for these lawyers who are leading the lawyers and activists against the Musharraf regime and the dictatorial rule of the Army.
Send solidarity messages directly to:
Chaudhary Munir: munir_kasurbar@hotmail.com
Aitzaz Ahsan: aitzaz_ahsan@hotmail.com
Ahsan Bhoon: saqi.clc@gmail.com
We also appeal for letters and resolutions of solidarity with the Pakistani workers that can be sent to the PTUDC. Fill in the form here.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Open Thread: Post 220
****This is post 220. The blog started 03/26/2005. I chose the name "Renegade Eye." because the good titles for blogs were taken. All of that is not too important, other than point out this is the post, to talk about what is not usually commented about.
****Pete Seeger at 88 years, finally came out publicly against Stalin. He wrote a song recently denouncing Uncle Joe.
**** Which blogs do you visit and why? If you are lefty, do you stay away from rightist blogs? Why do rightists visit leftist blogs? I personally visit blogs, that support my blog, by commenting or linking to me. I don't play Devil's Advocate all the time.
**** Use Who Links To Me?, to find out who links to you. I have about three blogs a week, many I never visited, link to my blog. If someone links to you, or comments at your blog, link to them. Blog ratings have to do with how many people link to your blog, or mention your blog.
**** I was tagged by PCoE, and asked about my five top political influences. Who are yours? I was highly influenced by Lyndon Johnson. During the Vietnam War, I realized that Democrats share goals with Republicans. Besides Trotsky and Lenin, my early blog readers know Christopher Hitchens influenced me in good and bad ways. Add my old friend Harvey from high school.
**** I want to plug Lefty /bloggers/cartoonists Ben Heine and David Baldinger.
**** At Minnesota's St. Thomas College, it's president Rev. Dennis Dease, due to the recommendations of Zionist groups, uninvited Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu from speaking to a peace conference. When the decision was made public, the college reversed itself, due to worldwide pressure. Some of the Zionist groups that tried to stop him from speaking, now are sponsoring him. Professor Cris Toffolo who heads the Peace and Justice Studies Program there, invited Tutu initially. Tofollo has since been demoted, and Tutu won't speak, until the professor is back in her position.
This is the free for all post!
RENEGADE EYE
****Pete Seeger at 88 years, finally came out publicly against Stalin. He wrote a song recently denouncing Uncle Joe.
**** Which blogs do you visit and why? If you are lefty, do you stay away from rightist blogs? Why do rightists visit leftist blogs? I personally visit blogs, that support my blog, by commenting or linking to me. I don't play Devil's Advocate all the time.
**** Use Who Links To Me?, to find out who links to you. I have about three blogs a week, many I never visited, link to my blog. If someone links to you, or comments at your blog, link to them. Blog ratings have to do with how many people link to your blog, or mention your blog.
**** I was tagged by PCoE, and asked about my five top political influences. Who are yours? I was highly influenced by Lyndon Johnson. During the Vietnam War, I realized that Democrats share goals with Republicans. Besides Trotsky and Lenin, my early blog readers know Christopher Hitchens influenced me in good and bad ways. Add my old friend Harvey from high school.
**** I want to plug Lefty /bloggers/cartoonists Ben Heine and David Baldinger.
**** At Minnesota's St. Thomas College, it's president Rev. Dennis Dease, due to the recommendations of Zionist groups, uninvited Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu from speaking to a peace conference. When the decision was made public, the college reversed itself, due to worldwide pressure. Some of the Zionist groups that tried to stop him from speaking, now are sponsoring him. Professor Cris Toffolo who heads the Peace and Justice Studies Program there, invited Tutu initially. Tofollo has since been demoted, and Tutu won't speak, until the professor is back in her position.
This is the free for all post!
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Kurds of northern Iraq – another betrayal is being prepared
By Fred Weston
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
On October 17 the Turkish parliament voted by a huge majority, 507 votes to 19, to grant the army permission to take military action inside northern Iraq, in the Kurdish territories. Since then we have had contradictory statements coming out of Turkey, combined with a frenetic flurry of diplomatic pressures. Meanwhile the Turkish army keeps amassing more troops on its southeastern border. This scenario promises to make the situation inside Iraq even more unstable.
The US-sponsored invasion of Iraq has proven to be an absolute failure. When the US troops first went in we were fed a mass of media hype about it being a short, sharp war that would establish a "modern" bourgeois parliamentary democracy, that would usher in stability and prosperity across the whole region. But that was all it was: media hype.
Almost four years ago, in November 2003 we wrote:
"What is happening in Iraq is that the US and its allies are beginning to get bogged down. The US military machine proved very good at occupying Iraq. In terms of conventional war they have an unbeatable army. But that is not the end of the story. It is one thing to win a war; it is another to hold down a whole people. Opposition to the presence of foreign troops in their country is growing among the Iraqi people. The official version is that the attacks are carried out by ‘pockets' of Saddam supporters. This is a lie to appease the consciences of people back home. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell this version of ‘the facts'. It is becomingly increasingly evident that the resistance movement is growing and getting ever more confident." (The Iraqi quagmire, By Fred Weston, November 18, 2003).
Since then an increasingly desperate US administration has tried to make up for its own inability to hold down Iraq by using the ethnic card. They have whipped up Shias against Sunnis in the hope of being able to "divide and rule". Instead of achieving their aims this has made things worse. Initially it was not the intention of US imperialism to break up Iraq along ethnic lines. They wanted a strong Iraq as an ally of US imperialism. Instead they have weakened it and allowed other states to emerge as strong regional powers. This is the case of Iran for example.
But in all this mess, there was one part of Iraq that was considered stable: the northern Kurdish area. In the US invasion of Iraq the leaders of the Iraqi Kurds had backed the US and provided help to the troops. While the US troops got on with taking over the rest of the country they could at least rest assured that the North would look after itself. In order to achieve this they had assured the Kurds some form of regional autonomy. And the Kurdish area has become a de facto autonomous region.
The problem is that the US, although Bush may think it is all-powerful and can decide the fate of all peoples in the world, is in reality very fragile. It has overstretched itself and this is not helped by having a particularly unintelligent president at its helm, who has made all the possible mistakes one could imagine.
Back in February 2003, In The In Defence of Marxism Manifesto on the imperialist war against Iraq, (By Alan Woods and Ted Grant) we warned the Kurdish people:
"Let us be clear about this: it is an act of betrayal to present this war of aggression as a means of attaining Kurdish self-determination. Turkey, the main US ally in the region, would never allow it. The Turkish bourgeoisie is not contemplating joining this war for the sake of democracy, and certainly not for the sake of the Kurds! It has its eyes on the oilfields of Kirkuk and Mosul, which the Kurds also claim. Ankara has made it plain that if the Kurds try to take the oilfields, the Turkish army will invade and crush them, with the Americans looking on."
At the time we were criticised for adopting this position. But it is the duty of Marxists to always state the truth. We support the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination, but we must also explain how this is to be achieved. In the same article we explained:
"We defend the right of the Kurdish people to have their own homeland, but point out that this is only possible through the revolutionary overthrow of the reactionary regimes in Baghdad, Teheran and Ankara. On a capitalist basis there can be no real solution to the Kurdish problem. The Kurds must unite with the working people of Turkey, Iraq and Iran in the fight for workers' and peasants' power. On the basis of a socialist federation, it would be possible to achieve an autonomous Kurdish Socialist Republic, with the fullest democratic and national rights - including the right to secede, if they so wished.
"Those who argue that the only way to achieve national self-determination is by supporting imperialism against Baghdad are deceiving the people. This is a criminal and reactionary policy that will lead the Kurds and Shiites once more into a blind alley. There is no way out for the Kurds, Shiites and other peoples of the region on this basis."
What is happening now confirms everything we said on this question. The overwhelming vote of the Turkish parliament to allow its army to enter Northern Iraq is a clear indication that Turkey will not allow the Kurds to have any form of autonomy, let alone an independent state. If the Kurds in Iraq were to achieve this, it would create a serious problem inside Turkey where a large Kurdish population lives. It would encourage them to move in the same direction.
The latest headlines now read "Diplomacy staves off Turkish incursion". Condoleezza Rice and Gordon Brown have been adding their pressures to hold the Turkish army back. But while all this goes on the Turkish army keeps amassing troops on the Iraqi border. Turkey's Prime Minister, Erdogan is under huge pressure at home to send the troops in, but he makes the right noises for western consumption. He has declared that Turkey has no territorial designs on Iraq. That is like a lion saying it has lost its appetite for meat.
It is a fact that a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq, far from helping to stabilise the area, would further exacerbate tensions. In the long run it would also create serious problems for Turkey. It is one thing to carry out sporadic raids into Iraq; a full-fledged invasion and occupation would be a different matter. But the Turkish ruling class are not looking at that at this stage.
There are two factors pushing them. One is that they are concerned about the stability of Turkey that would be put at risk by an autonomous or independent Iraqi Kurdistan. The other is that Turkey also has its own imperialist ambitions. They have their eyes on Iraq's northern oilfields that are within the Kurdish territories. As a result of the war in Iraq, Turkey has been strengthened. A huge amount of US military hardware is transported through Turkey across the border into Iraq. Turkey is also a key NATO ally of US imperialism and if it raises the stakes US imperialism is forced to listen.
We should add another, equally important factor: the situation inside Turkey. The social and economic conditions in Turkey are preparing a new wave of class struggle. Economic growth has been significant in recent years, exceeding 6%. However, inflation is high, standing at 9.8% in 2006. Under pressure from the European Union, the IMF and the World Bank, Turkey is being pushed to carry out widespread privatisations and attacks on welfare. Unemployment officially stands at over 10%, with underemployment calculated at around 4%. The real level of unemployment is most likely much higher and the overall level of poverty can be seen by the fact that according to official figures 20% of the population lives below the poverty line. On top of this there is huge social and economic polarisation, with the poorest 10% of the population consuming only 2.3% of national wealth, and the richest 10% consuming 30%.
In these conditions concentrating attention on the southeastern border is a very useful way of diverting attention away from the real social issues that affect Turkish society.
The Turkish army also should not be seen as any regular army. It has played a key role in the development of the Turkish state over decades. For years it was in direct control of the state, ruling through military dictatorships. Their power however was not purely military. They owned, and still own to a degree, important sectors of the economy directly.
The European Union in particular has been pressurising Turkey to change all this ‑ particularly through privatisation ‑ and open their economy. This has created conflicts within the Turkish state itself. One wing of the Turkish bourgeoisie has been pushing for entry into the European Union, listing all the advantages that this would present in terms of markets and investment.
But the European Union, in particular the French and the Germans, have been delaying Turkey's admission and it may be many years before it is allowed in. Partly this is due to concerns about Turkey's unemployed flooding into the more developed EU countries, in a similar manner to what we have seen with Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and so on.
Another reason for delay is that Turkey is viewed as a stooge of US imperialism and therefore is seen as being potentially a lever for US imperialism to impose its policies inside Europe.
All this has pushed a wing of the Turkish ruling class in drawing the conclusion that its interests lie elsewhere, not to the West but to the East. The present move in regards to Iraq fits well with this outlook. The Turkish army in particular is sending a clear message to all who want to hear that they are a powerful nation, with a powerful military machine, and they are a force that needs to be taken seriously. That is why they have pressurised parliament into voting the way it did last week.
Now, in an attempt to hold back Turkey from going into Iraq, the toothless Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri Maliki has promised that his government would work on limiting the PKK's "terrorist activities which are threatening Iraq and Turkey". The Turks have in fact been demanding that both the Iraqi government and the US army do something to remove the PKK bases from northern Iraq. In an attempt to stave off a Turkish invasion, the Iraqi government has now called on the PKK to leave Iraq.
The question is: how can the Iraqi government police the northern border if it cannot even hold whole areas of the rest of the country, and how can the US troops dedicate forces to the north when they are bogged down elsewhere? In fact, General David Petraeus, the US military commander in Iraq has stated quite openly that it would be very difficult for anyone to police the northern border. Therefore his only proposal is that "pressure" should be put on the PKK to stop its attacks on Turkish military.
The PKK is said to have between 3000 and 3500 guerrillas based in northern Iraq. From here they have intensified their attacks on the Turkish army. How is this force supposed to be "pressurised" into halting its armed operations, by words alone?
An advisor to the Iraqi government, Sami al-Askari has stated openly that, "The Kurdistan regional government should not allow PKK fighters to infiltrate in to Turkey from northern Iraq," but he added that, "The Iraqi government will not use its army and police to stand in front of the Turkish army because security in that region is the responsibility of the multinational forces and the peshmerga."
Thus the only real way of removing the PKK bases would be to get the Kurdish peshmerga forces to move against their Kurdish brothers. Turkey is in fact demanding that the PKK camps inside Iraq be closed down and that the group's leaders should be arrested and extradited to Turkey. Massoud Barzani, the regional president of Iraqi Kurdistan has no love for the PKK, nor does Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, who is also a Kurd. They would betray the Turkish Kurds if they could, in order to defend their own greedy local interests.
That, however, is easier said than done. The Turks are in fact posing demands that they know cannot be met. Turkey's foreign minister, Ali Babacan has stated that a military option would be "the last resort" and added that, "We will continue these diplomatic efforts with all good intentions to solve this problem caused by a terrorist organisation." But after having reassured his imperialist friends with these sweet words he added that, "If we do not reach any results, there are other means we might have to use." Prime Minister, Erdogan made the same point to Gordon Brown during his recent visit to Britain, stating that the Turkish military could use force "at any time" if the Iraqi government failed to act.
This is all diplomatic talk to prepare public opinion for a Turkish military operation inside Iraq. The killing of several Turkish soldiers and the disappearance of eight, who may have been captured by the PKK, is being used by the Turkish government to justify its stance. The situation reminds us somewhat of Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year. It is common knowledge now that the Israeli military placed their own soldiers in danger of being kidnapped, so as to have the excuse to go into Lebanon. Here a number of deaths among Turkey's soldiers and a few gone missing is a very good excuse for the Turkish army to go in.
Marxists never base themselves on the simplistic concept of "who started it". It is always possible to fabricate an excuse. The point is that Turkey has always had imperialist aspirations in the region. The fact that the PKK has bases in northern Iraq, is merely an excuse to interfere in the affairs of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurds in northern Iraq have de facto achieved an element of regional self-rule, although still as part of Iraq.
The problem is that now there is the serious risk of Iraq breaking up. Should the US troops pull out now Iraq could break up into its component parts. It was never a "natural" state made up of a homogenous people. Like most of the states in the region, its borders were drawn up by the imperialist before they left after direct colonial rule was no longer possible. For a period, however, there was a genuine Iraqi identity that had been established. That has now been torn in pieces, precisely by the blunders of US imperialism.
Should Iraq break up, the northern Kurdish region could break away as a separate entity. That is never going to be allowed to happen by Turkey. As we explained in July 2004, (The war in Iraq and the impending collapse of the Saudi Arabian monarchy By Greg Oxley and Layla Al Koureychi):
"Turkey has made it quite clear that it will never accept autonomy for the Kurds in northern Iraq. This is because Kurdish autonomy would act as a stimulus to the struggle of the Kurds within Turkey itself. The Bush administration has been playing for time, trying to reassure both the Kurds in Iraq and the Turkish government. But this double game cannot go on forever. Ultimately, the only way for Washington to prevent a Turkish intervention would be to move in the direction of disarming the Kurds. This would inevitably lead to armed conflict."
As the US army is not really in a position to this now, it opens the prospect of the Turkish army going in to do the job. In the next few days we will see how far Turkey will go. Their hand may be held back temporarily through a combination of heavy US pressure on Turkey and measures inside Iraqi Kurdistan against the PKK. The problem is that there are no real forces that can seriously deal with the PKK. That would indicate that the situation will eventually lead to a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq.
Inside Turkey the nationalist are whipping up the anger of a layer of the population, organising rallies calling for the troops to go in. The other side to this is the growing protest inside Iraqi Kurdistan. Last week thousands of Kurds in Iraq protested in Irbil and Dahuk against the decision of the Turkish parliament. Some of the banners read, "We will resist the Turkish". The Kurds know only too well what the Turkish army is capable of, as it has killed thousands of Kurds in Turkey, razing whole villages in the process.
The fact is that Turkish troops have already been operating inside Iraq, with the consent of the Iraqi government. In September the Turkish and Iraqi governments had struck a deal that allows the Turkish army to cross the border in pursuit of PKK guerrillas. This is merely a continuation of a de facto deal during the Saddam Hussein era that allowed such operations. The leaders of the Iraqi Kurds also tacitly consented to these operations, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
When this recent deal was struck, the Iraqi Minister of the Interior stated that, "An enemy of the Turkish people and democracy in Turkey is an enemy of the Iraqi people and democracy in Iraq." This gentleman ignores the fact that there is no true democracy either in Turkey or Iraq and that in both countries a part of the "people" are Kurdish.
Even Bush has admitted that Turkish troops have been operating in Iraq for some time. But these have been limited incursions "chasing" the PKK guerrillas across the border, as they put it. What is being posed now is an invasion that would possibly end up with Turkey creating a buffer zone inside Iraq along the whole of its border, a de facto occupation of a part of the country. This is what the Turkish army in fact is demanding.
The patience of the Turkish military must be wearing thin. Back in 2003 the Turkish parliament passed two motions authorising the army to enter Iraq. Then it would have been part of the general attack on Iraq, with Turkey taking responsibility for the north. This, however, far from guaranteeing stability, would have provoked the Iraqi Kurds into revolt. The Americans gained the collaboration of the leaders of the Iraqi Kurds by promising some kind of autonomy. This would have been impossible under Turkish bayonets! In this we see how the Kurds are being used as mere pawns.
If the US has to choose between the Kurds in the north of Iraq and its Turkish allies, we know what choice they will make. They will betray the Kurds as the imperialists have done many times in the past.
We see their attitude clearly over the issue of the Armenian genocide. Just before the Turkish parliament voted massively for military operations inside Iraq, the US Congress had been discussing whether to officially recognise that the Ottoman-era mass killings of Armenians was in fact genocide. It seemed that there would be a majority in favour of recognising this fact. But under pressure, many congressmen have started having second thoughts. Now it seems unlikely the motion will go through. This is clearly an attempt to appease the Turkish government.
This little incident shows how dear "principles" are to a man like Bush, and with him the whole of the US ruling class. Everyone knows that the Armenians were massacred in huge numbers. It is one of the many crimes of history, carried out by the various ruling classes of this world. But the US rulers are prepared to betray the Armenian people quite easily. Just as easily they will betray the Kurds, who until recently they referred to as "allies".
When the Turkish army goes in, the USA will not stand in its way. It will betray the Kurds as we have warned many times. They have used the Kurds and will discard them once they have no more use for them.
The Kurdish nation is one of the largest in the world without its own territory. Over the decades and centuries it has been used by this or that imperial power, without ever achieving anything. The Kurds have been gassed, bombed and massacred by different powers. This will continue so long as capitalism dominates the region.
If Iraqi Kurdistan were to move seriously in the direction of separation this would push the Kurds in Turkey to do likewise. The Kurds have a right to live in peace and govern themselves, but this will not be achieved under the present set up. As we have seen, Turkey is not going to relinquish control over its southeastern regions.
Therefore the road to genuine Kurdish self-determination lies in the overthrow of capitalism in Turkey, the overthrow of the rotten Islamic regime in Iran, the expulsion of US imperialism from the region and the establishment of a workers' state in Iraq, together with the overthrow of all the rotten despotic regimes in the region.
Thus, the Kurdish workers need to unite with their Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi brothers. On the basis of the class struggle in all these countries, that will inevitably develop in the coming period, the perspective must be posed of socialist revolution across the region that would allow for the formation of a Socialist Federation of the whole of the Middle East, within which not only the Kurds, but all the peoples would find room for a homeland and genuine self-determination. There is no other way!
Any other way, involves deals and manoeuvres involving the imperialists and the local ruling elites. On this basis we go back to square one and the whole bloody business starts up once more.RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
On October 17 the Turkish parliament voted by a huge majority, 507 votes to 19, to grant the army permission to take military action inside northern Iraq, in the Kurdish territories. Since then we have had contradictory statements coming out of Turkey, combined with a frenetic flurry of diplomatic pressures. Meanwhile the Turkish army keeps amassing more troops on its southeastern border. This scenario promises to make the situation inside Iraq even more unstable.
The US-sponsored invasion of Iraq has proven to be an absolute failure. When the US troops first went in we were fed a mass of media hype about it being a short, sharp war that would establish a "modern" bourgeois parliamentary democracy, that would usher in stability and prosperity across the whole region. But that was all it was: media hype.
Almost four years ago, in November 2003 we wrote:
"What is happening in Iraq is that the US and its allies are beginning to get bogged down. The US military machine proved very good at occupying Iraq. In terms of conventional war they have an unbeatable army. But that is not the end of the story. It is one thing to win a war; it is another to hold down a whole people. Opposition to the presence of foreign troops in their country is growing among the Iraqi people. The official version is that the attacks are carried out by ‘pockets' of Saddam supporters. This is a lie to appease the consciences of people back home. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell this version of ‘the facts'. It is becomingly increasingly evident that the resistance movement is growing and getting ever more confident." (The Iraqi quagmire, By Fred Weston, November 18, 2003).
Since then an increasingly desperate US administration has tried to make up for its own inability to hold down Iraq by using the ethnic card. They have whipped up Shias against Sunnis in the hope of being able to "divide and rule". Instead of achieving their aims this has made things worse. Initially it was not the intention of US imperialism to break up Iraq along ethnic lines. They wanted a strong Iraq as an ally of US imperialism. Instead they have weakened it and allowed other states to emerge as strong regional powers. This is the case of Iran for example.
But in all this mess, there was one part of Iraq that was considered stable: the northern Kurdish area. In the US invasion of Iraq the leaders of the Iraqi Kurds had backed the US and provided help to the troops. While the US troops got on with taking over the rest of the country they could at least rest assured that the North would look after itself. In order to achieve this they had assured the Kurds some form of regional autonomy. And the Kurdish area has become a de facto autonomous region.
The problem is that the US, although Bush may think it is all-powerful and can decide the fate of all peoples in the world, is in reality very fragile. It has overstretched itself and this is not helped by having a particularly unintelligent president at its helm, who has made all the possible mistakes one could imagine.
Back in February 2003, In The In Defence of Marxism Manifesto on the imperialist war against Iraq, (By Alan Woods and Ted Grant) we warned the Kurdish people:
"Let us be clear about this: it is an act of betrayal to present this war of aggression as a means of attaining Kurdish self-determination. Turkey, the main US ally in the region, would never allow it. The Turkish bourgeoisie is not contemplating joining this war for the sake of democracy, and certainly not for the sake of the Kurds! It has its eyes on the oilfields of Kirkuk and Mosul, which the Kurds also claim. Ankara has made it plain that if the Kurds try to take the oilfields, the Turkish army will invade and crush them, with the Americans looking on."
At the time we were criticised for adopting this position. But it is the duty of Marxists to always state the truth. We support the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination, but we must also explain how this is to be achieved. In the same article we explained:
"We defend the right of the Kurdish people to have their own homeland, but point out that this is only possible through the revolutionary overthrow of the reactionary regimes in Baghdad, Teheran and Ankara. On a capitalist basis there can be no real solution to the Kurdish problem. The Kurds must unite with the working people of Turkey, Iraq and Iran in the fight for workers' and peasants' power. On the basis of a socialist federation, it would be possible to achieve an autonomous Kurdish Socialist Republic, with the fullest democratic and national rights - including the right to secede, if they so wished.
"Those who argue that the only way to achieve national self-determination is by supporting imperialism against Baghdad are deceiving the people. This is a criminal and reactionary policy that will lead the Kurds and Shiites once more into a blind alley. There is no way out for the Kurds, Shiites and other peoples of the region on this basis."
What is happening now confirms everything we said on this question. The overwhelming vote of the Turkish parliament to allow its army to enter Northern Iraq is a clear indication that Turkey will not allow the Kurds to have any form of autonomy, let alone an independent state. If the Kurds in Iraq were to achieve this, it would create a serious problem inside Turkey where a large Kurdish population lives. It would encourage them to move in the same direction.
The latest headlines now read "Diplomacy staves off Turkish incursion". Condoleezza Rice and Gordon Brown have been adding their pressures to hold the Turkish army back. But while all this goes on the Turkish army keeps amassing troops on the Iraqi border. Turkey's Prime Minister, Erdogan is under huge pressure at home to send the troops in, but he makes the right noises for western consumption. He has declared that Turkey has no territorial designs on Iraq. That is like a lion saying it has lost its appetite for meat.
It is a fact that a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq, far from helping to stabilise the area, would further exacerbate tensions. In the long run it would also create serious problems for Turkey. It is one thing to carry out sporadic raids into Iraq; a full-fledged invasion and occupation would be a different matter. But the Turkish ruling class are not looking at that at this stage.
There are two factors pushing them. One is that they are concerned about the stability of Turkey that would be put at risk by an autonomous or independent Iraqi Kurdistan. The other is that Turkey also has its own imperialist ambitions. They have their eyes on Iraq's northern oilfields that are within the Kurdish territories. As a result of the war in Iraq, Turkey has been strengthened. A huge amount of US military hardware is transported through Turkey across the border into Iraq. Turkey is also a key NATO ally of US imperialism and if it raises the stakes US imperialism is forced to listen.
We should add another, equally important factor: the situation inside Turkey. The social and economic conditions in Turkey are preparing a new wave of class struggle. Economic growth has been significant in recent years, exceeding 6%. However, inflation is high, standing at 9.8% in 2006. Under pressure from the European Union, the IMF and the World Bank, Turkey is being pushed to carry out widespread privatisations and attacks on welfare. Unemployment officially stands at over 10%, with underemployment calculated at around 4%. The real level of unemployment is most likely much higher and the overall level of poverty can be seen by the fact that according to official figures 20% of the population lives below the poverty line. On top of this there is huge social and economic polarisation, with the poorest 10% of the population consuming only 2.3% of national wealth, and the richest 10% consuming 30%.
In these conditions concentrating attention on the southeastern border is a very useful way of diverting attention away from the real social issues that affect Turkish society.
The Turkish army also should not be seen as any regular army. It has played a key role in the development of the Turkish state over decades. For years it was in direct control of the state, ruling through military dictatorships. Their power however was not purely military. They owned, and still own to a degree, important sectors of the economy directly.
The European Union in particular has been pressurising Turkey to change all this ‑ particularly through privatisation ‑ and open their economy. This has created conflicts within the Turkish state itself. One wing of the Turkish bourgeoisie has been pushing for entry into the European Union, listing all the advantages that this would present in terms of markets and investment.
But the European Union, in particular the French and the Germans, have been delaying Turkey's admission and it may be many years before it is allowed in. Partly this is due to concerns about Turkey's unemployed flooding into the more developed EU countries, in a similar manner to what we have seen with Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and so on.
Another reason for delay is that Turkey is viewed as a stooge of US imperialism and therefore is seen as being potentially a lever for US imperialism to impose its policies inside Europe.
All this has pushed a wing of the Turkish ruling class in drawing the conclusion that its interests lie elsewhere, not to the West but to the East. The present move in regards to Iraq fits well with this outlook. The Turkish army in particular is sending a clear message to all who want to hear that they are a powerful nation, with a powerful military machine, and they are a force that needs to be taken seriously. That is why they have pressurised parliament into voting the way it did last week.
Now, in an attempt to hold back Turkey from going into Iraq, the toothless Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri Maliki has promised that his government would work on limiting the PKK's "terrorist activities which are threatening Iraq and Turkey". The Turks have in fact been demanding that both the Iraqi government and the US army do something to remove the PKK bases from northern Iraq. In an attempt to stave off a Turkish invasion, the Iraqi government has now called on the PKK to leave Iraq.
The question is: how can the Iraqi government police the northern border if it cannot even hold whole areas of the rest of the country, and how can the US troops dedicate forces to the north when they are bogged down elsewhere? In fact, General David Petraeus, the US military commander in Iraq has stated quite openly that it would be very difficult for anyone to police the northern border. Therefore his only proposal is that "pressure" should be put on the PKK to stop its attacks on Turkish military.
The PKK is said to have between 3000 and 3500 guerrillas based in northern Iraq. From here they have intensified their attacks on the Turkish army. How is this force supposed to be "pressurised" into halting its armed operations, by words alone?
An advisor to the Iraqi government, Sami al-Askari has stated openly that, "The Kurdistan regional government should not allow PKK fighters to infiltrate in to Turkey from northern Iraq," but he added that, "The Iraqi government will not use its army and police to stand in front of the Turkish army because security in that region is the responsibility of the multinational forces and the peshmerga."
Thus the only real way of removing the PKK bases would be to get the Kurdish peshmerga forces to move against their Kurdish brothers. Turkey is in fact demanding that the PKK camps inside Iraq be closed down and that the group's leaders should be arrested and extradited to Turkey. Massoud Barzani, the regional president of Iraqi Kurdistan has no love for the PKK, nor does Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, who is also a Kurd. They would betray the Turkish Kurds if they could, in order to defend their own greedy local interests.
That, however, is easier said than done. The Turks are in fact posing demands that they know cannot be met. Turkey's foreign minister, Ali Babacan has stated that a military option would be "the last resort" and added that, "We will continue these diplomatic efforts with all good intentions to solve this problem caused by a terrorist organisation." But after having reassured his imperialist friends with these sweet words he added that, "If we do not reach any results, there are other means we might have to use." Prime Minister, Erdogan made the same point to Gordon Brown during his recent visit to Britain, stating that the Turkish military could use force "at any time" if the Iraqi government failed to act.
This is all diplomatic talk to prepare public opinion for a Turkish military operation inside Iraq. The killing of several Turkish soldiers and the disappearance of eight, who may have been captured by the PKK, is being used by the Turkish government to justify its stance. The situation reminds us somewhat of Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year. It is common knowledge now that the Israeli military placed their own soldiers in danger of being kidnapped, so as to have the excuse to go into Lebanon. Here a number of deaths among Turkey's soldiers and a few gone missing is a very good excuse for the Turkish army to go in.
Marxists never base themselves on the simplistic concept of "who started it". It is always possible to fabricate an excuse. The point is that Turkey has always had imperialist aspirations in the region. The fact that the PKK has bases in northern Iraq, is merely an excuse to interfere in the affairs of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurds in northern Iraq have de facto achieved an element of regional self-rule, although still as part of Iraq.
The problem is that now there is the serious risk of Iraq breaking up. Should the US troops pull out now Iraq could break up into its component parts. It was never a "natural" state made up of a homogenous people. Like most of the states in the region, its borders were drawn up by the imperialist before they left after direct colonial rule was no longer possible. For a period, however, there was a genuine Iraqi identity that had been established. That has now been torn in pieces, precisely by the blunders of US imperialism.
Should Iraq break up, the northern Kurdish region could break away as a separate entity. That is never going to be allowed to happen by Turkey. As we explained in July 2004, (The war in Iraq and the impending collapse of the Saudi Arabian monarchy By Greg Oxley and Layla Al Koureychi):
"Turkey has made it quite clear that it will never accept autonomy for the Kurds in northern Iraq. This is because Kurdish autonomy would act as a stimulus to the struggle of the Kurds within Turkey itself. The Bush administration has been playing for time, trying to reassure both the Kurds in Iraq and the Turkish government. But this double game cannot go on forever. Ultimately, the only way for Washington to prevent a Turkish intervention would be to move in the direction of disarming the Kurds. This would inevitably lead to armed conflict."
As the US army is not really in a position to this now, it opens the prospect of the Turkish army going in to do the job. In the next few days we will see how far Turkey will go. Their hand may be held back temporarily through a combination of heavy US pressure on Turkey and measures inside Iraqi Kurdistan against the PKK. The problem is that there are no real forces that can seriously deal with the PKK. That would indicate that the situation will eventually lead to a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq.
Inside Turkey the nationalist are whipping up the anger of a layer of the population, organising rallies calling for the troops to go in. The other side to this is the growing protest inside Iraqi Kurdistan. Last week thousands of Kurds in Iraq protested in Irbil and Dahuk against the decision of the Turkish parliament. Some of the banners read, "We will resist the Turkish". The Kurds know only too well what the Turkish army is capable of, as it has killed thousands of Kurds in Turkey, razing whole villages in the process.
The fact is that Turkish troops have already been operating inside Iraq, with the consent of the Iraqi government. In September the Turkish and Iraqi governments had struck a deal that allows the Turkish army to cross the border in pursuit of PKK guerrillas. This is merely a continuation of a de facto deal during the Saddam Hussein era that allowed such operations. The leaders of the Iraqi Kurds also tacitly consented to these operations, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
When this recent deal was struck, the Iraqi Minister of the Interior stated that, "An enemy of the Turkish people and democracy in Turkey is an enemy of the Iraqi people and democracy in Iraq." This gentleman ignores the fact that there is no true democracy either in Turkey or Iraq and that in both countries a part of the "people" are Kurdish.
Even Bush has admitted that Turkish troops have been operating in Iraq for some time. But these have been limited incursions "chasing" the PKK guerrillas across the border, as they put it. What is being posed now is an invasion that would possibly end up with Turkey creating a buffer zone inside Iraq along the whole of its border, a de facto occupation of a part of the country. This is what the Turkish army in fact is demanding.
The patience of the Turkish military must be wearing thin. Back in 2003 the Turkish parliament passed two motions authorising the army to enter Iraq. Then it would have been part of the general attack on Iraq, with Turkey taking responsibility for the north. This, however, far from guaranteeing stability, would have provoked the Iraqi Kurds into revolt. The Americans gained the collaboration of the leaders of the Iraqi Kurds by promising some kind of autonomy. This would have been impossible under Turkish bayonets! In this we see how the Kurds are being used as mere pawns.
If the US has to choose between the Kurds in the north of Iraq and its Turkish allies, we know what choice they will make. They will betray the Kurds as the imperialists have done many times in the past.
We see their attitude clearly over the issue of the Armenian genocide. Just before the Turkish parliament voted massively for military operations inside Iraq, the US Congress had been discussing whether to officially recognise that the Ottoman-era mass killings of Armenians was in fact genocide. It seemed that there would be a majority in favour of recognising this fact. But under pressure, many congressmen have started having second thoughts. Now it seems unlikely the motion will go through. This is clearly an attempt to appease the Turkish government.
This little incident shows how dear "principles" are to a man like Bush, and with him the whole of the US ruling class. Everyone knows that the Armenians were massacred in huge numbers. It is one of the many crimes of history, carried out by the various ruling classes of this world. But the US rulers are prepared to betray the Armenian people quite easily. Just as easily they will betray the Kurds, who until recently they referred to as "allies".
When the Turkish army goes in, the USA will not stand in its way. It will betray the Kurds as we have warned many times. They have used the Kurds and will discard them once they have no more use for them.
The Kurdish nation is one of the largest in the world without its own territory. Over the decades and centuries it has been used by this or that imperial power, without ever achieving anything. The Kurds have been gassed, bombed and massacred by different powers. This will continue so long as capitalism dominates the region.
If Iraqi Kurdistan were to move seriously in the direction of separation this would push the Kurds in Turkey to do likewise. The Kurds have a right to live in peace and govern themselves, but this will not be achieved under the present set up. As we have seen, Turkey is not going to relinquish control over its southeastern regions.
Therefore the road to genuine Kurdish self-determination lies in the overthrow of capitalism in Turkey, the overthrow of the rotten Islamic regime in Iran, the expulsion of US imperialism from the region and the establishment of a workers' state in Iraq, together with the overthrow of all the rotten despotic regimes in the region.
Thus, the Kurdish workers need to unite with their Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi brothers. On the basis of the class struggle in all these countries, that will inevitably develop in the coming period, the perspective must be posed of socialist revolution across the region that would allow for the formation of a Socialist Federation of the whole of the Middle East, within which not only the Kurds, but all the peoples would find room for a homeland and genuine self-determination. There is no other way!
Any other way, involves deals and manoeuvres involving the imperialists and the local ruling elites. On this basis we go back to square one and the whole bloody business starts up once more.RENEGADE EYE
Monday, October 22, 2007
Pakistan: The oppressed awaken from their slumber – sabotage won’t stop them
By Lal Khan
Monday, 22 October 2007
October 18, 2007 saw the largest ever mobilization of the masses on the streets of Karachi in almost a quarter century. According to the police, over 1 million participated, while the PPP leadership put up the figure at three million.
This huge convergence of the masses came after more than two very difficult decades dominated by reaction and a lull in the class struggle. The fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the intense disillusionment with the "democratic" experience and a right-wing shift of the traditional political and trade union leadership and other factors caused an apathy and skepticism among the masses in Pakistan.
This pushed back the political consciousness and blunted the will of the toiling masses to move into action. Apparently, this massive influx of people from all over Pakistan that thronged to the Karachi airport was to welcome Benazir Bhutto, the chairperson of the PPP on her return after an eight-year self-imposed exile.
However, there was much more to this mammoth welcome than what has been portrayed by the bourgeois media. The people could have had a much clearer glimpse of their leader on the television thousands of miles away than they did traveling such long distances in hazardous conditions, spending sleepless nights and putting in so much effort, energy and their meager savings to make this journey.
Thousands of buses and other vehicles traveled from as far as Kashmir and the remote areas of Pustoonkhwa. But their basic motive was to be "there", to be part of a movement where they could express their grievances and deprivations, where they could exhibit their will and determination to struggle for a transformation of a system and society that govern their lives.
Their platform, their mode and the means of the expression of their will was the Pakistan People's Party - yet again. And Benazir too, after almost two decades, again had to resort to the slogan of "Roti, Kapra and Makan" (Food, Clothing and Shelter) in her latest statements from abroad to ensure a mammoth crowd would welcome her and give her the political strength to bargain with the state and US Imperialism for greater control of the affairs of the state when catapulted once again into power.
But once she boarded the special vehicle to lead the procession she was flabbergasted. The first words she uttered after looking at the oceans of human heads in all directions, were, "It is un believable".
Way back in 1998, Alan Woods, while speaking to a large meeting of workers in Karachi said, "When she returns to Pakistan millions will turn out to welcome Benazir, despite her policies and statements".
But above all this massive turn-out of the masses towards the PPP once again vindicates the universal law worked out most concretely by Ted Grant on the question of mass movements, their orientation and adherence to their political and historical traditions.
For decades Benazir has been moving to the right in her economic policies, hobnobbing with US Imperialism, and has been trying to convince the Pakistani state and ruling classes of her adherence to the policy of preserving capitalism. Even before this return, she was in negotiations with the Musharraf regime and tried to strike a deal which was superficially rapidly eroding her political credibility. This was proclaimed especially by the chattering classes and the radical petty bourgeoisie who dominate the print and electronic media, as well as the intelligentsia in Pakistan. Locked in their narrow two stage theory they can only mechanically analyse politics and economics. The masses had a different perception.
Benazir had been twice in power in 1986 and 1993 and abandoned the masses in order to prove her loyalty to the existing order. Obviously, like every other ruler in this system, she indulged in the corruption and graft that is inevitable in this setup. Contrary to the perception of the media, the intelligentsia, Benazir and her sycophants, her popularity and support are not based on her "statesmanship", "political astuteness" or "negotiating/ maneuvering skills" but on the legacy of the PPP that was born out of the 1968-69 revolution in Pakistan.
During the revolution, there was a virtual take-over of society and economy by the workers, poor peasants and the youth. From November 6, 1968 to March 29, 1969 there was a situation of dual power in Pakistan. Had there been a Bolshevik party at the head of the movement it could have taken power on at least 5 different occasions.
The workers had occupied the factories, the youth and students had taken control of universities, they refused to pay fares in buses and trains and the poor peasants in large areas of the countryside had besieged the landed estates. Most of the pro-Moscow and Pro-Peking left called for a "democratic stage" and even denounced the movement against the military dictatorship of Ayub Khan - as he was a close friend of the Chinese bureaucracy.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir's father, recognized the basic socialist character of the movement and called for a socialist transformation of society. This clicked with the struggle and conscious of the masses and the PPP became the largest party in Pakistan's history almost overnight.
However, even with a relatively clear socialist programme and slogans, the 1968-69 movement was unable to achieve a revolutionary victory. This was due to the lack of a subjective factor - a Bolshevik Party. Bhutto carried out some radical reforms in agriculture, health, education and other sectors. He also nationalized large sections of the banking sector and industry - but the capitalist system was not overthrown. Hence, Bhutto was hanged by the vicious Zia dictatorship for going even that far.
This was the inevitable outcome of making half of a revolution. His legacy continues and is the main reason for the PPP's support in Pakistan, despite of Benazir's policies of compromise.
This clearly resonated on October 18 and the main slogans on the welcoming demonstration were "Bhutto you are still alive". If not consciously then subconsciously the main reason behind the PPP's support is the perception of it being a vehicle of change. That is why when the masses step into the arena of political struggle they initially converge around the banner of the PPP. This is also the reason that important sections of the state are terrified of this mass support for the PPP and cannot trust or give a free hand to Benazir in spite of her assurances and measures to preserve the capitalist system.
They only allow her to enter the echelons of power when the threat of a mass movement is imminent and after using her to diffuse such movements they ditch her. Now when the state is in severe crisis and its internal conflicts are out in the open it would be more difficult to devise a political regime based upon a contradictory class basis. This was proved by the two severe bomb blasts in front of Benazir's caravan which killed 139 people and maimed another 500.
Islamic fundamentalism is mainly a state sponsored phenomenon and feeds upon the horrendous brutality inflicted by US imperialism in its "war against terror." Its temporary rise is mainly due to the collapse of the left and the refusal, mainly on the part of PPP leadership, to stand up against imperialist aggression. This is despite the fact that US imperialism was instrumental in the coup and assassination of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by General Zia ul Haq in April 1979.
The terrorist act against the people on the procession has been quite effective in diffusing the impact of this marvelous mass upsurge. The media and intellectuals are harping in some sort of game of speculative accusations on these blasts. From the look of it, this madness seems to have a method in it. It also shows the wrangling within the state and rattling of its structures. But these acts, whether carried out by the state or its Frankenstein monsters will not be able to totally curb the movement. The PPP leadership is trying to pacify the wrath of the masses against this outrageous act. But the vengeance of the masses will express itself in the electoral process - or more fervently in the revolutionary storms that loom large on the horizon.
The Islamic fundamentalists had called for several "Million Man Marches", in the last couple of years against the US. But they could not get even 5% of that to their rallies. Now the fundamentalist alliance is also splitting, which is another reflection of the contradictions within the state. This could further aggravate their bigotry and fanaticism leading to more instability and turmoil. This distilled essence of capitalism cannot be controlled or curbed by this state or the system.
Similarly, when Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister and a fabulously rich business tycoon, returned to Pakistan on September 10 this year, he could not muster a reception of more than five thousand people. This was in spite of the fact that there was a big media hype and massive sums of money pumped into propagandizing his "huge" popularity.
This was easily curbed down by the Musharraf regime. Nawaz Sharif would have long ago gone into political oblivion had Benazir not tried to prop him up as a political partner for "democracy". Her main aim was to create an alliance with the right-wing to diminish any left radicalization within PPP against her class collaborationist policies. The media hype around Sharif was possible through the massive amounts of money pumped in to get the media coverage. Sharif's social base is mainly amongst shopkeepers, wholesale dealers and small businessmen and sections of the urban petty bourgeois. These strata of society are historically and socially incapable of launching any defiant struggle against dictatorships. Sharif was also the product and political heir of the worst military dictatorship in Pakistan's history under Gen. Zia ul Haq.
The media and radical petty bourgeois are shouting that the deal with Musharraf facilitated her return and allowed a mass turn-out to welcome Benazir. This is an insult upon injury to the downtrodden who braved so much agony and so many obstacles to reach Karachi. No doubt the state did not put up much resistance to the moving crowds. It is also true that those bourgeois and petty bourgeois PPP leaders who wanted party tickets to win elections also invested a lot of money in transportation and huge banners etc., to prove their loyalty. But larger capital was invested to swell the rallies of Musharraf, the Muslim League and the MMA (Islamic parties) but they were no match for what happened when Benazir returned.
The state's resistance to the PPP rally was also weak because the state was split on the issue. They were terrified that if they attempted to block the millions from coming to the streets, that it could produce an explosion that would be impossible for the state to control. No obstacle can stop a mass of millions from reaching their destination.
It is not just the question that the Americans forced the possible coalition between Musharraf and Benazir (although both entered negotiations reluctantly) to strengthen Musharraf in the ongoing war against the Taliban. The main motive of the serious strategists of imperialism for pushing this deal was their fear of a workers' uprising against privatization and other vicious attacks on the Pakistani proletariat.
Under the thunder of the terrorist bomb blasts, the political wrangling and the churned up "election" mania, the present regime, clearly in its twilight, is trying to carry out massive redundancies and complete the IMF's assigned agenda. Just in the telecommunications (PTCL) sector alone the regime is sacking 29, 000 workers in an effort to carry out orders for privatization. Similar steps will be taken to carry out major redundancies and restructuring in other main sectors of the economy. The plan then would be to bring Benazir into some sort of a power-sharing deal and get her endorse these crimes against the working classes.
It won't be easy. This is not 1988 or 1993. The bomb blasts in Benazir's procession show how far the state and society have deteriorated since she was in power the last time.
The masses who converged to Karachi certainly don't want this. They will vote Benazir into government as they have no other alternative at this point in time. They came out for exactly the opposite. They endured hundreds of casualties, stood waiting for her arrival for 30 hours, thousands walked miles and miles to reach the venue, and remained without food, water and sleep. For what? Certainly not for privatization, deregulation, restructuring, price hikes, unemployment and poverty. The oppressed and exploited gathered not to endorse corruption, liberal "democracy", capitalist policies and the appeasement of imperialism.
Benazir has, at least verbally, changed the founding principle of the PPP from "Socialism is our economy" to "Mohammadi (Islamic) egalitarianism". This won't work in the long run. "Roti kapra aur Makan" (Food, Clothing and Shelter) can't be provided through trickle down economics, necessary to maintain this crisis ridden capitalism and cozy up with US Imperialism.
On the basis of capitalist policies her stint in power will not be very long. On the one hand the intensifying crisis of Pakistani capitalism is exacerbating religious bigotry and terror. The economy is in shambles with the highest trade, current account, and budget deficits in history. Social indicators are amongst the worst in the world. The oil price hikes and the impending world capitalist economic crisis will have devastating effects on the already sinking Pakistani capitalism.
The state is deeply mired in internal conflict, and society in a deep malaise. The continuation of these policies would exacerbate the contradictions. On the one hand further blood, chaos and anarchy could push towards a barbarous nightmare, the elements of which are already making a frightening appearance in border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But this rally on October 18 has clearly shown the other face of Pakistan. On April 10, 1986 Benazir was accorded a similar rousing reception of more than a million people. On April 11, at a press conference she confessed that if she wanted to take power the previous day she could have done it easily. She was right! But she refused to take a revolutionary path. Still she was brought into power through a compromise with the establishment. She dashed the hopes of the masses and tried to maintain the status quo. The movement ebbed and she was overthrown.
Again in 1993 she was pushed into power by mass pressure from below. Yet once more she shifted further to the right. Will the story be the same this time around? Will this vicious cycle go on forever? We don't think so. The misery and poverty is too immense. Living conditions are intolerable. The masses have endured a long period of reaction and oppression. It has taken an enormous effort for the masses to come to the fore. Millions united in a mass gain great confidence and a sense of collective strength. If Benazir follows her precedent this time around, it will not be the right-wing reaction or the State that will lead the revolt. Opposition will come from the same masses that came to welcome her with high hopes.
No force of reaction has ever and could ever mobilize such a huge sea of people in Pakistan. The toiling masses came out for change. They opted for what has been their political tradition for more than three generations. If this fails then the next time they enter the arena of history, instead of going to Karachi Airport they will move to occupy factories, take control of railways, telecommunications, electricity networks and expropriate imperialist wealth and assets, besiege landed estates and seize other key sectors of the economy on a much higher plane than their ancestors in the 1968-69 revolution.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal is still in confusion. Even if they try to act on the Washington script there are too many bumps and potholes on this path. It can fall apart as a result of any event - from judicial activism to terrorist attacks. Even if this uneasy alliance crosses onto the election plane and takes the shape of a new regime, the chances of its continuation are very bleak and imbedded with internal and external danger. The uprising of the masses from below will blow it apart at the first blow. The turbulence in the economy and convulsions in society are too severe to overcome by this conflicting implementation which the US is trying to manipulate.
This working class of Pakistan will take its destiny into its own hands and transform society. The Marxists in the PPP have been vindicated once again in their strategy and perspectives by the events on October 18 - after 21 long years. This vindication brings the revolutionary challenge much closer and clearer to them. The tasks of history are being posed more concretely today than perhaps ever before. The mass mobilization in Karachi has clearly expressed what people want - emancipation from exploitation, drudgery, misery, disease and slavery. A revolutionary socialist alternative was put forward to this movement by the Marxists. Through the events in the next few weeks and their experiences, the wider layers of the masses shall turn towards the revolutionary path. The tasks of the Marxists is to ensure that these toiling masses achieve their socialist victory - sooner rather than later.RENEGADE EYE
Monday, 22 October 2007
October 18, 2007 saw the largest ever mobilization of the masses on the streets of Karachi in almost a quarter century. According to the police, over 1 million participated, while the PPP leadership put up the figure at three million.
This huge convergence of the masses came after more than two very difficult decades dominated by reaction and a lull in the class struggle. The fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the intense disillusionment with the "democratic" experience and a right-wing shift of the traditional political and trade union leadership and other factors caused an apathy and skepticism among the masses in Pakistan.
This pushed back the political consciousness and blunted the will of the toiling masses to move into action. Apparently, this massive influx of people from all over Pakistan that thronged to the Karachi airport was to welcome Benazir Bhutto, the chairperson of the PPP on her return after an eight-year self-imposed exile.
However, there was much more to this mammoth welcome than what has been portrayed by the bourgeois media. The people could have had a much clearer glimpse of their leader on the television thousands of miles away than they did traveling such long distances in hazardous conditions, spending sleepless nights and putting in so much effort, energy and their meager savings to make this journey.
Thousands of buses and other vehicles traveled from as far as Kashmir and the remote areas of Pustoonkhwa. But their basic motive was to be "there", to be part of a movement where they could express their grievances and deprivations, where they could exhibit their will and determination to struggle for a transformation of a system and society that govern their lives.
Their platform, their mode and the means of the expression of their will was the Pakistan People's Party - yet again. And Benazir too, after almost two decades, again had to resort to the slogan of "Roti, Kapra and Makan" (Food, Clothing and Shelter) in her latest statements from abroad to ensure a mammoth crowd would welcome her and give her the political strength to bargain with the state and US Imperialism for greater control of the affairs of the state when catapulted once again into power.
But once she boarded the special vehicle to lead the procession she was flabbergasted. The first words she uttered after looking at the oceans of human heads in all directions, were, "It is un believable".
Way back in 1998, Alan Woods, while speaking to a large meeting of workers in Karachi said, "When she returns to Pakistan millions will turn out to welcome Benazir, despite her policies and statements".
But above all this massive turn-out of the masses towards the PPP once again vindicates the universal law worked out most concretely by Ted Grant on the question of mass movements, their orientation and adherence to their political and historical traditions.
For decades Benazir has been moving to the right in her economic policies, hobnobbing with US Imperialism, and has been trying to convince the Pakistani state and ruling classes of her adherence to the policy of preserving capitalism. Even before this return, she was in negotiations with the Musharraf regime and tried to strike a deal which was superficially rapidly eroding her political credibility. This was proclaimed especially by the chattering classes and the radical petty bourgeoisie who dominate the print and electronic media, as well as the intelligentsia in Pakistan. Locked in their narrow two stage theory they can only mechanically analyse politics and economics. The masses had a different perception.
Benazir had been twice in power in 1986 and 1993 and abandoned the masses in order to prove her loyalty to the existing order. Obviously, like every other ruler in this system, she indulged in the corruption and graft that is inevitable in this setup. Contrary to the perception of the media, the intelligentsia, Benazir and her sycophants, her popularity and support are not based on her "statesmanship", "political astuteness" or "negotiating/ maneuvering skills" but on the legacy of the PPP that was born out of the 1968-69 revolution in Pakistan.
During the revolution, there was a virtual take-over of society and economy by the workers, poor peasants and the youth. From November 6, 1968 to March 29, 1969 there was a situation of dual power in Pakistan. Had there been a Bolshevik party at the head of the movement it could have taken power on at least 5 different occasions.
The workers had occupied the factories, the youth and students had taken control of universities, they refused to pay fares in buses and trains and the poor peasants in large areas of the countryside had besieged the landed estates. Most of the pro-Moscow and Pro-Peking left called for a "democratic stage" and even denounced the movement against the military dictatorship of Ayub Khan - as he was a close friend of the Chinese bureaucracy.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir's father, recognized the basic socialist character of the movement and called for a socialist transformation of society. This clicked with the struggle and conscious of the masses and the PPP became the largest party in Pakistan's history almost overnight.
However, even with a relatively clear socialist programme and slogans, the 1968-69 movement was unable to achieve a revolutionary victory. This was due to the lack of a subjective factor - a Bolshevik Party. Bhutto carried out some radical reforms in agriculture, health, education and other sectors. He also nationalized large sections of the banking sector and industry - but the capitalist system was not overthrown. Hence, Bhutto was hanged by the vicious Zia dictatorship for going even that far.
This was the inevitable outcome of making half of a revolution. His legacy continues and is the main reason for the PPP's support in Pakistan, despite of Benazir's policies of compromise.
This clearly resonated on October 18 and the main slogans on the welcoming demonstration were "Bhutto you are still alive". If not consciously then subconsciously the main reason behind the PPP's support is the perception of it being a vehicle of change. That is why when the masses step into the arena of political struggle they initially converge around the banner of the PPP. This is also the reason that important sections of the state are terrified of this mass support for the PPP and cannot trust or give a free hand to Benazir in spite of her assurances and measures to preserve the capitalist system.
They only allow her to enter the echelons of power when the threat of a mass movement is imminent and after using her to diffuse such movements they ditch her. Now when the state is in severe crisis and its internal conflicts are out in the open it would be more difficult to devise a political regime based upon a contradictory class basis. This was proved by the two severe bomb blasts in front of Benazir's caravan which killed 139 people and maimed another 500.
Islamic fundamentalism is mainly a state sponsored phenomenon and feeds upon the horrendous brutality inflicted by US imperialism in its "war against terror." Its temporary rise is mainly due to the collapse of the left and the refusal, mainly on the part of PPP leadership, to stand up against imperialist aggression. This is despite the fact that US imperialism was instrumental in the coup and assassination of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by General Zia ul Haq in April 1979.
The terrorist act against the people on the procession has been quite effective in diffusing the impact of this marvelous mass upsurge. The media and intellectuals are harping in some sort of game of speculative accusations on these blasts. From the look of it, this madness seems to have a method in it. It also shows the wrangling within the state and rattling of its structures. But these acts, whether carried out by the state or its Frankenstein monsters will not be able to totally curb the movement. The PPP leadership is trying to pacify the wrath of the masses against this outrageous act. But the vengeance of the masses will express itself in the electoral process - or more fervently in the revolutionary storms that loom large on the horizon.
The Islamic fundamentalists had called for several "Million Man Marches", in the last couple of years against the US. But they could not get even 5% of that to their rallies. Now the fundamentalist alliance is also splitting, which is another reflection of the contradictions within the state. This could further aggravate their bigotry and fanaticism leading to more instability and turmoil. This distilled essence of capitalism cannot be controlled or curbed by this state or the system.
Similarly, when Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister and a fabulously rich business tycoon, returned to Pakistan on September 10 this year, he could not muster a reception of more than five thousand people. This was in spite of the fact that there was a big media hype and massive sums of money pumped into propagandizing his "huge" popularity.
This was easily curbed down by the Musharraf regime. Nawaz Sharif would have long ago gone into political oblivion had Benazir not tried to prop him up as a political partner for "democracy". Her main aim was to create an alliance with the right-wing to diminish any left radicalization within PPP against her class collaborationist policies. The media hype around Sharif was possible through the massive amounts of money pumped in to get the media coverage. Sharif's social base is mainly amongst shopkeepers, wholesale dealers and small businessmen and sections of the urban petty bourgeois. These strata of society are historically and socially incapable of launching any defiant struggle against dictatorships. Sharif was also the product and political heir of the worst military dictatorship in Pakistan's history under Gen. Zia ul Haq.
The media and radical petty bourgeois are shouting that the deal with Musharraf facilitated her return and allowed a mass turn-out to welcome Benazir. This is an insult upon injury to the downtrodden who braved so much agony and so many obstacles to reach Karachi. No doubt the state did not put up much resistance to the moving crowds. It is also true that those bourgeois and petty bourgeois PPP leaders who wanted party tickets to win elections also invested a lot of money in transportation and huge banners etc., to prove their loyalty. But larger capital was invested to swell the rallies of Musharraf, the Muslim League and the MMA (Islamic parties) but they were no match for what happened when Benazir returned.
The state's resistance to the PPP rally was also weak because the state was split on the issue. They were terrified that if they attempted to block the millions from coming to the streets, that it could produce an explosion that would be impossible for the state to control. No obstacle can stop a mass of millions from reaching their destination.
It is not just the question that the Americans forced the possible coalition between Musharraf and Benazir (although both entered negotiations reluctantly) to strengthen Musharraf in the ongoing war against the Taliban. The main motive of the serious strategists of imperialism for pushing this deal was their fear of a workers' uprising against privatization and other vicious attacks on the Pakistani proletariat.
Under the thunder of the terrorist bomb blasts, the political wrangling and the churned up "election" mania, the present regime, clearly in its twilight, is trying to carry out massive redundancies and complete the IMF's assigned agenda. Just in the telecommunications (PTCL) sector alone the regime is sacking 29, 000 workers in an effort to carry out orders for privatization. Similar steps will be taken to carry out major redundancies and restructuring in other main sectors of the economy. The plan then would be to bring Benazir into some sort of a power-sharing deal and get her endorse these crimes against the working classes.
It won't be easy. This is not 1988 or 1993. The bomb blasts in Benazir's procession show how far the state and society have deteriorated since she was in power the last time.
The masses who converged to Karachi certainly don't want this. They will vote Benazir into government as they have no other alternative at this point in time. They came out for exactly the opposite. They endured hundreds of casualties, stood waiting for her arrival for 30 hours, thousands walked miles and miles to reach the venue, and remained without food, water and sleep. For what? Certainly not for privatization, deregulation, restructuring, price hikes, unemployment and poverty. The oppressed and exploited gathered not to endorse corruption, liberal "democracy", capitalist policies and the appeasement of imperialism.
Benazir has, at least verbally, changed the founding principle of the PPP from "Socialism is our economy" to "Mohammadi (Islamic) egalitarianism". This won't work in the long run. "Roti kapra aur Makan" (Food, Clothing and Shelter) can't be provided through trickle down economics, necessary to maintain this crisis ridden capitalism and cozy up with US Imperialism.
On the basis of capitalist policies her stint in power will not be very long. On the one hand the intensifying crisis of Pakistani capitalism is exacerbating religious bigotry and terror. The economy is in shambles with the highest trade, current account, and budget deficits in history. Social indicators are amongst the worst in the world. The oil price hikes and the impending world capitalist economic crisis will have devastating effects on the already sinking Pakistani capitalism.
The state is deeply mired in internal conflict, and society in a deep malaise. The continuation of these policies would exacerbate the contradictions. On the one hand further blood, chaos and anarchy could push towards a barbarous nightmare, the elements of which are already making a frightening appearance in border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But this rally on October 18 has clearly shown the other face of Pakistan. On April 10, 1986 Benazir was accorded a similar rousing reception of more than a million people. On April 11, at a press conference she confessed that if she wanted to take power the previous day she could have done it easily. She was right! But she refused to take a revolutionary path. Still she was brought into power through a compromise with the establishment. She dashed the hopes of the masses and tried to maintain the status quo. The movement ebbed and she was overthrown.
Again in 1993 she was pushed into power by mass pressure from below. Yet once more she shifted further to the right. Will the story be the same this time around? Will this vicious cycle go on forever? We don't think so. The misery and poverty is too immense. Living conditions are intolerable. The masses have endured a long period of reaction and oppression. It has taken an enormous effort for the masses to come to the fore. Millions united in a mass gain great confidence and a sense of collective strength. If Benazir follows her precedent this time around, it will not be the right-wing reaction or the State that will lead the revolt. Opposition will come from the same masses that came to welcome her with high hopes.
No force of reaction has ever and could ever mobilize such a huge sea of people in Pakistan. The toiling masses came out for change. They opted for what has been their political tradition for more than three generations. If this fails then the next time they enter the arena of history, instead of going to Karachi Airport they will move to occupy factories, take control of railways, telecommunications, electricity networks and expropriate imperialist wealth and assets, besiege landed estates and seize other key sectors of the economy on a much higher plane than their ancestors in the 1968-69 revolution.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal is still in confusion. Even if they try to act on the Washington script there are too many bumps and potholes on this path. It can fall apart as a result of any event - from judicial activism to terrorist attacks. Even if this uneasy alliance crosses onto the election plane and takes the shape of a new regime, the chances of its continuation are very bleak and imbedded with internal and external danger. The uprising of the masses from below will blow it apart at the first blow. The turbulence in the economy and convulsions in society are too severe to overcome by this conflicting implementation which the US is trying to manipulate.
This working class of Pakistan will take its destiny into its own hands and transform society. The Marxists in the PPP have been vindicated once again in their strategy and perspectives by the events on October 18 - after 21 long years. This vindication brings the revolutionary challenge much closer and clearer to them. The tasks of history are being posed more concretely today than perhaps ever before. The mass mobilization in Karachi has clearly expressed what people want - emancipation from exploitation, drudgery, misery, disease and slavery. A revolutionary socialist alternative was put forward to this movement by the Marxists. Through the events in the next few weeks and their experiences, the wider layers of the masses shall turn towards the revolutionary path. The tasks of the Marxists is to ensure that these toiling masses achieve their socialist victory - sooner rather than later.RENEGADE EYE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)