Lahore Terrorist Mayhem Shows Crisis of Pakistani State

By our correspondent in Lahore
Monday, 30 March 2009

At half past eight this morning (March 30) terrorists used machine guns and grenades to launch a savage attack on a police training academy in Manawan, on the outskirts of Lahore. The police and special forces remain locked in pitched battle with the attackers who are hidden inside various buildings at the site, as emergency services are scrambling to evacuate the wounded to nearby hospitals.


Frictions are occuring between the two allies as the war in Afganistan intensifies. Photo by travlr on Flickr.

According to private television channels at least 20 policemen are dead and 150 injured. Two militants have also been killed according to Rangers personnel. “The number of killed is at least 20,” police sub inspector Amjad Ahmad told AFP outside the police training ground in Manawan. However, given the murderous crossfire as police attempted to flush out the terrorists inside the building, the death count may turn out to be much higher.

The incident took place as trainees were participating in a morning parade. Eyewitness accounts estimate some 10 militants carried out the attack, and at least 11 explosions have been heard so far. According to reports, some of the attackers entered the academy wearing police uniforms.

The location of the attack is significant, since Manawan is close to the road that leads to the Indian border. Clearly, the implication is meant to be drawn that the hand of India is behind this latest outrage. In the same way, some sections here tried to pin the blame for the recent killings of Sri Lankan cricketers (also in Lahore) on India, allegedly as retaliation for the Mumbai atrocity.

However, there is a far more likely explanation, and it points an accusing finger at a source far nearer to home. Yesterday the Pakistan authorities conveyed their “concerns” through diplomatic channels over certain aspects of the new policy for the region announced by President Barack Obama on Friday.

“We will speak to them (the United States) on issues of concern in subsequent diplomatic negotiations,” the President’s spokesman Farhatullah Babar told the Dawn on Saturday. A similar impression was given by senior officials of the foreign office, who said the concerns would not go unnoticed and would be taken up at an “appropriate level”.

What did Obama announce that so worries Islamabad? The US President announced several incentives, including an increase in aid to Pakistan, the passage of legislation on the reconstruction opportunity zones and a commitment to democracy in the country, but at the same time he was quite ominous in his tone when he categorically said that there would be no “blank cheques” for Pakistan.

What does this mean? It means that, although Washington sees Pakistan as a vital piece in its strategy to fight the “war on terror” in Afghanistan, it is becoming increasingly frustrated at the ambiguous role of the Pakistan authorities and in particular the role of the Pakistan secret services (the ISI), a shadowy state within a state, which is well known to have close links with al Qaeda and the Taliban and is secretly protecting and encouraging terrorist organizations for its own sinister purposes.

The response of the Pakistan foreign office was guarded because this is an explosive issue and one that lies at the heart of the crisis in the Pakistan state. Sources in the foreign office stated: “There are pretty big problems in the policy about which our leadership is not speaking.” They have good reason to keep silent!

American frustration was shown by recent declarations by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who urged Pakistan's powerful intelligence service to cut contacts with extremists in Afghanistan, which he called an “existential threat” to Pakistan itself. Gates was merely saying what everybody has always known: that Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence has had links with jihadi terrorist groups “for a long time, as a hedge against what might happen in Afghanistan if we were to walk away or whatever,” as he told Fox News Sunday.

“What we need to do is try and help the Pakistanis understand these groups are now an existential threat to them and we will be there as a steadfast ally for Pakistan,” Gates said. “They can count on us and they don't need that hedge,” he said, citing the ISI's links specifically to the Al Qaeda-linked Haqqani militant network and to the forces of Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

The Pentagon chief's comments came after President Barack Obama on Friday put Pakistan at the centre of the fight against al Qaeda with a new strategy to commit thousands more troops and billions of dollars to the Afghan war.

“He clearly understands this is a very tough fight and that we're in it until we're successful, that al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the United States and that we are in no danger of either Afghanistan or the western part of Pakistan being a base for Al Qaeda,” Gates added.

America is Losing in Afghanistan

It is now an open secret that the war in Afghanistan is going badly. Western casualties are constantly rising. Obama is trying to extricate the US forces from Iraq in order to reinforce the US military presence in Afghanistan. Asked about a New York Times report that US military commanders had pressed Obama for even more troops, the defense secretary said: “The president has approved every single soldier that I have requested of him. […] And the reality is there already are a lot of troops there. This will bring us, when all is said and done, to 68,000 troops plus another 35,000 or so Europeans and other partners.”

Obama is now exerting intense pressure to extract more troops from its unwilling European allies. Washington is also demanding more civilian experts and police trainers. But no matter how many troops are sent to Afghanistan, the likelihood of victory remains a mirage. With every bomb dropped on an Afghan village the hatred of the foreign invader grows more intense. The government of Kabul is seen as a puppet government of collaborators and corrupt gangsters. On the other hand, the Taliban have an endless supply of recruits from Pakistan, plenty of money from opium smuggling and secure havens in the tribal areas across the border with Pakistan.

This explains the public attacks on the ISI from Washington, which have provoked angry denials from the Pakistan State Security. The fact is that the ISI was actively encouraged by Washington to support al Qaeda and the Taliban in the past, when these reactionary bandits were used to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan. This encouraged sections in the tops of the Pakistan army (and especially the ISI) in the belief that they would have a free hand in Afghanistan, which, in effect, would be under Pakistan’s control. They developed the notorious theory of “defence in depth”, which meant that Afghanistan would serve Pakistan as a kind of fallback position in the event of another war with India (a subject these elements are constantly obsessed with).

Ever since the US imperialists have changed the line and declared war on their former allies, al Qaeda and the Taliban, the ISI and other reactionary elements in the Pakistan General Staff have not concealed their displeasure. They have never abandoned the theory of “defence in depth”, nor their ambitions in Afghanistan. They have never broken their links with al Qaeda and the Taliban, which are not motivated by religious fanaticism, but rather the fanaticism to get rich by dirty means.

As Pakistan’s economy collapses and the masses are faced with poverty and hunger, prominent citizens of Pakistan are growing fabulously rich on the proceeds of the black economy, especially the lucrative drug trade. The so-called Islamic fundamentalists are really gangsters and lumpens, linked to the drug mafia and transport mafia that trades in human misery. This is big business on a vast scale, which involves massive corruption that leads all the way up to the top – including the tops of the army. This is the cancer that is gnawing at the entrails of the Pakistan state and destroying it slowly from within. That is why Gates talks about an “existential problem”.

A few months ago, a Pakistani general, Ameer Faisal Alvi, a serving officer in the Pakistan army’s campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Tribal Areas of Waziristan, and head of the elite Special Services Group (Commandos), sent a letter to the Chief of Staff, general Pervaiz Ashraf Kayani, denouncing the fact that generals of the Pakistan army were actively collaborating with al Qaeda and the Taliban. As a result, he was dismissed from the army. After this, he sent another letter to the Chief of Staff, in which he named the generals concerned. It was an act of personal bravery for which he paid a high price. On November 26, 2008 he was murdered in broad daylight on the streets of Islamabad.

Splits in the State

This explains why the rulers of Pakistan are afraid to talk about certain matters. The rottenness of Pakistan capitalism has extended to the highest levels of the state, army and government, to the extent that it threatens complete breakdown. Last week a US think tank predicted that if something were not done soon, the state could break down in six months! All these events are a striking confirmation of the Marxist analysis of the state that was put forward in the recent congress of The Struggle.

The murder of Benazir Bhutto was an indication of the sinister forces at work in Pakistani society. The western media falsely portray this as the rise of “Islamic fundamentalism”, when in reality these terrorist organizations are small minority groups composed of lumpens and bandits manipulated by the powerful drug mafia and the state. Although it was a lumpen fanatic who pulled the trigger, the real murderers of Benazir Bhutto were the ISI. There is no doubt that the same people were behind the Mumbai atrocity and the killing of the Sri Lanka cricketers. And there is no doubt that the same invisible hand is behind today’s bloody events, which are meant as an answer to the threat from Washington.

The idea that the fundamentalists enjoy massive support in Pakistan society is a blatant lie and a slander against the people of Pakistan. These reactionary gangs were originally created by US imperialism under the brutal Zia dictatorship and were nurtured, financed, armed and trained by the Pakistan state. Without the backing of the ISI they are nothing. That is why the US imperialists are now demanding that the Pakistan government take action against the ISI.

This is very easy to say from the safety of an air-conditioned office in Washington, but not so easy to put into practice on the streets of Islamabad. The ISI is entrenched after decades of a pampered and privileged existence. It is linked by a thousand links with corrupt government officials and politicians at the highest level, to organized crime on a grand scale, to the drug and transport mafia, to the religious fanatics in the madrassas that turn out brainwashed fanatics prepared to act as the murderous instruments of reaction, and to the murky underworld of jihadi terrorism.

Another section of the state has different interests. They are in the pockets of US imperialism, whose interests they serve like a dog licking the hand of its master. They bow and scrape before their bosses in Washington, who treat Pakistan as if it were America’s backyard. The conflict at the heart of these two antagonistic wings of the ruling class is explained by antagonistic material interests.

As far as the working class of Pakistan is concerned, there is nothing to choose between these two rival groups of gangsters. The Pakistan Marxists will fight US imperialism and oppose its criminal actions in Afghanistan, Waziristan and Pukhtunkhwa. But we will do so with our own methods and under our own banner, which is not the black flag of fundamentalist reaction but the red flag of socialist revolution.

Only by taking power into their own hands can the working class overthrow the rotten, diseased state of the exploiters and build a new state – a democratic workers’ state in which the lives and destinies of the people will be determined by the masses themselves. That is the only way forward to lead Pakistan out of the present nightmare and into the realm of socialism and freedom.

Lahore, March 30, 2009

RENEGADE EYE

Crossing Borders with the Afro-Cuban All-Stars

Thank you Foxessa. for informing me about this situation.

By Larry Blumenfeld (The Village Voice)
Tuesday, March 24th 2009 at 3:04pm

When Juan de Marcos González brings his 14-piece Afro-Cuban All-Stars to Town Hall on March 28, they'll include residents of eight countries, from Mexico to Sweden, Spain to the United States. But none from Cuba. No musician living there (and planning to return) has played here since December 2003, when pianist Chucho Valdés headlined the Village Vanguard. After that, the Bush administration effectively shut down all U.S.-Cuba cultural exchanges.

González has contributed mightily to that cut-short exchange. Best known as the architect of the Buena Vista Social Club, he assembled that band with musicians drawn from the first edition of his All-Stars. (Their debut CD, A Toda Cuba Le Gusta, released simultaneously with Buena Vista's, was the better recording.) But he soon went his own way, turning down offers for more retro-styled recordings, or what he called "la onda de los viejitos" ("the fad of the old-timers"). He's been cleverly crossing stylistic boundaries with his latest batch of All-Stars ever since, blending traditional and contemporary Cuban sounds. His 40-city tour is equally resourceful in terms of border crossings: The band's members, all with roots in Cuba, have passports in other nations, thus sidestepping the rules that exclude Cuban musicians.



"This band is bringing a message," he says. "Cuba is here, independent of any politician or policy. Our music and our influence cannot be stopped. And it's time for the policy to catch up with the reality."

Such change may be afoot. Tucked into the recently approved Omnibus Appropriations Bill, despite vociferous objection by such hard-liners as New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, are provisions that liberalize travel for Americans to visit relatives in Cuba. However, the bill does so essentially by defunding the Treasury Department agencies that police such activity, which is different from legal sanction—besides, it expires in six months.

"But Mr. Obama is a smart guy," González adds. "He's going to open the doors wider, at least to cultural exchange."

To that end, the President's inbox holds the urging of more than a thousand noted artists, educators, and cultural leaders via signatures on a letter calling for, among other measures, the elimination of restrictions that prevent Americans from traveling to Cuba, and Cuban artists from performing in the United States. (See it at cubaresearch.info/cubaletter2009.) "I shouldn't have to ask permission of my government to travel anywhere," says Louis Head, co-founder of the U.S.-Cuba Cultural Exchange, which orchestrated the letter campaign. "Historically, cultural expression in the U.S. and Cuba are joined at the hip, and it's time to respect that vital connection."

"The letter is very important," Grammy-winning pianist Arturo O'Farrill told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! "For us to be denied access to this source of cultural sustenance is absolutely insane."

The "Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act" (H.R. 874 in the House and S. 428 in the Senate), a more effective and lasting option than the Omnibus add-on, is attracting a growing list of co-sponsors and, if passed, would permit all U.S. citizens unrestricted travel rights. That should allow, for instance, O'Farrill to realize his dream of bringing his Afro-Latin Orchestra to Cuba to perform the music composed by his father, Chico, in the home Chico left in 1958, for good.

Still, we need the door to swing open both ways, so that, as Alicia Alonso, director of the Ballet Nacional de Cuba, wrote in a 2007 open letter to American artists, "a song, a book, a scientific study, or a choreographic work are not considered, in an irrational way, a crime." González envisions bringing a 30-piece band to the U.S., adding such musicians as pianist David Alfaro, who lives in Cuba. No one should stop him.

Juan de Marcos González and the Afro-Cuban All-Stars play Town Hall March 28

RENEGADE EYE

Free Roxana Saberi

Iran said today that an Iranian-American journalist whose family have not heard from for three weeks was arrested for engaging in “illegal” activities because she continued to work after the Government revoked her press credentials.

Roxana Saberi, 31, who has reported from Tehran for the BBC and other news organisations, called her father in the United States on February 10, saying that she had been arrested for buying a bottle of wine.

"She called from an unknown place and said she’s been kept in detention,” Mr Saberi said from Fargo, North Dakota, where her family lives.

“She said that she had bought a bottle of wine and the person that sold it had reported it and then they came and arrested her,” he said, adding that the wine purchase was just an excuse to arrest her
Ms Saberi said that she had already been held for ten days, and called back moments later to say that she would be released in two more days. Neither her family in the US nor her friends in Tehran have heard from her since. Mr Saberi said that he was going public with the information because of fears for his daughter’s safety.


RENEGADE EYE

Northern Ireland: No Way Out Except Socialism

By Editorial Statement of the Socialist Appeal
Thursday, 19 March 2009

The recent fatal attacks on British Army and Police Service of Northern Ireland personnel by the Real and Continuity IRA came as a shock. They are the first in 12 years. There has been plenty of evidence over the past few months that they were being planned. The rumours were that the Real IRA were trying to force the hand of the Sinn Fein leaders, by obliging them to line up with the security forces and the Police and thus to demonstrate that they had sold out the Republican cause.


The 'armed struggle' failed. In fact it threw back the consciousness of the working class, dividing worker against worker.

The fact is, however, that the conditions which would result in these groups gaining anything from this are absent. The "armed struggle" failed to liberate one inch of land over 30 years. In fact it threw back the consciousness of the working class, dividing worker against worker, and gave the excuse for dozens of repressive laws and measures to be introduced. These laws can in fact be used against the working class, and the trade unions in particular.

These recent attacks have helped to create an environment in which anyone who disagrees with the Good Friday Agreement, can be tainted as "dissidents" and thus "terrorists", when the two things are not the same at all. There are among the Republican movement those who oppose that Agreement on a class basis and reject the idea of a return to the "armed struggle".

There was a huge war weariness, which resulted in the sham of the Stormont Assembly. Stormont is nothing more than a glorified local council. The underlying tensions and the problems and contradictions in Northern Irish society have if anything got worse over the past period. The huge economic development in the Republic had a certain effect on the economy, but the six counties in the North are more divided physically by the walls and barbed wire and sectarianism has been institutionalised with the Sinn Fein and Democratic Unionist Party, officially "representing" the Catholic and Protestant communities respectively.

The attacks reflect in a distorted and confused way the frustration of a layer of young people who don't see any other way out. Their tactics won't achieve a united Ireland in another 30 or even 300 years. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Provisional IRA was able to gain a sizeable echo among the Catholic Youth, because they were seen to be defending the communities from sectarian attacks and the British state. But even with significant support the Provisionals' campaign failed in its objectives.

The response to the attacks has been rapid and very revealing. It is very positive that the unions, under the pressure of the workers, called for demonstrations against a return to sectarian violence. Unfortunately, religious groups, MPs and ‘security forces' tried to appropriate these protests turning them into the ‘official' response. That must not be allowed to happen. That same establishment has been for centuries responsible for the oppression of workers of different denominations and the sectarian division in the North of Ireland.

For Marxists the key to transforming the situation is the organized working class. We recently saw thousands of workers from all denominations and backgrounds marching together in the South. When the workers move, there is no power on earth that can stop them.


The so-called 'Peace Wall' separates Protestants and Catholics in Belfast. Photo by a11sus on Flickr.

The conditions are maturing for the building of a mass movement against capitalism. The crisis of capitalism doesn't respect religious denomination or which side of the ‘peace walls' (that separate Protestants and Catholics in Belfast) you happen to live on. Unemployment is shooting through the roof. It's doubled in the South and the ripples of the economic nightmare there will not stop until they reach the North Antrim coast.

At a time when jobs, services, houses and health are all at risk, taking pot shots at the PSNI or the Army is a dangerous diversion. How many trade unionists and young people in the North were sitting glued to the pictures of the monster demonstration in Dublin last month? How many were sitting thinking "we should be doing that"? Now they have been sitting watching the TV news reports of the shootings wondering whether the clock has been turned back 20 years.

The ideas of Marxist internationalism provide a genuine alternative to the blind alley into which the working class in the North of Ireland has been driven for so long. We base ourselves on the organised strength of the working class in the trade unions and among the youth. It is only through fighting in the tradition of Connolly and Larkin that we can hope to bring down the partition and the so called peace walls. We stand for a united Socialist Ireland, linked in a voluntary federation to a Socialist Britain as part of a voluntary European and world Socialist Federation.

Sectarianism only serves to divide the working class. When in reality the conditions that Catholic and Protestant workers face mean that they have far more in common with each other than they could ever have with the bosses. That fact alone means that there is an alternative. But Marxism needs to win the arguments and show up the shortcomings of both Paisley and Adams. That means not simply waiting for things to happen or tail ending events. On the contrary, what is required is for all genuine Marxists in Ireland to come together and work towards the building of a force that can unlock the potential power and strength of the organised working class in the whole of the island.

RENEGADE EYE

Kiefer Sutherland Presents Mouseland

You know Kiefer Sutherland as the star of hit television show 24, or the son of actor Donald Sutherland. He is also grandson of the founder of the New Democratic Party Tommy Douglas. The NDP is Canada's labor party.

Kiefer presents with the help of his grandfather's words and Mouseland Players, a valuable political lesson.

RENEGADE EYE

El Salvador Elections March 15th 2009 Open Thread

On Sunday, March 15, there will be presidential electionsin El Salvador. An indication of the balance of forces can be seen in the size of the end of campaign rallies. The left wing FMLN gathered 250,000 people, one of the largest mobilisations in the country’s history. The mood was one of enthusiasm, hope and militancy, even though the bureaucracy did its best to turn the rally into a carnival. The right wing could not even fill the Cuscatlán stadium, and as it is always the case in these events, paid people to attend, forced civil servants to attend, as well as bringing popular music groups. Even with all this, the meeting was only about 50,000 strong. However the mood was very different. It was a very political meeting appealing to prevent the victory of “communism”, to defend “democracy and freedom”.

The right wing is seriously considering electoral fraud in order to “win” these elections, and there is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen on March 15 and the following days. The right wing parties are very discredited, but the ruling class is not sure that its interests will be safe with a FMLN government, even though the FMLN candidate and the leadership of the party have made repeated statements saying they will respect private property and will not move towards socialism. Neither the leadership of the FMLN nor Funes have prepared seriously to fight electoral fraud and have even signed an statement saying they will respect the electoral results. But the patience of the masses is running short and it is unlikely that the leadership will be able to contain the protests of the workers which are likely to be very militant and might acquire a revolutionary character.

UPDATE

RENEGADE EYE

Open Thread: Talk About What Is On Your Mind

CHARLIE CHAPLIN

I've been diverted by problems with Blogrolling. They returned into service, after being "hacked," with promises of being new and improved. The new Blogrolling is a site, where you have to pay to get rid of pop-ups, when you click on a link. I have almost 400 links to transfer.

Many of the blogs, that I had links to, over the years closed. It's sad in a way. Some blogs that linked to me, took the link down, probably as my politics got harder.

What book are you reading? Seen any movies?

Guilty pleasure?

Have a confession?

Is there a movie you loved, and everyone else hates?

How are you coping with the economic crisis?

It's open thread time.

RENEGADE EYE

Britain: Preparing For a Summer of Rage

By Fred Weston
Wednesday, 25 February 2009

High-ranking British police officers have expressed concern that the country may be facing an outburst of street protests. Superintendent David Hartshorn, head of the Metropolitan police's public order branch, and one of the highest ranking police officers in the country, in an interview with The Guardian newspaper, spoke of the possibility of riots like those that rocked the country in the 1980s, erupting later this year as people who lose their jobs, homes or savings become "footsoldiers" in a wave of violent mass protests.

The number of people who lost their homes in 2008 grew by more than 50%, hitting a 12-year high. Unemployment in the UK grew by 131,000 to 1.92 million between the months of September and November of last year. In December according to ILO figures the number had reached 1.971 million and is now clearly over the two million mark.

Every day newspaper headlines and the evening TV news list the latest jobs to go. While this is happening the government continues to throw billions at the banks, with no real effect on the economy in terms of defending jobs, boosting credit, easing up on mortgages and so on.

The workers affected by this crisis can see the glaring contradiction between how easily and quickly the government moves when a bank is facing crisis, and the stubborn refusal to intervene when companies are facing bankruptcy, the latest example being the van producer LDV.


British police are preparing for violent protests this summer as working class people take to the streets. Photo by Rich Lewis on Flickr.

Superintendent David Hartshorn refers to “middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year”. We have to consider this term “middle class” carefully. What does it mean? Does it mean small business people, small “owners of the means of production”, or the petit bourgeois, to use a Marxist term?

Partially yes, as many small business people are facing bankruptcy. Also, over the past period many people who would normally have worked for a boss were forced to become “self-employed”, when in reality their work still depended on the same boss, except that the boss doesn’t have to sack them, as he doesn’t formally employ them.

However, the term “middle class” here actually means a section of “wage labour” (another Marxist term), i.e. people who to earn a living have to work for someone else, the owner of the means of production who pays them a wage. In this sense, the overwhelming majority of the workforce is “wage labour”, and therefore “working class”.

When capitalism is booming and a significant section of this “wage labour” can earn a relatively high income they can feel that they are “middle class”, especially if their job involves working in an office, wearing a suit, and so on. But we as Marxists understand that this layer is, and always was, “working class”. Now that the crisis of capitalism is hitting hard those people who had illusions that they were “middle class” and so they are suddenly discovering that they are in fact “working class”.

So what our Superintendent is actually saying is that what we are facing later this year is a revolt of the working class, which will be joined by sections of the “petit bourgeois” as these become “proletarianised” as Marx would have put it, i.e. as they fall downwards into the working class.

The British police have carried out detailed studies of the behaviour of demonstrators in recent protests. What they have noticed is that the mood has changed into an angrier one than previously noticed. Protestors are increasingly "intent on coming on to the streets to create public disorder".


Mass protests, such as in Iceland, have made an impression on the British police who will be attempting to prevent similar events from occuring in Britain. Photo by Finnur Malmquist on Flickr.

The police are concerned that “viable targets” are the banks and the headquarters of multinational companies and finance houses, all seen by the public at large as mainly responsible for the present crisis.

The tops of the police also learn from what happens in other countries. The eruption of massive youth protests in Greece in December has not been lost on these people. They realise that what was behind the movement in Greece were the social conditions that have been created over decades, of extreme flexibilisation, casualisation of labour, low wages for the youth, and a general feeling of being in a dead end – the same conditions that afflict the youth in this country.

They have noted the sharp turn in events in a country like Iceland, which only one year ago was being described by the same Guardian newspaper as the best place to live in the world. Here the financial crisis has led to mass mobilisations and violent clashes on the streets. They have noted the big protests in France, the strikes in Italy, the recent huge demonstration in Ireland and the growing wave of worker militancy there. And most recently of course we have had the Lindsey dispute and a spate of similar strikes, strikes which have revealed a very high level of militancy of the British workers.

What happened at Lindsey has sent a clear signal to workers in other industries: militancy pays! In some cases what we are seeing is not a passive, defeatist attitude of workers faced with redundancy. On the contrary we are seeing workers balloting for strike action, as is the case on the railways, in the post office, in car plants such as BMW at Cowley. Even the Prison Officers are preparing for strike action!

It is obvious to anyone that this resurgence of union militancy in the context of a deep economic crisis affecting all layers of the working class is creating a potentially very explosive situation. According to the same Guardian article, intelligence reports indicate that “known activists” are preparing to “foment unrest”. As Hartshorn explained, "Those people would be good at motivating people, but they haven't had the 'footsoldiers' to actually carry out [protests]." Now that the economy is in deep crisis he fears that the “footsoldiers” will increase!

In the immediate future, the police are concerned about what may happen around the G20 summit in March, and they are preparing to mobilise big forces to meet any protests there. But it isn’t just about the G20 summit. What they are concerned about is a much more widespread wave of protest involving ordinary working people over a whole period of time.

In line with this goes a much more aggressive stance of the police in the latest protests. As one trade union activist has put it, “it’s getting very nasty out there”. The police are preparing to use the same methods they used against the British miners twenty years ago. And there is a logic in this. The bosses, the capitalists, the ruling class, the bourgeoisie cannot provide ordinary working people with jobs, decent income, a home, because their system is in deep crisis. Therefore they are preparing for violent confrontation with the people of this country.

The behaviour of the police during the recent Greek solidarity marches in London, the protests over the invasion of Gaza, or even the protest against the Kingsnorth power station in Kent last August is an indication of all this. In the case of the Kingsnorth power station they drafted in 1000 police officers, aided by helicopters and riot horses, with an overall cost of the operation of £5.9 million pounds and with 100 activists being arrested.

Notice the priorities they have. Close to six million pounds is spent on policing one protest, but when workers in industry demand the government spends money on saving their jobs they get not a penny! All this is having a profound effect on ordinary people’s understanding of the nature of the system we live in. A recent YouGov opinion poll has revealed that 73% of people fear a return of mass unemployment. The same poll revealed that 37% thought “serious social unrest” was likely in British cities in the coming period. A similar figure believes that the Army would be used to face rioting, as the recession gets deeper.

The police chiefs, the intelligence services, ministerial study groups and so on, study carefully what is happening deep down in society, particularly among the workers and youth. They can see what the Marxists can see: society is polarising along class lines. The two major classes, on the one hand the bourgeoisie, a tiny minority numerically, but which has at its service the state, with all its trappings, and on the other hand the working class, the huge majority of society, are lining up for battle. It will be a battle such that we have never seen in the whole history of capitalist society. The outcome of this battle will depend on the leadership of the working class. The one we have at the moment wishes for peace and tranquillity. It wants compromise with the bourgeoisie. It is living in the past. What is required is a leadership up to task of seriously leading the workers. That is what the Marxists are patiently and systematically working towards.

RENEGADE EYE

Incredible High School Musicians From Venezuela! Led by Gustavo Dudamel

The Teresa Carreño Youth Orchestra contains the best high school musicians from Venezuela's life-changing music program, El Sistema. Led here by Gustavo Dudamel, they play Shostakovich's Symphony No. 10, 2nd movement, and Arturo Márquez' Danzón No. 2.

RENEGADE EYE

Food and Blogging: The Series Continues

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.

Today the recipe comes from Seattle based blogger Premium T.. Premium T.. has been known to share DVDs with Citizen K. T. focuses her blog on poetry and literature.

Now The Main Event

Big Foot Cookies

I developed this when I was an owner of a bakery
called "Two Tartes." There was a demand for a breakfast cookie
so this is the result. The ethnicity is decidedly American.

1 cup white sugar
1 cup brown sugar
1 cup butter
2 eggs
1 T. vanilla

2 cups flour
2 cups rolled oats
1 t. salt
1 t. soda

2 cups crushed breakfast cereal -- I like to use Raisin Bran
1 cup chopped walnuts
1 cup dried cherries
1 cup dried apricots, roughly chopped

Cream sugars and butter, add eggs and vanilla. Mix well.
Combine dry ingredients, add to sugar/butter mixture. Hands work great
for this stage of mixing! Add cereal, nuts and fruit. Again, mix with hands.

Make giant cookies using anywhere from a half-cup to a full-cup measure.
Bake at 365 degrees for about twenty minutes.

RENEGADE EYE

The Academy Award 2009 Thread

Sunday February 22nd is Oscar time. My friends when I was in high school, were all aspiring theater people. I think of the Academy Awards as a big event.

My picks are in italics. I don't have opinions on every category.

BEST PICTURE

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Frost/Nixon

Milk

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

Best actor:

Richard Jenkins - THE VISITOR

Frank Langella - FROST/NIXON

Sean Penn - MILK

Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Best Actress

Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married

Angelina Jolie - Changeling

Melissa Leo - Frozen River

Meryl Streep - Doubt

Kate Winslet - The Reader

Best Supporting Actor

Josh Brolin - Milk

Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder

Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt

Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight

Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road

Best Supporting Acress

Amy Adams - Doubt

Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Viola Davis - Doubt

Taraji P Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler

Best Animated Feature Film

BOLT

KUNG FU PANDA

WALL-E

Best Art Direction

Changeling - James J. Murakami, Gary Fettis

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Donald Graham Burt, Victor J. Zolfo

The Dark Knight - Nathan Crowley, Peter Lando

The Duchess - Michael Carlin, Rebecca Alleway

Revolutionary Road - Kristi Zea, Debra Schutt

Best Cinematography

Changeling - Tom Stern

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Claudio Miranda

The Dark Knight - Wally Pfister

The Reader - Chris Menges, Roger Deakins

Slumdog Millionaire - Anthony Dod Mantle

Best Costume Design

Australia - Catherine Martin

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Jacqueline West

The Duchess - Michael O'Connor

Milk - Danny Glicker

Revolutionary Road - Albert Wolsky

Best Director

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - David Fincher

Frost/Nixon - Ron Howard

Milk - Gus Van Sant

The Reader - Stephen Daldry

Slumdog Millionaire - Danny Boyle

Best Feature Documentary

The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) - Ellen Kuras, Thavisouk Phrasavath

Encounters at the End of the World - Werner Herzog, Henry Kaiser

The Garden - Scott Hamilton Kennedy

Man on Wire - James Marsh, Simon Chinn

Trouble the Water - Tia Lessin, Carl Deal

Best Documentary Short Film

The Conscience of Nhem En - Steven Okazaki

The Final Inch - Irene Taylor Brodsky, Tom Grant

Smile Pinki - Megan Mylan

The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306 - Adam Pertofsky, Margaret Hyde

Best Editing

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall

The Dark Knight - Lee Smith

Frost/Nixon - Mike Hill, Dan Hanley

Milk - Elliot Graham

Slumdog Millionaire - Chris Dickens

Best Foreign Language Film

The Baader Meinhof Complex - Germany

The Class - France

Departures - Japan

Austria - Revanche

Waltz with Bashir - Israel

Best Makeup

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Greg Cannom

The Dark Knight - John Caglione, Jr., Conor O'Sullivan

Hellboy II: The Golden Army - Mike Elizalde, Thom Floutz

Best Music (Score)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Alexandre Desplat

Defiance - James Newton Howard

Milk - Danny Elfman

Slumdog Millionaire - A.R. Rahman

WALL-E - Thomas Newman

Best Original Song

WALL-E - "Down to Earth"

Slumdog Millionaire - "Jai Ho"

Slumdog Millionaire - "O Saya"

Best Animated Short Film

La Maison de Petits Cubes - Kunio Kato

Lavatory - Lovestory - Konstantin Bronzit

Oktapodi - Emud Mokhberi, Thierry Marchand

Presto - Doug Sweetland

This Way Up - Alan Smith, Adam Foulkes

Best Live Action Short Film

Auf der Strecke (On the Line) - Reto Caffi

Manon on the Asphalt - Elizabeth Marre, Olivier Pont

New Boy - Steph Green, Tamara Anghie

The Pig - Tivi Magnusson, Dorte Høgh

Spielzeugland (Toyland) - Jochen Alexander Freydank

Best Sound Editing

The Dark Knight - Richard King

Iron Man - Frank Eulner, Christopher Boyes

Slumdog Millionaire - Tom Sayers

WALL-E - Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood

Wanted - Wylie Stateman

Best Sound Mixing

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Mark Weingarten

The Dark Knight - Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick

Slumdog Millionaire - Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke, Resul Pookutty

WALL-E - Tom Myers, Michael Semanick, Ben Burtt

Wanted - Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño, Petr Forejt

Best Visual Effects

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, Craig Barron

The Dark Knight - Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber, Paul Franklin

Iron Man - John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick, Shane Mahan

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Eric Roth, Robin Swicord

Doubt - John Patrick Shanley

Frost/Nixon - Peter Morgan

The Reader - David Hare

Slumdog Millionaire - Simon Beaufoy

Best Original Screenplay

Frozen River - Courtney Hunt,

Happy-Go-Lucky - Mike Leigh

In Bruges - Martin McDonagh

Milk - Dustin Lance Black

WALL-E - Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Pete Docter

RENEGADE EYE

Stratfor: The Emerging Obama Foreign Policy

This post was written by Stratfor, a geopolitical strategic planning think tank. I enjoy their reports, and use the data provided, for analysis.

By Rodger Baker
February 16, 2009 | 1913 GMT

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is making her first official overseas visit, with scheduled stops in Tokyo; Jakarta, Indonesia; Seoul, South Korea; and Beijing. The choice of Asia as her first destination is intended to signal a more global focus for U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, as opposed to the heavy emphasis on the Middle East and South Asia seen in the last years of the Bush administration. It also represents the kickoff of an ambitious travel plan that will see Clinton visiting numerous countries across the globe in a bid to project the image of a more cooperative U.S. administration.

Clinton’s Asian expedition is not the first overseas visit by a key member of the new administration. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where he faced the Russians. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell has finished his first trip to his area of responsibility, and is already planning a return visit to the Middle East. And Richard Holbrooke, special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has visited both South Asian countries in addition to making a “listening” stop in India.

The Emergence of a New Foreign Policy

As with any new U.S. presidency, there will be a period of reshaping policy, of setting priorities, and of balancing internal differences within the Obama administration. The various individuals and visits cataloged above in part reflect the Obama administration’s emerging foreign policy.

A two-pronged Obama foreign policy approach is unfolding. The first prong, relating to the general tenor of foreign relations, involves a modern application of the “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach. The second prong, relating to the distribution of power within the administration, involves a centralization of foreign policy centering on a stronger and expanded National Security Council (NSC) and relies on special envoys for crisis areas, leaving the secretary of state to shape foreign perceptions rather than policy.

The Obama administration faced mixed expectations as it came into office. Perhaps the most far-reaching expectation on the international front was the idea that the Obama administration would somehow be the antithesis of the previous Bush administration. Whereas Bush often was portrayed as a unilateralist “cowboy,” constantly confronting others and never listening to allies (much less competitors), it was thought that Obama somehow would remake America into a nation that withheld its military power and instead confronted international relations via consultations and cooperation. In essence, the Bush administration was seen as aggressive and unwilling to listen, while an Obama administration was expected to be more easily shaped and manipulated.

Anticipation of a weaker administration created a challenge for Obama from the start. While many of his supporters saw him as the anti-Bush, the new president had no intention of shifting America to a second-tier position or making the United States isolationist. Obama’s focus on reducing U.S. forces in Iraq and the discussions during Clinton’s confirmation hearing of reducing the military’s role in reconstruction operations did not reflect an anti-military bias or even new ideas, but something Defense Secretary Robert Gates had advocated for under former U.S. President George W. Bush. A reshaping of the U.S. military will in fact take place over the course of Obama’s term in office. But the decision to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq is not unique to this administration; it is merely a recognition of the reality of the limitations of military resources.

Diplomacy and Military Power

The new administration has applied this decision as the basis of a strategy to refocus the military on its core competencies and rebuild the military’s strength and readiness, using that as the strong and stable framework from which to pursue an apparently more cooperative foreign policy. U.S. diplomatic power needs a strong military, and operations in Iraq have drained U.S. military power — something highlighted by the U.S. inability to act on its policies when the Russians moved in on Georgia.

It is not only U.S. political power that is reinforced by military power, but U.S. economic strength as well. Control of the world’s sea-lanes — and increasingly, control of outer space — is what ensures the security of U.S. economic links abroad. In theory, the United States can thus interdict competitors’ supply lines and economic ties while protecting its own.

Despite globalization and greater economic ties, physical power still remains the strongest backer to diplomacy. Ideology alone will not change the world, much less the actions of so-called rogue states or even pirates along the Somali coast. The first principle of Obama’s foreign policy, then, will be making sure it has big stick to carry, one freed from long-term reconstruction commitments or seemingly intractable situations such as Iraq. Only with an available and effective military can one afford to speak softly without being trod upon.

Rebuilding U.S. military readiness and strength is not going to be easy. Iraq and Afghanistan remain to be taken care of, and there are years of heavy activity and at times declining recruitment to recover from. While there are substantial benefits to a battle-hardened military accustomed to a high deployment tempo, this also has its costs — reset costs will be high. A very real domestic military shake-up looms on the one- to two-year horizon in order to bring the Pentagon back into line with fiscal and procurement realities, coupled with concerns about midlevel officer retention. But the Pentagon’s thinking and strategic guidance already have moved toward cooperative security and toward working more closely with allies and partners to stabilize and manage the global security environment, with an emphasis on requiring foreign participation and burden-sharing.

A Greater Security Role for Allies and a Centralized Foreign Policy

Obama will also work on managing the U.S. image abroad. Opposition to Bush and opposition to the war in Iraq often became synonymous internationally, evolving intentionally or otherwise into broader anti-war and anti-military sentiments. Rebuilding the military’s image internationally will not happen overnight. Part of the process will involve using the sense of change inherent in any new U.S. administration to push allies and others to take on a greater role in global security.

In Asia, for example, Clinton will call on Tokyo and Seoul to step up operations in Afghanistan, particularly in reconstruction and development efforts. But Tokyo and Seoul also will be called on to take a greater role in regional security — Seoul on the Korean Peninsula and Tokyo as a more active military ally overall. The same message will be sent to Europe and elsewhere: If you want a multilateral United States, you will have to take up the slack and participate in multilateral operations. The multilateral mantra will not be one in which the United States does what others say, but rather one in which the United States holds others to the task. In the end, this will reduce U.S. commitments abroad, allowing the military to refocus on its core competencies and rebuild its strength.

A strong military thus forms the foundation of any foreign policy. Obama’s foreign policy approach is largely centralized in a bid for a wider approach. Taking China as an example, for the last half-dozen years, U.S. policy on China was based almost entirely on economics. The U.S. Treasury Department took the lead in China relations, while other issues — everything from Chinese military developments to Beijing’s growing presence in Africa and Latin America to human rights — took a back seat. While the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (or something similar) will remain a major pillar of U.S.-China relations under Obama, equally important parallel tracks will focus on military and security issues, nontraditional threats, politics and human rights. This multifaceted approach will require close cooperation among numerous departments and divisions to avoid the chaos seen in things like U.S. policy on North Korea.

This coordination will take place in an expanded NSC, one that brings in the economic elements on equal footing with security and political concerns. Combined with the appointment of special envoys for critical regions, this is intended to ensure a more unified and complete approach to foreign policy. This way, Obama retains oversight over policy, while his erstwhile rival Clinton is just one voice at the table. The State Department’s role thus becomes more about image management and development.

Accordingly, Clinton’s foreign travels are less about shaping foreign policy than shaping foreign images of the United States. She is demonstrating the new consultative nature of the administration by going everywhere and listening to everyone. Meanwhile, the hard-hitting foreign policy initiatives go to the special envoys, who can dedicate their time and energy to just one topic. Holbrooke got South Asia, Mitchell got the Middle East, and there are indications that managing overall China strategy will fall to Biden, at least in the near term.

Other special envoys and special representatives might emerge, some technically reporting through the State Department, others to other departments, but all effectively reporting back to the NSC and the president. In theory, this will mitigate the kind of bickering between the State Department and NSC that characterized Bush’s first term (a concern hardly limited to the most recent ex-president). And to keep it busy, the State Department has been tasked with rebuilding the U.S. Agency for International Development or an equivalent program for taking reconstruction and development programs, slowly freeing the military from the reconstruction business.

As Clinton heads to Asia, then, the expectations of Asian allies and China of a newfound American appreciation for the Far East might be a bit misplaced. Certainly, this is the first time in a long while that a secretary of state has visited Asia before Europe. But given the role of the vice president and the special envoys, the visit might not reflect policy priorities so much as a desire to ensure that all regions get visits. Clinton’s agenda in each country might not offer an entirely accurate reading of U.S. policy initiatives for the region, either, as much of the policy is still up for review, and her primary responsibility is to demonstrate a new and more interactive face of American foreign policy.

Clinton’s Asia visit is significant largely because it highlights a piece of the evolving Obama foreign policy — a policy that remains centralized under the president via the NSC, and that uses dedicated special envoys and representatives to focus on key trouble spots (and perhaps to avoid some of the interagency bickering that can limit the agencies’ freedom to maneuver). Most importantly, this policy at its core looks to rebuild the sense and reality of American military strength through disengaging from apparently intractable situations, focusing on core competencies rather than reconstruction or nation-building, and calling on allies to take up the slack in security responsibilities. This is what is shaping the first priority for the Obama administration: withdrawal from Iraq not just to demonstrate a different approach than the last president, but also to ensure that the military is ready for use elsewhere.

To get free Stratfor reports click here.

RENEGADE EYE

Open Thread: February 15th Venezuelan Referendum

On February 15th an important referendum will take place in Venezuela. The central question is the removal of the limit on the number of times the president can be elected.

Read Alan Woods on the February 15th Referendum.

February 12th thousands march in support of the referendum in Caracas on Bolivar Avenue.

RENEGADE EYE

The Iranian Revolution

This analysis of the Iranian Revolution was written by Trotskyist Ted Grant, leader of the UK based Militant Tendency, during the Iranian Revolution. It stands up against anything else written at the time left or right.

By Ted Grant
Friday, 09 February 1979

Part One

Last week in one of the biggest demonstrations in human history over three million Iranians came on to the streets of Teheran to welcome the return of the religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The previous week had seen barricades and workers fighting with the army. In scenes reminiscent of the February Revolution of 1917, soldiers who were meant to be backing the old regime, winked at the crowds and called out "We are with the people."

Iran is a country in the throes of revolution. The forces which are locked in combat are on the one side those of the autocratic monarchy, supported by the capitalist and landlord classes, backed up by the military and police. Facing them is the working class and the middle class who look to the Muslim clergy, particularly the Ayatollah (Holy Man) Khomeini in exile in Paris.

The analysis which follows endeavours to show the real situation which exists in Iran and the main paths which the revolution can follow. The revolution really began a year ago with the demonstrations against the Shah and his hated secret police
SAVAK.



A totalitarian system can only maintain itself by means of terror and a system of informers while the masses are inert. But once the masses move into action against the regime it is the beginning of the end. The monstrous secret police are shown to be impotent in the face of the movement of the masses.

The pressure from below produces a split at the top amongst the ruling class. Fearing that they will be overthrown they try and introduce reforms from the top in order to prevent revolution from below. Hence the death bed "repentance" of the Shah and his belated announcement of reforms, particularly the setting up of a "Parliament" which was still nevertheless subordinate to the monarchy.

However these "reforms" opened the way for the overthrow of the Shah's rule. They prepared the way for the direct intervention on the stage of history of the working class with the different layers of the middle class.

The Pahlavi monarch was forced into his inglorious flight from Iran. This took place in spite of the resistance of imperialism, particularly American imperialism. Owen and Callaghan shamefully besmirched the labour movement by coming out in support of the Shah. Their frantic attempts to prop up the tottering Iranian monarchy have failed.

Oil of course has been the key to the policies of British and American imperialism which have enormous investments in Iran. Iran is the second biggest exporter of oil in the world, only exceeded by Saudi Arabia. This oil is vital to Western capitalist states and is one of the factors deciding the policies of British and American imperialism in relation to Iran.

It is the world's fourth largest producer of oil. In 1976, Iran produced 295 million tonnes (10% of world production), the Soviet Union produced 515 million tonnes (17.6%), the USA produced over 404 million tonnes (13.8%) and Saudi Arabia produced nearly 422 million tonnes.

Transition

The Shah's rule after 1953 resulted in Iran becoming a country in transition. It has become a semi-colonial country, half-industrialised and half colonial. While remaining under the domination of American-Anglo imperialism she has attempted to strike out on an imperialist path herself. For example, in the Persian Gulf, following the retreat of British imperialism in this area of the world, Iran seized a couple of islands and attempted to play the role of policeman in the Gulf States.

The Shah maintained his regime by perfecting an instrument of terror and repression in the form of SAVAK, the Secret Police. It could best be compared to the Gestapo in its devilish tortures, assassinations, executions and in the horrors which it imposed on the Iranian people.

At the same time, in an endeavour to make Iran one of the great powers of the world, the Shah undertook the industrialisation of Iran at breakneck speed. This was especially so after 1973 when the price of oil quadrupled. This gave enormous billions to the Shah for the purposes of investment.

The Shah was attempting to play the role of absolute monarch in the old sense of the Iranian regime. At the same time he was trying to modernise the economy of the country. In order to gain a basis he introduced "land reforms". These "land reforms" enriched the nobility, the absentee landowners who dominated Iran. They received enormous riches in compensation which they could then invest in industry. The idea was to transform the nobility into a capitalist class, a ruling class on the model of the West.



The real motive behind the land reform was to push the peasants off the land to provide labour for the factories. As The Economist commented: "In place of Iran's village families he [the Shah] allowed his previous Prime Minister Mr Hovieda, to put divisive farm camps, undermining the whole spirit of land reform."

The massive industrialisation begun under the Shah completely bemused those who claim to, or aspire to, leading the Iranian workers. This is particularly true of the Communist party (called the Tudeh party). During the whole of the Shah's reign it has acted as if it was dead. It has put forward no independent policies whatsoever. This is to be explained by the foreign policy of the Russian bureaucracy. The Tudeh Party in Iran is largely a party dominated by the Russian bureaucracy.

The Russian bureaucracy wanted no conflict with American imperialism in Iran because of Iran's enormous importance as an oil producer. Long ago the bureaucracy of the Soviet Union gave up any thought of revolutionary developments which would threaten directly the vital interests of imperialism, especially of the major power of American imperialism because of the inevitable worsening of relations between Russia and America which would occur under these circumstances.

"Yellow press"

The "yellow press" in Britain was wrong to state that these events are due to the intervention and subversion of the Russian bureaucracy, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party.

On the contrary, the Russian bureaucracy tried to prop up the Shah. They engaged in lucrative trade with the Shah, arranged for enormous quantities of natural gas to be exported from Iran to the Soviet Union and generally endeavoured to maintain friendly relations with the Shah. They looked askance at revolutionary developments in a neighbouring country, particularly one with a large working class which showed its revolutionary character during the course of these events.

The changed relationship of forces on a world scale, has resulted in immense power being accumulated by the Soviet bureaucracy, whilst American imperialism has been weakened. Although not prepared to take any action itself, the Soviet bureaucracy warned against any intervention on the part of American imperialism directly in the affairs of Iran. This, they pointed out, would provoke an immediate counter-response by the Soviet Union, who would then send troops into Iran.

This warning on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy was heeded by the diplomats of the USA. The maniacs of the Pentagon had suggested that aircraft carriers and ships carrying Marines should be sent into the Persian Gulf for the purpose of intervening against the Iranian revolution. This was negated by the State Department, who understood the repercussions this would have on a world scale in the colonial world, and of course the repercussions in Iran and on the Soviet Union.

This shows the waning power of imperialism. American imperialism did not hesitate to intervene in Vietnam, or in Lebanon, or in Dominica. Now because of domestic and international factors, the American imperialists have been impotent to intervene directly in the affairs of Iran.

In this situation the main preoccupation of the CP has been to climb behind religious reaction and the Ayatollah in demanding the setting up of some sort of "Democratic Muslim Republic".

But it is not only the Iranian Communist Party which has shown a feeble reaction in Iran during the course of recent events. The ultra-left sects have also played, as usual, a negative role. Some of them have given sympathy and support to the "revolutionary" students in Iran.

Students

But revolutionary students in Iran were not directed either towards the working class, or to formulate a programme for working class action, but on the contrary were told by the sects to turn to the impotent methods of individual terror. As always with the sects they regarded the working class as impotent, ignorant, illiterate and utterly powerless to change the relationship of forces which existed in Iran. Their conceptions were reinforced by the fact that the working class was completely unorganised before the present development of events.

The argument of the sects and those who turned towards individual terror was that the Shah was industrialising, and all the cards were therefore in his hands. The Shah had raised the standard of living of the working class. The Shah had made enormous concessions to the working class and also to the peasantry. This in its turn would lead to the stability of his regime. They declared that the Shah could maintain himself for decades as a consequence of the "White Revolution" and the development of industry. Incidentally, this idea was swallowed by the imperialists as well. For example, the CIA issued a report as late as September 1978 saying that the Shah had a stable regime and would continue to hold power for at least the next ten to fifteen years!

The real tragedy of Iran is the fact that there was no section of Marxists, either in the ranks of the working class or the students to prepare for these great events, as Lenin and the Bolsheviks had prepared in Russia.

The short-sighted sects could only see gloom and doom in the enormous development of industry. Militant on the other hand, declared that the development of industry also increased enormously the power of the working class, a power which has been demonstrated in the recent period in Britain, in Spain, in the United States, in Japan, and in West Germany.

The mast strikes are an eloquent testimony to the awakening and the power of the workers.

The indescribable tortures the lack of rights and freedom, the humiliations suffered by the masses and specifically the working class of Iran have provoked an implacable movement of the masses. On the surface, the Shah had been riding high, and this was the only thing that could be seen, unfortunately, by the radicals in Iran.

After all it is only about six to eight months ago, when the Shah was giving advice to Britain, on how to deal with strikes, and the "permanent instability" of the "democratic institutions in Britain"!

The old mole of the revolution, however, was burrowing underneath the apparent totalitarian calm which existed in Iran. The CIA and imperialism were caught napping, as were the organisations of the working class.

Nevertheless, in the last few years, there have been many symptoms of the crisis of the regime. Because of the prohibition of all organisations in opposition to the "party" of the Shah, the opposition tended to gather in the mosques. This is particularly so for the peasant, the middle class, and even for the merchant class opposition to the regime of the Shah.

Because of the failures of the Communist Party and radicals, even to attempt to organise opposition within the ranks of the working class, discontent surfaced at the mosques. Radical sermons were preached, which though cloudy and nebulous, were interpreted by the masses in their own fashion.

The Shah dispossessed the Church of its lands. This did not benefit the peasants but only the nobility. That meant that the Ayatollahs, or holy men, the chief representatives of the Muslim clergy in Iran were forced into opposition to the regime.

The masses interpreted the sermons of the mullahs as really standing for a struggle against the totalitarian and authoritarian regime of the Shah. The mullahs put forward the demand for the reintroduction of the constitution of 1906.

It must be remembered that nearly two-thirds of the population in Iran are still illiterate. This is a consequence of the inheritance from the rottenness of the old regime of the landlords and the nobility.

Demonstrations

Between October 1977 and February 1978 there were mass illegal demonstrations demanding democratic rights. Then towards the last months of 1978 there were big movements of the students, the merchants, and now also of the working class. Using the religious feast days as an excuse, demonstrations of thousands began to take place. The repression by the forces of the Shah, by the army and the police, merely incensed the population and resulted in bigger and bigger movements in Teheran, and in all the cities of Iran.

As the struggle deepened, it was the movement of the working class, as in Russia, which became the main battering ram for the awakening people. In the first Russian revolution of 1905, the revolution was begun by a demonstration led by the priest, Father Gapon, calling for concessions, and calling for the Tsar, "Little Father" to set things right. This provoked the firing by the army on the people; hundreds were killed and thousands wounded and the Russian revolution of 1905 had begun. So in the same way, we had the beginning of the revolution in Iran.

However there are important differences between Russia in 1905 and the present movement in Iran. The Iranian revolution has begun with a far higher consciousness on the part of the masses. The mass of the people did not petition "their Father" the Shah, but on the contrary demanded the end of the monarchy. Their slogans were "Down with the Shah" and "Death to the Shah".

The working class in Iran is a far bigger proportion of the population than was the Russian working class before the revolution of 1917. There are two million Iranian workers in manufacturing alone, and another three-quarters of a million in transport, and other industries. In addition to that there are wide circles close to the working class in the clerical trades, in the civil service, in catering, and in small businesses of that character.

Most of manufacturing industry in Iran is small, but nevertheless there are certain giant monopolies which dominate the scene. Some employ hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of workers. In Russia, the working class was only four million out of a population of 150 million. In Iran the working class is at least three to four million strong, out of a population of thirty-five million.

In other words, the relationship of forces in the working class as far as its numerical strength is concerned is even more favourable in Iran than it was in Russia in 1905 or in 1917.

Workers

But, on the other hand, in Russia there were the Bolshevik cadres and party, and a certain socialist consciousness, at least in the advanced layers of the working class.

The role of the working class in production means inevitably that it develops a collective consciousness, both in the process of work, and in the process of the struggle against their oppressors. This is the reason why it is only the working class which can change society.

Above all, the movement of the oil workers, the so-called privileged section of the working class in Iran has actually decisively undermined the regime. Over the last two months there has been intermittently a general strike in the oil fields. Despite army repression, arrests of leaders and shootings, the oil workers have stood firm and have refused to work for the purpose of producing oil for the hated regime until the Shah left. Again and again the masses, including the middle class have demonstrated.

SAVAK

The civil service and bank workers have played, as in Portugal, a key part in bringing the absolute monarchy to its knees. Their strike resulted in the finances of the country being paralysed. The strike particularly of the Central Bank in Iran was very effective. This followed the burning down of 400 banks by the enraged masses.

The bank clerks, when they went on strike, revealed that in the last three months £1,000 million has been spirited abroad by 178 members of the ruling elite, including the Shah's relations. Now, in preparation for exile after having sent his family abroad, the Shah has transferred £1,000 million to banks in America. This in addition to the £1,000 million or so which is held in banks in Bonn, Switzerland and in other parts of the world. The Iranian Treasury has been plundered by the autocracy.

The revolution has involved most sections of the nation apart from the handful of capitalists, the landlords, the supporters of the monarch and the bulk of the army officers. The merchants and the small shopkeepers have been ruined by the development of modern capitalism in Iran. This has fuelled their hatred of the absolute ruler who they see as the source of their woes. Thousands have been killed as a result of the repression of the forces of the state, the police, the SAVAK, and army. Every city in Iran has seen demonstrations, has seen these demonstrations being fired on, and has seen the attempt to organise reaction against the working class and against the people.

In many of the smaller towns, there have been fascist attacks, by the army and the police with picked thugs, like the Black Hundreds in Russia before the revolution. They have been used for the purpose of beatings and rapes, in order to terrorise the villagers and the working class in the small cities in Iran. Undoubtedly, if they could have got away with it similar methods would have been used in the big cities.

The Shah, in order to leave a kindly reputation and memory gave the miserable sum (for him) of £25 million to a foundation for charity. But of course, used to the splendours of the regime in Iran, the Shah in going into what would be tantamount to exile, did not of course want to be a pauper, he took away some small change - £1,000 million.

Millions



The tendency has been in all modern revolutions for the mass to come, in millions, onto the streets. Thus the demonstrations in Portugal of more than a million after the fall of the Caetano regime. In Iran, millions have demonstrated. According to the biased reports of the capitalist press at least one to two million have demonstrated in the streets of Teheran for the purpose of bringing down the Shah. Hundreds of thousands have demonstrated in all the cities with a measurable population in Iran. Tens of thousands in the smaller towns of Iran. This is a movement of the poor, of the dispossessed, of the exploited, involving the workers, the middle class, the white collar workers, the merchants, and even swept into the movement for their own purposes and their own ends, a section of the capitalists. They wish to climb up on the backs of the workers and the middle class.

Part Two

Last week saw the fall of the Bakhtiar government. In the country's two largest cities, Tehran and Isfahan, power passed on to the streets. The armed forces had to be withdrawn to barracks as they threatened to disintegrate under the impact of the revolution. The following article, written before the downfall of Bakhtiar, predicted its demise and analyses what course the developing Iranian Revolution could take.

The flight of the Shah marks the end of the first phase of the revolution. It's a reactionary dream on the part of the Shah that he can make a quick comeback despite Bakhtiar's manoeuvres.

The monarchy in Iran has been finally thrown out as a result of the excesses, the corruption, the cruelty, the torture, of the last quarter century. It will never again be rammed down the throats of the people of Iran while they possess even the minimum of rights.

The decisive feature of the Iranian revolution as in all revolutions was the role which the army has played. It is clear that the Shah has virtually abdicated power, because it would have been impossible to maintain control of the army for any further length of time. The army cracked in many parts. Here we see again the complete falsity of the position of reformism which declares that revolution is impossible under modern conditions because of the role that is played by the army.

The modern army is more susceptible to the movements on the part of the people, on the part of the working class than any army in history. It is no longer a question of the PBI, the poor bloody infantry, footsloggers, without any real training, without any real understanding. On the contrary, the army has to be highly specialised and highly mechanical. They do tasks like other workers and think as workers.

In this way, it makes the army very prone to respond to the workers' movements. The army is composed of the sons, brothers and relatives of the workers, peasants and middle class. We see in every revolution in history, particularly in the Russian Revolution of 1917, and in the German Revolution of 1918 how the masses of the armed forces came over to the side of the people, when they saw the possibility of a complete break with the old regime.

In Iran there were incidents such as when a soldier shot two of his officers when the command to open fire on the demonstrators was issued, and then committed suicide.

On the other hand, there was the movement of the masses, but no clear call to the army to come over to the side of the people. As a consequence, the soldiers still felt themselves under the heavy hand of military discipline and the threat of court martial for mutiny.

There were many incidents when soldiers joined the demonstrators or allowed demonstrators to climb on the tops of tanks. Other incidents show the opposite features. Officers shot five army cadets for trying to leave the barracks to join the demonstrators.

In many cases in the main towns of Iran there were similar instances of refusal to fire on the part of the troops, of fraternisation on the part of the troops and of action on the part of the army, against their officers. Many of the junior officers also, have sympathy with the movement of the masses.

The reason why the army did not come over to the side of the working class, to the side of the people as in Russia in 1917 and in Germany 1918, is that there was no organisation capable of giving a lead.

Had a socialist alternative been offered to the workers and the soldiers, undoubtedly the whole situation in Iran would have been changed. Millions of leaflets could have been issued to the soldiers. Even with an organisation of a few hundred or a thousand members, millions of leaflets could have been issued to the workers and the soldiers. They could have explained the issues that are facing Iran at the present time, and under these circumstances, it is almost inevitable that the army would have come over to the side of the people.

The revolution, like the Spanish Revolution of 1931-37 will have many ups and downs. The masses may be beaten back after a period of struggle. Reaction might be enabled to establish itself.

But it will not be possible in the immediate future for the army to establish a military dictatorship, as the imperialist West would have liked. Any attempt at military dictatorship would be answered with an even more furious movement on the part of the masses and would result in a split in the army.

The ripeness of the situation in Iran for the socialist revolution is indicated by the fact that the liberals, Iran's so-called National Front, actually have had to adopt a "socialist" or semi-socialist programme. It would be as if the Cadets (the liberals in Russia before 1911) were united in a single party with the Social Revolutionaries (the party of radical agrarian reform), and claimed to be a socialist party.

But like the liberals in Russia, the leaders of the National Front, such as Sanjabi, coming from the upper layers of the middle class (or even from within the capitalist class), manifest an enormous fear of the masses. Bakhtiar, who has nominally been expelled from the National Front, has nevertheless formed a government with the aid and assistance of the Shah, and the army.

Sanjabi, as well as Bakhtiar would like to retain the monarchy. They see the monarchy tamed to a limited extent, so that a constitutional monarchy could act as a bulwark against the revolution, against the working class. They have preserved the classical role of the liberals in revolution. Their main endeavours are to try and dampen down the revolution and get a change of regime without altering the basic structures of present-day society.

We see what Trotsky referred to as the law of combined development manifesting itself in Iran. All the elements for the socialist revolution are there. The liberals can never satisfy the aims and needs of the working people or even of the peasants. In the last analysis they are representatives of the capitalist class and of finance capital.

In an interview, Sanjabi, the leader of the National Front, declared:

"We in the National Front want to maintain the army, we want a strong army and we don't want to do anything to discourage the army…We have never called for desertions or tried to create indiscipline. But inevitably it is happening and if it continues it could be dangerous."

Imperialism and of course the Shah himself have been against the attempt to set up a military dictatorship because under present conditions it would be completely incapable of maintaining itself in the face of the resistance of the masses.

The Bakhtiar government by its very nature can only be a stop-gap and transitional regime. Even the imperialists see that the Bakhtiar regime will not be able to maintain itself for very long, and therefore are making overtures to the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Khomeini has declared that he does not wish to establish a reactionary military dictatorship or to establish a semi-feudal dictatorship. It is this element in their programme where the Mullahs have claimed to stand for freedom and democracy, which has been a powerful source of attraction to the mass of the middle class, and of course to sections of the workers as well.

But the utopian programme of Khomeini can in no way solve the problems that face the Iranian people at the present time.

Khomeini has made it clear that he will accept nothing less than the abolition of the monarchy. The Regency Council which has been set up by the Bakhtiar government will not be able to maintain control, or to keep the seat warm for the Shah. Even the abdication of the Shah would no longer be sufficient. Now it is a question of the abolition of the monarchy.

In the situation which exists in Iran, an organisation of even a thousand Marxists, a thousand revolutionaries could make a decisive difference. It is possible that such an organisation could come from the forces which will be gathering around the National Front.

The National Front itself, once it starts getting a mass basis, will inevitably split. The so-called Communist Party (the Tudeh) is dragging behind the Ayatollahs, especially the Ayatollah Khomeini. They have no perspective, no programme, no policy, other than to support the bourgeois revolution at this particular stage.

Without an alternative organisation it is possible, even probable that there will be a swift growth of the Tudeh Party. Such a growth under modern conditions would result in a split within the Communist Party. It will develop contradictions between the members and the leaders. Splits will develop as the worker members come in conflict with the middle class leadership. They wish to support the theocratic messianism of the Ayatollah without criticism or a different policy or perspective.

But the nakedness of the liberals and the mullahs will speedily be reflected during the course of the revolution itself.

Revolution by its very nature is not one act. The Iranian revolution will extend over a number of years. The masses will learn in the school of hard experience. The army will become radicalised, as the soldiers get used to the fact that it was the movement of the masses which forced the abdication of the Shah. The army will be affected by the mood of the masses, and it will not be possible for the old generals of the Shah to restore discipline, in spite of all the efforts of Khomeini, or the liberals.

It is probable that Khomeini will come to power. All the pleas of Bakhtiar that the state cannot allow the Church to play a direct and commanding role in politics will be in vain.

But once having come to power the futility of the reactionary and medieval ideas of abolishing interest while not altering the economic oasis of society will be shown to result in chaos. Maintaining intact commercial and industrial capital while abolishing interest or usury is entirely utopian. Even in medieval times, when the doctrine of both the Christian and Muslim church was against usury, nevertheless it continued to exist in many forms. It would have disastrous consequences while capitalism remained, on the economy of Iran, and inevitably would have to be abandoned.

Support for Khomeini will melt away after he forms a government. The failure of his programme of a Muslim theocratic republic to solve the problems of the Iranian people will become apparent.

The masses of the people have their aspirations not only for democratic rights but for higher standards of living. The trade unions in Iran will have an explosive growth. Already they are mushrooming as workers feel the elementary need for organisation. They will attain a mighty scope in the period that lies ahead. Just as in Portugal, where 82% of the working class is now organised in trade unions, so similar results will be achieved in Iran in the coming months and years. Possibly the majority and even the bulk of the working class in Iran will become organised.

Capitalist democracy under modern conditions with the crisis of capitalism on a world scale cannot establish itself for any length of time in Iran. The workers have already learned and will learn even more in the course of the developing struggle. If the masses are defeated and a capitalist Bonapartist military dictatorship is established it would not be stable, as we have seen with the Latin American capitalist military-police dictatorships, and the dictatorship in Pakistan.

Even in the worst resort, reaction would prepare the way for revenge on the part of the masses, at a not too distant date. It would be 1905 in Russia over again.

But such a denouement is not at all necessary. If the forces of Marxism succeed in gaining support in Iran, then it could result in a brilliant victory on the lines of the revolution in Russia of 1917.

A healthy development of the revolution would be an absolute disaster for the Moscow bureaucracy. There is a large Asiatic population that is nominally Muslim, or sections of which are Muslim, in the Asiatic part of Russia in the Caucasus. In addition to that, if a healthy workers state was established in Iran on the borders of the Soviet Union, it would have an instant effect on the workers in all the main centres of the Soviet Union - Moscow, Leningrad, Karkov, Odessa, Novosibirsk, etc.

But that could only come with the development of a Marxist tendency which had assimilated the lessons of the last 50 years, particularly the lessons of the rise of Stalinism in Russia. The Moscow bureaucracy did not desire and did not want the developments that have taken place in Iran.

But if there was a possibility of the development of proletarian Bonapartism in Iran, a totalitarian deformed one-party state as in China or Russia they would accept such a gift gratefully despite complications with the USA.

This is also one of the factors in the situation as Iran is only a semi-industrial country, and still remains a semi-colonial country. Given the lack of a mass revolutionary tradition of a Marxist character in Iran, such a development among the lower officers and among a section of the elite, leaning on the support of the workers and peasants is possible.

Moscow did not desire the Iranian revolution, but would not refuse to accept the fruit of a revolution which would strengthen their power enormously in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. They would have to explain to their imperialist rivals of the EEC, Japan and United States that this would be a lesser evil than the development of a proletarian democracy in Iran.

Any Marxist Socialist Party would begin with the demand for the freedom to organise, freedom of speech, freedom of elections, freedom of press and all the democratic rights which have been won by the workers of the West over generations of struggle.

They would demand the 8-hour day, 5-day week, and a sliding scale of wages linked to prices. These would be linked with the demand for a revolutionary constituent assembly, at the same time putting a programme of revolutionary demands for the expropriation of the corrupt gang which has controlled Iran for so long.

The expropriation of the wealth of the Shah, the expropriation of the absentee landlords who invested the money that they were given by the state after generations of neglect and exploitation of the agricultural population; the nationalisation of industry without compensation, or compensation on the basis of need only, and a workers' government; for workers' control of industry and workers' management of industry and the state.

In order to gain these things, it would be necessary to form committees of action in the working class, suggesting that these be extended also to the armed forces and small shopkeepers, small business people, linking them up in a way in which the Soviets were linked in Germany and Russia in the revolutions of 1917 and 1918. Unfortunately there is no organisation in Iran at the present time putting forward the policies of Marxism.

The Labour Movement in Britain should have as one of its foremost democratic demands: no interference with the politics of Iran, let the Iranian people decide. The advanced workers on the other hand, should assist in the development of a Marxist Socialist Party in Iran, which could lead to success.

RENEGADE EYE