If you work for a living, the news just keeps getting worse. Oil prices have reached record levels of over $140 per barrel – 14 times higher than just ten years ago. OPEC predicts it could rise as high as $170 before the end of summer. Choosing between food, medicine and gasoline is now the norm for millions of working class families. Contrast this with the mega-profits of ExxonMobil, which raked in $40.6 billion in 2007 and another $10.9 billion in just the first three months of 2008. While thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqis continue to suffer and die, Big Oil is moving might and main to secure long-term, no-bid contracts to exploit Iraq’s biggest oil fields.
The U.S. is in the worst housing slump since the Great Depression as home prices fell by a record 15.3 percent from a year ago in the first few months of the year. Mortgage defaults and home repossessions have skyrocketed as working people are unable to make ends meet.
For six months in a row, U.S. companies have cut more jobs than they have created; 62,000 jobs were lost in June alone. The official unemployment rate is 5.5 percent, but the real figure is far higher. By the Labor Department’s own estimates, if the under-employed are included, the rate is actually 9.7 percent, up from 8.3 percent in May 2007. Those who do have jobs are having hours cut and their wages do not keep up with inflation.
Andrew Tilton, an economist at Goldman Sachs recently stated: “The labor market is clearly deteriorating, and it’s highly likely to keep deteriorating. It’s clear that the housing downturn and credit crunch are still very much under way. Clearly, there are more jobs to be lost in housing, finance and construction – hundreds of thousands of more jobs to be lost collectively.”
The boom was possible due to increased squeezing of the working class and mind-boggling levels of debt: people spent far more than they earned by putting purchases on credit cards or borrowing against rising house prices. In June, the index of consumer expectations fell to its lowest level since May 1980. At the same time, the index of current personal finances fell to 69, the lowest on record, from 80 in May.
70 percent of U.S. economic activity is based on consumer spending. Now the house of cards has collapsed and is having a knock-on effect throughout the rest of the economy. According to Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics: “Slowing wage growth and falling employment is absolutely toxic if your business is selling anything to consumers.”
Starbucks has announced it will close stores and cut up to 12,000 jobs. Car sales nose dived in June, by 28 percent for Ford, 21 percent for Toyota and 28 percent for General Motors. GM stock plunged to its lowest level since 1955 as investors dumped this once “sure thing” investment and backbone of the American economy.
On Wall Street, the speculative bubble continues to burst; share prices have fallen 20 percent since October. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch will likely have to take further massive write-offs on bad debt. American Express and Discover reported that customers are falling further behind on payments and UPS and Federal Express reported a slowdown in shipments. United Airlines has cut costs and capacity by laying off 950 pilots and may have to delay delivery or cancel orders of new jets from Boeing and Airbus.
In other words, a vicious downward spiral of layoffs and cuts, leading to steeper falls in consumption and even more layoffs is in the cards. Perfectly good factories are being shuttered and thousands laid off. On top of that there is the rapidly rising cost of food and energy. As always, it is the rich who benefit during the boom times, while workers suffer during the slumps.
This is the situation as we head into the 2008 presidential elections, now just a few months away. No wonder Americans are thirsty and enthusiastic for change! “Obama-mania” is sweeping the nation as millions of people – even former Bush supporters – want to believe that the two party system can offer them a way out. But what do Obama and the Democrats really offer working people? Now that he has secured the Democratic Party’s nomination, he is showing his true colors. He is working hard to prove to the real rulers of the U.S. – Big Business – that he is the man for the job. Despite this or that secondary or stylistic difference with his opponent John McCain, he is a staunch defender of the capitalist system.
Is Obama in favor of the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Far from it. Does he reject war with Iran? Not at all. While he favors diplomatic engagement, he calls Iran a threat and says he is prepared to use military force if necessary. Does he call for a universal, single-payer health care system that cuts out the greedy and inefficient insurance companies? Nope. Instead, he merely wants to “regulate” the private health industry while giving them billions of public dollars by subsidizing people’s sky-high insurance premiums. Does he call for the repeal of Taft-Hartley and other anti-union laws? Does he support immediate and unconditional amnesty for immigrant workers and their families? Not a chance. But people are so sick of Bush that they see what they want to see in Obama.
And yet the labor movement continues to throw its energy and money behind the Democratic Party. Both the AFL-CIO and Change To Win have endorsed Obama. Between the two labor coalitions, some $300 million – more than five times as much as they spent in 2004 – and countless volunteer hours will be spent this electoral cycle to elect a president that does not represent working people. There are 15 million workers organized in these two federations – that’s roughly one in every four voters that will go to the polls in November. Imagine if all of these resources were instead mobilized to build a mass party of labor that put forward candidates truly fighting in the interests of working people? The labor movement must break with the Democrats!
In the meantime, there are candidates who are fighting in workers’ interests: to stop the war, for universal health care and education, to rebuild the country’s inner cities and crumbling infrastructure. Cynthia McKinney’s “Power to the People” campaign for President and Cindy Sheehan’s campaign against Nancy Pelosi for the House of Representatives show that there are options outside of the two party duopoly.
There are many illusions in Obama and the Democrats in general, and most people will have to go through the experience of a Democratic administration before they realize that we need a complete break from the parties of Big Business. But experience teaches, and the long, hot summer of 2008, with rising unemployment, inflation, and unending war will continue to transform the consciousness of the American working class.
John Peterson
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Bush’s Adventure in Iraq: Who Has Gained From It?
By Dekel Avshalom and Fred Weston
Friday, 18 July 2008
Amid five years of mutual slaughter, thousands of dead, millions of lives ruined and a war that has no end in sight, US president George W. Bush keeps insisting on his victory in Iraq. George W. seems unable to stare reality in the face.
In reality none of the war's proclaimed goals have been achieved: weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found; Iraq, instead of magically transforming itself into a puppet bourgeois democracy after the eviction of Saddam Hussein from power, has totally disintegrated and became a hotbed for international terrorism of all sorts. This is while American soldiers and Iraqi citizens lose their lives on a daily basis.
However, from the shortsighted point of view of the major oil companies, which the Bush family comes from, the war seems to be their greatest victory in recent history.
The fact is that the war was never about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to Iraq. The war was about enforcing the rule of the United States, a declining imperialist power and getting control of oil supplies and establishing some kind of control over the whole of the unstable Middle East.
On 19.6.08, the New York Times reported that 36 years after Saddam Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil fields, the pro-imperialist puppet government in Iraq has granted concessions to all the major world oil companies to "service" Iraqi oil fields again. After 36 years in the cold, they are back: the oil giants Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Total, British Petroleum and Shell have now returned to plunder the most lucrative oil fields in the world. From their narrow perspective, these measures of the present Iraqi government are a welcome step, and for them it makes all the destruction and bloodshed worth it. From this to actually getting the oil flowing is another question.
The major western oil companies suffered a setback after Iraq and other oil producing states had nationalised their oil fields. The US government seriously considered military intervention. The Carter administration even responded by setting up a stationary military force that could intervene in the Middle East at short notice. They even contemplated the possibility of invading parts of Saudi Arabia, that area where the oilfields are concentrated, should the regime fall.
However, in that period, the situation in the Middle East was too delicate for such an intervention. During the Cold War, the American attitude toward the Middle East swayed between two extremes. One was the immense importance of controlling Gulf oil for American capitalism and the military machines and modern weaponry that sustain it. The other was the fear that if America were to become too openly aggressive in defending its interests, the Arab masses could become radicalised and leaders could emerge who might turn to the Soviet Union for help.
We also have to remember that Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party initially received US support, as it removed the pro-Soviet Abd el-Karim Qasim in the 1963 coup. The US knew perfectly well that if they tried to replace Saddam, his successor might turn out to be even worse for them. On top of that, despite his "mischief" in nationalising the oil fields, Saddam had proven himself as a vital force in guaranteeing imperialist interests in the region. They could count on him to slaughter the communists (which he did), block Iran's anti-Western regime, and help to keep oil prices low.
The final argument against invading Iraq was that the oil companies, even after losing the concessions, were still making massive profits from shipping, refining and marketing oil and oil products. In that period, oil supplies were abundant and the price was on the rise. However, all this was about to change.
Since the late 1980s, all the arguments against war in Iraq and to regain direct control over oil had become irrelevant. First, the fall of the Soviet Union changed the balance of forces in the region. With the Soviets out of the way, the US had become the world's only superpower. An intoxicating feeling of omnipotence swept through all the top ranks in Washington. They felt they now owned the world and that they could do anything they wanted.
Second, as demand for oil increased reserves in oil fields around the world started to go down, while new oil discoveries in the Persian Gulf were still increasing. Persian Gulf oil started to become the most lucrative and abundant oil reserves in the world. Controlling the Gulf thus became much more urgent for American imperialism.
Finally, Saddam Hussein had ceased to function as an agent of "stabilisation" in the Gulf. Faced with the bankruptcy of his country after the costly war with Iran, and furious at the US and his regional neighbours for not providing financial help after fighting Iran for them, Saddam decided to occupy Kuwait. After witnessing Kuwait flooding the oil market and thus reducing oil prices, he knew that by conquering it, he would have greater control over oil prices. He naively thought he could reconcile US fury by reducing oil prices. However, he did not take into consideration who was now in charge of the White House - the Bush family and its very close links to the oil giants - the ones who had their eyes on controlling Iraqi oil again after decades.
The accumulation of these conditions paved the way for the first Gulf War. In that war, while the Soviet Union was still in existence, replacing rebellious leaders by means of direct military intervention was not the option of choice for the US government. In such a delicate matter, it usually preferred to intervene indirectly. It encouraged coups by the local opposition using economic sanctions and covert aid from the CIA. That is how Saddam himself came to power in the first place, together with many other contemptible dictators. This is why during the Clinton administration, there were US and UK attempts to destabilize the regime through sanctions and continuous low-level military attacks, but not through the use of direct military means to oust Saddam from power.
As we have seen, during the time of George W. Bush, a feeling of omnipotence flowed through the veins of the American leaders, and with such important goals at stake, the choice was to intervene directly.
The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were just a pretext for something that had been planned long before. According to a testimony of Mr. Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, the Bush administration started planning an invasion of Iraq almost immediately after being elected. In fact, it was reported on the BBC in 2005 that US officials had started to look among the Iraqi opposition for a successor to Saddam well before September 11.
The big oil companies started operating in Iraq immediately after the US-led invasion, using their own personnel to direct oil extraction, receiving immunity from the local puppet-government. The recent agreement reported in the New York Times is another important step in assuring American and Western control over the oil fields. It made sure that Russia and China would be kept out of Iraq, thus securing American control over the Gulf region and its oil fields - the greatest treasure in the history of humankind.
From the shortsighted point of view of the oil giants and their prime butler George W. Bush, the war may look like a victory. However, in reality it is creating new contradictions that can be very damaging for the future of American imperialism.
The American entanglement in Iraq teaches us that the political exponents of the bourgeoisie do not always act according to the interests of the class they are supposed to represent. In terms of how quickly the US forces were able to take Iraq the war was a staggering victory. Now the Bush clique thought they had control of the country and could set about exploiting its huge oil reserves.
However, things have turned out somewhat differently to what Bush had anticipated. From a political perspective, the war has been a staggering defeat. US imperialism has in fact been weakened by the war. The feeling of omnipotence that permeated the US ruling class a few years ago has proven to be unfounded.
They underestimated the power of local resistance and the implications of such a war for the US. Getting bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq has severely damaged the ability of the US to intervene elsewhere. It has also had a huge impact on the American masses themselves. The fact that Democratic Party candidate for president, Barack Obama was the first candidate in history to say publicly that he is sometimes ashamed of his country is an indication of how bad things have become. He would never have said such a thing if he did not know for sure that millions of Americans today would sympathise with such a statement. The fact that he raises the idea of a phased withdrawal from Iraq also indicates what the real mood in the USA is.
The American ruling class is trying to get out of the mess it created by blaming everything on one man - George W. Bush. The ongoing common narrative, shared by both Republican and Democratic leaders, is that once Bush leaves everything will start to sort itself out. Even the extremely critical documentary made about the war by the "provocative" commentator Michael Moore goes along with that story. The victory of Obama within the Democratic Party also indicates a desire to see something completely different in the White House. However, what will the response of the American masses be once they see that Obama as President - if he manages to win - will continue to act according to the interests of the US ruling class?
The contradictions that led to the war will still be present after Bush leaves office. The United States will still need to maintain some kind of control over the oil-rich Gulf and keep its competitors, mainly Russia and China, out of the region. The US ruling class are facing a dilemma. As long as Iraq is unstable, the American army cannot leave because then nothing would guarantee the existence of the pro-American regime. At the same time, they cannot win this war.
On the other hand, the longer they stay the more bogged down they get. As more and more US soldiers are killed, together with the growing economic crisis in the USA, the masses will demand more and more that the US administration pulls out of Iraq. US imperialism could end up being forced to pull out of Iraq prematurely. Thus all of the economic "achievements" in controlling the oil fields would be lost.
Thus, it seems that the second Gulf war has produced a contradictory and unstable situation. It weakened US imperialism, while formally strengthening the US oil companies. This contradiction cannot continue for too long. It is clear that by weakening US imperialism militarily there are serious implications for American capital as a whole.
For that reason, the Iraqi war may turn out to be the undoing of the "American empire". And this comes only a few years since US imperialism seemed so powerful and unchallenged on a world scale. The debacle in Iraq has revealed the real underlying weaknesses of US imperialism.
There is another country in the Persian Gulf that slipped out of US domination long ago - Iran. In an ideal situation, controlling Iran along with Iraq and the rest of the Gulf States would definitely complete the picture of US world domination. It would give it control over huge oil reserves. It would break the independent OPEC cartel and would give American capital the almost total ability to control oil prices in its own interests. Profits would also be huge.
At one stage it seemed that Bush was indeed preparing to attack Iran, but the quagmire of Iraq has changed that perspective. IF they are unable to stop the insurgency in Iraq they have no hope of dominating Iran. The failures in Iraq have forced the US ruling class to seriously rethink their whole strategy. Even the obtuse Bush has had to start thinking in terms of the real situation on the ground and not the dream world of his limited cerebral capacities.
Already the Baker Report - or as it is known officially, The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward, A New Approach - back in December 2006 came up with a completely different solution. It suggested reducing US military forces in Iraq to a minimum and involving Iran and Syria in helping to bring the fighting to an end. Bush wasn't too happy with the Report's proposals, but it clearly revealed the thinking of an important section of the US ruling class. They had concluded the war was unwinnable, too expensive and was causing more serious problems than had been anticipated. The contradictions created in Iraq made it impossible for American imperialism to take over Iran directly. The irony of all this is that Iran, which had been classified as one of the world's "rogue regimes" had actually emerged strengthened in the region.
On the basis of this new situation, the prospect of a US attack on Iran receded. Initially there was talk of a US missile strike on Iran's nuclear research facilities, but even this became less and less likely. How to solve this dilemma? Among the Bush entourage an idea emerged that there might a way out of this complexity. The United States could rely on one of its satellite states in the regions to protect its economic goals, while the political burden would be carried by that satellite state.
That satellite state is Israel. Recently, Israeli senior officials have repeatedly and threateningly raised the idea that Israel is very close to taking military steps against Iran, using its nuclear energy projects as the pretext. Moreover, both the incumbent American president and the two candidates have issued clear statements of support for Israel and its "right to defend itself", some saying that the amber light was on for Israel, indicating that could prepare to attack.
In Israel, the state is using the media for propaganda against Iran. The media keeps bombarding the Israeli masses with frightening images of Iran's "crazy", "fanatical" and "anti-Semitic" leaders waving a nuclear arsenal. Even "science" has been recruited for this mission. An Israeli "expert" on Islam with an international reputation, Professor Moshe Sharon, recently stated in an interview to the state-owned radio station, that "according to Shiite principles", Iran, unprovoked, would definitely use atomic weaponry on Israel as soon as it develops a nuclear capability.
A military conflict between Israel and Iran would most definitely result in thousands of victims, if not much more. After losing the war in Lebanon, the Israeli ruling class, and its military chiefs, need to demonstrate that are still a powerful military force. They are building up the illusion, fed by the army bureaucracy, that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) may be incapable of fighting guerrilla forces, but are most capable against a regular army.
The fact that they desire war as a means of distracting attention away from the serious internal crisis Israel is facing, can be seen in the bombing of a Syrian facility not so long ago. The problem was that the Syrians didn't take the bait. They refused to retaliate. Syria would have been the ideal, a sit shares a border with Israel and a conventional war would have been possible. How does Israel fight a conventional war with Iran, with two armies moving against each other across a border? This means that a military conflict between Israel and Iran would be reduced to a bombing campaign.
In any case, a larger part of the Israeli army's training programmes in recent years was about combating terrorist and guerrilla fighters rather than regular armies. Furthermore, the soldiers combat experience has mostly been in policing the Occupied Territories. These soldiers may be experts in bullying, destroying homes, chasing and shooting at Palestinian workers and torturing tied-up prisoners, but their combat training is much more questionable. The army's commissioned ranks are not in a much better shape: consumed with greed and corruption, they care much more about their future political careers and financial investments than about the shape of the army they are commanding, as the previous war against Lebanon revealed.
On top of all this, as the US administration attempts to retie diplomatic relations with Iran, an attack by Israel would not help the situation. It is clear that the US administration and the Israeli ruling class see things differently on this issue. It is enough to recall the "leaking" in the USA that intelligence sources claimed Iran had no nuclear research for military purposes. That was clearly to blunt Bush' ability to convince the US public of the need for air strikes on Iran. Israeli intelligence sources immediately came out with a statement that according to their information Iran did have in place nuclear research programmes for military purposes. Clearly, the interests of US imperialism and those of the Israeli ruling class are not always the same!
Israel, for its own interests, could launch air strikes against Iran. They would claim that this is to stop the nuclear programme. The problem is that Israel cannot stop Iran' nuclear research. At best it can damage it, delay it, slow it down. But that would only convince the Iranians of the need to accelerate their nuclear research programme, as a deterrent against future attacks. So, whichever way it goes, it is not likely that Israel can save America from its contradictions in the Middle East.
The media in Israel is whipping up war frenzy, claiming that Iran is a threat to the very existence of Israel. But even here we have to see that any verbal threats on the part of the Iranian president are really for domestic consumption. The Iranian regime is facing growing internal turmoil, with strikes and student protests. The living conditions of the masses are becoming unbearable. In reality, the conditions for revolution are maturing and the regime is being weakened. Sooner or later it will fall.
Serious bourgeois analysts in then West can see that the regime is weak and they are pushing for a different approach. This involves opening up diplomatic links, entering into "dialogue" with the Iranian regime, opening up its economy, using investment as a means of pressurising the regime into moving in the direction imperialism requires.
In Israel too, there are growing social and economic problems. There is also a crisis at the top with scandal after scandal emerging, involving Olmert himself. The sabre-rattling is thus a useful tool in diverting people's attentions away from the real problems.
The tragedy in Israel is that there is no leadership of the labour movement prepared to offer a real alternative. The leadership of the Israeli labour federation - the Histadrut - has a history of handing the Israeli workers to the state on a silver plate when "national security" issues are raised. On the other hand, the Israeli masses are still convinced that the army is their sole protector against the "barbarian" Arab world. They feel they are surrounded by hostile regimes that only wish to see the end of Israel. In reality that is not true. The despotic Arab rulers find in Israel a useful tool. They can blame it for all the ills that afflict the Arab World. So they mouth condemnation of Israel, while in practice they are allied to the same US imperialism that backs Israel. The case of Saudi Arabia is the most obvious one, but most of the others are in a similar situation.
The situation is a tragic one. The Israel ruling class could drag the nation into another messy military conflict, which would solve none of the problems. The Israeli masses will sooner or later awaken to a new understanding of the true nature of the Israeli state, which is not at all to provide a safe homeland for the Jews. It is in fact a satellite of imperialism in the region, albeit an unstable one.
The interests of the Israeli masses and those of the Zionist ruling class are not the same. The Zionists use the historical fear of the Israeli masses of a new holocaust to keep them within a political straitjacket. To break out of that straitjacket a genuine socialist perspective is required.
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, 18 July 2008
Amid five years of mutual slaughter, thousands of dead, millions of lives ruined and a war that has no end in sight, US president George W. Bush keeps insisting on his victory in Iraq. George W. seems unable to stare reality in the face.
In reality none of the war's proclaimed goals have been achieved: weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found; Iraq, instead of magically transforming itself into a puppet bourgeois democracy after the eviction of Saddam Hussein from power, has totally disintegrated and became a hotbed for international terrorism of all sorts. This is while American soldiers and Iraqi citizens lose their lives on a daily basis.
However, from the shortsighted point of view of the major oil companies, which the Bush family comes from, the war seems to be their greatest victory in recent history.
The fact is that the war was never about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to Iraq. The war was about enforcing the rule of the United States, a declining imperialist power and getting control of oil supplies and establishing some kind of control over the whole of the unstable Middle East.
On 19.6.08, the New York Times reported that 36 years after Saddam Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil fields, the pro-imperialist puppet government in Iraq has granted concessions to all the major world oil companies to "service" Iraqi oil fields again. After 36 years in the cold, they are back: the oil giants Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Total, British Petroleum and Shell have now returned to plunder the most lucrative oil fields in the world. From their narrow perspective, these measures of the present Iraqi government are a welcome step, and for them it makes all the destruction and bloodshed worth it. From this to actually getting the oil flowing is another question.
The True reasons for Fighting Iraq
The major western oil companies suffered a setback after Iraq and other oil producing states had nationalised their oil fields. The US government seriously considered military intervention. The Carter administration even responded by setting up a stationary military force that could intervene in the Middle East at short notice. They even contemplated the possibility of invading parts of Saudi Arabia, that area where the oilfields are concentrated, should the regime fall.
However, in that period, the situation in the Middle East was too delicate for such an intervention. During the Cold War, the American attitude toward the Middle East swayed between two extremes. One was the immense importance of controlling Gulf oil for American capitalism and the military machines and modern weaponry that sustain it. The other was the fear that if America were to become too openly aggressive in defending its interests, the Arab masses could become radicalised and leaders could emerge who might turn to the Soviet Union for help.
We also have to remember that Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party initially received US support, as it removed the pro-Soviet Abd el-Karim Qasim in the 1963 coup. The US knew perfectly well that if they tried to replace Saddam, his successor might turn out to be even worse for them. On top of that, despite his "mischief" in nationalising the oil fields, Saddam had proven himself as a vital force in guaranteeing imperialist interests in the region. They could count on him to slaughter the communists (which he did), block Iran's anti-Western regime, and help to keep oil prices low.
The final argument against invading Iraq was that the oil companies, even after losing the concessions, were still making massive profits from shipping, refining and marketing oil and oil products. In that period, oil supplies were abundant and the price was on the rise. However, all this was about to change.
Since the late 1980s, all the arguments against war in Iraq and to regain direct control over oil had become irrelevant. First, the fall of the Soviet Union changed the balance of forces in the region. With the Soviets out of the way, the US had become the world's only superpower. An intoxicating feeling of omnipotence swept through all the top ranks in Washington. They felt they now owned the world and that they could do anything they wanted.
Second, as demand for oil increased reserves in oil fields around the world started to go down, while new oil discoveries in the Persian Gulf were still increasing. Persian Gulf oil started to become the most lucrative and abundant oil reserves in the world. Controlling the Gulf thus became much more urgent for American imperialism.
Finally, Saddam Hussein had ceased to function as an agent of "stabilisation" in the Gulf. Faced with the bankruptcy of his country after the costly war with Iran, and furious at the US and his regional neighbours for not providing financial help after fighting Iran for them, Saddam decided to occupy Kuwait. After witnessing Kuwait flooding the oil market and thus reducing oil prices, he knew that by conquering it, he would have greater control over oil prices. He naively thought he could reconcile US fury by reducing oil prices. However, he did not take into consideration who was now in charge of the White House - the Bush family and its very close links to the oil giants - the ones who had their eyes on controlling Iraqi oil again after decades.
The accumulation of these conditions paved the way for the first Gulf War. In that war, while the Soviet Union was still in existence, replacing rebellious leaders by means of direct military intervention was not the option of choice for the US government. In such a delicate matter, it usually preferred to intervene indirectly. It encouraged coups by the local opposition using economic sanctions and covert aid from the CIA. That is how Saddam himself came to power in the first place, together with many other contemptible dictators. This is why during the Clinton administration, there were US and UK attempts to destabilize the regime through sanctions and continuous low-level military attacks, but not through the use of direct military means to oust Saddam from power.
As we have seen, during the time of George W. Bush, a feeling of omnipotence flowed through the veins of the American leaders, and with such important goals at stake, the choice was to intervene directly.
The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were just a pretext for something that had been planned long before. According to a testimony of Mr. Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, the Bush administration started planning an invasion of Iraq almost immediately after being elected. In fact, it was reported on the BBC in 2005 that US officials had started to look among the Iraqi opposition for a successor to Saddam well before September 11.
The big oil companies started operating in Iraq immediately after the US-led invasion, using their own personnel to direct oil extraction, receiving immunity from the local puppet-government. The recent agreement reported in the New York Times is another important step in assuring American and Western control over the oil fields. It made sure that Russia and China would be kept out of Iraq, thus securing American control over the Gulf region and its oil fields - the greatest treasure in the history of humankind.
The Complexity of the War's Balance Sheet
From the shortsighted point of view of the oil giants and their prime butler George W. Bush, the war may look like a victory. However, in reality it is creating new contradictions that can be very damaging for the future of American imperialism.
The American entanglement in Iraq teaches us that the political exponents of the bourgeoisie do not always act according to the interests of the class they are supposed to represent. In terms of how quickly the US forces were able to take Iraq the war was a staggering victory. Now the Bush clique thought they had control of the country and could set about exploiting its huge oil reserves.
However, things have turned out somewhat differently to what Bush had anticipated. From a political perspective, the war has been a staggering defeat. US imperialism has in fact been weakened by the war. The feeling of omnipotence that permeated the US ruling class a few years ago has proven to be unfounded.
They underestimated the power of local resistance and the implications of such a war for the US. Getting bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq has severely damaged the ability of the US to intervene elsewhere. It has also had a huge impact on the American masses themselves. The fact that Democratic Party candidate for president, Barack Obama was the first candidate in history to say publicly that he is sometimes ashamed of his country is an indication of how bad things have become. He would never have said such a thing if he did not know for sure that millions of Americans today would sympathise with such a statement. The fact that he raises the idea of a phased withdrawal from Iraq also indicates what the real mood in the USA is.
The American ruling class is trying to get out of the mess it created by blaming everything on one man - George W. Bush. The ongoing common narrative, shared by both Republican and Democratic leaders, is that once Bush leaves everything will start to sort itself out. Even the extremely critical documentary made about the war by the "provocative" commentator Michael Moore goes along with that story. The victory of Obama within the Democratic Party also indicates a desire to see something completely different in the White House. However, what will the response of the American masses be once they see that Obama as President - if he manages to win - will continue to act according to the interests of the US ruling class?
The contradictions that led to the war will still be present after Bush leaves office. The United States will still need to maintain some kind of control over the oil-rich Gulf and keep its competitors, mainly Russia and China, out of the region. The US ruling class are facing a dilemma. As long as Iraq is unstable, the American army cannot leave because then nothing would guarantee the existence of the pro-American regime. At the same time, they cannot win this war.
On the other hand, the longer they stay the more bogged down they get. As more and more US soldiers are killed, together with the growing economic crisis in the USA, the masses will demand more and more that the US administration pulls out of Iraq. US imperialism could end up being forced to pull out of Iraq prematurely. Thus all of the economic "achievements" in controlling the oil fields would be lost.
Thus, it seems that the second Gulf war has produced a contradictory and unstable situation. It weakened US imperialism, while formally strengthening the US oil companies. This contradiction cannot continue for too long. It is clear that by weakening US imperialism militarily there are serious implications for American capital as a whole.
For that reason, the Iraqi war may turn out to be the undoing of the "American empire". And this comes only a few years since US imperialism seemed so powerful and unchallenged on a world scale. The debacle in Iraq has revealed the real underlying weaknesses of US imperialism.
Is Iran Next on the Imperialist's Agenda?
There is another country in the Persian Gulf that slipped out of US domination long ago - Iran. In an ideal situation, controlling Iran along with Iraq and the rest of the Gulf States would definitely complete the picture of US world domination. It would give it control over huge oil reserves. It would break the independent OPEC cartel and would give American capital the almost total ability to control oil prices in its own interests. Profits would also be huge.
At one stage it seemed that Bush was indeed preparing to attack Iran, but the quagmire of Iraq has changed that perspective. IF they are unable to stop the insurgency in Iraq they have no hope of dominating Iran. The failures in Iraq have forced the US ruling class to seriously rethink their whole strategy. Even the obtuse Bush has had to start thinking in terms of the real situation on the ground and not the dream world of his limited cerebral capacities.
Already the Baker Report - or as it is known officially, The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward, A New Approach - back in December 2006 came up with a completely different solution. It suggested reducing US military forces in Iraq to a minimum and involving Iran and Syria in helping to bring the fighting to an end. Bush wasn't too happy with the Report's proposals, but it clearly revealed the thinking of an important section of the US ruling class. They had concluded the war was unwinnable, too expensive and was causing more serious problems than had been anticipated. The contradictions created in Iraq made it impossible for American imperialism to take over Iran directly. The irony of all this is that Iran, which had been classified as one of the world's "rogue regimes" had actually emerged strengthened in the region.
On the basis of this new situation, the prospect of a US attack on Iran receded. Initially there was talk of a US missile strike on Iran's nuclear research facilities, but even this became less and less likely. How to solve this dilemma? Among the Bush entourage an idea emerged that there might a way out of this complexity. The United States could rely on one of its satellite states in the regions to protect its economic goals, while the political burden would be carried by that satellite state.
Can Israel Solve the Problem?
That satellite state is Israel. Recently, Israeli senior officials have repeatedly and threateningly raised the idea that Israel is very close to taking military steps against Iran, using its nuclear energy projects as the pretext. Moreover, both the incumbent American president and the two candidates have issued clear statements of support for Israel and its "right to defend itself", some saying that the amber light was on for Israel, indicating that could prepare to attack.
In Israel, the state is using the media for propaganda against Iran. The media keeps bombarding the Israeli masses with frightening images of Iran's "crazy", "fanatical" and "anti-Semitic" leaders waving a nuclear arsenal. Even "science" has been recruited for this mission. An Israeli "expert" on Islam with an international reputation, Professor Moshe Sharon, recently stated in an interview to the state-owned radio station, that "according to Shiite principles", Iran, unprovoked, would definitely use atomic weaponry on Israel as soon as it develops a nuclear capability.
A military conflict between Israel and Iran would most definitely result in thousands of victims, if not much more. After losing the war in Lebanon, the Israeli ruling class, and its military chiefs, need to demonstrate that are still a powerful military force. They are building up the illusion, fed by the army bureaucracy, that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) may be incapable of fighting guerrilla forces, but are most capable against a regular army.
The fact that they desire war as a means of distracting attention away from the serious internal crisis Israel is facing, can be seen in the bombing of a Syrian facility not so long ago. The problem was that the Syrians didn't take the bait. They refused to retaliate. Syria would have been the ideal, a sit shares a border with Israel and a conventional war would have been possible. How does Israel fight a conventional war with Iran, with two armies moving against each other across a border? This means that a military conflict between Israel and Iran would be reduced to a bombing campaign.
In any case, a larger part of the Israeli army's training programmes in recent years was about combating terrorist and guerrilla fighters rather than regular armies. Furthermore, the soldiers combat experience has mostly been in policing the Occupied Territories. These soldiers may be experts in bullying, destroying homes, chasing and shooting at Palestinian workers and torturing tied-up prisoners, but their combat training is much more questionable. The army's commissioned ranks are not in a much better shape: consumed with greed and corruption, they care much more about their future political careers and financial investments than about the shape of the army they are commanding, as the previous war against Lebanon revealed.
On top of all this, as the US administration attempts to retie diplomatic relations with Iran, an attack by Israel would not help the situation. It is clear that the US administration and the Israeli ruling class see things differently on this issue. It is enough to recall the "leaking" in the USA that intelligence sources claimed Iran had no nuclear research for military purposes. That was clearly to blunt Bush' ability to convince the US public of the need for air strikes on Iran. Israeli intelligence sources immediately came out with a statement that according to their information Iran did have in place nuclear research programmes for military purposes. Clearly, the interests of US imperialism and those of the Israeli ruling class are not always the same!
Israel, for its own interests, could launch air strikes against Iran. They would claim that this is to stop the nuclear programme. The problem is that Israel cannot stop Iran' nuclear research. At best it can damage it, delay it, slow it down. But that would only convince the Iranians of the need to accelerate their nuclear research programme, as a deterrent against future attacks. So, whichever way it goes, it is not likely that Israel can save America from its contradictions in the Middle East.
The media in Israel is whipping up war frenzy, claiming that Iran is a threat to the very existence of Israel. But even here we have to see that any verbal threats on the part of the Iranian president are really for domestic consumption. The Iranian regime is facing growing internal turmoil, with strikes and student protests. The living conditions of the masses are becoming unbearable. In reality, the conditions for revolution are maturing and the regime is being weakened. Sooner or later it will fall.
Serious bourgeois analysts in then West can see that the regime is weak and they are pushing for a different approach. This involves opening up diplomatic links, entering into "dialogue" with the Iranian regime, opening up its economy, using investment as a means of pressurising the regime into moving in the direction imperialism requires.
In Israel too, there are growing social and economic problems. There is also a crisis at the top with scandal after scandal emerging, involving Olmert himself. The sabre-rattling is thus a useful tool in diverting people's attentions away from the real problems.
The tragedy in Israel is that there is no leadership of the labour movement prepared to offer a real alternative. The leadership of the Israeli labour federation - the Histadrut - has a history of handing the Israeli workers to the state on a silver plate when "national security" issues are raised. On the other hand, the Israeli masses are still convinced that the army is their sole protector against the "barbarian" Arab world. They feel they are surrounded by hostile regimes that only wish to see the end of Israel. In reality that is not true. The despotic Arab rulers find in Israel a useful tool. They can blame it for all the ills that afflict the Arab World. So they mouth condemnation of Israel, while in practice they are allied to the same US imperialism that backs Israel. The case of Saudi Arabia is the most obvious one, but most of the others are in a similar situation.
The situation is a tragic one. The Israel ruling class could drag the nation into another messy military conflict, which would solve none of the problems. The Israeli masses will sooner or later awaken to a new understanding of the true nature of the Israeli state, which is not at all to provide a safe homeland for the Jews. It is in fact a satellite of imperialism in the region, albeit an unstable one.
The interests of the Israeli masses and those of the Zionist ruling class are not the same. The Zionists use the historical fear of the Israeli masses of a new holocaust to keep them within a political straitjacket. To break out of that straitjacket a genuine socialist perspective is required.
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Hunter Thompson Reincarnates To Comment On The Infamous New Yorker Cover
Hat Tip: Fellow Traveler
“The humor of the campaign trail is relentlessly cruel and brutal. If you think you like jokes, try hanging around the cooler after midnight with hired killers like James Carville or the late Lee Atwater, whose death by cancer in 1991 was a fatal loss to the Bush re-election effort. Atwater could say, without rancor, that he wanted to castrate Michael Dukakis and dump him on the Boston Common with his nuts stuffed down his throat. Atwater said a lot of things that made people cringe, but he usually smiled when he said them, and people tried to laugh.
It was Deep Background stuff they figured; of course he didn’t mean it. Hell, in some states you could got to prison for making threats like that. Felony Menacing, two years minimum; Conspiracy to commit Murder and/or Felony Assault with Intent to commit Great Bodily Harm, minimum 50 years in Arkansas and Texas; also Kidnapping (death), Rape, Sodomy, Malicious Disfigurement, Treason, Perjury, Gross Sexual Imposition and Aggravated Conspiracy to Commit all of the above (600 years, minimum)
…And all of this without anybody doing anything. Ho, ho. How’s that for the wheels of justice, Bubba? Six hundred fifty-two years just for downing a few gin-bucks at lunch and trading jokes with warriors…
That is the kind of humor that campaign junkies admire and will tell their children…
You have to be very mean to get a laugh on the campaign trail. There is no such thing as paranoia.”
RENEGADE EYE
“The humor of the campaign trail is relentlessly cruel and brutal. If you think you like jokes, try hanging around the cooler after midnight with hired killers like James Carville or the late Lee Atwater, whose death by cancer in 1991 was a fatal loss to the Bush re-election effort. Atwater could say, without rancor, that he wanted to castrate Michael Dukakis and dump him on the Boston Common with his nuts stuffed down his throat. Atwater said a lot of things that made people cringe, but he usually smiled when he said them, and people tried to laugh.
It was Deep Background stuff they figured; of course he didn’t mean it. Hell, in some states you could got to prison for making threats like that. Felony Menacing, two years minimum; Conspiracy to commit Murder and/or Felony Assault with Intent to commit Great Bodily Harm, minimum 50 years in Arkansas and Texas; also Kidnapping (death), Rape, Sodomy, Malicious Disfigurement, Treason, Perjury, Gross Sexual Imposition and Aggravated Conspiracy to Commit all of the above (600 years, minimum)
…And all of this without anybody doing anything. Ho, ho. How’s that for the wheels of justice, Bubba? Six hundred fifty-two years just for downing a few gin-bucks at lunch and trading jokes with warriors…
That is the kind of humor that campaign junkies admire and will tell their children…
You have to be very mean to get a laugh on the campaign trail. There is no such thing as paranoia.”
HUNTER THOMPSON
RENEGADE EYE
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Food and Blogging Continues: Try Kurdish-Turkish
There is no interest in my sardine tacos, or my use of coffee as a spice. I asked several bloggers, to send me recipes; preferably easy to prepare, common ingredients, ethnic etc. In addition if I print the recipe, I'll plug your blog. Send recipes to me at the email address at my profile. I was going to print them all in one post, but I acquired too many. Political agreement doesn't matter. Atleast every month I'll continue this series. Leave comments about food, the blog, restaraunts etc. Everyone who sent recipes, will eventually have them published. I'm going in random order.
The next recipe comes from the Turkish-Kurdish blog Rastî. If you are interested in the struggle of the Kurdish people, particularly in Turkey for national rights, this blog is where to go for the latest news. You will find information not found in mainstream sources. Where else will you learn that there are few Turkish Kurds on the Iraq border, contrary to what Turkey will tell you.
Now the Main Event
I never use the large, roundish eggplants for this because they have to be soaked in salt water to remove the bitterness. For this recipe, the eggplants must be whole. The slender eggplants in the West, known as "Japanese" or "Chinese" eggplants, are the ones to use for this recipe, as they are not bitter and require no soaking.
Eggplants cooked on coals acquire a smoky, slightly sweet, taste. The addition of red pepper flakes compliments the smoky sweetness very well. This dish can be served with grilled meats or as a meze selection.
6 slender eggplants (called "Japanese" or "Chinese" eggplant and available at Asian markets)
salt to taste
red pepper flakes to taste
olive oil
one lemon
one garlic clove, finely chopped
Wash and dry the eggplants. In a grill with hot coals, lay the eggplants directly on the coals, turning them as they char. Cook them until they are completely soft. Don't worry if they turn black on the outside but take care not to let them burn. Remove them from the coals and let them cool a bit. Peel them, removing all the skin with your fingers or a paring knife. Cut off the tops and throw them away. Slice the eggplants on a plate and mash them with a fork. Add salt, red pepper flakes, a couple of tablespoons of olive oil, the chopped garlic, and a few squeezes of the lemon. Mix the added ingredients into the eggplant flesh well. Serve just warm or at room temperature.
Alternately, some people leave out the red pepper flakes and garlic, and instead substitute a couple of tablespoons of thick yogurt, like labne, and black pepper to taste.
This soup is eaten all over Turkey, including the Kurdish Region. It's included with meals or is used as part of a meze selection, and it's wonderfully cooling on hot summer days.
1/2 lb. cucumbers--preferably "Persian" cucumbers (available at Asian markets)
2 cups whole milk, whole fat yogurt--don't even think of using that nasty low-fat/no-fat kind
2 tsp white vinegar
1 tsp olive oil
2 tsp fresh mint, finely chopped or 1 tsp dried
1/2 tsp fresh dill, finely chopped or 1/4 tsp dried
1 tsp salt or to taste
ice cubes
If you use regular cucumbers, peel and seed them, then coarsely grate. "Persian" cucumbers only need to be grated. In a large bowl, whisk the yogurt until smooth. Mix in the grated cucumber, vinegar, olive oil, mint, dill, and salt. If the yogurt seems thick, add a bit of water to thin it. Put the cacik in the refrigerator for a couple of hours until it is very cold. Serve in individual bowls, adding ice cubes for extra chill.
Alternately, mash one garlic clove and stir it in with the other ingredients. Leave the clove in the cacik while it chills, but remove it before serving. It will add just a hint of garlic flavor to the cacik.
Ayran is a yogurt drink that is served everywhere in Turkey. It's especially popular as the drink to accompany grilled meat or kebap meals, although I've had it with other meals as well. It can be made with plain water or with carbonated water. It should be served as cold as possible and it's very cooling and thirst-quenching on hot days.
Whole milk, whole fat yogurt--again, ban the low-fat/no-fat kind
Tap water or carbonated water
salt to taste
You should use equal parts of yogurt and water (for example, two cups yogurt and two cups water). Put the yogurt in a large bowl and whisk it until smooth. Add an equal amount of water and whisk until well blended. Season with salt to taste. If the yogurt seems to make the ayran a bit thick, add a little more water. Ayran should be served very cold. If you use carbonated water, make sure you have chilled it well ahead of time because you will need to serve the carbonated version rather soon after mixing so it doesn't go flat.
Alternately, sprinkle each individual ayran serving with finely chopped mint.
RENEGADE EYE
The next recipe comes from the Turkish-Kurdish blog Rastî. If you are interested in the struggle of the Kurdish people, particularly in Turkey for national rights, this blog is where to go for the latest news. You will find information not found in mainstream sources. Where else will you learn that there are few Turkish Kurds on the Iraq border, contrary to what Turkey will tell you.
Now the Main Event
Eggplant Kurdish Style
I never use the large, roundish eggplants for this because they have to be soaked in salt water to remove the bitterness. For this recipe, the eggplants must be whole. The slender eggplants in the West, known as "Japanese" or "Chinese" eggplants, are the ones to use for this recipe, as they are not bitter and require no soaking.
Eggplants cooked on coals acquire a smoky, slightly sweet, taste. The addition of red pepper flakes compliments the smoky sweetness very well. This dish can be served with grilled meats or as a meze selection.
6 slender eggplants (called "Japanese" or "Chinese" eggplant and available at Asian markets)
salt to taste
red pepper flakes to taste
olive oil
one lemon
one garlic clove, finely chopped
Wash and dry the eggplants. In a grill with hot coals, lay the eggplants directly on the coals, turning them as they char. Cook them until they are completely soft. Don't worry if they turn black on the outside but take care not to let them burn. Remove them from the coals and let them cool a bit. Peel them, removing all the skin with your fingers or a paring knife. Cut off the tops and throw them away. Slice the eggplants on a plate and mash them with a fork. Add salt, red pepper flakes, a couple of tablespoons of olive oil, the chopped garlic, and a few squeezes of the lemon. Mix the added ingredients into the eggplant flesh well. Serve just warm or at room temperature.
Alternately, some people leave out the red pepper flakes and garlic, and instead substitute a couple of tablespoons of thick yogurt, like labne, and black pepper to taste.
Cacik--Cold Yogurt and Cucumber Soup
This soup is eaten all over Turkey, including the Kurdish Region. It's included with meals or is used as part of a meze selection, and it's wonderfully cooling on hot summer days.
1/2 lb. cucumbers--preferably "Persian" cucumbers (available at Asian markets)
2 cups whole milk, whole fat yogurt--don't even think of using that nasty low-fat/no-fat kind
2 tsp white vinegar
1 tsp olive oil
2 tsp fresh mint, finely chopped or 1 tsp dried
1/2 tsp fresh dill, finely chopped or 1/4 tsp dried
1 tsp salt or to taste
ice cubes
If you use regular cucumbers, peel and seed them, then coarsely grate. "Persian" cucumbers only need to be grated. In a large bowl, whisk the yogurt until smooth. Mix in the grated cucumber, vinegar, olive oil, mint, dill, and salt. If the yogurt seems thick, add a bit of water to thin it. Put the cacik in the refrigerator for a couple of hours until it is very cold. Serve in individual bowls, adding ice cubes for extra chill.
Alternately, mash one garlic clove and stir it in with the other ingredients. Leave the clove in the cacik while it chills, but remove it before serving. It will add just a hint of garlic flavor to the cacik.
Ayran (called "Dew" in Kurdish)
Ayran is a yogurt drink that is served everywhere in Turkey. It's especially popular as the drink to accompany grilled meat or kebap meals, although I've had it with other meals as well. It can be made with plain water or with carbonated water. It should be served as cold as possible and it's very cooling and thirst-quenching on hot days.
Whole milk, whole fat yogurt--again, ban the low-fat/no-fat kind
Tap water or carbonated water
salt to taste
You should use equal parts of yogurt and water (for example, two cups yogurt and two cups water). Put the yogurt in a large bowl and whisk it until smooth. Add an equal amount of water and whisk until well blended. Season with salt to taste. If the yogurt seems to make the ayran a bit thick, add a little more water. Ayran should be served very cold. If you use carbonated water, make sure you have chilled it well ahead of time because you will need to serve the carbonated version rather soon after mixing so it doesn't go flat.
Alternately, sprinkle each individual ayran serving with finely chopped mint.
Rastî
RENEGADE EYE
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
El Salvador: Student Leader Assassinated – Solidarity with the BERS-24
By Bloque Popular Juvenil – Peoples’ Youth Block
Tuesday, 08 July 2008
On June 26, at around 10.40pm, comrade Ángel Humberto Martínez Cerón was assassinated just a few metres from his home. He was the General Coordinator of the "January 24" Revolutionary Socialist Students Block (known as BERS-24). The political activity this revolutionary young militant was involved in was the reason why the ruling class decided to silence him.
Comrade Ángel had a spirit of sacrifice for the cause of socialism, and he was aware of the possible consequences of genuine revolutionary activity. He would always say that "we do not need any more martyrs, what we need is revolutionaries dedicating all their energies to the struggle, we need them alive to build socialism". The best tribute we can pay to the comrade is to continue his struggle, never to lose our convictions. He had the qualities of a genuine leader, he was able to inspire confidence and give strength to comrades when they most needed it. Without doubt, the memory of the comrade will inspire future generations to carry on the struggle.
BERS-24 is one of the very few organizations carrying out revolutionary work amongst the youth in Santa Ana, a department in the interior. Currently they are involved in the struggle against the increase in transport prices of, having recently organized a demonstration with 200 students. As a result they have been victims of constant police harassment. Two police officers, numbers 02-1841 and 02-1840, have "accompanied" their daily activities, plainclothes police officers follow the most known members of the organization, and three members of the BERS-24, including Ángel were recently arrested after a protest against the high cost of living. The ruling class is afraid of their activities and will not hesitate to use all means at their disposal to prevent organizations like this from growing and becoming stronger.
However, the assassination of Ángel will not be the end of this campaign of harassment and repression. We hold the mayor of Santa Ana, Orlando Mena, and Francisco Rovira, the Director of the National Civilian Police, responsible for any further attacks and aggressions against FMLN members in Santa Ana, and particularly against those who are part of BERS-24. This assassination reminds us of the sicariato (hired gun killings of activists) in the 1980s. Some of the witnesses say that those who carried out the killing were wearing black balaclavas and footprints matching those of the boots worn by the Special Forces of the National Civilian Police were found at the scene of the crime.
We call on the FMLN to come out publicly against this killing, since this is an attack against all the left-wing organizations in the country. The comrades from of BERS-24 are genuine members of the FMLN and they may face further repression. We ask the FMLN to take up the case and protect the comrades. We cannot allow another political killing to go unpunished. The left-wing and working class organizations should respond by calling a 24-hour general strike against political attacks, killings and harassment.
The ruling class will blame criminal gangs (which they are also responsible for) for this killing. However, we know who organized his assassination. Ángel joins a long list of revolutionaries who have been silenced since the signing of the peace agreements. Under capitalism, the struggle for the emancipation of the working people is considered a crime, a crime against the interests of the ruling class, and they know how to protect their interests, their wealth which has been created with the sweat of the workers.
The alternative is: socialism or barbarism. Under capitalism the emancipation of the working class will not be possible. Today the task is to consolidate strong Marxist organizations. The world socialist revolution is the only way forward and we are convinced that BERS-24 will be at the forefront of the struggle for workers' interests.
We swear on comrade that we will win!
No more martyrs, the FMLN must respond with mass struggle in the streets!
Workers of all countries unite!
RENEGADE EYE
Tuesday, 08 July 2008
On June 26, at around 10.40pm, comrade Ángel Humberto Martínez Cerón was assassinated just a few metres from his home. He was the General Coordinator of the "January 24" Revolutionary Socialist Students Block (known as BERS-24). The political activity this revolutionary young militant was involved in was the reason why the ruling class decided to silence him.
Comrade Ángel had a spirit of sacrifice for the cause of socialism, and he was aware of the possible consequences of genuine revolutionary activity. He would always say that "we do not need any more martyrs, what we need is revolutionaries dedicating all their energies to the struggle, we need them alive to build socialism". The best tribute we can pay to the comrade is to continue his struggle, never to lose our convictions. He had the qualities of a genuine leader, he was able to inspire confidence and give strength to comrades when they most needed it. Without doubt, the memory of the comrade will inspire future generations to carry on the struggle.
BERS-24 is one of the very few organizations carrying out revolutionary work amongst the youth in Santa Ana, a department in the interior. Currently they are involved in the struggle against the increase in transport prices of, having recently organized a demonstration with 200 students. As a result they have been victims of constant police harassment. Two police officers, numbers 02-1841 and 02-1840, have "accompanied" their daily activities, plainclothes police officers follow the most known members of the organization, and three members of the BERS-24, including Ángel were recently arrested after a protest against the high cost of living. The ruling class is afraid of their activities and will not hesitate to use all means at their disposal to prevent organizations like this from growing and becoming stronger.
However, the assassination of Ángel will not be the end of this campaign of harassment and repression. We hold the mayor of Santa Ana, Orlando Mena, and Francisco Rovira, the Director of the National Civilian Police, responsible for any further attacks and aggressions against FMLN members in Santa Ana, and particularly against those who are part of BERS-24. This assassination reminds us of the sicariato (hired gun killings of activists) in the 1980s. Some of the witnesses say that those who carried out the killing were wearing black balaclavas and footprints matching those of the boots worn by the Special Forces of the National Civilian Police were found at the scene of the crime.
We call on the FMLN to come out publicly against this killing, since this is an attack against all the left-wing organizations in the country. The comrades from of BERS-24 are genuine members of the FMLN and they may face further repression. We ask the FMLN to take up the case and protect the comrades. We cannot allow another political killing to go unpunished. The left-wing and working class organizations should respond by calling a 24-hour general strike against political attacks, killings and harassment.
The ruling class will blame criminal gangs (which they are also responsible for) for this killing. However, we know who organized his assassination. Ángel joins a long list of revolutionaries who have been silenced since the signing of the peace agreements. Under capitalism, the struggle for the emancipation of the working people is considered a crime, a crime against the interests of the ruling class, and they know how to protect their interests, their wealth which has been created with the sweat of the workers.
The alternative is: socialism or barbarism. Under capitalism the emancipation of the working class will not be possible. Today the task is to consolidate strong Marxist organizations. The world socialist revolution is the only way forward and we are convinced that BERS-24 will be at the forefront of the struggle for workers' interests.
We swear on comrade that we will win!
No more martyrs, the FMLN must respond with mass struggle in the streets!
Workers of all countries unite!
Sign the petition
against attacks on the BPJ, FMLN and the Salvadorean left in general.RENEGADE EYE
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Colombian Hostages Freed
Borev.Net
July 02, 2008
So the big news is hitting the wires...a group of Colombian hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three American defense contractors, have been rescued by the Colombian military. This is great news! Of course, everyone who has a stake in Colombia will have some thoughts on this development...
Alvaro Uribe: Hot damn! Talk about timing. Now I can get that constitutional amendment passed for a third term no problem. Hell, they'll probably even want to just make me president for life or something. Viva Uribe!
Everyone Else in Colombia: Oh shit, now Uribe will probably try and make himself president for life or something.
Hugo Chavez: I guess that $300 million I supposedly gave the FARC sure as hell didn't help them LEARN HOW TO HIDE HOSTAGES BETTER!
George W. Bush: Does this mean we can't invade Venezuela?
John McCain: Does this mean we can't invade Venezuela?
Rafael Correa: Does this mean we can bomb Colombian territory without asking them first?
Barack Obama: How can I work "Yes, we can!" into a speech about this?
Christopher Walken in that Amazing SNL Skit: I need more cowbell! I've got a fever for more cowbell!
The FARC: Seriously, we're not very good at this guerilla warfare stuff. Che made it sound eaaaaasy...
The Right-Wing Paramilitary Death Squads: See Alvaro Uribe.
We kid. We're happy that their ordeal is over, and we imagine they're even happier.
RENEGADE EYE
July 02, 2008
So the big news is hitting the wires...a group of Colombian hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three American defense contractors, have been rescued by the Colombian military. This is great news! Of course, everyone who has a stake in Colombia will have some thoughts on this development...
Alvaro Uribe: Hot damn! Talk about timing. Now I can get that constitutional amendment passed for a third term no problem. Hell, they'll probably even want to just make me president for life or something. Viva Uribe!
Everyone Else in Colombia: Oh shit, now Uribe will probably try and make himself president for life or something.
Hugo Chavez: I guess that $300 million I supposedly gave the FARC sure as hell didn't help them LEARN HOW TO HIDE HOSTAGES BETTER!
George W. Bush: Does this mean we can't invade Venezuela?
John McCain: Does this mean we can't invade Venezuela?
Rafael Correa: Does this mean we can bomb Colombian territory without asking them first?
Barack Obama: How can I work "Yes, we can!" into a speech about this?
Christopher Walken in that Amazing SNL Skit: I need more cowbell! I've got a fever for more cowbell!
The FARC: Seriously, we're not very good at this guerilla warfare stuff. Che made it sound eaaaaasy...
The Right-Wing Paramilitary Death Squads: See Alvaro Uribe.
We kid. We're happy that their ordeal is over, and we imagine they're even happier.
RENEGADE EYE
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Occasional Open Thread: Odds and Ends
Kelly Kobold Gavin
I met 16-2-1 female MMA fighter Kelly Kobold at a movie screening. She said, "I'm Kelly Kobold, I ground and pound."
My friend Graeme's brother Aaron and his wife Nadia, are moving to Vietnam for a year, to teach English. They will give this blog monthly reports.
Over at Sonia's blog, I'm personally blamed by a psycho, for every evil in history. Read what happens when asked for documentation.
Interesting post attacking Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism," at Socialism With A Human Face.
Obama Machiavellian? Will he run you over with a truck to succeed? End of Reaganism?
I highly recommend the documentary Young at Heart. It is about a choir, whose average age is 80, sing classic rock & roll. They have to learn 3 new songs for a big concert in a few weeks. Will they remember the lines? Will they live that long to perform?
My blog is accused of dumbed down Marxism.
RENEGADE EYE
I met 16-2-1 female MMA fighter Kelly Kobold at a movie screening. She said, "I'm Kelly Kobold, I ground and pound."
My friend Graeme's brother Aaron and his wife Nadia, are moving to Vietnam for a year, to teach English. They will give this blog monthly reports.
Over at Sonia's blog, I'm personally blamed by a psycho, for every evil in history. Read what happens when asked for documentation.
Interesting post attacking Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism," at Socialism With A Human Face.
Obama Machiavellian? Will he run you over with a truck to succeed? End of Reaganism?
I highly recommend the documentary Young at Heart. It is about a choir, whose average age is 80, sing classic rock & roll. They have to learn 3 new songs for a big concert in a few weeks. Will they remember the lines? Will they live that long to perform?
My blog is accused of dumbed down Marxism.
RENEGADE EYE
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Mightier Than the Sword – The Impact of the Ideas of Thomas Paine on the American Revolution
By Harry Whittaker
Friday, 28 March 2008
Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain. (Joel Barlow, American diplomat and poet)
There was but one topic of conversation throughout the American colonies in the summer of 1776. Although the settlers were locked in a bloody armed struggle with Britain the talk was not, as one would expect, of battles won or lost. Wherever people gathered, in every farmyard and factory, in every tavern and town, from the lowest paid farmhands to the richest merchants and landholders, the talk was the same: Common Sense. This was the title of a 47-page political pamphlet which was gripping everyone's imagination with its powerful, persuasive arguments against the monarchy and in favour of American independence.
But who was the author of this unsigned work which was so dramatically changing the attitude of so many Americans towards the nature of their conflict with the ‘Mother Country'? The political and intellectual elite were certain it was one of their own: "...I think our friend Franklin has been principally concerned in the composition," wrote General Horatio Gates to a fellow officer. Others credited were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (two future presidents of the USA); others thought it was Samuel Adams, who was to become governor of Massachusetts. But it was none of these political luminaries. The author was a recent arrival on America's shores. His name was Thomas Paine.
Born on January 29, 1737, the son of a Quaker father and Anglican mother, Paine lead an interesting and eventful, but ultimately unhappy life in England. Twice married (his first wife died when he was twenty-four-years-old.), his career in his homeland was varied: privateer, teacher, preacher, customs officer and shopkeeper, he campaigned for better wages for his colleagues, the poorly paid excisemen. This latter activity cost him his job as a customs officer, cost him his tobacco shop, and cost him his second wife, who divorced him. The unhappy, disillusioned Paine returned from Lewes, where he had been stationed as an exciseman, to London, where a friend introduced him to an elderly but energetic American, the sixty-eight-year-old scientist, writer and statesman Benjamin Franklin. Franklin took an immediate liking to him and was later to boast that Thomas Paine was his "...adopted political son." Sensing that Paine was the sort of man who belonged to the America he hoped to build, he urged him to emigrate there. On November 30th, 1774, Paine arrived in Philadelphia with a letter of introduction to Franklin's son and son-in-law in his pocket.
Paine looked around Philadelphia, the unofficial capital of the American colonies, and liked what he saw: a society of mixed religions and ethnicity, its immigrant workers were spirited and dynamic; they were eager to seek a better life than that which they had endured in the oppressive regimes of England and the rest of Europe. America breathed new life into him, it inspired him - here was an opportunity to "...begin the world anew."
It was far from perfect, this new society that Paine had joined: there were inequalities and there were social injustices; many of the richer settlers and landowners behaved just like the English gentry, and worst of all - there was slavery! But these wrongs could be put right. This was a young country peopled by many who had themselves fled from various forms of injustice and oppression in their own homelands; the ordinary men and women in this new world could, given direction and leadership, make this land the best place in the world to live in, and set a shining example for the rest of humanity. And Thomas Paine was determined to point them in the right direction. He was excited to learn that even the lowest paid workers were already demanding the right to vote in city elections, and there was even talk that the Philadelphia Militia were demanding the right to elect their own officers. Yes - these were people with fire in their bellies, these were people capable of shaping their own destiny.
He was in his element when he was offered a job as editor in a new periodical, The Pennsylvania magazine. Along with editing, he was also writing articles for The Pennsylvania and other magazines. He railed against slavery:
"That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, Christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising." (March 1775).
Under his editorship The Pennsylvania became the biggest selling periodical in America. He was on the crest of a wave: his own writing was attracting critical acclaim, and Franklin's son-in-law, Richard Bache, was introducing him to some of Philadelphia's leading citizens. Then once again things took a turn for the worse: he angered John Witherspoon (the magazine's co-publisher) by editing some of his work. He was obliged to resign and the vindictive Witherspoon slandered him with false allegations that he was a drunkard. Paine did not drink to excess but for the rest of his life his many detractors maliciously circulated this false rumour.
But in 1775 there were more pressing matters occupying Paine's thoughts: the quarrel between America and Britain had escalated into open warfare with the battles of Lexington and Concord in April, followed by a much bloodier confrontation at Bunker Hill in June. He concluded that the aims of this dispute must now be changed. It was no longer sufficient to fight for rights and justice within the framework of the British Empire; it was time for Americans to sever links with Britain and assert their independence. To this end he set himself the task of writing what was to become the biggest-selling, most widely read and successful political pamphlet in history: Common Sense.
We Were Blind
"We were blind, but on reading these enlightening words the scales have fallen from our eyes." Thus wrote a Connecticut reader to the Pennsylvania Post in 1776. To appreciate the impact of Paine's writing it is essential to be aware of the prevailing psychology at the time. It is true that there always were some who had advocated fighting for independence, but they were very much in the minority. Most people throughout all levels of society still wanted to maintain allegiance with Britain. They believed it was parliament, and not ‘good' King George, that was to blame for the unfair taxation that was being imposed upon them. Get rid of these vile ministers and Americans would dwell with respect and dignity under the British constitution as part of the Empire. George Washington and his fellow officers were still drinking to the King's health; Thomas Jefferson wrote: "There is not a man in the British Empire who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do."
Washington, one of the richest men in America, and others of his ilk, had every reason to remain locked into the British Empire; they were alarmed by the growing confidence of the working-class whom they despised and wished to keep in their place. Statesman Gouverneur Morris referred to the common people as ‘reptiles'. And of course the ordinary people themselves, preconditioned by generations of having loyalty to king and country drilled into their psyches, were still proud to be British.
Then Common Sense struck the continent like an earthquake, its shockwaves shattering the political status quo in every state along the entire East coast of America. No longer would his royal majesty be held in such reverence and awe, no longer would the workers and peasants regard the aristocracy and the landed gentry of Britain (and America) as their betters. Overnight the people of America had become wide awake to reality, and they were demanding the right to rule themselves - total independence! Such was the power of Tom Paine's pen.
Common Sense was published on January 10, 1776, and the world had seen nothing like it before. It was the most powerful and persuasive piece of political writing that had ever been produced; its irrefutable logic utterly destroyed the case for the monarchy, the aristocracy and the corrupt system of British government. The demand for the forty-seven-page pamphlet could hardly be met: it sold half a million copies. Considering the size of the population, of which a large proportion could neither read nor write, this made it the biggest seller of all time; relative to today's population the equivalent sales would be 50 million. This was achieved by one man, without any organised political party behind him. One can sense the excitement and growing confidence the American settlers must have felt as Paine demolished the myth of the monarchy, beginning with William the Conqueror - "A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives." He then went on to belittle "...the folly of hereditary right in kings." He argued for the separation of church and state, went on to discuss America's economic, military and naval potential and suggested a framework for American self government.
After reading the pamphlet the vast majority of working-class Americans, and even many of the social elite, were convinced that complete independence was the only way forward for their country. Paine's achievement was swift, incredible and irreversible. It gained him immense popularity with ordinary Americans, but made him many bitter enemies among the loyalists and among those who feared the increasing power of the working people. There followed a concerted effort by many of the social elite to attack Common Sense, leading to an intense war of words in the Pennsylvania press between Paine and his many detractors, especially John Adams (not to be confused with John Quincy Adams), who developed a lifelong hatred for him. But now the people's demand for independence could not be stopped. Washington wrote to his secretary, Joseph Reed: "...by private letters I have lately received from Virginia, I find ‘Common Sense' is working a powerful change in the minds of men." On July 4th, 1776, Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.
These Are the Times That Try Men's Souls
That year Paine enlisted in the militia and became aide to General Nathaniel Greene¸ arguably the best general on either side. Washington was now Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. He was an imposing personality and was personally brave, but as a field commander he left much to be desired. To his credit he was aware of his shortcomings, and the shortcomings of his militia. He enlisted the Prussian officer Friedrich von Steuben to drill his troops into military efficiency and co-opted the aid of La Fayette's French army and De Grasse's French fleet to help America's cause. Astonishingly, considering the availability of an abundance of expert horsemen, he never developed a cavalry wing to his army. His idea of ‘inspiring' his men was to threaten them with hanging if they showed cowardice in battle, hardly the hallmark of a great leader. It was his good fortune that he had an able subordinate in Greene and that his British counterpart, Howe, allowed himself to be distracted from the job in hand by his American mistress. By the end of the year the outlook was bleak for America's cause: Washington's army was in retreat and soldiers were deserting their units every day; Congress had fled from Philadelphia, fearing its occupation by British troops and everyone was anticipating defeat. Everyone except Thomas Paine. In his American Crisis (the first of many with that title) he penned the stirring words that were to fan the flames of American patriotism:
These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
The American Crisis sold in tens of thousands, boosted morale, revived recruitment and turned the tide of battle. Washington ordered his officers to read Crisis to his troops. The troops listened to Paine's words, crossed the Delaware, routed the Hessian troops and captured Trenton. The situation had been completely turned around. As with Common Sense, Paine never took a penny from the profits of his writing, he gave it all to provide clothing for the troops. Throughout the Revolutionary War he devoted himself tirelessly to the cause, serving in various posts and issuing pamphlets, continuously rousing the flagging morale of the Americans:
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.
When Washington's depleted army was taking refuge in Valley Forge and Congress was questioning his ability to command, it was Paine who came to his defence - a loyalty that was not reciprocated by Washington when Paine later needed his help. He also endeavoured to patch up teething problems in the young and growing nation, advising on territorial disputes, taxation and other matters of government. Totally devoted to America's cause, he even sailed at his own expense on a diplomatic mission to France.
On October 19, 1781, the British forces under General Cornwallis were decisively beaten by combined French and American troops. Britain's cloak of invincibility was torn to shreds and it was the beginning of the end for the mighty British Empire. America was the first revolutionary state to defeat a great European power - the war ended with the Treaty of Paris in April, 1783.
The far seeing Paine was still anxious about the future of the union, realising that many Americans took it too lightly. He feared that some states might, for reasons such as slavery and commerce, decide to break away and go it alone:
"I ever feel myself hurt when I hear the union, that great palladium of our liberty and safety, the least irreverently spoken of. It is the most sacred thing in the constitution of America."
And the declared purpose of the ‘Union of the States':
"To see it in our power to make a world happy, to teach mankind the art of being so, to exhibit, on the theatre of the Universe a character hitherto unknown."
The Rights of Man
"I wonder you did not hang that scoundrel Paine for his blackguard libel on king, lords, and commons. I suppose the extreme scurrility of the pamphlet, or the villainy of those who wish to disperse it among the common people, has carried through so many editions. For it appears to me to have no merit whatever; but it may do mischief in ale-houses in England, and even more in whiskey-houses in Ireland. I think it by far the most treasonable book that ever went unpunished within my knowledge; so, pray, hang the fellow if you can catch him." (Lord Mornington.)
The war was over. Thomas Paine had given his all to the revolution: the proceeds from his writings had gone to help the war effort and now he was jobless and without an income. He petitioned Congress for a modest pension in acknowledgement of his contribution to the war's success. He had the support of Franklin, Jefferson and Washington. But he had also made some powerful enemies and they were not going to make life easy for him. His fight for democracy, his egalitarianism, his zealous opposition to corruption had earned him the implacable enmity and undying hatred of many in the rich, landowning ‘aristocracy' of America. So Congress rejected his petition but agreed to a grant of $3,000 - he would have been much, much richer if he'd kept the proceeds from his writings. Pennsylvania gave him a gift of $500 and New York gave him a farm which had been confiscated from a Tory landowner. He now had breathing space to contemplate his future.
As a young man Paine had learned a lot about science and engineering by reading and attending lectures; he decided to put his knowledge to practical use. He designed an iron bridge which he believed was safer and more durable than the traditional wooden bridges of his day. But no one in America was willing to invest in his project so, on Franklin's advice, he sailed for London and Paris to seek backing. He expected to be away for a few months; it was to be sixteen years before he saw his beloved America again.
It was 1787, just two years before the storming of the Bastille. Things were changing in France - and in England. In France the poor and the middle-classes were seething with anger at the heavy taxation they suffered while the nobility shared little or none of the burden of running the country. Soldiers returning from America spoke of the more just and democratic society that was growing in the new republic and this made the French masses determined to build a more just society for themselves. Their anger would soon turn into a terrible, unstoppable rage which would eventually give rise to the ‘reign of terror'.
England at that time was the most industrially advanced and commercially successful nation in the world, but its people paid a terrible price: the momentum of the industrial revolution led to merciless exploitation, inhuman working conditions and a wretched, poverty-stricken existence for the working-class. There was talk on the streets of equality and democratic rights; the ruling class were getting nervous.
Paine spent two years trying to find investors for his bridge, while inevitably involving himself in the turbulent politics of the times. Then on July 14, 1789, the crowds stormed the Bastille and soon afterwards began invading the great estates of the landowning aristocracy. The next twenty-five years of European history would be written in blood as the ancien régime struggled to maintain the status quo.
It was Thomas Paine's dream that the revolutionary zeal which had crossed the Atlantic to France would quickly spread throughout Europe, creating republics in place of monarchies, each republic working in harmony with its neighbours to create a humane and civilized Europe - "To begin the world anew."
The turncoat Edmund Burke, who had originally championed the American Revolution, was now paid by the British Government to write Reflections on the Revolution in France, which was to give him the reputation as the father of modern conservatism. Marx was to say of Burke:
"The sycophant - who in pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudatory temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy, was an out and out vulgar bourgeois."
Burke's condemnation of the French Revolution was considered to be a great success but it really was a wasted exercise: it was aimed at the upper classes and the well educated, preaching loyalty for the monarchy and the aristocracy. It was preaching to the converted. And that was the difference between his writing and Paine's. Paine had the ability to communicate with all levels of society, from the poorest to the richest: Burke's Reflections sold 20,000 copies in a year, whereas Common Sense sold several times that in a month. There were many radicals in England who took issue with Burke but, not surprisingly, the most effective reply came from Paine's Rights of Man.
Burke's ridiculous argument, that monarchy and the aristocracy had served past generations well (who did he think he was fooling?), and that the present and future generations should perpetuate this tradition, was rubbished by Paine. Burke not only denied that the people of England had the right to choose or reject their own government, but also claimed:
"That the people of England utterly disclaim such a right, and that they will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes."
Paine replied:
"That men should take up arms, and spend their lives and fortunes not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have no rights, is an entire new species of discovery, and suited to the paradoxical genius of Mr Burke."
The establishment's ‘intellectual champion' was no match for Paine. He tore apart Burke's arguments with the same irrefutable logic and scathing sarcasm that had defeated so many of his political adversaries in the past. He also encouraged the spirit of revolution in Britain by advocating a system of graduated taxation on the wealthy that would provide child education; pensions for the aged; maternity benefits and other proposals for helping the poor and unemployed. He was a man ahead of his time. But most audacious of all - he defiantly called for the establishment of a British Republic! This was too much - freedom of speech was guaranteed in England of course, but only if you said the right things - it was time to hang Tom Paine!
On September 14th, 1792, Paine, who had been elected to the new National Convention in France for the purpose of writing a new constitution, left England on a boat bound for Calais. It was a fortuitous departure: Pitt and his government were poised to vent their wrath upon their tormentor, but now he was out of their grasp. In vindictive fury they conducted a witch-hunt, persecuting and imprisoning everyone involved in publishing, selling and in any way promoting Paine's writings. Paine was tried in his absence and found guilty of seditious libel for writing The Rights of Man.
The French Revolution
He arrived in Calais to a hero's welcome and its citizens elected him their representative to the new National Convention. These were perilous times for the people of France: surrounded by hostile nations, they were at war with Austria and Prussia, and Louis XVI was in prison for colluding with the enemy. The republicans were split into two factions: Girondins (moderates) and Jacobins (radicals). It was only a matter of time before the revolution began to devour its own children.
At the Convention he and the other delegates voted to abolish the monarchy and France was declared a Republic. He was then appointed to the committee responsible for drafting a new constitution. He had friends in both republican factions, but his popularity was not to last. Although Paine loathed the monarchy he opposed the execution of Louis XVI. He proposed instead that Louis be exiled to America, where he would be unable to meddle in France's affairs. He had been sickened by the concept of capital punishment when, as a child growing up in Thetford, he witnessed the horrifying spectacle of poor working-class people who had been hanged for stealing a mere pittance: there was a clear view of Thetford's Gallows Hill from the house he grew up in. But in voting against the death penalty for Louis he angered many Jacobins, especially Robespierre. And Robespierre was about to come to power.
In the ensuing power struggle the Jacobins emerged victorious and showed no mercy to their political opponents; the Reign of Terror commenced. On December 28th, 1793, Paine was arrested. There is no doubt that it would have taken just one word from George Washington to obtain his release, but Washington remained silent: he was keen to resume trade with England and he knew the British establishment wanted to see Paine dead. Business and commerce came before loyalty and friendship to the politically pragmatic Washington. This perfidy must have astonished as well as embittered Paine: Washington had previously been a loyal supporter of Paine and had given him great credit for his part in America's victory over Britain. Equally treacherous was the American Minister to France, Gouverneur Morris. He could have effected Paine's release with little effort, but had no intention of doing so. Morris, who believed that no decent civilization could exist without an aristocracy, would have been delighted to see Tom Paine's head roll - and it almost did.
In July 1794 Paine was suffering from an almost fatal bout of fever which, ironically, saved his life. The day before he was due to be executed his cell mates asked that the cell door be left open to allow the air to circulate and cool the fever. When the prison officers came to mark the cell doors of the condemned prisoners, Paine's door was opened wide, with the inside of the door now facing outwards and the outside face of the door tight against the wall. Because of this the inside of the door was marked by the prison officers. When the door was closed later that night the ‘condemned' mark was on the inside of the cell and was not seen by the executioners who came to collect their victims next morning. Thus, by sheer chance, Tom Paine missed his appointment with death. Before his execution could be rescheduled his persecutor was overthrown and it was Robespierre's head that tumbled into the executioner's basket. Some historians claim that Washington did nothing to save Paine because he was unaware of his plight; this is naïve, Paine himself had no doubts about Washington's treachery. He remained imprisoned until Morris was replaced by James Monroe, who obtained his release on November 5th. Still severely ill, he was looked after by Monroe and his wife at their official residence.
Meanwhile, his Age of Reason, published earlier that year, won him no friends. Paine was by this time a Deist, believing in God but not in organized religion. He enraged church leaders by criticizing the bible, saying of the Old Testament: "... a history of grossest vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales." Referring to the New Testament he described Christ as a virtuous man, a reformer and a revolutionist, but dismissed the Immaculate Conception and Christ's resurrection as fraudulent stories. Age of Reason gave his enemies all the ammunition they needed to destroy his popularity in that God-fearing age.
Return to America
Relations between Monroe and Paine became strained as a result of Paine's hostility to Washington and in 1796 he moved out of Monroe's house. He wanted to return to America but French ports were being blockaded by the British navy so he moved in with the family of Nicolas de Bonneville, writing articles for de Bonneville's paper, Bien Informé. Despite his non-stop political activity he also continued with his passion for engineering, designing canal systems, bridges and cranes. Then in 1801 Thomas Jefferson, now president, offered to bring him back to America, a decision that brought down a torrent of criticism on the president's head from the political opposition. In October 1802, the sixty-five year old Paine arrived in Baltimore to be met by a storm of abuse from the Federalist press. Although he still had loyal friends he was faced with widespread hostility wherever he went, but he remained politically active, writing letters criticizing the Federalist opposition and proposing to Jefferson that the United States purchase the Louisiana Territory.
In 1803 Margaret de Bonneville and her three sons arrived in America: her husband was under surveillance by the French police and could not leave France, so Paine assumed responsibility for the children's education. Despite his fading health and wealth (he had to sell part of his farm to pay his debts) his pen was in constant use, writing to and for the press on varied subjects. When Jefferson did buy Louisiana from France in April 1803 for $15,000,000 it was the biggest land deal ever struck between two nations: the Louisiana Purchase stretched east to west from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains, north to south from Canada to the Mexican Gulf. But Jefferson appalled Paine by allowing the establishment of slavery in the new territory. Bitterly disappointed, he pleaded with the president to permit black families to leave the ‘slave states' and settle there. But Jefferson rejected his pleas and the curse of slavery was perpetuated until, sixty years later, it tore the country apart.
In his final years his condition became pitiful: his health reduced him to a shadow of his once indefatigable self, and he was kept alive by the charity of friends; he was even refused the right to vote on the grounds that he was not a true American. This last insult, coming after the treacherous treatment meted out to him by Washington and Morris, must have been devastating: the man who was known as ‘the voice of the revolution', the man who had done more than any man alive to inspire and motivate the people of America to free their young country from the shackles of British imperialism, was turned away at the polling station. He spent his last days in the rented house of the de Bonneville family, where he died on the morning of June 8th, 1809. On his deathbed he was approached by Presbyterian ministers who asked him to accept the Christian Church; defiant to the end, he gave them short shrift. He was buried the next day, with few to mourn him, at his New Rochelle farm, having been refused burial at the Quaker cemetery.
Lest We Forget
"To all these champions of the oppressed Paine set an example of courage, humanity and single-mindedness. When public issues were involved, he forgot personal prudence. The world decided, as it usually does in such cases, to punish him for his lack of self-seeking; to this day his fame is less than it should have been if his character had been less generous. Some worldly wisdom is required even to secure praise for the lack of it". (Bertrand Russell: The Fate of Thomas Paine)
Russell is correct in saying that Paine is less prominent in history's hall of fame than most of his less worthy contemporaries: both as a human being and as a contributor to the momentous political events of his time he stood head and shoulders above all of them. A tireless seeker of justice and truth, a dedicated champion of ordinary working people, he was generations ahead of his time in his political thinking. Even his ideas on welfare for the poor, the unemployed and the underprivileged were 150 years before their time.
But it is not merely his lack of self interest which accounts for his lack of historical acclaim: since his death there has been a conscious attempt by the political establishments of Britain and the USA to underplay his contribution to 18th and 19th century history and to slur his reputation (Theodore Roosevelt called him a ‘dirty little atheist'). His lucid and logical ideas on the governance of nations would still embarrass the corrupt excuses for so-called democratic governments which prevail in the USA, Britain and the rest of Europe today. His anti-clericalism and his criticism of organised religion with all its hypocritical ‘pomp and circumstance' has incurred the indignant wrath of all branches of the religious establishment in Europe and America, and his anti-monarchist views did nothing to endear him to the British establishment.
Thus the man who was a household name in America, Britain, Ireland and France in his lifetime, and whose fame was more widespread than even Jefferson, Franklin or Washington, has been deliberately shunted into the sidelines of history. True, American presidents occasionally quote him, usually out of context, when it suits them. But his name will not be found on the list of Founding Fathers of the USA despite his enormous contribution to the cause of American independence. As for England, there are relatively few today in the land of his birth who have even heard of him.
But things are changing: Richard Attenborough recently expressed an ambition to film his life story. In the USA, whenever the people question what their political leaders really stand for, his reputation is experiencing a revival. In Morristown, New Jersey, a monument has been erected to him; his Common Sense has been listed as number one in historian E.F. Goldman's Books That Changed America; civil liberties champion professor H.S. Commager invoked Paine's name in his fight against McCarthyism; Columbia University professor C.W. Mills (who died tragically young) put Paine on a par with Max Weber and Karl Marx.
Thomas Paine was a truly great man who used his genius as a writer to fight for a better life for ordinary working people, a cause to which he dedicated his own life. No other writer had such a dramatic and immediate impact on the political events of his time. No other man before or since has proved so effectively that words are weapons, and that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, June 13, 2008
Movie Roundup
I have attended several movie screenings in the lat few weeks. Some of the movies mentioned in this post, aren't yet playing at theaters.
I'm scoring movies on a five star system.
This is the story of Genghis Khan. The movie covers his life from his childhood (selecting a bride at nine years old), until his first military victory. It's the first part of a trilogy.
It's filmed in Kazakhstan, China and Mongolia. Some places were so remote, roads had to be built. The vastness of the panorama, gives you the feel of being in 12th century Mongolia.
The fight scenes are amazing. The producers hired 1,500 extras for the fight scenes. They are compared to 300's fight scenes. The movie is in Mongolian with English subtitles.
This film is the best I've seen this year. It was Kazakhstan's contender for best foreign language film at the 2008 Academy Awards. Since it is part of a triliogy, don't be surprised if one of the other two films win.
Be sure to read Louis Proyect's review. He adds how Stalinism suppressed Mongolian history, and compares it to Native American culture.
Today I checked out the Mongolian music section at my local record shop.
I like this movie because it's pro immigrants rights. In the Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanon and Bill O'Reilly the media voice on the issue, it's refreshing seeing this heartfelt movie.
It's the story about a listless professor, who has unexpected life changes, through crossing paths with immigrants lacking proper paperwork.
I expect Richard Jenkins to get an Academy Award nomination.
I thought it was a very good movie. I didn't feel greatness from it.
A movie from Norway about love, depression and careers. It's a Norwegian Jules et Jim with twentysomethings.
Everyone who saw it liked it, and also agreed it won't draw a dime in box office.
A Merchant Ivory film set in 1930s colonial India. As with any Merchant Ivory production, the sets, photography and acting are top notch.
T.K Neelam a foreman to the colonialist, is Western educated and trusted by his colonial master and by his village. He must betray one or the other.
I was bothered that I was able to figure out the ending.
An inept karate instructor struggles with marital troubles and an unhealthy obsession with fellow karate enthusiast Chuck "The Truck" Williams.
Will Ferrell produced this uneven no budget struggling comedy,
RENEGADE EYE
I'm scoring movies on a five star system.
Mongol (2007) ***1/2
This is the story of Genghis Khan. The movie covers his life from his childhood (selecting a bride at nine years old), until his first military victory. It's the first part of a trilogy.
It's filmed in Kazakhstan, China and Mongolia. Some places were so remote, roads had to be built. The vastness of the panorama, gives you the feel of being in 12th century Mongolia.
The fight scenes are amazing. The producers hired 1,500 extras for the fight scenes. They are compared to 300's fight scenes. The movie is in Mongolian with English subtitles.
This film is the best I've seen this year. It was Kazakhstan's contender for best foreign language film at the 2008 Academy Awards. Since it is part of a triliogy, don't be surprised if one of the other two films win.
Be sure to read Louis Proyect's review. He adds how Stalinism suppressed Mongolian history, and compares it to Native American culture.
Today I checked out the Mongolian music section at my local record shop.
The Visitor (2007) ***
I like this movie because it's pro immigrants rights. In the Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanon and Bill O'Reilly the media voice on the issue, it's refreshing seeing this heartfelt movie.
It's the story about a listless professor, who has unexpected life changes, through crossing paths with immigrants lacking proper paperwork.
I expect Richard Jenkins to get an Academy Award nomination.
I thought it was a very good movie. I didn't feel greatness from it.
Reprise (2006) ***
A movie from Norway about love, depression and careers. It's a Norwegian Jules et Jim with twentysomethings.
Everyone who saw it liked it, and also agreed it won't draw a dime in box office.
Before The Rains (2007) **1/2
A Merchant Ivory film set in 1930s colonial India. As with any Merchant Ivory production, the sets, photography and acting are top notch.
T.K Neelam a foreman to the colonialist, is Western educated and trusted by his colonial master and by his village. He must betray one or the other.
I was bothered that I was able to figure out the ending.
The Foot Fist Way (2006) *
An inept karate instructor struggles with marital troubles and an unhealthy obsession with fellow karate enthusiast Chuck "The Truck" Williams.
Will Ferrell produced this uneven no budget struggling comedy,
RENEGADE EYE
Monday, June 09, 2008
Chavez Urges FARC to Lay Down Arms
From Aljazeera English
06/08/2008
Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, has called on Colombian rebels to lay down their weapons, free all their hostages and put an end to a decades-long armed struggle against the Bogota government.
He said efforts by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to overthrow Colombia's democratically elected government are unjustified.
"The guerrilla war is history," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio programme on Sunday.
Relations between Chavez and Alvaro Uribe, his Colombian counterpart, have been strained due to Colombia's allegations that Chavez could be supporting FARC. Chavez denies supporting FARC, saying his contacts with the group are aimed at securing the release of its hostages.
FARC holds hundreds of captured security personnel as well as dozens of hostages who it hopes to swap for its own imprisoned fighters.
Plea to Cano
Chavez specifically called on the new Farc leader to release all prisoners held by the group in jungle camps.
FARC confirmed last month that Manuel Marulanda, their longtime leader and founder, had died and been succeeded by Alfonso Cano.
"The time has come for the Farc to release everyone ... It would be a grand humanitarian gesture and unconditional," Chavez said.
"This is my message for you, Cano: 'Come on, let all these people go.' There are old folk, women, sick people, soldiers who have been prisoners in the mountain for ten years."
Western countries such as France have pushed for regional diplomacy to free dozens of hostages, who include Ingrid Betancourt, the French-Colombian politician.
Colombian officials say FARC is at its weakest point in years due to the deaths of several senior members as well as high-profile defections and battlefield losses.
Law Revoked
Chavez's appeal to FARC came a day after he revoked a law decreed last month creating four spy agencies and a Cuban-style national informants' network.
It had sparked outrage among opposition members and human rights groups.
The law, which the government said was needed to block US interference in Venezuelan affairs, made it a crime to refuse to co-operate with intelligence agencies and to publish information deemed "secret or confidential".
The intelligence and counter-intelligence law was approved in the end of May, but has now been temporarily declared null and will be modified to correct "some mistakes".
RENEGADE EYE
06/08/2008
Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, has called on Colombian rebels to lay down their weapons, free all their hostages and put an end to a decades-long armed struggle against the Bogota government.
He said efforts by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to overthrow Colombia's democratically elected government are unjustified.
"The guerrilla war is history," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio programme on Sunday.
Relations between Chavez and Alvaro Uribe, his Colombian counterpart, have been strained due to Colombia's allegations that Chavez could be supporting FARC. Chavez denies supporting FARC, saying his contacts with the group are aimed at securing the release of its hostages.
FARC holds hundreds of captured security personnel as well as dozens of hostages who it hopes to swap for its own imprisoned fighters.
Plea to Cano
Chavez specifically called on the new Farc leader to release all prisoners held by the group in jungle camps.
FARC confirmed last month that Manuel Marulanda, their longtime leader and founder, had died and been succeeded by Alfonso Cano.
"The time has come for the Farc to release everyone ... It would be a grand humanitarian gesture and unconditional," Chavez said.
"This is my message for you, Cano: 'Come on, let all these people go.' There are old folk, women, sick people, soldiers who have been prisoners in the mountain for ten years."
Western countries such as France have pushed for regional diplomacy to free dozens of hostages, who include Ingrid Betancourt, the French-Colombian politician.
Colombian officials say FARC is at its weakest point in years due to the deaths of several senior members as well as high-profile defections and battlefield losses.
Law Revoked
Chavez's appeal to FARC came a day after he revoked a law decreed last month creating four spy agencies and a Cuban-style national informants' network.
It had sparked outrage among opposition members and human rights groups.
The law, which the government said was needed to block US interference in Venezuelan affairs, made it a crime to refuse to co-operate with intelligence agencies and to publish information deemed "secret or confidential".
The intelligence and counter-intelligence law was approved in the end of May, but has now been temporarily declared null and will be modified to correct "some mistakes".
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Global Food Crisis: Any Way Out For Nigeria?
By Ola Kazeem in Lagos
Wednesday, 04 June 2008
Nigeria, in spite of its oil reserves, is still fundamentally an agricultural country, at least in terms of the population working on the land. 71% of the Nigerian workforce is engaged in agriculture. Over 90% of Nigeria's agricultural output comes from peasant farmers who dwell in remote rural areas where 60% of the 150million total population lives. Agricultural landholdings are generally small and scattered, with the average number of farm plots per household ranging between 2 and 28 plots increasing from the South to the North. Nigeria cultivates over 25 million hectares of land for various food crops.
And yet, despite all these obviously abundant human and natural resources, Nigeria is still unable to feed her citizens. Nigeria produces only 500,000 tonnes of rice while annual consumption is 2.5 million tones. Nigeria is the world's second-largest rice importer after Singapore. Before now, Nigeria spent over $350million on rice importation alone. Now there is a global food crisis, but can the Nigeria ruling class turns things round overnight?
The present world food crisis is primarily a grains shortages crisis. Annual world grains output has been declining for decades. It was estimated at 1,900million tons or less in 1995, this was at a time when over 3,000million tons of grains produced annually is required to meet global dietary needs. Today, world grains carryover stocks are at the same absolute level they were over 25 years ago. Stocks dropped from 460-490 million metric tons in the late 1980s down to less than 250million tons in 1995 - the level of stock in 1969. Scores of countries have gone from national self-sufficiency in basic grains, to import dependency or donated cereals aid. But now, the grains are not even there for grab.
Various reasons have been advanced as the cause, mainly from bourgeois apologists. Nature is first to be blamed: the Myanmar cyclone that flooded 5000 square kilometres has been blamed, floods in Indonesia and Sri Lanka are also mentioned. But how do you explain a colossal reduction in the stock that brought the 1995 stocks to the 1969 level while the population keeps on growing? A devalued dollar has also been blamed, as have high prices of petrol and so on. But what was the value of the dollar in 1995? How much was the petrol during this period in question?
No way can e accept these excuses; these reasons are one-sided and could not completely explain what went wrong. Necessity sometimes expresses itself as an accident. What is happening is a necessary product of capitalism in its present senile stage. Capitalism reigns in anarchy. Capitalism means domination of the non-living over the living, of profit over labour and, most accurately, capitalism means horror without end.
The present food crisis is linked directly to one fact provided by the CIA World Fact Book of January 2008, which reveals that of the US$46,660,000 million world GDP, agriculture is just 4% of this sum, industry 32%, while the service sector carries a whopping 64% of total GDP.
Capitalists want to make money out of money, without taking any risk in production. More capital is going to speculative businesses and stocks, under the guise of services. Capitalism does not exist for the benefit of human beings, but for profit. It is taking money away from productive investment, into gambling and weapons of mass destruction. It brings a life of luxury to a diminishing few and misery for an ever-expanding majority.
What we are presently experiencing is the inevitable outcome of the way capitalism works. All the aforementioned reasons advanced by bourgeois apologists are just the last straw that broke the camel's back. As if this were not enough inhumanity against humankind, the food that is not enough to meet our dietary needs is now being used for biofuels. Capitalists prefer fuelling a car to feeding a hungry man. A forecast issued by the International Food Policy Research Institute points out that a termination of the swindle of subsidies for biofuels production would result in an immediate 20% price reductions for corn, 14% for manioc, and 11% for wheat, but does this appeal to the defenders of a system that survives on human misery?
The working class in Nigeria, as in any other country, should not be carried away with the crocodile tears being shed by the bourgeoisie. They are pretending as if they only discovered today that over two billion human beings have always been living without food, decent shelter and good clothes; that in Nigeria for instance, 71% of the population lives on less than US$1 a day, that over one million children die annually in Africa of malaria; 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. Tens of millions die simply because they are poor. They have no access to good health care, education, electricity and other modern amenities.
What has alarmed the ruling class is the spate of protests and bloody riots of the people that has been sweeping round the world. It is estimated that food related protest are going on in over 40 countries. A government has been swept away in Haiti as a result. Egypt is in turmoil. Senegal experienced some of the bloodiest rioting in the recent past, all for food.
The asses have been pushed to the limit of their tolerance. Trotsky said many years ago, that the bourgeoisie will only concede a little to the masses when it is threatened with losing everything. What has alarmed the ruling classes is not the deplorable, unfortunate condition of the people, but the fear of losing control, of losing their property, fear of the people moving farther than the limits set by the labour leadership, fear of revolution.
If the people had remained docile, the ruling class would have simply treated this crisis the way they have treated all previous injustices against humanity, blaming the people and nature for all the anguish, as they are fond of doing.
The Nigerian government is in a far better position today to carry this deceit to a far extent. The Nigerian government is presently raking in big money, thanks to the petro-dollars. As a result of this, the government can afford to completely remove all duties and taxes on imported grains as they announced two weeks ago. The Nigerian government has concluded deals with the Thai, Indian and American governments to import 500,000 tons of rice to flood the Nigerian market. The first batch of the consignments will enter Nigeria by the middle of June. The plan is to sell this rice at half its price to the people. The government has also promised to pump 100billion Naira into agriculture as a long-term solution to the food shortage. With petrol at over $130 per barrel, the Nigerian government can promise heaven and earth.
But there are series of challenges confronting the Nigerian ruling class, which makes all these emergency measures laughable. First among these is the issue of corruption. Corruption is a life wire of any regime in a backward country like Nigeria; only a government of the working class could end corruption. Most of this rice will not reach the ordinary people that need it.
A very innocent and ordinary question can be asked; why can't the government carry out a massive cultivation of the land to grow grain, especially rice, corn and wheat, that can be grow in Nigeria? The problem is that this step is impermissible under capitalism. The policy as dictated by the IMF/World Bank is that the government has no business doing business. Imperialism has imposed on Nigeria via the various Structural Adjustment Programmes a policy that states that subsidies on food, fertilisers, fuel, transport etc. are bad for the economy. The same programmes dictate that the economy of a country like Nigeria must be completely open to the world market. The end result has been the destruction of industry and agriculture.
Capitalist government exists for the few and thrives only when there is mass poverty and misery. The massive importation of food - provided as "relief" in the short-term ‑ will further undermine the already sick local production. Cheap - subsidised - agricultural produce from the richer countries will further undermine the small Nigerian farmers.
What they have not been capable of doing for decades would require a miracle for them to urgently do now. Although, at present they have money to order 500,000 tons of rice, to manage the removal of taxes and duties on grain importation, in short, to carry out a form of deception, this money will not always be there. Rather than this money solving the food problem, under capitalism it will exacerbate it, it will further undermine the local production, it will further fuel corruption and further destabilize an already unstable political atmosphere.
The present food crisis is a necessary outcome of the workings of capitalism; a capitalist Nigeria is absolutely incapable of solving this fundamental problem. Just as it is incapable of uniting Nigerians, just as it is incapable of developing industry, as it is incapable of building a modern infrastructure, of ending corruption and most deplorably of ending the misery of Nigerians, to expect it to resolve this one is to expect the Lion to eat grass.
In half a century of formal independence the Nigerian ruling class has proven incapable of developing a modern infrastructure. It has not even been capable of maintaining its own oil refineries, which have all collapsed and now Nigeria, an oil-exporting country, is forced to import refined fuel! Oil, which should have provided a real material improvement for the masses, has actually contributed to the deindustrialisation of Nigeria's already meagre industrial base and at the same time the collapse of its agriculture. All that the ruling elite has been capable of has been leeching off the wealth produced by the workers of the country. Nothing is going to change now. If anything it is getting worse.
Only a socialist Nigeria, under the democratic control of the working class, can permanently end the various crises we are saddled with. Combining the immense material resources and the millions of Nigerian workers and peasants, the country could lift itself out of poverty very soon, and provide enough food for its population.
RENEGADE EYE
Wednesday, 04 June 2008
Nigeria, in spite of its oil reserves, is still fundamentally an agricultural country, at least in terms of the population working on the land. 71% of the Nigerian workforce is engaged in agriculture. Over 90% of Nigeria's agricultural output comes from peasant farmers who dwell in remote rural areas where 60% of the 150million total population lives. Agricultural landholdings are generally small and scattered, with the average number of farm plots per household ranging between 2 and 28 plots increasing from the South to the North. Nigeria cultivates over 25 million hectares of land for various food crops.
And yet, despite all these obviously abundant human and natural resources, Nigeria is still unable to feed her citizens. Nigeria produces only 500,000 tonnes of rice while annual consumption is 2.5 million tones. Nigeria is the world's second-largest rice importer after Singapore. Before now, Nigeria spent over $350million on rice importation alone. Now there is a global food crisis, but can the Nigeria ruling class turns things round overnight?
Why the Crisis?
The present world food crisis is primarily a grains shortages crisis. Annual world grains output has been declining for decades. It was estimated at 1,900million tons or less in 1995, this was at a time when over 3,000million tons of grains produced annually is required to meet global dietary needs. Today, world grains carryover stocks are at the same absolute level they were over 25 years ago. Stocks dropped from 460-490 million metric tons in the late 1980s down to less than 250million tons in 1995 - the level of stock in 1969. Scores of countries have gone from national self-sufficiency in basic grains, to import dependency or donated cereals aid. But now, the grains are not even there for grab.
Various reasons have been advanced as the cause, mainly from bourgeois apologists. Nature is first to be blamed: the Myanmar cyclone that flooded 5000 square kilometres has been blamed, floods in Indonesia and Sri Lanka are also mentioned. But how do you explain a colossal reduction in the stock that brought the 1995 stocks to the 1969 level while the population keeps on growing? A devalued dollar has also been blamed, as have high prices of petrol and so on. But what was the value of the dollar in 1995? How much was the petrol during this period in question?
No way can e accept these excuses; these reasons are one-sided and could not completely explain what went wrong. Necessity sometimes expresses itself as an accident. What is happening is a necessary product of capitalism in its present senile stage. Capitalism reigns in anarchy. Capitalism means domination of the non-living over the living, of profit over labour and, most accurately, capitalism means horror without end.
The present food crisis is linked directly to one fact provided by the CIA World Fact Book of January 2008, which reveals that of the US$46,660,000 million world GDP, agriculture is just 4% of this sum, industry 32%, while the service sector carries a whopping 64% of total GDP.
Capitalists want to make money out of money, without taking any risk in production. More capital is going to speculative businesses and stocks, under the guise of services. Capitalism does not exist for the benefit of human beings, but for profit. It is taking money away from productive investment, into gambling and weapons of mass destruction. It brings a life of luxury to a diminishing few and misery for an ever-expanding majority.
What we are presently experiencing is the inevitable outcome of the way capitalism works. All the aforementioned reasons advanced by bourgeois apologists are just the last straw that broke the camel's back. As if this were not enough inhumanity against humankind, the food that is not enough to meet our dietary needs is now being used for biofuels. Capitalists prefer fuelling a car to feeding a hungry man. A forecast issued by the International Food Policy Research Institute points out that a termination of the swindle of subsidies for biofuels production would result in an immediate 20% price reductions for corn, 14% for manioc, and 11% for wheat, but does this appeal to the defenders of a system that survives on human misery?
How Sincere is the Ruling Class's Attempt to Resolve the Crisis?
The working class in Nigeria, as in any other country, should not be carried away with the crocodile tears being shed by the bourgeoisie. They are pretending as if they only discovered today that over two billion human beings have always been living without food, decent shelter and good clothes; that in Nigeria for instance, 71% of the population lives on less than US$1 a day, that over one million children die annually in Africa of malaria; 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. Tens of millions die simply because they are poor. They have no access to good health care, education, electricity and other modern amenities.
What has alarmed the ruling class is the spate of protests and bloody riots of the people that has been sweeping round the world. It is estimated that food related protest are going on in over 40 countries. A government has been swept away in Haiti as a result. Egypt is in turmoil. Senegal experienced some of the bloodiest rioting in the recent past, all for food.
The asses have been pushed to the limit of their tolerance. Trotsky said many years ago, that the bourgeoisie will only concede a little to the masses when it is threatened with losing everything. What has alarmed the ruling classes is not the deplorable, unfortunate condition of the people, but the fear of losing control, of losing their property, fear of the people moving farther than the limits set by the labour leadership, fear of revolution.
If the people had remained docile, the ruling class would have simply treated this crisis the way they have treated all previous injustices against humanity, blaming the people and nature for all the anguish, as they are fond of doing.
Can the Nigerian Government Resolve the Crisis?
The Nigerian government is in a far better position today to carry this deceit to a far extent. The Nigerian government is presently raking in big money, thanks to the petro-dollars. As a result of this, the government can afford to completely remove all duties and taxes on imported grains as they announced two weeks ago. The Nigerian government has concluded deals with the Thai, Indian and American governments to import 500,000 tons of rice to flood the Nigerian market. The first batch of the consignments will enter Nigeria by the middle of June. The plan is to sell this rice at half its price to the people. The government has also promised to pump 100billion Naira into agriculture as a long-term solution to the food shortage. With petrol at over $130 per barrel, the Nigerian government can promise heaven and earth.
But there are series of challenges confronting the Nigerian ruling class, which makes all these emergency measures laughable. First among these is the issue of corruption. Corruption is a life wire of any regime in a backward country like Nigeria; only a government of the working class could end corruption. Most of this rice will not reach the ordinary people that need it.
A very innocent and ordinary question can be asked; why can't the government carry out a massive cultivation of the land to grow grain, especially rice, corn and wheat, that can be grow in Nigeria? The problem is that this step is impermissible under capitalism. The policy as dictated by the IMF/World Bank is that the government has no business doing business. Imperialism has imposed on Nigeria via the various Structural Adjustment Programmes a policy that states that subsidies on food, fertilisers, fuel, transport etc. are bad for the economy. The same programmes dictate that the economy of a country like Nigeria must be completely open to the world market. The end result has been the destruction of industry and agriculture.
Capitalist government exists for the few and thrives only when there is mass poverty and misery. The massive importation of food - provided as "relief" in the short-term ‑ will further undermine the already sick local production. Cheap - subsidised - agricultural produce from the richer countries will further undermine the small Nigerian farmers.
What they have not been capable of doing for decades would require a miracle for them to urgently do now. Although, at present they have money to order 500,000 tons of rice, to manage the removal of taxes and duties on grain importation, in short, to carry out a form of deception, this money will not always be there. Rather than this money solving the food problem, under capitalism it will exacerbate it, it will further undermine the local production, it will further fuel corruption and further destabilize an already unstable political atmosphere.
Capitalist Nigeria Absolutely Incapable of Solving This Fundamental Problem
The present food crisis is a necessary outcome of the workings of capitalism; a capitalist Nigeria is absolutely incapable of solving this fundamental problem. Just as it is incapable of uniting Nigerians, just as it is incapable of developing industry, as it is incapable of building a modern infrastructure, of ending corruption and most deplorably of ending the misery of Nigerians, to expect it to resolve this one is to expect the Lion to eat grass.
In half a century of formal independence the Nigerian ruling class has proven incapable of developing a modern infrastructure. It has not even been capable of maintaining its own oil refineries, which have all collapsed and now Nigeria, an oil-exporting country, is forced to import refined fuel! Oil, which should have provided a real material improvement for the masses, has actually contributed to the deindustrialisation of Nigeria's already meagre industrial base and at the same time the collapse of its agriculture. All that the ruling elite has been capable of has been leeching off the wealth produced by the workers of the country. Nothing is going to change now. If anything it is getting worse.
Only a socialist Nigeria, under the democratic control of the working class, can permanently end the various crises we are saddled with. Combining the immense material resources and the millions of Nigerian workers and peasants, the country could lift itself out of poverty very soon, and provide enough food for its population.
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, May 30, 2008
Nepal: The April 2006 Uprising, the Constituent Assembly and the Abolition of the Monarchy
By Rajesh Tyagi in Delhi
Friday, 30 May 2008
The newly elected Constituent Assembly in Nepal, a fallout of the April uprising of 2006, is now in motion. It has made a formal declaration of an end to the monarchy, with a ‘graceful' exit for it.
As a system of governance, the monarchy had already lost all its steam since the great people's uprising of April 2006, while the forces of medieval reaction ‑ hitherto protected under the wings of the monarchy in Nepal ‑ were already adapting with Nepali bourgeois rule. Because of this, the abolition of the monarchy in Nepal as a state system, and the consequent emergence of a republic, has but a limited significance. This is in sharp contrast to the bourgeois overturns in 19th century Europe, where the emergence of bourgeois republics, represented a turn in world history. In 21st century Nepal, such a republic (although a step forward in bourgeois democratic terms) is of no real meaning and of no practical use for the people of Nepal, unless and until it puts power directly in the hands of the working class and through it the peasantry. Power would be meaningless until it is directed against the bourgeois.
Old school of Stalinism and Maoism
Unfortunately, in Nepal, the Communist leadership, miseducated in the old schools of Stalinism and Maoism, neither has any perspective nor is ready to lead the proletariat to take power. It instead, seeks the power in collaboration with bourgeois/landlords. Its failure to comprehend the true mechanics of revolution in Nepal has resulted in missing the great opportunities to accomplish the revolution, which had presented them again and again.
The great tide of revolutionary upsurge of April 2006 against the old bourgeois-monarchist regime in Nepal receded after the leadership failed to take that historic movement to its logical conclusion - the destruction of monarchy and seizure of power by the proletariat. Revolution was thus forced to pull back from the threshold of victory, with meagre concessions offered by the monarchy. Failing to lead the rebellious people to a successful revolution and consolidate the power of the proletariat (backed by the peasantry), the disoriented leadership, instead, presented the concessions as a big achievement for revolution. This passive and reformist policy of the Communist leadership resulted in a rapid receding of the revolutionary mood of the people in Nepal. Instead of realising its error and preparing for a new wave, the leadership has since taken an about urn, more and more, towards legalism and class collaboration, adapting itself to the ebb in the revolution that they themselves were responsible for.
However, the April 2006 upsurge has left its imprint on the history of Nepal. The importance of the upsurge lies not in the concessions it succeeded in wresting from the hands of the monarchy, as both the bourgeois and the Maoist leaders both perceive, but in the fact that it illuminated a new path through the action of the proletariat in key cities, once again endorsing the bankruptcy of Stalinism/Maoism. What could not be achieved in more than ten years of armed struggle was achieved as if by a magic wand in 10 days of a general strike of the proletariat. This uprising had virtually shaken the monarchist regime from its roots. There lies now a whole gulf between the new Nepal as it emerged after April 2006 and the old one as it existed before the uprising.
The high tide of revolution during upsurge of April 2006, forced a radical rupture between the old and new Nepal. The monarchy lost all its strength and legitimacy, after its armed forces tried their best to drown the uprising in blood, but were paralysed before the might of the rebellious people, leaving the monarchy in the lurch. During the uprising, for the first time, the urban proletariat marked its entry onto the political scene as a class, turning the seat of monarchist-bourgeois power ‑ the city of Kathmandu ‑ into the centre stage of revolutionary drama. This put various hypotheses of revolution in Nepal to the test, first among them the formulations of Maoism and its slogan of the "Chinese road", and refuted them through living revolutionary practice. It refuted the myth spread by the Maoist leaders about the weakness of the working class in the backward countries, where the peasantry constitutes a majority. It showed beyond all doubt that despite its small numerical strength, the proletariat is fully capable of taking the leadership of the revolution by organising itself into a vanguard detachment of the peasant mass, independent of the bourgeois and in opposition to it.
All the forces of old Nepal - the Monarchy, the forces of medievalism led by it and the bourgeois ‑ trembled before this upsurge. Although the upsurge was spontaneous, demonstrating the political immaturity of the working class, it brought forward the immense political energy latent within the proletariat, which on its own had embarked upon the threshold of a political overturn, and if it was forced to retreat, it was only due to the absence of a true leadership.
What prevented the Communists from Taking Power?
What stood between monarchy and the people? What prevented the Communists from taking power at the head of the working class, aided by the peasantry? Practically nothing! But the Communist leadership in Nepal, miseducated in the school of Maoism/Stalinism, refused to take the power through the working class and in opposition to the bourgeois, as it was prepared to take power only in alliance with the bourgeois and not against it. They had planned to execute a bourgeois-democratic revolution, through a "bloc of all classes", with the bourgeois as a partner. Neither were they willing, nor ready to lead the revolution against the bourgeois. The bourgeois, in its turn was not ready to wipe out the monarchy.
The false leadership of the Maoist/Stalinist parties, thus found itself in a dilemma and a virtual political crisis during the upsurge of 2006. All of these Communist Parties and groups in Nepal at that time were closely collaborating with bourgeois parties in one way or another. The upsurge suddenly confronted them with the question of taking power by wiping out the monarchy, for which the stage was all set by history. But firstly the bourgeois parties like the Nepali Congress, having one of their heads faced towards the monarchy, did not at all wish its destruction, especially at the height of revolution. Moreover, the destruction of the monarchy through a radical onslaught of the masses would have immediately posed the question of power, with hostile classes facing each other - bourgeois/landlords on one side and the proletariat/peasantry on the other.
The bourgeois would have had to be confronted in a direct and decisive struggle for power, if the upsurge was to culminate in a successful revolution. The Communist parties, who rubbing shoulders until the previous evening with the bourgeois parties, were not ready for this eventuality and thus found themselves in a dilemma. They could not have turned the tables overnight against the bourgeois, calling its destruction. They therefore voluntarily let the historical opportunity pass and missed the shot. The line of collaboration with the bourgeois in a "bloc of all classes", the "two stage theory of revolution" and the slogan of the "Chinese road" proved fatal for the revolution. The false perspective of the Maoist leaders thus resulted in political paralysis of the revolution. The proletariat had to return from threshold of power, which it could have taken in a revolutionary manner.
Due to their incorrect perspective, regarding the role and correlation of social classes and consequently the nature and dynamics of revolution in Nepal, the Maoist leaders neither could feel the pulse in April 2006 nor could catch it in their own electoral victory in April 2008.The election victory, only but a meek and belated echo of the revolutionary thunder of April 2006, came as a surprise to the Maoists themselves, in the same way as the upsurge of April 2006 had taken them by surprise. The irony is that the Maoists are still demonstrating their political bankruptcy, while failing to understand the true meaning and spirit of the electoral mandate of 2008.
The Nature and Meaning of the Mandate
The Maoists, as with their failure in estimating the nature and depth of the uprising of April 2006, have also failed to assess the nature and meaning of the mandate given to them by the workers and toilers of Nepal. The Maoists pose this verdict as a vindication of their incorrect politics, which in fact is a mandate to remove not only the monarchy and feudalism, but also to cross over to more real and fundamental tasks, which are socialist in nature, and thus they fall beyond the domain of democratic revolution. But the Maoists have taken it upon themselves to stand as guarantors against this "cross over", which is the real essence of Maoism at work in Nepal today.
The Maoists are translating the mandate in a spirit opposite to and abrogative of the mandate itself. They refuse to accept this mandate for a revolutionary stride forward and to consolidate the power in the hands of the proletariat with the support of the peasantry. Instead, they are interpreting this mandate, in the first place as a "fractured mandate", thereby proposing a broad front of all political forces in the country to carry out the mandate, i.e. to build and consolidate a bourgeois democratic Republic. Instead of taking the mandate for a complete overturn, not only of the monarchy, but the bourgeoisie as well, the Maoists are seeking to perfect their alliance with the bourgeois and are planning a peaceful capitalist development in Nepal, in conjunction with it, for at least a decade to come. Refusing to see the complete adaptation between capitalism and medievalism in present-day Nepal, the Maoists falsely attribute a role to the bourgeois in the struggle against the monarchy and propose an alliance with it. Instead of marching towards a proletarian overturn in a direct fight against the bourgeois, they are striving to forge a union with it, basing themselves upon the bogus doctrine of the "two stage" revolution - presently democratic (bourgeois!), and only at some point in the future socialist. Their limited programme does not go beyond the contours of a bourgeois republic, and they are preparing a roadmap which is essentially capitalist in nature. At a juncture in history when the forces of revolution have sufficiently matured to advance against both the monarchy and the bourgeois, the Maoists are capitulating, pinning their hopes upon the bourgeois, instead of directing the revolution against it.
With a bright hope for a radical change in their lives, the people in Nepal have hailed and celebrated the electoral defeat of the pro-establishment parties, both royalists and bourgeois. But the Maoist leadership has already set about drowning these hopes, by seeking an alliance with the bourgeois/landlords and their parties.
Reassuring the Bourgeoisie and Landlords
Immediately following the election result, Prachanda declared, "In this 21st Century we need the cooperation of everyone for development". He further added that the "CPN(M) is ready to work with all parties to write the Constitution".
In an interview to the Nepal Times, Baburam Bhattarai clearly added further clarification:
"When we say we want to end feudalism, we don't mean we want to end private ownership. Our revolution in our language is a bourgeois democratic revolution. In other words collectivisation, socialisation or nationalisation are not our current agenda. We like to assure everyone that once Maoists come to power, the investment climate will be even more favourable. There should not be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that".
Both Prachanda and Bhattarai met the Federation of Nepal Chambers of Commerce and Industry, for more than two hours, wherein they called upon the capitalists:
"Within 10 years let us work magic for economic revolution and mesmerise the whole world. We will allow private investment and promote foreign investment".
Doubly reassuring the capitalists they told the gathering:
"Do not lose confidence. We are not going to capture industries. We need your cooperation to gain economic prosperity."
Amidst applause from the elite gathering, Prachanda declared: "We are Maoists of [the] 21st century", and repelling all apprehensions of those present, he added further: "A strong hand is needed to build a strong nation".
Both Prachanda and Bhattarai in their speeches cited South Korea and Malaysia as models of how the investment would be encouraged in Nepal. When asked about China, Prachanda praised it for elimination of the feudal system "that established a solid foundation for economic growth". He claimed that, "once we restructure the state and involve the private sector, it will be possible to achieve that economic growth".
On 30th April Baburam Bhattarai asserted that Nepal would see an economic revolution in the next 10 years. The Maoist leaders then deliberated with top World Bank officials about the future development plans in Nepal, pledging that bourgeois interests would be protected under their rule. They have offered immunity to the King along with his properties, if he abdicates voluntarily, which after the revolt of 2006, is a big concession to the King.
Dousing the Flames of Revolution
The false Stalinist/Maoist leadership is engaged now in dousing the flames of revolution that may have survived after the debacle of April 2006. While hobnobbing with the local and foreign capitalists, the Maoist leadership is openly calling for a change in the role of the Communist Youth, i.e. the Young Communist League (YCL). Prachanda has assured the capitalists that the YCL would disengage from its past to assume "constructive" activities. The YCL, representing the younger generation of revolutionaries in Nepal, would become the first casualty of political manoeuvre of this false leadership, which has already taken a turn towards reformism. To facilitate the smooth and peaceful participation in bourgeois power, the Maoist leadership has shown its readiness to return the properties confiscated during the last decade. It has agreed even to the dissolution of the armed militias under its control.
Instead of taking power through the direct action of workers and peasants, the Maoists are all set to assume the power through a "bloc of all classes", including the capitalists, both local and foreign. The blueprint they have for development of Nepal in the next decade to come is essentially based upon a nationalist perspective, to be executed in conjunction with the bourgeois, in sharp contrast to the dictatorship of the proletariat and its internationalist perspective. For the present, bourgeois property will remain sacrosanct and it will be protected, and capitalism will be developed. These Maoist leaders, these petit bourgeois revolutionaries, are practically surrendering all power to the bourgeois, converting themselves into a "bureaucratic crust" representing this power. This they do in the name of "democratic revolution", which they strictly counterpose against the "Socialist revolution" leaving the latter to take place only in some distant unspecified future.
However, paradoxically, there exists a peculiar overlapping of democratic and socialist tasks in the revolution in Nepal. The monarchy and bourgeois are integrated here with each other in a very close and inseparable manner, as the big bourgeois property and industry in Nepal belongs to members of the royal family, either the Shahs or Ranas, alongside with the feudal estates that they possess. The Nepali bourgeois, of which the royal family constitutes an upper crust, is amalgamated on the one hand with medievalism in Nepal, while on the other it is directly subjugated to world capitalism. Thus, any alliance with the bourgeois in Nepal would retard the struggle on both fronts. The revolution in Nepal cannot advance even an inch in alliance with the bourgeois. Revolution can advance only as a two-pronged sword one of whose edges is always directed against the bourgeois. Political alliances with the bourgeois as a partner would only more and more deepen the political crisis. The bourgeois republic in Nepal is a fiction in which neither the bourgeois nor the proletariat has any faith or interest.
Any sort of arrangement with the monarchy or the bourgeois would thus be outright reactionary and an open betrayal of the revolution. Merely a formal abolition of feudal titles, instead of the destruction of feudalism and above all the monarchy, would not bring any change in social relations in Nepal. Not able to conceive this ABC of Marxism, the Maoists are treading the path of class conciliation, instead of class struggle. While insulating the capitalist property against its invasion by the revolution, the Maoists are deceitfully paying lip service to the cause of the destruction of feudalism in Nepal, ignoring the fact that the two are inseparably amalgamated with each other.
Symbolic Abolition of the Monarchy
The fact is that while the bourgeois preferred the ceremonial survival of the monarchy, the Maoists want its symbolic abolition. They seem to be two sides of the same coin. The past of the Stalinist/Maoist parties in Nepal is tainted in this aspect. Their long association with the monarchy under King Birendra, is not a secret in Nepal. This opportunist striving for political leadership, both bourgeois and communist, in competing with each other for a place in the lap of the King, is sarcastically termed in political circles in Nepal as the "princely trend". They collaborated with the monarchy even against bourgeois democracy, when they should have taken the lead in the fight against the monarchy, and now that it is the moment to fight against bourgeois, they collaborate with it. If the Maoists have been able move against the monarchy in Nepal, it has only been under the immense pressure of the people and their own rank and file cadres.
The formal abolition of the monarchy is meaningless if it merely limited to the abolition of a few titles and privileges. The immediate programme of the revolution in Nepal is to remove the monarchy with all its political and social institutions, confiscate the properties of the Royals and destroy all feudal relations in the country. While executing this immediate programme, which of course would meet with fierce resistance from the forces of reaction in Nepal, above all from the bourgeois itself, the revolution must cross over to the destruction of bourgeois property as well, in an uninterrupted wave. This is the clear verdict of the recent elections.
The Maoist leaders refuse to understand and execute the revolutionary verdict. They are zealously striving to establish a bourgeois democracy and thereby arresting the revolution at the bourgeois democratic stage. Maoists fail to recognise that at the advent of the 21st century, bourgeois democracy, being devoid of all political energy, is incapable of presenting any viable alternative to the feudal regimes and it is only the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. genuine workers' democracy, which may successfully execute the programme of the revolution.
The Nepali Bourgeois Exhausted its Role Long Ago
The Nepali bourgeois had in fact already exhausted all its energies by 1958, i.e. within a decade of the armed struggle started by itself with the demands of a bourgeois parliamentary democracy in place of the monarchy, but which it openly betrayed by accepting and confiding in the constitution handed over by the monarch. It bargained away parliamentary democracy for a constitutional monarchy. The weak bourgeois miserably failed in taking the revolution even an inch further or to resolve any of the tasks of a democratic nature. The "revolution" of the bourgeois thus came to a halt over half a century ago. Neither can it be repeated, nor can there be a second bourgeois revolution now. Only a proletarian revolution can accomplish these leftover democratic tasks, as part of its uninterrupted revolution and not as a bourgeois-democratic revolution as our Maoists think. It is not parliamentary democracy, but the dictatorship of proletariat, supported by the peasantry, which is on the agenda.
The people have voted for the Maoists hoping that they would do away with the apparatus of exploitation and repression, but they seem to be betraying this faith, as they now propose to take power through an alliance with the bourgeois. One can see ‑ with no special effort ‑ that the plan of the Maoist leaders for the whole of the next decade includes everything for a bourgeois development of Nepal, but nothing for furthering and expanding the revolution, nothing for the workers and peasants of Nepal. What they failed to achieve at the height of the mass upheaval during the April 2006 upsurge, cannot be achieved through legal means under a constitutional bourgeois democracy.
The workers and the youth in Nepal, who had raised the banner of revolt against the monarchy in April 2006, with the slogans "We want the head of the King" and "It is we not the King who are the real power", and who supported the Maoists in gaining electoral victory, in the bright hope of radical changes, now wonder if this is what they had fought for. Enormous contradictions have erupted between the revolutionary potential that the situation offers and the very narrow programme with limited demands presented by the Maoists. The programme of the Maoists is based upon a nationalist perspective of national "progress" and national "unity", that is a "progress" essentially along capitalist lines and a "unity" between the workers/peasants on the one hand and the capitalists/landlords on the other.
Critical Juncture in History
At this critical juncture in history, when enormous revolutionary opportunities are presenting themselves in Nepal, the Maoists are singing the song of the "bloc of all classes" to appease the bourgeois/landlords of Nepal and the world capitalists. Instead of directing the revolution further against the landlord/capitalist bloc, and expropriating the expropriators of the toiling people ‑ something for which they got a clear mandate in the elections ‑ the Maoists are making lucrative offers of collaboration to local and foreign reactionaries, even inviting them to share power. It is not without reason that the strategists in the US have already started discussing if and how the Maoist-led coalition government can be utilised for furthering US designs in the region!
The Maoists received this unprecedented vote, not because of their present political perspective ‑ as is the general perception, but which history will very soon prove out and out incorrect ‑ but because as an accident of history they happened to occupy the whole spectrum of the "extreme left" in Nepal, in the absence of a genuine proletarian party. This explains how and why the Maoists in the recent unfolding of events failed to foresee or comprehend this victory in advance, a victory which appeared to them only as a bolt from the blue, and why they fail even now to understand the meaning of the mandate.
As far as the stealing of the march by the CPN(M) over the other Stalinist/Maoist factions is concerned, the same has to be understood by the fact that while all the other factions had remained inside the old parliament, thus having their opportunism exposed very soon in their day to day activities, the CPN(M) although in essence it relied on the very same politics, escaped this fate, as it had boycotted parliament for a long time. With this advantage over the other factions, the CPN(M) could secure an advantage over them, and consolidate a big electoral victory in its favour. It is however clear that this vote is not an endorsement for the opportunist politics of the Maoists, with all its zig-zags, but is a radical vote for extreme left policies, with a clear mandate to carry forward the revolution. This pattern of voting clearly demonstrates the severity and depth of the social and political crisis in Nepal, to which the programme of the Maoists of revolution by stages - now democratic and later socialist ‑ is no match. The Maoists, at the very threshold, refuse to understand and execute the mandate in this spirit. Instead of carrying forward the revolution, they have started to apply brakes to the revolution, depriving it of its class essence. The Maoists conceive the question of the abolition of the monarchy as if it affects all the classes in Nepal in the same way and as if all the classes are equally interested in it, thereby depriving it of its class essence.
Workers and peasants are not going to achieve anything by proclamations of a "Republic". Such proclamations become meaningless without power being firmly in the hands of the workers, followed and supported by the peasantry. People have not given a mandate for a bourgeois republic to be realised through the bogus formula of the "bloc of all classes". The mandate cannot be understood in simplistic arithmetical terms of proportionate votes to parties representing different social interests. To understand the mandate one must have a correct assessment of the nature of revolution and the role of different classes within it, which presents itself in algebraic fashion. The perception of the Maoists that the "people have voted for different parties to work together for the development of Nepal" is not only incorrect but outright bogus. There is a historic and unprecedented swing of the political pendulum in favour of the forces of the revolutionary left, which means a forcible overthrow of all the exploiters, one after the other. The mandate is for the abandonment of the bogus idea of a bourgeois republic. The mandate is against the perspective of "stage-ism", against compartmentalisation of democratic and socialist stages of the revolution and essentially in favour of a dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the peasantry. But the Maoists, in the absence of a revolutionary mindset, fail to understand this mandate, and take it as a mandate for peaceful bourgeois development in Nepal, with the cooperation of all.
The course of political development in Nepal is pushing the Communists to take power through the proletariat and as a proletarian dictatorship, but the Maoists are not prepared to take it and are willingly wasting the opportunity, surrendering power to the bourgeois, clearing the road for capitalist development. Misinterpreting the mandate, the Maoists refuse to carry it out against the enemies of the people. Instead of taking it as a mandate to accomplish the revolution, the Maoists have taken it as one for a peaceful collaboration of the classes. They are out to invite everybody, from the bourgeois Nepali Congress to the CPN-UML, to form a bloc with them to run the country peacefully and on the path of bourgeois development. They are clearly heading towards open class collaboration with the bourgeois, instead of its outright expropriation.
Inventing a Revolutionary Bourgeois in Nepal
The Maoists wish to execute the revolution according to their blueprint of a "two stage revolution" and for this they invent a revolutionary bourgeois in Nepal - the Nepali Congress etc. etc. ‑ as a collaborator and as a pledge for a capitalist growth of Nepal for at least one decade to come!
The Stalinist/Maoist parties in Nepal, whether it be the CPN-Maoist or the UML or other small parties, all share politically this common perspective of "stage-ism", i.e. the bogus Menshevik "two stage theory", which was discarded long ago by the February and October revolutions in Russia in 1917 and that since then has repeatedly been refuted by revolutionary experience in different countries. Based upon the compartmentalisation between the "democratic" and "socialist" tasks of the revolution, and adopted later by the Comintern under Stalin, this line has proved a virtual trap to arrest the revolution at the bourgeois democratic stage for an indefinite period. It serves to disorient and demoralise the proletariat, pushing the revolution to ebb, reinforcing and strengthening the bourgeois and ultimately losing power to it. This is exactly what happened in China, Spain, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Chile, Nicaragua and other parts of the world, wherever this theory of revolution in stages was applied. Everywhere it proved disastrous for revolution, and resulted in defeat for the masses. With this common perspective, shared among all of them, all the Stalinist/Maoist communist parties in Nepal aspire to a bourgeois-democratic revolution, which according to their dreams would establish "a democratic power shared by all classes, for a period. Staring out from this common political platform, on which they do not have any dispute among them, these parties take to different routes to execute this Menshevik programme. While all the others took the parliamentary road, the Maoists took to the armed struggle, but only to establish the selfsame bourgeois democratic regime in Nepal, cherished by all of them.
Shocked and moved by the immense revolutionary energy generated by the upsurge of April 2006, of which the cities and the urban proletariat were the epicentres, and which successfully demonstrated the limitations of partisan warfare in rural Nepal, without the leadership of the city proletariat, the Maoists reverted back to the cities, but only to reinforce their alliance with the bourgeois/landlords and their parties such as the Nepali Congress. This backtracking of the Maoists to the cities in the wake of the April uprising, abandoning the partisan struggle in the rural areas, deflates all the boasting about the April upsurge coming about as the result of ten years of partisan war. The upsurge came, in fact, as a refutation of the Maoist strategy, which they termed as "Chinese road".
This common perspective of "stage-ism" and the common goal of "bourgeois democracy" is the real political platform of the Stalinist/Maoist parties of the old type, who dominate the political scene in Nepal for the time being. None of these parties attempts to answer the discourse on real and fundamental issues of politics and instead raise issues of secondary and tactical importance only, to draw the political lines. The Maoists focus their disputes around tactical issue such as the forms of struggle, falsely counterposing them to each other ‑ armed action vs. parliamentary action ‑ while in essence they all carry out the same political line of class collaboration, whether through parliament or through partisan struggle.
No Fundamental Difference Between Different Maoist Trends
The Maoists had parted their ways from the unified CPN, criticising its leadership as renegade and revisionist, mainly for its participation in parliamentary politics. They immediately proposed armed struggle of the peasantry as an alternative strategy. This strategy was, however, changed after April 2006 uprising, but the political perspective of Maoism - the "two stage theory" and the "bloc of various classes", was retained. The Maoists did not differ with the then CPN on any of the political positions or fundamental standpoints, but raised disputes on the tactical aspects, subsidiary to the main strategic issues.
The 2006 upsurge, however, compelled the Maoists to change their tactics, to shift the focus of their work from the rural areas to the cities, even contrary to the preaching of Maoism. Prachanda said in an interview in 2006, that in any event they would not return to the villages to restart the armed struggle. Similarly, in 2007, CP Gajurel told a press conference that a city-based revolution was in the offing in Nepal. Yet the Maoists failed to change their fundamental political perspectives and retained it in all fundamental particulars. Still they continue to refuse to open their eyes to the futility of their old Stalinist/Maoist perspective of "revolution in stages" and "bloc of various classes", thereby diminishing the role of the proletariat and instead artificially carving out a role for the bourgeois in the revolution. They grasped the importance of action in the cities and the futility of rural based warfare, in wilful and clear deviation from the conventional "path" of Maoism, but their failure to understand the nature of the revolution in backward countries, and the role and attitude of the bourgeois and proletariat within it, made them cling to their prejudices about the bourgeois and its parliamentarism, instead of making preparations for a proletarian overturn in Nepal.
Now the question arises as to how this bogus recipe of "two stage theory" and of "bloc of all classes", laced with the gloomy dreams of the growth of capitalism, will be swallowed by the workers and poor peasantry in Nepal and why they should wait for another 10 years to come. Here comes into play the Prachanda doctrine, "a strong hand to build a strong nation". This strong hand would punch the proletariat and the peasantry, if they refuse to swallow the recipe of capitalist development prepared by the Maoists. Workers and peasants in Nepal will soon find that the Maoists will be playing the role of a policemen standing as a guarantee for the protection of bourgeois property in Nepal, as they have pledged time and again.
As apologists of the Menshevik theory of "stage-ism", the Maoists are revealing themselves as red lieutenants of the bourgeois/landlords. The power in their hands, sooner rather than later, will turn into a bureaucratic apparatus for crushing the revolutionary proletariat and peasantry, which in any case would not confine itself to the "democratic" stage of revolution even for months, not to say of a decade, and would strive to carry forward the revolution by crossing over the narrow limits of the bogus programme of the Maoists' democratic revolution. The state power, if not directed against the bourgeois, would certainly be directed against the workers and peasants!
History is Presenting the Question of Power Starkly
While the Maoists are busy in forging the unwarranted collaboration between hostile classes, under the slogan of a Republic, history is presenting the question of power starkly - who will rule Nepal, the bourgeois or the proletariat? The simplistic Maoist slogan of a democratic republic does not present any answer to this. The dispute is over the role and character of this democratic republic. Would it be realised in opposition to, or in conjunction with, the bourgeois? A republic under proletarian dictatorship or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? The fate of the revolution is bound to this issue. The Maoists show their utter incapacity to resolve this issue in a revolutionary way. The bourgeois, however, is unable to come to power unless and until the revolution itself is betrayed, its flames are put down and power is surrendered voluntarily by those at the head of the revolution.
The present turn in the politics of Nepal, presents only a caricature of the February revolution in Russia in 1917, with no October overturn in the offing, in the absence of a Bolshevik opposition. We will soon witness the same surrender of power by its Menshevik leadership, before the local reaction and imperialist bourgeoisie. We will find this leadership zealously defending the bourgeois state, law and property against the people. Unable to advance the revolution even an inch further, with every passing day, the Maoists would find themselves more and more trapped inside their false web of bourgeois democracy. Either the Maoists abandon the working people becoming open apologists of bourgeois democracy or the working people becoming more and more disillusioned, will eventually be forced to look for an alternative to the Maoists.
From the point of view of the proletariat, the abolition of the monarchy is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. The Maoists/Stalinists, the epigones of Leninism, are seeking collaboration with the bourgeois in Nepal, as they head towards a bourgeois republic in complete betrayal of the mandate both of the 2006 uprising and the recent elections. The proletariat must organise itself to take power in Nepal with the aid of the poor peasantry and thus execute the mandate by overturning both the monarchy and bourgeois. To be able do this, it needs first to detach itself from the influence of the Stalinist/Maoist leadership and its false perspective. What is needed is a genuine Marxist opposition within the Nepalese Communist movement capable of gaining the ear of the rank and file with the aim of establishing a genuine Leninist policy, armed with the perspective of permanent revolution, instead of the old Stalinist/Maoist outlook that seeks class-conciliation instead of class struggle.
Delhi, May 28, 2008
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, 30 May 2008
The newly elected Constituent Assembly in Nepal, a fallout of the April uprising of 2006, is now in motion. It has made a formal declaration of an end to the monarchy, with a ‘graceful' exit for it.
As a system of governance, the monarchy had already lost all its steam since the great people's uprising of April 2006, while the forces of medieval reaction ‑ hitherto protected under the wings of the monarchy in Nepal ‑ were already adapting with Nepali bourgeois rule. Because of this, the abolition of the monarchy in Nepal as a state system, and the consequent emergence of a republic, has but a limited significance. This is in sharp contrast to the bourgeois overturns in 19th century Europe, where the emergence of bourgeois republics, represented a turn in world history. In 21st century Nepal, such a republic (although a step forward in bourgeois democratic terms) is of no real meaning and of no practical use for the people of Nepal, unless and until it puts power directly in the hands of the working class and through it the peasantry. Power would be meaningless until it is directed against the bourgeois.
Old school of Stalinism and Maoism
Unfortunately, in Nepal, the Communist leadership, miseducated in the old schools of Stalinism and Maoism, neither has any perspective nor is ready to lead the proletariat to take power. It instead, seeks the power in collaboration with bourgeois/landlords. Its failure to comprehend the true mechanics of revolution in Nepal has resulted in missing the great opportunities to accomplish the revolution, which had presented them again and again.
The great tide of revolutionary upsurge of April 2006 against the old bourgeois-monarchist regime in Nepal receded after the leadership failed to take that historic movement to its logical conclusion - the destruction of monarchy and seizure of power by the proletariat. Revolution was thus forced to pull back from the threshold of victory, with meagre concessions offered by the monarchy. Failing to lead the rebellious people to a successful revolution and consolidate the power of the proletariat (backed by the peasantry), the disoriented leadership, instead, presented the concessions as a big achievement for revolution. This passive and reformist policy of the Communist leadership resulted in a rapid receding of the revolutionary mood of the people in Nepal. Instead of realising its error and preparing for a new wave, the leadership has since taken an about urn, more and more, towards legalism and class collaboration, adapting itself to the ebb in the revolution that they themselves were responsible for.
However, the April 2006 upsurge has left its imprint on the history of Nepal. The importance of the upsurge lies not in the concessions it succeeded in wresting from the hands of the monarchy, as both the bourgeois and the Maoist leaders both perceive, but in the fact that it illuminated a new path through the action of the proletariat in key cities, once again endorsing the bankruptcy of Stalinism/Maoism. What could not be achieved in more than ten years of armed struggle was achieved as if by a magic wand in 10 days of a general strike of the proletariat. This uprising had virtually shaken the monarchist regime from its roots. There lies now a whole gulf between the new Nepal as it emerged after April 2006 and the old one as it existed before the uprising.
The high tide of revolution during upsurge of April 2006, forced a radical rupture between the old and new Nepal. The monarchy lost all its strength and legitimacy, after its armed forces tried their best to drown the uprising in blood, but were paralysed before the might of the rebellious people, leaving the monarchy in the lurch. During the uprising, for the first time, the urban proletariat marked its entry onto the political scene as a class, turning the seat of monarchist-bourgeois power ‑ the city of Kathmandu ‑ into the centre stage of revolutionary drama. This put various hypotheses of revolution in Nepal to the test, first among them the formulations of Maoism and its slogan of the "Chinese road", and refuted them through living revolutionary practice. It refuted the myth spread by the Maoist leaders about the weakness of the working class in the backward countries, where the peasantry constitutes a majority. It showed beyond all doubt that despite its small numerical strength, the proletariat is fully capable of taking the leadership of the revolution by organising itself into a vanguard detachment of the peasant mass, independent of the bourgeois and in opposition to it.
All the forces of old Nepal - the Monarchy, the forces of medievalism led by it and the bourgeois ‑ trembled before this upsurge. Although the upsurge was spontaneous, demonstrating the political immaturity of the working class, it brought forward the immense political energy latent within the proletariat, which on its own had embarked upon the threshold of a political overturn, and if it was forced to retreat, it was only due to the absence of a true leadership.
What prevented the Communists from Taking Power?
What stood between monarchy and the people? What prevented the Communists from taking power at the head of the working class, aided by the peasantry? Practically nothing! But the Communist leadership in Nepal, miseducated in the school of Maoism/Stalinism, refused to take the power through the working class and in opposition to the bourgeois, as it was prepared to take power only in alliance with the bourgeois and not against it. They had planned to execute a bourgeois-democratic revolution, through a "bloc of all classes", with the bourgeois as a partner. Neither were they willing, nor ready to lead the revolution against the bourgeois. The bourgeois, in its turn was not ready to wipe out the monarchy.
The false leadership of the Maoist/Stalinist parties, thus found itself in a dilemma and a virtual political crisis during the upsurge of 2006. All of these Communist Parties and groups in Nepal at that time were closely collaborating with bourgeois parties in one way or another. The upsurge suddenly confronted them with the question of taking power by wiping out the monarchy, for which the stage was all set by history. But firstly the bourgeois parties like the Nepali Congress, having one of their heads faced towards the monarchy, did not at all wish its destruction, especially at the height of revolution. Moreover, the destruction of the monarchy through a radical onslaught of the masses would have immediately posed the question of power, with hostile classes facing each other - bourgeois/landlords on one side and the proletariat/peasantry on the other.
The bourgeois would have had to be confronted in a direct and decisive struggle for power, if the upsurge was to culminate in a successful revolution. The Communist parties, who rubbing shoulders until the previous evening with the bourgeois parties, were not ready for this eventuality and thus found themselves in a dilemma. They could not have turned the tables overnight against the bourgeois, calling its destruction. They therefore voluntarily let the historical opportunity pass and missed the shot. The line of collaboration with the bourgeois in a "bloc of all classes", the "two stage theory of revolution" and the slogan of the "Chinese road" proved fatal for the revolution. The false perspective of the Maoist leaders thus resulted in political paralysis of the revolution. The proletariat had to return from threshold of power, which it could have taken in a revolutionary manner.
Due to their incorrect perspective, regarding the role and correlation of social classes and consequently the nature and dynamics of revolution in Nepal, the Maoist leaders neither could feel the pulse in April 2006 nor could catch it in their own electoral victory in April 2008.The election victory, only but a meek and belated echo of the revolutionary thunder of April 2006, came as a surprise to the Maoists themselves, in the same way as the upsurge of April 2006 had taken them by surprise. The irony is that the Maoists are still demonstrating their political bankruptcy, while failing to understand the true meaning and spirit of the electoral mandate of 2008.
The Nature and Meaning of the Mandate
The Maoists, as with their failure in estimating the nature and depth of the uprising of April 2006, have also failed to assess the nature and meaning of the mandate given to them by the workers and toilers of Nepal. The Maoists pose this verdict as a vindication of their incorrect politics, which in fact is a mandate to remove not only the monarchy and feudalism, but also to cross over to more real and fundamental tasks, which are socialist in nature, and thus they fall beyond the domain of democratic revolution. But the Maoists have taken it upon themselves to stand as guarantors against this "cross over", which is the real essence of Maoism at work in Nepal today.
The Maoists are translating the mandate in a spirit opposite to and abrogative of the mandate itself. They refuse to accept this mandate for a revolutionary stride forward and to consolidate the power in the hands of the proletariat with the support of the peasantry. Instead, they are interpreting this mandate, in the first place as a "fractured mandate", thereby proposing a broad front of all political forces in the country to carry out the mandate, i.e. to build and consolidate a bourgeois democratic Republic. Instead of taking the mandate for a complete overturn, not only of the monarchy, but the bourgeoisie as well, the Maoists are seeking to perfect their alliance with the bourgeois and are planning a peaceful capitalist development in Nepal, in conjunction with it, for at least a decade to come. Refusing to see the complete adaptation between capitalism and medievalism in present-day Nepal, the Maoists falsely attribute a role to the bourgeois in the struggle against the monarchy and propose an alliance with it. Instead of marching towards a proletarian overturn in a direct fight against the bourgeois, they are striving to forge a union with it, basing themselves upon the bogus doctrine of the "two stage" revolution - presently democratic (bourgeois!), and only at some point in the future socialist. Their limited programme does not go beyond the contours of a bourgeois republic, and they are preparing a roadmap which is essentially capitalist in nature. At a juncture in history when the forces of revolution have sufficiently matured to advance against both the monarchy and the bourgeois, the Maoists are capitulating, pinning their hopes upon the bourgeois, instead of directing the revolution against it.
With a bright hope for a radical change in their lives, the people in Nepal have hailed and celebrated the electoral defeat of the pro-establishment parties, both royalists and bourgeois. But the Maoist leadership has already set about drowning these hopes, by seeking an alliance with the bourgeois/landlords and their parties.
Reassuring the Bourgeoisie and Landlords
Immediately following the election result, Prachanda declared, "In this 21st Century we need the cooperation of everyone for development". He further added that the "CPN(M) is ready to work with all parties to write the Constitution".
In an interview to the Nepal Times, Baburam Bhattarai clearly added further clarification:
"When we say we want to end feudalism, we don't mean we want to end private ownership. Our revolution in our language is a bourgeois democratic revolution. In other words collectivisation, socialisation or nationalisation are not our current agenda. We like to assure everyone that once Maoists come to power, the investment climate will be even more favourable. There should not be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that".
Both Prachanda and Bhattarai met the Federation of Nepal Chambers of Commerce and Industry, for more than two hours, wherein they called upon the capitalists:
"Within 10 years let us work magic for economic revolution and mesmerise the whole world. We will allow private investment and promote foreign investment".
Doubly reassuring the capitalists they told the gathering:
"Do not lose confidence. We are not going to capture industries. We need your cooperation to gain economic prosperity."
Amidst applause from the elite gathering, Prachanda declared: "We are Maoists of [the] 21st century", and repelling all apprehensions of those present, he added further: "A strong hand is needed to build a strong nation".
Both Prachanda and Bhattarai in their speeches cited South Korea and Malaysia as models of how the investment would be encouraged in Nepal. When asked about China, Prachanda praised it for elimination of the feudal system "that established a solid foundation for economic growth". He claimed that, "once we restructure the state and involve the private sector, it will be possible to achieve that economic growth".
On 30th April Baburam Bhattarai asserted that Nepal would see an economic revolution in the next 10 years. The Maoist leaders then deliberated with top World Bank officials about the future development plans in Nepal, pledging that bourgeois interests would be protected under their rule. They have offered immunity to the King along with his properties, if he abdicates voluntarily, which after the revolt of 2006, is a big concession to the King.
Dousing the Flames of Revolution
The false Stalinist/Maoist leadership is engaged now in dousing the flames of revolution that may have survived after the debacle of April 2006. While hobnobbing with the local and foreign capitalists, the Maoist leadership is openly calling for a change in the role of the Communist Youth, i.e. the Young Communist League (YCL). Prachanda has assured the capitalists that the YCL would disengage from its past to assume "constructive" activities. The YCL, representing the younger generation of revolutionaries in Nepal, would become the first casualty of political manoeuvre of this false leadership, which has already taken a turn towards reformism. To facilitate the smooth and peaceful participation in bourgeois power, the Maoist leadership has shown its readiness to return the properties confiscated during the last decade. It has agreed even to the dissolution of the armed militias under its control.
Instead of taking power through the direct action of workers and peasants, the Maoists are all set to assume the power through a "bloc of all classes", including the capitalists, both local and foreign. The blueprint they have for development of Nepal in the next decade to come is essentially based upon a nationalist perspective, to be executed in conjunction with the bourgeois, in sharp contrast to the dictatorship of the proletariat and its internationalist perspective. For the present, bourgeois property will remain sacrosanct and it will be protected, and capitalism will be developed. These Maoist leaders, these petit bourgeois revolutionaries, are practically surrendering all power to the bourgeois, converting themselves into a "bureaucratic crust" representing this power. This they do in the name of "democratic revolution", which they strictly counterpose against the "Socialist revolution" leaving the latter to take place only in some distant unspecified future.
However, paradoxically, there exists a peculiar overlapping of democratic and socialist tasks in the revolution in Nepal. The monarchy and bourgeois are integrated here with each other in a very close and inseparable manner, as the big bourgeois property and industry in Nepal belongs to members of the royal family, either the Shahs or Ranas, alongside with the feudal estates that they possess. The Nepali bourgeois, of which the royal family constitutes an upper crust, is amalgamated on the one hand with medievalism in Nepal, while on the other it is directly subjugated to world capitalism. Thus, any alliance with the bourgeois in Nepal would retard the struggle on both fronts. The revolution in Nepal cannot advance even an inch in alliance with the bourgeois. Revolution can advance only as a two-pronged sword one of whose edges is always directed against the bourgeois. Political alliances with the bourgeois as a partner would only more and more deepen the political crisis. The bourgeois republic in Nepal is a fiction in which neither the bourgeois nor the proletariat has any faith or interest.
Any sort of arrangement with the monarchy or the bourgeois would thus be outright reactionary and an open betrayal of the revolution. Merely a formal abolition of feudal titles, instead of the destruction of feudalism and above all the monarchy, would not bring any change in social relations in Nepal. Not able to conceive this ABC of Marxism, the Maoists are treading the path of class conciliation, instead of class struggle. While insulating the capitalist property against its invasion by the revolution, the Maoists are deceitfully paying lip service to the cause of the destruction of feudalism in Nepal, ignoring the fact that the two are inseparably amalgamated with each other.
Symbolic Abolition of the Monarchy
The fact is that while the bourgeois preferred the ceremonial survival of the monarchy, the Maoists want its symbolic abolition. They seem to be two sides of the same coin. The past of the Stalinist/Maoist parties in Nepal is tainted in this aspect. Their long association with the monarchy under King Birendra, is not a secret in Nepal. This opportunist striving for political leadership, both bourgeois and communist, in competing with each other for a place in the lap of the King, is sarcastically termed in political circles in Nepal as the "princely trend". They collaborated with the monarchy even against bourgeois democracy, when they should have taken the lead in the fight against the monarchy, and now that it is the moment to fight against bourgeois, they collaborate with it. If the Maoists have been able move against the monarchy in Nepal, it has only been under the immense pressure of the people and their own rank and file cadres.
The formal abolition of the monarchy is meaningless if it merely limited to the abolition of a few titles and privileges. The immediate programme of the revolution in Nepal is to remove the monarchy with all its political and social institutions, confiscate the properties of the Royals and destroy all feudal relations in the country. While executing this immediate programme, which of course would meet with fierce resistance from the forces of reaction in Nepal, above all from the bourgeois itself, the revolution must cross over to the destruction of bourgeois property as well, in an uninterrupted wave. This is the clear verdict of the recent elections.
The Maoist leaders refuse to understand and execute the revolutionary verdict. They are zealously striving to establish a bourgeois democracy and thereby arresting the revolution at the bourgeois democratic stage. Maoists fail to recognise that at the advent of the 21st century, bourgeois democracy, being devoid of all political energy, is incapable of presenting any viable alternative to the feudal regimes and it is only the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. genuine workers' democracy, which may successfully execute the programme of the revolution.
The Nepali Bourgeois Exhausted its Role Long Ago
The Nepali bourgeois had in fact already exhausted all its energies by 1958, i.e. within a decade of the armed struggle started by itself with the demands of a bourgeois parliamentary democracy in place of the monarchy, but which it openly betrayed by accepting and confiding in the constitution handed over by the monarch. It bargained away parliamentary democracy for a constitutional monarchy. The weak bourgeois miserably failed in taking the revolution even an inch further or to resolve any of the tasks of a democratic nature. The "revolution" of the bourgeois thus came to a halt over half a century ago. Neither can it be repeated, nor can there be a second bourgeois revolution now. Only a proletarian revolution can accomplish these leftover democratic tasks, as part of its uninterrupted revolution and not as a bourgeois-democratic revolution as our Maoists think. It is not parliamentary democracy, but the dictatorship of proletariat, supported by the peasantry, which is on the agenda.
The people have voted for the Maoists hoping that they would do away with the apparatus of exploitation and repression, but they seem to be betraying this faith, as they now propose to take power through an alliance with the bourgeois. One can see ‑ with no special effort ‑ that the plan of the Maoist leaders for the whole of the next decade includes everything for a bourgeois development of Nepal, but nothing for furthering and expanding the revolution, nothing for the workers and peasants of Nepal. What they failed to achieve at the height of the mass upheaval during the April 2006 upsurge, cannot be achieved through legal means under a constitutional bourgeois democracy.
The workers and the youth in Nepal, who had raised the banner of revolt against the monarchy in April 2006, with the slogans "We want the head of the King" and "It is we not the King who are the real power", and who supported the Maoists in gaining electoral victory, in the bright hope of radical changes, now wonder if this is what they had fought for. Enormous contradictions have erupted between the revolutionary potential that the situation offers and the very narrow programme with limited demands presented by the Maoists. The programme of the Maoists is based upon a nationalist perspective of national "progress" and national "unity", that is a "progress" essentially along capitalist lines and a "unity" between the workers/peasants on the one hand and the capitalists/landlords on the other.
Critical Juncture in History
At this critical juncture in history, when enormous revolutionary opportunities are presenting themselves in Nepal, the Maoists are singing the song of the "bloc of all classes" to appease the bourgeois/landlords of Nepal and the world capitalists. Instead of directing the revolution further against the landlord/capitalist bloc, and expropriating the expropriators of the toiling people ‑ something for which they got a clear mandate in the elections ‑ the Maoists are making lucrative offers of collaboration to local and foreign reactionaries, even inviting them to share power. It is not without reason that the strategists in the US have already started discussing if and how the Maoist-led coalition government can be utilised for furthering US designs in the region!
The Maoists received this unprecedented vote, not because of their present political perspective ‑ as is the general perception, but which history will very soon prove out and out incorrect ‑ but because as an accident of history they happened to occupy the whole spectrum of the "extreme left" in Nepal, in the absence of a genuine proletarian party. This explains how and why the Maoists in the recent unfolding of events failed to foresee or comprehend this victory in advance, a victory which appeared to them only as a bolt from the blue, and why they fail even now to understand the meaning of the mandate.
As far as the stealing of the march by the CPN(M) over the other Stalinist/Maoist factions is concerned, the same has to be understood by the fact that while all the other factions had remained inside the old parliament, thus having their opportunism exposed very soon in their day to day activities, the CPN(M) although in essence it relied on the very same politics, escaped this fate, as it had boycotted parliament for a long time. With this advantage over the other factions, the CPN(M) could secure an advantage over them, and consolidate a big electoral victory in its favour. It is however clear that this vote is not an endorsement for the opportunist politics of the Maoists, with all its zig-zags, but is a radical vote for extreme left policies, with a clear mandate to carry forward the revolution. This pattern of voting clearly demonstrates the severity and depth of the social and political crisis in Nepal, to which the programme of the Maoists of revolution by stages - now democratic and later socialist ‑ is no match. The Maoists, at the very threshold, refuse to understand and execute the mandate in this spirit. Instead of carrying forward the revolution, they have started to apply brakes to the revolution, depriving it of its class essence. The Maoists conceive the question of the abolition of the monarchy as if it affects all the classes in Nepal in the same way and as if all the classes are equally interested in it, thereby depriving it of its class essence.
Workers and peasants are not going to achieve anything by proclamations of a "Republic". Such proclamations become meaningless without power being firmly in the hands of the workers, followed and supported by the peasantry. People have not given a mandate for a bourgeois republic to be realised through the bogus formula of the "bloc of all classes". The mandate cannot be understood in simplistic arithmetical terms of proportionate votes to parties representing different social interests. To understand the mandate one must have a correct assessment of the nature of revolution and the role of different classes within it, which presents itself in algebraic fashion. The perception of the Maoists that the "people have voted for different parties to work together for the development of Nepal" is not only incorrect but outright bogus. There is a historic and unprecedented swing of the political pendulum in favour of the forces of the revolutionary left, which means a forcible overthrow of all the exploiters, one after the other. The mandate is for the abandonment of the bogus idea of a bourgeois republic. The mandate is against the perspective of "stage-ism", against compartmentalisation of democratic and socialist stages of the revolution and essentially in favour of a dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the peasantry. But the Maoists, in the absence of a revolutionary mindset, fail to understand this mandate, and take it as a mandate for peaceful bourgeois development in Nepal, with the cooperation of all.
The course of political development in Nepal is pushing the Communists to take power through the proletariat and as a proletarian dictatorship, but the Maoists are not prepared to take it and are willingly wasting the opportunity, surrendering power to the bourgeois, clearing the road for capitalist development. Misinterpreting the mandate, the Maoists refuse to carry it out against the enemies of the people. Instead of taking it as a mandate to accomplish the revolution, the Maoists have taken it as one for a peaceful collaboration of the classes. They are out to invite everybody, from the bourgeois Nepali Congress to the CPN-UML, to form a bloc with them to run the country peacefully and on the path of bourgeois development. They are clearly heading towards open class collaboration with the bourgeois, instead of its outright expropriation.
Inventing a Revolutionary Bourgeois in Nepal
The Maoists wish to execute the revolution according to their blueprint of a "two stage revolution" and for this they invent a revolutionary bourgeois in Nepal - the Nepali Congress etc. etc. ‑ as a collaborator and as a pledge for a capitalist growth of Nepal for at least one decade to come!
The Stalinist/Maoist parties in Nepal, whether it be the CPN-Maoist or the UML or other small parties, all share politically this common perspective of "stage-ism", i.e. the bogus Menshevik "two stage theory", which was discarded long ago by the February and October revolutions in Russia in 1917 and that since then has repeatedly been refuted by revolutionary experience in different countries. Based upon the compartmentalisation between the "democratic" and "socialist" tasks of the revolution, and adopted later by the Comintern under Stalin, this line has proved a virtual trap to arrest the revolution at the bourgeois democratic stage for an indefinite period. It serves to disorient and demoralise the proletariat, pushing the revolution to ebb, reinforcing and strengthening the bourgeois and ultimately losing power to it. This is exactly what happened in China, Spain, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Chile, Nicaragua and other parts of the world, wherever this theory of revolution in stages was applied. Everywhere it proved disastrous for revolution, and resulted in defeat for the masses. With this common perspective, shared among all of them, all the Stalinist/Maoist communist parties in Nepal aspire to a bourgeois-democratic revolution, which according to their dreams would establish "a democratic power shared by all classes, for a period. Staring out from this common political platform, on which they do not have any dispute among them, these parties take to different routes to execute this Menshevik programme. While all the others took the parliamentary road, the Maoists took to the armed struggle, but only to establish the selfsame bourgeois democratic regime in Nepal, cherished by all of them.
Shocked and moved by the immense revolutionary energy generated by the upsurge of April 2006, of which the cities and the urban proletariat were the epicentres, and which successfully demonstrated the limitations of partisan warfare in rural Nepal, without the leadership of the city proletariat, the Maoists reverted back to the cities, but only to reinforce their alliance with the bourgeois/landlords and their parties such as the Nepali Congress. This backtracking of the Maoists to the cities in the wake of the April uprising, abandoning the partisan struggle in the rural areas, deflates all the boasting about the April upsurge coming about as the result of ten years of partisan war. The upsurge came, in fact, as a refutation of the Maoist strategy, which they termed as "Chinese road".
This common perspective of "stage-ism" and the common goal of "bourgeois democracy" is the real political platform of the Stalinist/Maoist parties of the old type, who dominate the political scene in Nepal for the time being. None of these parties attempts to answer the discourse on real and fundamental issues of politics and instead raise issues of secondary and tactical importance only, to draw the political lines. The Maoists focus their disputes around tactical issue such as the forms of struggle, falsely counterposing them to each other ‑ armed action vs. parliamentary action ‑ while in essence they all carry out the same political line of class collaboration, whether through parliament or through partisan struggle.
No Fundamental Difference Between Different Maoist Trends
The Maoists had parted their ways from the unified CPN, criticising its leadership as renegade and revisionist, mainly for its participation in parliamentary politics. They immediately proposed armed struggle of the peasantry as an alternative strategy. This strategy was, however, changed after April 2006 uprising, but the political perspective of Maoism - the "two stage theory" and the "bloc of various classes", was retained. The Maoists did not differ with the then CPN on any of the political positions or fundamental standpoints, but raised disputes on the tactical aspects, subsidiary to the main strategic issues.
The 2006 upsurge, however, compelled the Maoists to change their tactics, to shift the focus of their work from the rural areas to the cities, even contrary to the preaching of Maoism. Prachanda said in an interview in 2006, that in any event they would not return to the villages to restart the armed struggle. Similarly, in 2007, CP Gajurel told a press conference that a city-based revolution was in the offing in Nepal. Yet the Maoists failed to change their fundamental political perspectives and retained it in all fundamental particulars. Still they continue to refuse to open their eyes to the futility of their old Stalinist/Maoist perspective of "revolution in stages" and "bloc of various classes", thereby diminishing the role of the proletariat and instead artificially carving out a role for the bourgeois in the revolution. They grasped the importance of action in the cities and the futility of rural based warfare, in wilful and clear deviation from the conventional "path" of Maoism, but their failure to understand the nature of the revolution in backward countries, and the role and attitude of the bourgeois and proletariat within it, made them cling to their prejudices about the bourgeois and its parliamentarism, instead of making preparations for a proletarian overturn in Nepal.
Now the question arises as to how this bogus recipe of "two stage theory" and of "bloc of all classes", laced with the gloomy dreams of the growth of capitalism, will be swallowed by the workers and poor peasantry in Nepal and why they should wait for another 10 years to come. Here comes into play the Prachanda doctrine, "a strong hand to build a strong nation". This strong hand would punch the proletariat and the peasantry, if they refuse to swallow the recipe of capitalist development prepared by the Maoists. Workers and peasants in Nepal will soon find that the Maoists will be playing the role of a policemen standing as a guarantee for the protection of bourgeois property in Nepal, as they have pledged time and again.
As apologists of the Menshevik theory of "stage-ism", the Maoists are revealing themselves as red lieutenants of the bourgeois/landlords. The power in their hands, sooner rather than later, will turn into a bureaucratic apparatus for crushing the revolutionary proletariat and peasantry, which in any case would not confine itself to the "democratic" stage of revolution even for months, not to say of a decade, and would strive to carry forward the revolution by crossing over the narrow limits of the bogus programme of the Maoists' democratic revolution. The state power, if not directed against the bourgeois, would certainly be directed against the workers and peasants!
History is Presenting the Question of Power Starkly
While the Maoists are busy in forging the unwarranted collaboration between hostile classes, under the slogan of a Republic, history is presenting the question of power starkly - who will rule Nepal, the bourgeois or the proletariat? The simplistic Maoist slogan of a democratic republic does not present any answer to this. The dispute is over the role and character of this democratic republic. Would it be realised in opposition to, or in conjunction with, the bourgeois? A republic under proletarian dictatorship or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? The fate of the revolution is bound to this issue. The Maoists show their utter incapacity to resolve this issue in a revolutionary way. The bourgeois, however, is unable to come to power unless and until the revolution itself is betrayed, its flames are put down and power is surrendered voluntarily by those at the head of the revolution.
The present turn in the politics of Nepal, presents only a caricature of the February revolution in Russia in 1917, with no October overturn in the offing, in the absence of a Bolshevik opposition. We will soon witness the same surrender of power by its Menshevik leadership, before the local reaction and imperialist bourgeoisie. We will find this leadership zealously defending the bourgeois state, law and property against the people. Unable to advance the revolution even an inch further, with every passing day, the Maoists would find themselves more and more trapped inside their false web of bourgeois democracy. Either the Maoists abandon the working people becoming open apologists of bourgeois democracy or the working people becoming more and more disillusioned, will eventually be forced to look for an alternative to the Maoists.
From the point of view of the proletariat, the abolition of the monarchy is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. The Maoists/Stalinists, the epigones of Leninism, are seeking collaboration with the bourgeois in Nepal, as they head towards a bourgeois republic in complete betrayal of the mandate both of the 2006 uprising and the recent elections. The proletariat must organise itself to take power in Nepal with the aid of the poor peasantry and thus execute the mandate by overturning both the monarchy and bourgeois. To be able do this, it needs first to detach itself from the influence of the Stalinist/Maoist leadership and its false perspective. What is needed is a genuine Marxist opposition within the Nepalese Communist movement capable of gaining the ear of the rank and file with the aim of establishing a genuine Leninist policy, armed with the perspective of permanent revolution, instead of the old Stalinist/Maoist outlook that seeks class-conciliation instead of class struggle.
Delhi, May 28, 2008
RENEGADE EYE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)