tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69006704823682776992024-03-08T05:54:27.450+00:00The Former Red Squirrel's LairDear Humans,
<br>For centuries, you have been watching us running about, climbing up and down trees and munching on nuts.
Little did you know that we too, have been doing some watching of our own and that in fact, we have a very good idea of what you should do to save yourselves (and possibly us as well) from a variety of unpleasantries, such as poverty, war, depression and environmental doom. "Smart" apes, heed our wisdom!
<br>Yours,
<br>The Squirrel Vanguard.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-3442924857324655032007-12-06T14:31:00.001+00:002007-12-08T19:29:09.202+00:00So long, and thanks for all the nuts.The time has come. <br /><br />The Vanguard has now <a href="http://squirrelcommunism.wordpress.com">moved to another tree</a>. While this tree has served us well, we believe that our new abode is far more comfortable and will thus attract more guests on top of making us more productive.<br /><br />Please come by for coffee, tea and nuts.<br /><br />And don't forget to redirect your links.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-71988527873147201192007-12-05T10:51:00.000+00:002007-12-05T14:58:20.251+00:00Por ahora no pudimos<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/ko-korakious/Felix_Dzerzhinsky_1919-thumb.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/ko-korakious/Felix_Dzerzhinsky_1919-thumb.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I shouldn't really stress myself so much. I spent the whole of the last week thinking about the constitutional referendum, working out possible scenarios in my head and talking about it with everybody and their dogs. Fuck, I even had dreams about it. The last time I was stressed over a political event that much was just before the Scottish Parliament elections. Both times, anxiety gave way to profound disappointment. <br /><br />However, having reflected on numbers, results and a series of articles my innate optimism has started crawling back in. This was a serious setback, but we have not been defeated. Chavez has still 5 years left in his term, the opposition barely made any gains relative to the presidential election and the magnitude of the pro SI rallies relative to those organised by the opposition clearly shows that the class balance of power leans heavily to the side of the conscious working class. Certainly, the slight victory of the No vote will give the shattered Venezuelan opposition something to rally around, as the calls for the convening of a Constituent Assembly by former Chavista General Baduel clearly show. However the very fact that the opposition will have to organise centred on a former enemy, around calls for national friendship and unity is clearly a sign of its own weakness suggesting that a well calculated, organised and swift political offensive by the Bolivarians is bound to shatter them. We have to keep in mind that revolutions are not linear processes where one side makes gains against the other until it wins; they unfold dialectically with each victory throwing up new obstacles and dangers and each defeat opening up new roads to success. What where the July Days preceding the great October Revolution if not a decisive defeat, with many good activists dead, leaders arrested and others going underground? The setback suffered by the Bolivarian movement is not even slightly comparable to that.<br /><br />So what happened? It is evident from the numbers that the defeat of the reforms can be entirely attributed to the inadequate mobilisation of the Bolivarian camp. While the opposition gained a mere 100,000 votes (compared to the last presidential election), the Bolivarians lost some 2.8 million votes to abstention, with turnout reaching a very mellow 56% against approximately 70% last year. A lower turnout, in every situation, necessarily favours the forces of reaction, as the well-fed bourgeois and their satellite strata dutifully turn up to vote every time; it is the impoverished workers and peasants who abstain, for one reason or another. The question is why did they abstain on Sunday, a mere year after they overwhelmingly voted for Chavez routing both the counterrevolutionary and "revolutionary" oppositions?<br /><br />The answer I believe lies in a combination of factors. First, we have to keep in mind that in any given situation, it is rather unlikely, if not impossible, that the oppressed classes will have achieved full consciousness down to the last person, especially when the situation is still <i>pre</i>revolutionary. For the unconscious masses, it was far easier to grasp the importance of the presidential election, as what was at stake was Chavismo itself; a defeat would have meant a regression back into the quagmire of traditional Washington Consensus neoliberalism. Reports from the ground also suggest that the opposition, with heavy financial backing from the United States, managed to mount a very effective, high intensity campaign of lies and misinformation (and <a href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2913">terror</a>), even if their concrete mobilisation was not much too look at. As you have probably already read elsewhere, "the state will take away your children" replaced the now cliche image of the baby eating communist.<br /><br />This brings us to another, arguably the most important, question. Why did the conscious Bolivarian movement fail to agitate effectively and mobilise the masses to support the constitutional reforms? And also, why did they not effectively respond to the lies and filth propagated by the opposition? I can think of no other reason than the lack of an organised party of the bolivarian movement. In the absence of such, the campaign had to be based on largely ad hoc gatherings organised by the local socialist battalions that will form the basis of the PSUV. While the activist fervour of those should not be underestimated, their effectiveness cannot be compared to that of a integrated apparatus. The lack of a central coordinating organisation meant that the campaign had to be taken up by the state bureaucracy. These people have little in common with the working class and they would have failed to connect with it even if they had actually wanted to. The bureaucrats of the Bolivarian movement want nothing to do with socialism and they will consciously sabotage any attempt to destroy them as mediators of power, including the strengthening of community councils. It is then not really surprising that they made little effort to produce material refuting the outrageous claims of the opposition, basing their campaign on a theme of loyalty to Chavez, despite the fact that Chavez himself had often reiterated that a SI vote was not a vote for himself but a vote for the Revolution. No mention of the 36-hour week, or the community councils! <br /><br />The entirely reactionary role played by the right wing of Chavismo has been sharply grasped by the radical activist base. The <a href="http://hovreferendum.wordpress.com/">HOV referendum blog</a> reports that on Monday a spontaneous gathering organised through text messages took place outside Miraflores palace in order to express solidarity with Chavez but more importantly raising the demand for a "clearing of the house" and denouncing certain officials as traitors. <br /><br />The key task facing the socialist movement in Venezuela now is the foundation of the PSUV on an explicitly radical socialist basis. This will require back breaking mobilisation in the very near future (as in from January onwards). For the moment, the organised right wing has done a good job of excluding itself from the formation of the party, but it is certain that the sharper bureaucratic elements will not make the same mistake. Following that, it is imperative that the movement concentrates on a relentless attack against the dual fifth column that fetters is its development. I say dual, for apart from the state bureaucracy and the reformists, a war must be waged against the rererevolutionary ultra left that refuses to join the PSUV, the latter-day WRPs like the Argentinian PO and the neo-Kautskyite democrats who called for a spoiling of ballots at the referendum. Letting them cut themselves out of the working class movement, as they will, is not enough. In such social conditions, the minds of people are open to radical ideas, whether progressive or entirely stupid. Having said that, it must be stressed, despite being entirely obvious, that the prime threat remains the bureaucracy, the enemies within that want Chavez without socialism. They must be removed from the movement and the state at all costs and by any means necessary. Let them join the opposition and expose themselves for the hypocrites that they are. At this stage, without support from the inside, the counterrevolution will never manage to become a serious threat. Bring on the Cheka!Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-14016995906150933852007-11-29T02:34:00.000+00:002007-11-29T04:07:11.733+00:00Tension increases in Venezuela<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.minci.gov.ve/img/006_psuv_fb__9682_w.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://www.minci.gov.ve/img/006_psuv_fb__9682_w.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/">Venezuelanalysis</a> carries two very important articles today. <a href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2914">One</a> is about a CIA plot named Operation Pliers, involving a number of prominent opposition groups, leaders, media outlets and students which came to light after the Venezuelan counterintelligence service intercepted a CIA memorandum, dated November 20th. The memorandum predicts a clear Yes mandate for the constitutional referendum taking place on Sunday and goes on to propose a plan of action for the opposition after the referendum, including challenging its authenticity, inciting unrest and distabilisation with the purpose of throwing the country into a state of ungovernability preparing the way for another attempt to violently overthrow the Bolivarian government; textbook imperialist tactics that is, from Mozambique to Vietnam. Importantly, the memorandum also confirms the large scale clandestine campaign against Bolivarianism that has been conducted by the CIA for some time:<br /><blockquote><br /><br />Officer Steere emphasizes the importance and success of the public relations and propaganda campaign that the CIA has been funding with more than $8 million during the past month - funds that the CIA confirms are transfered through the USAID contracted company, Development Alternatives, Inc., which set up operations in June 2002 to run the USAID Office for Transition Initiatives that funds and advises opposition NGOs and political parties in Venezuela. The CIA memo specifically refers to these propaganda initiatives as "psychological operations" (PSYOPS), that include contracting polling companies to create fraudulent polls that show the NO vote with an advantage over the SI vote, which is false. The CIA also confirms in the memo that it is working with international press agencies to distort the data and information about the referendum, and that it coordinates in Venezuela with a team of journalists and media organized and directed by the President of Globovision, Alberto Federico Ravell.</blockquote><br /><br />The <a href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2913">other article</a> reports on the murder of José Anibal Oliveros Yépez, a Chavez supporter, by a group of anti-reform protesters on Monday. After documenting the entirely unprovoked attack, the article goes on to mention that violence by opposition group is not a collection of isolated incidents but instead, a consistent part of a quasi fascist campaign of bullying that is typical of middle class mobilisation: <blockquote><br /><br />National Assembly Deputy Francisco Ameliach and the Mayor of Guacara, José Manuel Flores, who visited the neighborhood to pay their respects to the Oliveros' family, reported that opposition groups in Ciudad Alianza that claim to represent "civil society" have marked the houses of Chavez supporters, or those they believe to be Chavez supporters, with red paint and "have said they are going to kill them." </blockquote><br /><br />What this goes to show is that the Bolivarian process is one powered by irreconcilable class contradictions within Venezuelan society, rather than merely a national bourgeois project. As the reforms instituted by Chavez increasingly weaken the power of global capital and its domestic crutches, we can only expect an intensification of the struggle as the bourgeoisie tries to overturn the process while it still has some political power left. As the heat rises, class contradictions will be laid in increasingly more stark terms as bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology will be unable to provide a satisfactory explanatory framework for the rapidly developing (and thus changing) circumstances in Venezuela. Chavez himself demonstrated this shift when, addressing a pro-amendment work place representatives' meeting Caracas, he explicitly stated that "the working class has to be the vanguard of the revolutionary process for socialist power.", cautioning against the dangers of bureaucratic degeneration as happened in the Soviet Union. Chavez also went on to speak about the irreconcilable conflict of interests between the working class on the one hand, and capitalism and the bourgeois state on the other. From the <a href="http://www.marxist.com/chavez-threat-destroy-bourgeoisie261107.htm">IMT website</a>:<br /><blockquote><br />The Cuban revolution has lasted a long time due to a deep relationship with the masses. In Nicaragua the road of reformism led to tragic results. You cannot adapt to capitalism. It doesn't work. No to reformism, No to Bureaucracy! [...]He emphasized again and again that the working class is the vanguard but he also castigated many trade unions for not being able to rise above the arena of purely trade union demands. If this does not happen then the political level of the working class won't rise to the level needed to carry out the task of being the motor force of the revolution. This process will determine the timing and direction of the revolution. We should pass onto the offensive as under capitalism we use defensive actions to protect conditions. The only way to guarantee Popular Power is if the working class plays the leading role.<br /><br />Under the constitutional changes, he continues, the workers councils in the factories will establish relations with peasant, student and community councils [in effect setting up embryonic soviets - DC]. If this happens then what happened in the Soviet Union and Nicaragua won't happen. The aim of all of this is to establish Socialism in the country of Bolivar and - in response to a cry from the audience - in all of the Americas.<br /><br />Yet the devil is in the detail. On the one hand Chavez sees the councils in different areas as alternative organs of power more closely related to the people and therefore theoretically more responsive. This is also a way to bypass the cumbersome and obstructive State bureaucracy. As he stated, "...workers councils will come into being in the factories, in the workplaces, but they should reach out to the communities and be fused into other councils of popular power: community councils, students councils, etc... What for? To shout slogans? To go around shouting long live Chavez? No!... <span style="font-weight:bold;">To change the relationships in the workplace, to plan production, to take over piece by piece the functions of the government and to finish up by destroying the bourgeois state.</span>"</blockquote><br /><br />The current stage of the class struggle in Venezuela will have to come to a decisive political outcome one way or another sooner than later; this dual-poweresque fragile balance of class powers is not a sustainable social equilibrium. The division and increasing weakness of the bourgeoisie makes it ever more difficult for them to defend against the advancing working class, but it should be kept in mind that the proletariat too does not yet have a unified political leadership with a clear programme, ready to seize power and embark on the construction of socialism. The PSUV might come to play that role, but that will depend upon the programme and the organisational structure that will be adopted by its coming founding conference. We can only hope that the majority of principled socialists in Venezuela have joined the party and have not been carried away by the calls for ideological purity by the WRP clones of this world.<br /><br />Until the foundation of the PSUV however, it is imperative that the Bolivarian movement takes whatever measures necessary to safeguard itself from reaction. Extreme attention must be paid to the tactics of the opposition and resources of all kinds will have to be mobilised to ensure that Operation Pliers does not come to fruition. This will necessarily include state crackdowns (although I am sure that those who lamented the suppression of RCTV's "democratic" right to support fascist coups will cry "authoritarianism" here as well) but it is of crucial importance that there is also grassroots working class political organisation in the form of demos, counter demos and patrols among other things. As Chavez (and Lenin) said, the workers (to the last cook) must gradually take over the functions of the state.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-64892083547752115972007-11-27T00:54:00.000+00:002007-11-27T01:56:59.046+00:00An Interview with FARC Commander Simón Trinidad<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2006/04/farc_p.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2006/04/farc_p.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br /><i>FARC is an organisation about which not many people know a lot or even a bit. It is old enough (it's been almost 40 years since the armed struggle in Colombia started) to have receded from the spotlight, but it is still active and thus cannot be studied in a standard academic historical manner. What is more, its case is quite interesting in that it creates much division amongst the left over whether it should be supported or not with accusations of it being a drug trafficking cartel without any politics left after four decades of guerilla warfare often thrown around. With the opportunity provided by the Colombian government's decision to <a href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2891">terminate</a> Venezuela's role as a mediator in hostage exchange negotiations, the Lair republishes the following interview with FARC commander Simón Trinidad, originally published in Columbia Report. It is an interesting read and provides some counterbalance to the First World's narrative about the organisation.</i><br /><br />An Interview with FARC Commander Simón Trinidad<br /><br />by Garry Leech<br /><br />In January 1999, newly elected Colombian president Andres Pastrana ceded an area of southern Colombia the size of Switzerland to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas as part of an agreement to begin peace talks. Although there is no cease-fire agreement while the talks are being carried out, the Colombian Armed Forces and the National Police have withdrawn all their forces from the region known as the Zona de Despeje (Clearance Zone). <br /><br />The FARC's headquarters in Los Pozos, a small village located 18 miles from San Vicente del Caguan in the Zona de Despeje, has been host to the peace talks as well as public conferences where all sectors of Colombian society can come to participate in discussions about Colombia's future. On June 14, 2000, I traveled to Los Pozos to interview Simón Trinidad, a FARC commander and a spokesman for the guerrilla organization. Trinidad was a professor of economics and a banker before joining the FARC 16 years ago.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. What is the current status of the ongoing peace process?</span><br /><br />A. In May 1999, the FARC and the Colombian government established a common agenda consisting of twelve points. This agenda was created with an agreement that both parties would bring their proposals to the negotiating table--things that they considered important in the discussion and in the search for a resolution to the conflict and to make the changes that Colombia needs. <br /><br />At the moment, they are only discussing one item: unemployment. There have been 13 or 14 public conferences here in Los Pozos about this topic featuring businessmen, workers, university students, teachers and rectors. This Friday there will be a conference with the African-Colombian communities. On June 25 there will be a conference with unemployed women and on June 29 there will be one on illicit crops and the environment. The FARC and the government are discussing all these items that they consider important in the search for a political solution to the social conflict in Colombia.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. Why do you think the United States is focusing on the FARC and campesinos that cultivate coca here in southern Colombia instead of the paramilitaries and the narco-traffickers?</span><br /><br />A. That's a good question. Because the FARC is the only political organization that is in opposition to the Colombian oligarchy that keeps Colombians in poverty, misery and a state of underdevelopment. We are fighting for a change in the Colombian economic model and for a new state. For a state that has at its center the men and women of Colombia and to provide a better life and social justice for Colombians. With the riches in this country and after 180 years of republic living, Colombians must live better. We'll make better use of the natural resources and provide jobs, healthcare, education and housing so that 40 million Colombians can live well. <br /><br />Who are those that are opposed to these social, economic and political changes? They are the people who monopolize the riches and resources in Colombia. A small group that monopolizes the banks, the industries, the mines, agriculture and international commerce, including some foreign companies, especially North Americans. For these reasons we are the principal target in the war against narco-traffickers. But we aren't narco-traffickers and the campesinos aren't narco-traffickers, they are using it as an excuse for fighting against us. <br /><br />If the United States government really intends to combat narco-traffickers, all the people in Colombia know where the narco-traffickers live. They live in Bogotá, Medellín, Cali and Barranquilla. Therefore, to seize the narco-traffickers the police have to do certain things. They have to leave their houses and search for them in order to put them in prison. But no, they confront the poor campesino with repression that not only hurts the illicit crops, but also legal crops like yucca, bananas, and chickens and pigs because the fumigation kills everything. It damages the earth, the vegetation, the water and the animals.<br /><br />Those responsible for making Colombia a producer of narcotics are the people who have become rich from this business: the narco-traffickers, and they are happy. Who else benefits from narco-trafficking? The bankers and those who distribute the drugs in the cities, universities, high schools and discos of North America, Europe and Asia, the greatest consumers of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Who else benefits? The companies that make the chemicals for processing cocaine and heroin. These companies are German and North American. They are industries in the developed countries. It's a great business for the chemical companies. <br /><br />The poor campesino has lived in misery for many years and will continue to do so. The war is for them and for us. We are planning a different solution for the problem of narco-trafficking. It consists of providing a better life for the poor campesino through agrarian reform, by giving them good lands, technical assistance and low-interest loans to change from growing illicit crops to legal crops; such as, coffee, yucca, bananas, sugarcane and ranching. An alternative development that facilitates commercialization for these products. But it's a slow process to change them, it´s not just destroying the illicit crops and then telling them to grow different ones. We have to educate the campesinos about how to produce them. Give them tools, credits and time so they can make a living from these crops and become a different kind of campesino.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. Last year, FARC spokesman Raul Reyes claimed that the FARC could eradicate coca cultivation in the regions it controls in five years. However, there have been accusations that the FARC is forcing campesinos to grow more coca here in the Zona de Despeje.<br /></span><br />A. This is the story of the police, the army and the narco-traffickers. We live in the country, and it is in the country that the coca, marijuana and the poppy have been grown for thirty years. We know that the campesinos grow illicit crops out of necessity. It is specifically a socio-economic situation. They are obligated to cultivate illicit crops because of a government that has neglected them for many years. We have made it clear that we will not take the food out of the mouth of the poor campesino. We will not leave them without jobs. They work with the marijuana and coca leaf because they don't have any other work. This problem is caused by the economic model of the Colombian state, and it is the state that has to fix the problem. We are the state's enemy, not their anti-narcotics police. The state has to offer people employment, honest work, and social justice to improve their lives.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. The FARC has introduced its own system of justice in the Zona de Despeje. What are the codes of justice and how are they implemented?</span><br /><br />A. It's not true! We haven't introduced a justice system in the Zona de Despeje. For 36 years we have been working to solve the social problems of the campesinos that have a relationship with us. For many years the state hasn't been present in many regions. There have been no state judges, no justice system and no public administration in many regions of the country. The society has had to resolve their own problems because they don't believe in the ministry of work, they don't believe in Colombian justice, they don't believe in the Colombian army and police. They came to us and we were there for them in the country. <br /><br />For example, there was a conflict between two people regarding land and cows. The cows belonging to one of them entered the other person's land and destroyed his crops. He came to us looking for a solution to this problem. They don't go looking for a state functionary because they don't come to the country. So we told him to come here tomorrow with his neighbor to talk about the problem. We listened to both versions and we asked them for a solution. If they don't find a solution, we propose some solutions in an attempt to apply justice. We want to see that they can resolve their own problems. We are a witness to their agreements.<br /><br />Another example is a bad marriage. When the husband drinks all the money, hits the wife and leaves his wife and children. They don't have the money to travel to a city where the family court is located in order to resolve this problem. The process takes one, two or three years before he is told to provide milk for his children. We call the mother and father and tell them that he has to give part of his salary to his wife and children and that he can't drink too much anymore. We come to an agreement. <br /><br />Workers in factories in the cities that were dismissed from their job without reason and without severance benefits go to the jungle in search of the guerrillas to resolve this problem. We send a note to the administrator, boss or owner telling them they have to come and talk with the guerrillas to resolve the problem. Some don't come, but others do come and we listen to them. We don't always believe the workers, we listen to the businessmen because maybe the worker is lazy, or a drunk, or a liar, or irresponsible. We resolve these kinds of problems for people who live in the country and the cities. We do this in other regions of the country where the guerrillas are.<br /><br />Here in San Vicente del Caguan, when we created the Zona de Despeje, the campesinos stopped the guerrillas in the street for solutions to their problems. Now, people have to go to the Oficina de quejas y reclamos (Office of Claims and Complaints) and we listen to both sides of the problem. We didn't create this system now in the Zona de Despeje, historically the FARC has done this where the state has lacked a system of justice and where a majority of people don't believe in the Colombian justice system. We are doing it in the Zona de Despeje in an office. The people come and the guerrillas listen to them and find a solution. It is not only about money. <br /><br />For example, who gets custody of the children when parents get separated? If the mother is a prostitute, doesn't care about her children and consumes drugs, then the care of the children is given to the father. These are the types of problems we resolve. This office also resolves problems concerning guerrillas when they are bad. For example, if they go out and get drunk. Sometimes we make mistakes and we like it when other people tell us where we failed.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. What will happen if the United States Congress authorizes increased military aid to the Colombian Armed Forces and they launch an offensive against the FARC here in southern Colombia?</span><br /><br />A. I don't want to think about it. I don't want to think about it. We have more faith in a peace process with dialogue. I don't want to think about a war in this region of the country. The war won't resolve Colombia's problems. Colombia has 18 million people living in absolute poverty. These people don't have electricity, water, jobs, land, education and healthcare. Another 18 million Colombians are poor with a salary that doesn't cover all their necessities. They live restricted lives. In many cases the mother, father and one or two sons have to work to provide transport, housing and clothes. <br /><br />We are 36 million Colombians living poorly out of a total of 40 million Colombians. Of the other four million Colombians, some are rich and others have a good life working in industries, businesses and farms. They have a solution to their problems of healthcare, education, vacation, work and social benefits. Is the war going to resolve these problems?<br /><br />If this is about the narco-trafficker problem then you know where the narco-traffickers are. For example, the governor of the department of Cesar, Lucas, is a narco-trafficker and he is governor for the second time. His brother is a senator in the National Congress and is in alliance with the president of the Congressional Assembly, Pomanico, who is being investigated for stealing $4.5 million from congress. There is an alliance between narco-traffickers and common politicians, both Liberals and Conservatives. Also, between paramilitaries and the narco-traffickers, everybody knows this. <br /><br />If you go to Barranquilla the people will tell you where the narco-traffickers are. The police and the commanders of the army battalions and brigades know this. Will the war waged against poor campesinos solve these problems? The war won't resolve the problems for the hungry and unemployed in Colombia.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. How will the FARC effectively implement its new political front, the Bolivariano Movement, if its members remain anonymous?</span><br /><br />A. The idea of the Bolivariano Movement is not ours, it doesn't come from us. It was born with many Colombians 16 years ago when the members of the Patriotic Union were assassinated. It was a legal movement, a democratic movement that participated in the presidential, congressional and municipal elections. And then they began to get assassinated. <br /><br />When the armed forces, police and paramilitaries began to kill the members of the Patriotic Union they came to us and said, 'We want to work with you, we like the FARC's policies. But because of this they will kill us.' They wanted to work with us, but alone. But the FARC said, 'No, you can't work alone. You have to work with your father, your mother, your brother, your neighbor, your girlfriend, your wife, your co-workers, and your classmates. You have to organize, because if we are divided we can't win.' <br /><br />But to work in secret? They are right. At this moment was born the idea for the political movement. A political movement that works to recover Colombian society in secret, a movement that's militant and clandestine. There will be campesinos, students, workers, women and intellectuals who will fight the political confrontation without saying they belong to the Bolivariano Movement. They will not participate in elections because there are no guarantees and conditions that they will not be killed.<br /><br />First we have to change many customs in this country, like the oligarchy killing political contradictors. This is Colombian history. The world doesn't know of another country where political contradictors are killed like in Colombia. All of them since we gained independence from Spain. They assassinated Sucre, they tried to assassinate Bolivar, and they assassinated many leaders of the nineteenth century in civil wars. They killed Rafael Uribe Uribe. They assassinated Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, Jaime Pardo Leal, and the Liberal guerrillas that laid down their arms under the government of the dictator Rojas Pinilla. They assassinated 4,000 members of the Patriotic Union, cleansed the Patriotic Union with bullets, and they have followed this practice to kill labor leaders, student leaders, campesino leaders, everybody that has opposed this tyrannic regime. For this reason the Bolivariano Movement remains clandestine.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. Many international human rights organizations have demanded that the FARC stop recruiting children. Where does the FARC stand on this issue?</span><br /><br />A. In our statutes we have decided that we can recruit 15 year-olds and up. In some fronts there may have been some younger, but a short time ago we decided to send them back home. But what is the cost? In the last year a girl arrived at the office in San Vicente, 14 years-old and wanting to join the guerrillas. When the mother found out that she had joined she contacted the guerrillas and cried and said her daughter is only 14 years-old. In March she was sent back home because the FARC's Central Command said they would return to their parents all those younger than fifteen. Two weeks ago I met this girl and asked her what she was doing. She said she was working in a bar from 6pm until sunrise. I asked what she was doing in this bar and she said, 'I attend to the customers.' When I asked in what way does she attend to the customers, she lowered her head and started to cry. She is a whore. She is 14 years old. A child prostitute. She was better in the guerrillas. In the guerrillas we have dignity, respect and we provide them with clothes, food and education.<br /><br />And there are millions of others like this girl in Colombia that are exploited in the coal mines, the gold mines, the emerald mines, in the coca and poppy fields. They prefer that children work in the coca and poppy fields because they pay them less and they work more. It sounds beautiful when you say that children shouldn't be guerrillas, but the children are in the streets of the cities doing drugs, inhaling gasoline and glue. They are highly exploited. <br /><br />According to the United Nations: 41% of Colombians are children; 6.5 million children live in conditions of poverty, add to this 1.2 million children living in absolute poverty; 30,000 children live in the streets without mothers, fathers and brothers; 47% of children are abused by their parents; and 2.5 million work in high risk jobs. These children meet the guerrillas and they don't have parents because the military or the paramilitaries killed them and they ask the guerrillas to let them join. We are executing the norm that no children younger than 15 years of age join.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. How many women are there in the FARC and what happens when they become pregnant?</span><br /><br />A. Aproximately 30% of the guerrillas are women and the number is increasing all the time. The women guerillas are treated the same as the men. Some FARC units have female commandantes and the FARC office in San Vicente is run by a female guerrilla named Nora. Some of the women have relationships with male guerrillas and we provide contraceptives because we do not want pregnant women in the guerrillas. But some do get pregnant and if they don't have an abortion it is necessary that they leave the guerrillas.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Q. What does the government have to do for the FARC to agree to a cease-fire during negotiations?</span><br /><br />A. Stop the fighting on both sides. This cease-fire must be established for a specific time: a month or two months. And besides, it must be verified for both sides. This we understand to be a cease-fire. It was tried many times. Seventeen years ago with Belasario Betancur's government, when we signed a cease-fire Manuel Marulanda Velez gave the order to all guerrilla fronts to suspend fighting on May 28, 1984, and the president did the same. But the next day, there was an opposing order from the Commander of the Army, General Vega Uribe, saying they won't comply with the cease-fire order because they have to abide by the Constitution. <br /><br />We have many times during this presidential period called unilateral cease-fires for Christmas, Easter, elections, many times. The most recent unilateral cease-fire was December 20, 1999 until January 5, 2000. But if we are going to discuss this theme it would be under bilateral proposals with defined times and mechanisms of control and verification. To verify who broke the agreement and why.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />This article originally appeared in Colombia Report, an online journal that was published by the Information Network of the Americas (INOTA).</span>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-70372108614575836452007-11-14T14:21:00.001+00:002007-11-14T14:40:36.296+00:00Foxy letter<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42177000/jpg/_42177485_fox2006_pa.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42177000/jpg/_42177485_fox2006_pa.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><i>The following is a letter to Socialist Worker by SSP National Convenor Colin Fox. As an SSP member, I have extracted many lulz from the SWP's theoretical "analysis" of what's happening in RESPECT, given their behaviour in the SSP during the whole Sheridan debacle. Cheers to Colin for pointing the irony out.</i><br /><br />Is it any wonder that anyone watching the tragic unfolding collapse of Respect is confused about the issues when the article <a href="http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13472">‘What’s behind the crisis in Respect?’</a><br />published in Socialist Worker online Tuesday 6th November tries to compare the situation with circumstances in other left parties ‘right across Europe’.<br /><br />But it is the particular nonsense contained in Alex Callinicos’s pious wishful thinking ‘the Scottish Socialist Party has effectively collapsed since the leadership decided to drive Tommy Sheridan out’ with which I wish to take issue.<br />Let’s leave aside the fact that the Scottish Socialist Party has in the period since the May elections been on every picket line in the country, first of all supporting the Tesco lorry drivers in Livingston, then the Royal Mail postal workers the length and breadth of Scotland and the Glasgow care workers. Let’s also leave aside the role that I and other SSP members played in defeating Edinburgh City Council’s plans to close 22 primary schools in the city. Lets also set aside our hugely successful party conference held last month in Dundee wherein hundreds of delegates showed their continuing commitment to the party and the confidence that it will survive recent horrific events when those who were keener to split the left have not. And let’s leave aside our presence, as the Scottish SWP at least were forced to recognise at last weekends anti Trident demonstration through Edinburgh.<br /><br />What cannot be ignored however is the contrast in attitude of the Socialist Worker who today condemn George Galloway for splitting RESPECT, for ignoring the will of the majority, of setting up a rival party and of not staying in the party to argue his position. Because last year Socialist Worker was on the other side of this argument. Indeed, were it not for the SWP, Tommy Sheridan would have been forced to stay in the Scottish Socialist Party, justify his lunatic libel action and try to wrestle back the leadership. He knew of course, just as George Galloway knows now, that he would have lost the vote of party members and he did what all ‘mavericks’ do in such circumstances, he tried to justify, citing high principles, the formation of yet another insignificant wee group on the left.<br />If anyone drove Tommy Sheridan out of the SSP it was the SWP – you could say they supplied the getaway car!<br /><br />So when the Socialist Worker gets all pious about internal party democracy, left unity and the crisis in left parties across Europe I suggest members best start by looking at their own record. As they say, ‘people in glass houses…..’<br />Socialist Worker will convince very few people outside their own party of their case in the disunification of Respect if their explanations of events and their role in them are as flimsy as those they offer up in relation to their actions in Scotland these past two years.<br /><br />Comradely yours<br />Colin Fox<br />Scottish Socialist Party National Convenor<br />EdinburghKorakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-75432543532067562122007-11-12T20:05:00.001+00:002007-11-12T20:09:31.672+00:00Historical Materialism Conference - Part 2<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Wow. Apparently my notes on the fisrt plenary session were pretty long. The notes for the next session 'Islam and American Imperialism' are a bit less so. Not becuase the talks weren't interesting, but because I'd already sat through one long session and the lecture theatre was rather sophorific, owing to the temperature and layout.<br /><br />The backdrop to the talks is the increasing resistance to American imperialism and the lack of a clear socialist alternative to it. This leads - on the part of the Socialist Register, who organised the plenary - to a crisis of agency. It therefore becomes necessary to analyse the new movements that have arisen so as to conceptualise the current conjuncture.<br /><br /><i>Gilbert Achar - Imperial Uses of Islam<br /></i>Achar began his talk by examining the 'clash of civilisations' paradigm, one which he described as pervasive on both a conscious and unconscious level. This view basically suggests that Islam and the West are engaged in a clash of civilisation and there can be no middle ground between them. This view is common to both Western Islamophobes <i>and</i> Islamic fundamentalists - who tend to characterise Islam and 'the West' is implacably in conflcit with one and other, and view this conflict as defining our current age.<br /><br />But Achar notes that this is <i>not</i> the view of Western governments. Western governments tend to differentiate (in their rhetoric) between 'good' Muslims and 'bad' Muslims, they don't view things as a clash <i>with</i> Islam but a clash <i>within</i> Islam. Achar also argues that Huntington himself doesn't hold with the way in which his theory has been interpreted. Achar argued that Huntington is in fact a 'global multiculturalist', insofar as he thinks it's a good thing to have different 'civlisations' existing worldwide, he opposes mutliculturalism <i>nationally</i> because he wants to preserve Western culture in its heartlands. Furthermore, Huntington dismisses universalism as imperialism (in the perjorative sense) and argues that a project of imposing Western values will end in disaster. In other words Huntington appears as a traditional realist.<br /><br />Achar argued that it is this realist Huntington that has informed US policy towards Islam. His first (and very good) example is the United States' alliance with Saudi Arabia, a state which is in fact the US' oldest ally in the Middle East. It has historically (and still does) served as the cornerstone in the US global stratey, particularly in combatting anti-imperialist nationalism. But of course Saudi Arabia is probably the most 'fundamentalist' state in the whole of the middle-east. In fact the US <i>supported</i> Saudi fundamentalism in Afghanistan. He further notes that plenty of fundamentalists were willing to colloborate with the US invasion of Iraq.<br /><br />The point for Achar is that the US has used fundamentalism for its own ends and fundamentalism has often been (and is still) willing to colloborate with US imperialism when they had the chance. He then listed the examples of the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted other instances.<br /><br />Achar's basic point here was that <i>at best</i> we can call Islamic fundamentalism 'anti-Western' but it is only sporadically and inconsistently 'anti-imperialist'. This of course has implications for how Marxists should approach Islamist resistance to US imperialism. At the very least when struggling with them it is necessary to view them with 'distrust' and attempt to spread our own ideas within their ranks.<br /><br />One person's attempt to critique Achar's approach was based on the argument that notwithstanding our 'subjective' opposition to the domestic policies of the fundamentalists, they might nonetheless be 'objectively' anti-imperialist, since they are fighting imperialism. I wasn't there was the response, but surely Achar's argument is not about the political programme's of Islamists, it's about their <i>record of supporting imperialists</i> when they think it is to their advantage. Such a position of course means that while they may be 'objectively anti-imperialist' in a given instance the question is whether they will <i>consistently hold this position</i>. Achar's analysis seems to suggest they won't (and also that the imperialists won't consistently target them either) so this <i>has</i> to be the position to proceed from.<br /><br /><i>Bashir Abu-Manneh<br /></i>For my money Abu-Manneh's speech was probably the most interesting of the lot, particulary because he engaged in some interesting theoretical anaylsis. Abu-Manneh's speech was composed of three arguments:<br /><ul><li>The Palestinians have been in a state of seige since 1991</li><li>The Palestinian elite has collaborated with the Israeli state</li><li>The above two factors have led to the emergence of a specific form of resistance, one which has entrenched militarisation and depoliticisation</li></ul>The first thesis is simple enough to understand. Israel has continuously interevened in the occupied territory, denying the right of freedom of movement throughout the West Bank and Gaza strip and within Israel itself. This process has culminated in the creation of the apartheid wall, which has formalised the process by physically closing off vast swathes of the West Bank. This - of couse - is all very uncontroversial stuff. But Abu-Manneh further argued that this has destroyed any meaningful sense of spontaneity amongst the Palestinians. It has tended to eliminate any proper sense of the Palestinians as a collecitive entity who are capable of collective action. Palestinians have been alienated into individuals, families etc.<br /><br />The second thesis is another one which I think is uncontroversial. It seem incontrovertable by now that the Palestinian Authority has collaborated with and legitimated the occupation - corrupting and nearly destroying the Palestinian's national aspirations. Abu-Manneh related an anecdote whereby the PA would always be there to stop attacks on settlers but would be mysteriously absent when there was an Israeli attack in the occupied territory. In line with this Abu-Manneh argued that the PA has consciously undermined any attempts to organise <i>outside </i>of the PA. To top it all off, when the PA <i>did</i> stop collaborating it was attacked by the Israeli authorities.<br /><br />The combination of the two above factors leads to Abu-Manneh's third argument. The point of these factors is that they have pushed Palestinian strategy towards militarisation. Firstly, this is because any meaningful political resistance seems impossible. The Palestinian's traditional representation - Fatah - has been collaborating since Oslo. Furthermore, it is difficult - if not impossible - to develop political positions and mobilisation when freedom of movement is physically restricted. Furthermore, political action seems so difficult precisely because the Palestinians have lost their faith in their own capability for collective action. This depoliticisation means that solutions based on mass action seem impossible, which naturally seems to lend support to the idea that small acts of military resistance are necessary.<br /><br />But it is not just the content (military acts) that are shaped by these social conditions, it is also the form. This is because the small military action <i>per se</i> is - in some respects - a collective political act. This would certainly seem to be the case when one considers the links between militants and political parties. The ultimate culmination of the tendency towards atomisation is the emergence of the suicide bomber as a 'weapon' in the struggle against of Israel. This of course makes a lot of sense, because the suicide bomber is the precisely opposite of a collective political struggle. Thus, the tendency towards atomisation and depoliticisation, combined with the concomitant process of militarisation tends to produce the ultimate individualist military act - the suicide bomber. Although, as Abu-Manneh points out, we shouldn't exaggerate the degree to which suicide bombing has become the norm, and ultimately as a tactic it has proved counter-productive, since it tended to fit the Palestianian struggle into the discourse of terror.<br /><br />What I really like about this analysis is the way in which it traces the particular configuration of Palestinian resistance back to the social conditions in which it operates. This is a much better position to take than just 'condemning' particular forms of resistance without understanding <i>why</i> they gain popularity or the opposite but related one of just saying 'it's understandable because they endure so much'. It's therefore good to see someone take a materialist position on this issue. What's also interesting is the degree to which Abu-Manneh's position dovetails with Lukacs in History and Class Consciousness. This is because capitalism itself has a natural tendency towards depoliticisation (reification), alienation and fragmentation, of course these tendencies are often counteracted.<br /><br />I think invoking Lukacs is useful for another reason. Abu-Manneh's preferred solution to the problem is to replace this strategy of individualised militarisation with one of collective self-mobilisation. Well, this is fine in practice, but the whole point is that the situation Abu-Manneh outlined has already shown precisely why this collective self-moblisation is going to happen, and certainly not spontaneously. This is where Lukacs is especially relevant. Because Lukacs core insight is that the proletariat can't just <i>spontaneously organise against capitalism</i>. What is needed is something that can take the viewpoint of the proletariat but do so in a way that transcends the reifying tendencies of capitalism. That is to say a vanguard party. In the Gramscian analysis this Party is composed of the organic intellectuals who arise from the class in the midst of struggle. And this is what Abu-Manneh's analysis really seems to lack - the need for a conscious organising element of the Palestinian people able to mobilise them against the Israelis. But of course the other problem is that the people who you would expect to be able to fulfil this role in Palestinian society are - as Abu-Manneh argued - completely compromised. This - perhaps - is why he didn't delve into this question, as it is one to which there doesn't seem to be much of an answer.<br /><br />Unfortunately I missed the last talk because I needed to get home, so I can't comment on that. More stuff will follow over the rest of the week. This will reveal how horribly theory-obsessed I am, however, and no doubt I will be much looked down-upon for it.<br /></div>Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08570084990430000647noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-34152750353026271552007-11-12T00:13:00.001+00:002007-11-12T20:10:43.165+00:00Historical Materialism Conference 2007<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">As you probably already know, this weekend was the annual Historical Materialism Conference, which I had the good fortune to attend. Unfortunately I missed Friday's sessions (prior commitments) which meant I didn't get to see Zizek (damn, damn, damn, damn) but the rest of the Conference was pretty damn good. The first thing to say is that despite the current poisonous climate on the left (and particularly as between the SWP and everyone else) the atmosphere at the Conference was really good (bearing in mind there was a mix of people from different traditions there), everything felt very comradely (although of course the interventions were occasionally slightly cutting) and everyone seemed to get along well enough. So, as is usual in the old blogosphere I thought I'd give a [not so brief] summation of those sessions which I did attend.<br /><br /><u><i>Saturday<br /></i></u><br />I rolled in a bit late on Saturday, so I missed the first session of the day. Not that I would really have listened to it much. The next session I attended was on 'Marxism, Pashukanis and the Law'. In this session I actually 'presented a paper' on Pashukanis, Legal Nihilism and Legal Strategy, which I will probably put up here at some time (once I've cleaned it up a bit - the notes were really only intended for my consumption only). There weren't too many people here (although there were a few), which was kind of predictable, as law is not a particularly glamorous topic for Marxist analysis. There were two other contributors aside from me - Andreas Harms presented a paper on 'Commodity Form and Legal Form' and Bill Bowring presented a paper on 'International Law, Lenin and Self-Determination'. Both of the papers were of high quality and we got some good discussion in as well. It feels kind of weird summarising this session, so I'll leave it for the atendees to do so (hopefully some of them blog).<br /><br />There weren't any more 'sessions' for the day, as it extended into a 'meet the editors' session and a lunchbreak, I did have some pretty interesting conversation during this period, so it was all to the good.<u><br /><br /></u>The next 'session' was a plenary one, featuring some rather big hitters, the talk was on 'Neo-liberalism and Neo-imperialism' and the speakers were Alex Callinicos, Robert Brenner and David McNally.<br /><br /><i>Robert Brenner<br /></i>The central thrust of Brenner's argument was the relationship between the war in Iraq and the US' geopolitical strategy. Brenner argued that the Iraq war was a puzzling phenomenon which represented a real rupture with previous US strategy in content if not form. Brenner argued that during the 2000 election no one would have predicted that the Iraq war would come around in the time that it did. The Republicans seemed to have a fairly low-key foreign policy, certainly not the type of messianism that seemed to characterise them post-9/11. Furthermore, it was argued that the US had fulfilled its three key strategic aims (which it had held since World War 2); these aims were<br /><ol><li>To freeze and weaken 'communism', third world statist nationalism and statism more generally so as to allow the free movement of [US] capital throughout the globe.</li><li>Consolidate US hegemony in Japan and Europe - depriving them of their ability to disrupt the framework of international capitalism; key to this aim was depriving them of their <i>military power</i> and compensate them for this by providing them with security.</li><li>As a consequence of the above two aims the US intended to implement a neo-liberal agenda throughout the world, with all the consequences thereof</li></ol>Brenner argued that the US was willing to do this since US capital was so powerful that it didn't <i>require</i> the formal protection of the US state. So on this reading the US had - according to Brenner - recognised the essential validity of the Leninist critique of imperialism - namely that monopoly-capital imperialist states vying for domination of the world's resources inevitably culminated in war, which was not conducive to the continued position of the US and global capitalism. To combat this the US entered into a 'radical Kautskyite' project of restructuring the global situation as above - the only question was whether the US was disciplined enough to continue enforcing the consensus.<br /><br />All of this was encapsulated in the term 'New World Order' as used by Bush et al. This meant that there was a new approach to the international use of force:<br /><ul><li>Don't use force <i>unless</i> you can use massive amounts of force</li><li>Other conflicts should just be 'policing' or assymetrical conflict</li><li>Avoid committing ground troops if you can - use cruise missiles, bombs etc.<br /></li></ul>All of ths as summarised in a phrase by Madeline Allbright that 'military force' but not war should be used (which got a big laugh from the audience, but really the distinction isn't as ridicoulous as it first, certainly international law tends to distinguish between the use of military force and an armed attack or war). This was basically a neo-liberal form of imperialism and one in which generally states toed the line (the thrid world accepted the neo-liberal consensus the [not yet] axis of evil was going to the table, etc.).<br /><br />So US policy in Iraq has to be understood in relation to this. It is therefore necessary to view US policy towards Iraq in this context. What the context what seem to suggest is that no US adminstration would really <i>want</i> regime change in Iraq, as this would be internationally counterproductive - it would be costly, destabilising and could whip up Arab resistance across the Middle East. Futhermore, the Shia could not be trusted to serve as a counterweight to Iran. This is why Saddam was not overthrown following the first Gulf War and a policy of 'containment' was pursued in relation to Iraq.<br /><br />Against this backdrop the recent war in Iraq <i>does</i> seem to be a break (and to a lesser extent so does Afghanistan). Brenner's next task is to explain <i>how</i> this could happen. Brenner traces the strategic rupture to the ascendence of the neo-conservative movement within the American state apparatus and their huge influence within the State Department. It was only with 9/11 that they were able to gain control over foreign policy.<br /><br />Brenner then gave an internal examination of this movement. According to Brenner the key theoretical position for the neo-conservatives is the 'fungibility of force'. By this they mean that American military domination can be used to <i>do anything</i>, and the neo-conservatives were interested in 'harvesting the fruits of military dominance'.<br /><br />It is then necessary to understand how the neo-conservatives gained this power. Brenner roots the neo-conservative movement in the Republican far-right, who had taken over Congress in 1994. They had always had trouble gaining power and were only able to do so by pushing the foreign policy aspect. Once they had gained power they acted as a 'Shadow Cabinet' that pushed Clinton into all sort of things (like passing the Iraq Liberation Act) but they could only achieve limited success and certainly couldn't impose their <i>domestic</i> agenda. But 9/11 changed all of this and gave the neo-conservatives the pre-text they needed to actualise both their domestic and international agenda.<br /><br />Brenner's analysis was pretty damn interesting (he's also a very good speaker). I quite liked his focus on concrete, 'micro' US politics and the way in which they interact with the global sphere, a Gramsci quote seems particularly relevant here:<br /><blockquote>Do international relations precede or follow (logically) fundamental social relations? There can be no doubt that they follow. Any organic innovation in the social structure, through its technical-military expressions, modifies organically absolute and relative relations in the international field too. Even the geographical position of a national State does not precede but follows (logically) structural changes, although it also reacts back upon them to a certain extent (to the extent precisely to which superstructures react back upon the structure, politics on economics, etc.). However, international relations react both passively and actively on political relations (of hegemony among the parties). The more the immediate economic life of a nation is subordinated to international relations, the more a particular party will come to represent this situation and to exploit it, with the aim of preventing rival parties gaining the upper hand (recall Nitti's famous speech on the technical impossibility of revolution in Italy).<br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/modern_prince/ch10.htm">Gramsci, The Modern Prince</a></blockquote>So I actually thought that Brenner's analysis was a niecly dialectical one, similar in the way that Gramsci presented it. I also see nothing <i>a priori</i> wrong with the ascription of such a decisive role to a 'subjective' factors. Especially as these subjective factors are in a dialectical relationship with the objective situation (Lukacs comes immediately to mind on this point). This isn't to say that I think Brenner is entirely right, but I don't think we dismiss his analysis out of hand.<br /><br /><i>Alex Callinicos<br /></i>Callinicos delivered another pretty awesome speech (you will hear this a lot, because I thought the quality of this session was absolutely stellar, even if the sweltering heat of the lecture theatre left much to be desired!). Alex presented his argument as one diametrically opposed to Brenner's. He argued that Brenner had only given us description, but no analysis - we can't just see Iraq as a random event we need a larger perpective and so must look at the historical connection between liberalism and imperialism.<br /><br />Callinicos noted that the US has always eschewed formal imperialism - and continuously legitimated itself with reference to this. He looks back to the 'imperialism of the open door' - in which the role of military power was only to enforce the conditions of a liberal world economy, this of course should not - as a rule - involve the use of ground troops. The predecessor of this type of imperialism was the 'imperialism of free trade' practiced by the British Empire in the 19th century and Britain relied heavily on informal empire in Canada and China. The US has a consistent, radical version of this.<br /><br />Following World War 2 the US dominated the advanced capitalist world and built up a series of institutions, but this liberalism was only ever transnational. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the US was able to convert this transnationalism into <i>global liberalism</i>. This means that for Callinicos there was no fundamental break in the project - and it was one vigorously pursued by the Clinton administration. For Callinicos therefore, <i>Clinton</i> was the true pioneer of the fungibility of military power.<br /><br />But of course hegemony is always about force and consent, and they are always combined in different ways. The manner in which these methods are combined is what differentiates the neo-cons from Clinton. Thus, for Callinicos this is a matter of quantity not quality <i>there is no rupture</i>. Callinicos further argues that the Bush administration was radicalised post-9/11 and that in this context the neo-cons cannot be considered 'mad'. He argues that in the face of the increasing threat of China's economic power a rational argument could certainly be made out for the US using its only comparative advantage in this conjuncture <i>that of military force.</i> Iraq was therefore important because rising captialist powers were dependent on its oil and the US needed to assert this.<br /><br />The question Callinicos thinks we need to ask is 'what are the interests of US imperialism'? When we do this we understand that the US ruling class is complex and the best strategy is always a contested question - we have to look at te question of the imposition of ideology on a world scale, and the geo-political is central to this.<br /><br />All well and good - but I think Brenner responded pretty well by saying 'we don't really disagree on much'. I think this is probably the case - all they really disagree is whether there is a qualitative or quantitiative difference between Clinton and Bush (which sounds big but - meh - scales). Brenner just helps us to understand why it is that one side <i>won the argument</i>. But I'd actually go further than this. Callinicos seems to argue two contradictory things. On the one hand he argues that there is no rupture between Clinton and Bush, but on the other hand he seems to argue that China posed a <i>qualitatively new threat </i>to the US. Because of course post-WW2 there has been no capitalist power that posed a threat to the US in the way China has (although I guess the state-cap people would argue the USSR was a rival capitalist power, so maybe change the reference to post-1989?), since every other 'threat' was pretty damn friendly to the US, and were happy to allow the US maintain <i>Pax Americana</i>. So, on this reading, Alex seems to be arguing that the emergence of China has disrupted the 'radical-Kautskyism' of the US, since it doesn't accept the US' managerial role. But surely this would indicate a rupture, in line with Brenner.<br /><br /><i>David McNally<br /></i>Although I really liked the first two talks David McNally's was far and away my favourite (I think much of the audience agreed with this too). In contradistinction to the first two McNally's position was to start from a general theoretical analysis and proceed from there. So for McNally the central point of depature was that of Marxist value theory. We need to begin from this perspective - so McNally argues - because we live in a world of alienated social relations and theory must de-fetishise them.<br /><br />McNally's talk revolved around 5 arguments:<br /><ul><li>Neo-liberalism involves radically extending and intensifying the commodity form</li><li>This is achieved through 'monetarising' more and more aspects of human life</li><li>This involves the extension of primitive accumulation</li><li>This occurs on a variety of levels and entails imperialism</li><li>World money becomes decisive</li></ul>So McNally's basic argument is that the phenomenon we call 'neo-liberalism' must be understood as the extension of the commodity form - not a conscious project of the capitalist class but a result of the value form itself. It is fundamentally connected to new forms of discipline, and is primarily exercised through the discipline of money - the IMF, the World Bank etc. This leads to a reversal of the partial decommodification of labour.<br /><br />Dispossession is also fundamental to this (hence the importance of primitive accumulation) because land has to be converted into capital. But since this land is occupied by other people, they have to be turfed off. For this reason there is a nexus of land, violence and dispossession - which gives rise to new enclosures and modalities of class struggle arise against this. Furthermore, ecological disaster is incorporated into this, so disasters which displace people are <i>taken advantage off</i> (Hurricane Mitch was used to get rid of the Honduran indigenous population).<br /><br />McNally further linked this process to militarisation - war is of course central in 'clearing out' areas of land, be that through death or fleeing. All of this has also led to a great rise in the industrial reserve army, which has grown massively as people have been forced out of their land in the process of dispossession.<br /><br />McNally went on to criticise the approaches of David Harvey and Rosa Luxemborg, who he thinks failed to properly elaborate the 'laws' of this economic process - meaning they cannot properly theorise it. Instead they often remain at the level of (very powerful) description. [He also made a really interesting point about dialectics and subjects positing their own presuppositions - but I'll ignore that]. Further, his problem with Rosa's approach is that she assumes this form of imperialism requires <i>permanent occupation</i>, which is clearly not the case, as the discipline of money suffices to compel national elites to implement dispossesion.<br /><br />McNally then went on to focus heavily on what he called 'world money'. By this he means the currency which serves as the 'global' medium for exchange. He argues that there has beeen an intensification of unequal currecny exchange, with the global South losing out on this. But the concept has been under theorised, and it is important, because the state that issues 'world money' will get the surplus on exchange, and so can appropriate value. This means that different nation states struggle over who is to issue world money.<br /><br />McNally argues that this can be illustrated by the Euro project in the European Union, where the states of the European Union have tried to create a currency with all the characteristics of world money. McNally describes this as a <i>form of inter-imperialist rivalry </i>and denies that such rivalry need be militarised.<br /><br />McNally ended with the argument that we need to emphasise anti-neo-liberalism and anti-imperialism highlight the need for a de-commodification of labour - that is to say the socialist revolution (which earnt him a rousing cheer).<br /><br />What I really liked about McNally's talk was the way that he was able to articulate linkages between his theoretical paradigm and our practical trajectory. His analysis does explain rather well a lot of contemporary phenomena in a basic theoretical way, and I think this is to be welcomed.<br /><br />Ultimately, I think all of these talks worked well, and frankly if we could have combined them all into one big talk it would have been awesome. So David sets the economic-theoretical scene for us, Alex embedded it in a broader historical context and Bob examined the specific way in which ruling classes responded to the broader need for the expansion of value. Each therefore had the merit of contributing to a totalising perspective, and with a little work we could trace the analysis of value directly into Alex's and Bob's talk. Of course this is the inherent weakness of the short talk format, but nonetheless I was impressed by this session.<br /><br />OK, I've clearly gone on long enough, so I'll stop now, and do something else. Tomorrow (maybe?) I want to at least outline the talk on 'Global Flashpoints' that was also on Saturday, particualrly as I felt it offered a really interesting perspective on the Palestinian resistance.<a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/modern_prince/ch10.htm"><br /></a></div>Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08570084990430000647noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-68509343287096046402007-10-25T23:24:00.001+00:002007-10-25T23:24:35.326+00:00Jack Straw, Human Rights and the 21st Century<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>Just heard a speech by <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Straw_%28politician%29'>Jack Straw</a> on 'Human Rights in the 21st Century', although by virtue of his position as politico the talk was of course slightly incoherent it was nonetheless interesting for several reasons. Firstly, the speech has to be read with the recent government announcement on a <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7062237.stm'>'Bill of Rights and Duties'</a>, secondly the speech's tone and structure give us some idea of the general government position on rights, thirdly I think Straw's inchoate theoretical probings actually provide a useful foil for people like me. So - seeing as I had nothing else to do - I thought I'd give a rundown of what Straw said and my own opinions on the matter.<br/><br/>The first thing that Straw was keen to stress (and something that is quite telling about his attitude towards the Human Rights Act (HRA)) was that historically and culturally Britain is a country that has been at the heart of the human rights project. He rightly pointed out that British lawyers were at the heart of developing the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Further, he put forward the position that 'human rights' are a tradition that has been rooted in British life since the Magna Carta. Whilst I agree with the latter point as far as it goes I'm pretty sceptical about it. Although it seems clear that Britain's rights tradition does coincide with the <i>content </i>of the ECHR it certainly <i>does not</i> have a content of <i>positively enumerating</i> rights and then 'balancing' these rights with exceptions. Rather, the British tradition of 'liberty' is of one where one can do whatever is not forbidden. However, the effort to 'domesticate' human rights is one that speaks volumes about Straw's position, clearly Straw is attempted to combat the typical accusations of the press the the HRA and the ECHR are alien impositions foisted on Britain by an ever-expanding Europe.<br/><br/>However, as was rather predictable, Straw begins to move to our present 'context'. For Straw the post-Cold War situation has been marked with the growth of an 'enabling state' and the spread of democracy to most of Europe. But simultaneously with this there still remain a number of authoritarian states and (dum dum dum) the growth of an international terrorist movement that operates outsides the bounds of ethics and leality. He further noted that this terrorism was qualitatively different from previous forms of terrorism because:<br/><ul><li>It is truly international, with non-national terrorists operating from foreign states with foreign backing</li><li>The terrorists have access to large and powerful weapons (biological, chemical, nuclear etc.)</li><li>The aims and scope of the terrorists are very different from preceding forms of terrorism </li></ul>Now, I will refrain from immediately commenting upon this particular assesment of the threat of international terrorism, at least until I discuss the relevance that Straw attributes to this. What is particularly interesting is that Straw (unlike certain members of the Government and the Opposition) doesn't seem to think that the HRA is <i>inadequate </i>in dealing with terrorism. In fact Straw thinks the HRA is absolutely necessary in order to 'establish and marshall the lawful bounds of our [the government's] response [to terrorism]'. Straw <i>did</i> seem to have some problems with particular decisions by the court - particularly concerning deporting people to places where there is a real chance they will be tortured (he prefers a substantial chance) - but in general he seems supportive of their overall approach. Personally, I actually found this to be quite gratifying, especially after hearing Dr. Reid's ranting for as long as I had to. However, Straw did note that although he wishes to maintain the 'principles' of human rights, he thinks there are some issues with the applications.<br/><br/>Straw proceeded at this point to utterly demolish the Tory analysis of the Human Rights Act, this was awesome and very little needs to be said on it. The most interesting part of Straw's lecture came in his amateur sociological examination of modern capitalism. Basically, Straw argued that there has been much deeper structural changes than just 9/11 which influence Britain's culture of rights; basically he pinpoints two key features:<br/><ul><li>There has been an increase in the heterogenousness of the British population and he links this to the problem of communities 'separating' out etc., obviously this would lead to a decline in a national/collective/public life</li><li>Globalisation has made people much less deferential, independent and empowered; but this has also turned people into 'consumers' peoples' primary identity therefore is not as the <i>citizen</i> but <i>consumer</i></li></ul>Straw then argued that this 'consumerism' is incompatible with 'politics' - as politics requires people consider their long-term interests, make some sacrifices for the social whole and engage in meaningful public participation. According to Straw the result of this process has been that our rights have become 'commoditised' (what a hideous, hideous word - has the man never heard of the term 'commodified'!?). Rights are exercused so as to injure others, with no concern for the 'public good' or our collective right. Furthermore, people become covetous of the rights of others, which they view as a type of 'possession'. <br/><br/>Whilst this is all very interesting I really don't see why we need to tie it in with <i>globalisation</i>. The critique that Straw advanced is one that has been advanced countless times pre-'globalisation', in fact here is a rather famous analysis which bears remarkable ressemblence to Straw's:<br/><blockquote>It is puzzling enough that a people which is just beginning to<br />liberate itself, to tear down all the barriers between its various sections,<br />and to establish a political community, that such a people solemnly proclaims<br />(Declaration of 1791) the rights of egoistic man separated from his fellow<br />men and from the community, and that indeed it repeats this proclamation<br />at a moment when only the most heroic devotion can save the nation, and<br />is therefore imperatively called for, at a moment when the sacrifice of<br />all the interest of civil society must be the order of the day, and egoism<br />must be punished as a crime. (Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., of<br />1793.) This fact becomes still more puzzling when we see that the political<br />emancipators go so far as to reduce citizenship, and the political community,<br />to a mere means for maintaining these so-called rights of man, that, therefore,<br />the citoyen is declared to be the servant of egotistic homme, that the sphere<br />in which man acts as a communal being is degraded to a level below the<br />sphere in which he acts as a partial being, and that, finally, it is not<br />man as citoyen, but man as private individual [bourgeois] who is considered<br />to be the essential and true man.</blockquote>And who made this critique? Why it was Karl Marx in his <a href='http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm'>On the Jewish Question</a>. The basic structure of this critique has been voiced by conservatives, liberals etc. What I would argue here is that the vision Straw presents to us - of civil society as a collection of egoistic individuals whose main form of contact is through clashing rights - is one which is constantly reproduced by capitalist society. The whole point is that this can't really be overcome by simply cementing new political forms over it, since these forms don't tend to touch the social relations which produce certain forms of social life <i>and</i> since - as Marx notes - politics is conceived only as a means of guaranteeing or affecting one's private, egostic sphere.<br/><br/>I would further argue in this vein that actually the whole idea of rights-based politics and rights-culture <i>presupposes this state of affairs</i>. This is where Straw really screws up in my view, the idea of rights being 'commoditised' (arrrgh!!!!) really seems to miss the point that the very <i>right-form </i>is grounded in the notion of an egoistic, individual man with an inviolable area of space, that is to say that the right-form is bound up with the commodity form:<br/><blockquote>None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic<br />man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual<br />withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and<br />private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man,<br />he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like<br />itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as<br />a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them<br />together it natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation<br />of their property and their egoistic selves.</blockquote>All of this means that Straw's solution - reminding people that rights also entail duties towards others - is kind of lame. I mean, he makes a really interesting critique (or at least I read him as doing so) but simply can't go beyond the right's based framework. But the point is that unless you go beyond the rights-based framework you can't possibly transcend the notion of man as a 'consumer' as the defining characteristic of life. Inga Markovits traces this quite well in her examination of the differnce between 'bourgeois' and 'socialist' rights, as she first argues:<br/><blockquote>As individual entitlements, bourgeois rights confer<br />autonomy in a limited area, which then can be exercised at the discretion of<br />the rightholder. In a way, all bourgeois rights are modelled after property<br />rights: they map out territory, set up fences against prospective intruders,<br />or, to quote Marx, they delineate the elbow room of the individual capitalist.<br /><br />(Socialist vs. Bourgeois Rights: An East-West Comparison; (1978) 45 University of Chicago Law Review 612-636 at 614)</blockquote>She then fleshes out this conception arguing that it results in a focus on dispute, precision and individualism. This critique dovetails nicely with Marx's, and seems a hammer in the coffin for Straw's analysis.<br/><br/>So, ultimately, my real issue with this bit of Straw's speech was that he tried to present this phenomenon as something 'new', whereas it is one which he plagued capitalism since its outset. Further, his proposed solution is uniformly rubbish, and in facts would result in no change whatsover. Though actually this is something Straw seems to love to do. As a lawyer he oftens realises what the law is but then proposes some change to the law <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm'><i>which is not a change at all</i></a>.<br/><br/>Ok, I've written way too much, and it's all got rather rambling, but on the plus side, at least it's not about RESPECT!<br/><br/><br/><p class='poweredbyperformancing'>Powered by <a href='http://scribefire.com/'>ScribeFire</a>.</p></div>Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08570084990430000647noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-12761533235957537882007-10-15T15:26:00.000+00:002007-10-18T20:15:13.880+00:00RESPECT and SWP: Tunes of War<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://static2.bareka.com/photos/medium/1070121/moscow-kremlin-classical-view.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://static2.bareka.com/photos/medium/1070121/moscow-kremlin-classical-view.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />The few, but very esteemed, readers of this blog will have probably already noticed the discussion that's going on over at <a href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=824">Socialst Unity</a> on the 3 relatively high profile expulsions from the SWP. It would be entirely inappropriate for the Squirrel Vanguard and especially myself, a member of an organisation so adversely affected by its association with our not particularly dear swips, not to comment on the unfolding events.<br /><br />As you probably know -if you don't, shame on you- the Great Proletarian Hero Gorgeous George Galloway sent a <a href="http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/george-galloways-letter-to-respects-national-council/">letter</a> to RESPECT's National Council containing sharp criticism of various RESPECT practices, regarding internal democracy and organisational efficiency. Of course, coming from Galloway, there was a sense of irony about the whole thing. However, the points raised were quite common-sense arguments that had been raised by serious socialist organisations within RESPECT like Socialist Resistance on various occasions in the past. <br /><br />The letter came obviously as quite a shock to the SWP <s>Holy Synod</s> Central Committee, especially considering that it had been "leaked" to the public domain before they had a good chance to process it, come up with a line and feed it to their rank and file. The SWP replied after a few days with a piece written by John Rees. National Secretary of RESPECT and Elaine Leigh, National Treasurer, beginning with how much they regretted that Galloway's criticism had been "reproduced on various websites", that is, regretting that open and active debate would have to be had. They then proceeded to reply (in a rather weak manner) to the criticisms raised by the original letter. Alas, though, the game was on. The first signs of a rupture in what was seen as a fairly stable alliance between Gorgeous George and the SWP signaled that new political opportunities were being opened up for activists and groups within and out of RESPECT to put forward their own points of view, as well as to try and stir RESPECT towards a healthier political route. People rejoined, Salma Yaqoob published an article offering her own view of the potential development of RESPECT and more importantly, the National Council approved the proposals made by Galloway. All the relevant documents can be found under the <a href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=83">RESPECT tag</a> at Socialist Unity.<br /><br />Immediately, the SWP leadership tried to make this look like a political battle between the left (them, socialists) and right (Galloway's group, communalists) wings of the party. In short, the SWP started attacking RESPECT using all the criticisms that have been leveled against it by the rest of the radical left since its foundation -aye, the same criticisms the swips have been rejecting as ultra leftist and whathaveyou. This was expectable as, like your average Bureaucratic Centralist organisation, the SWP cannot afford to have its One True Line criticised with legitimate arguments that might get their members thinking "hey, this is actually a valid point". The whole existence of a Bureaucratic Centralist formation rests on the legitimacy of the Central Leadership and its ability to withhold information (of all kinds) from the rank and file, allowing to perpetuate itself by preventing any political challenges. <br /><br />What came as quite a surprise to me however was the expulsion of three relatively high ranking members of the SWP, two of them working for Galloway and the other one nominated for the position of National Organiser (one of the Gorgeous one's suggestions) which was supposed to complement that of the National Secretary, the post held by the Almighty Dear Swip Leader, John Rees. Said Swips were expelled for refusing to give up their posts and decline the nomination respectively. One would have thought that if the SWP cherished their control of RESPECT, they would not oppose the filling of yet another central administrative post by one of their own. Having mulled over it a bit while munching some nuts, it seems to me fairly obvious that the SWP could not be seen to accept the validity of Galloway's proposals by allowing Nick Wrack (that's his name right?) to become National Organiser, as that would in essence be an acceptance of the fact that the Light-giving Central Committee can actually be wrong, fatally compromising its prestige.<br /><br />Another function served by the expulsions is that they serve as a tactic of burning bridges. The fact that the now expelled members did not submit to party discipline, refusing to give up their places indicates that a good section of the SWP rank and file might have gone native, so to speak, in RESPECT. By removing the most high profile of those from the party, the cult leadership minimises the chances of a mass defection in the event that the SWP loses the internal battle and decides to abandon RESPECT. That there is going to be a battle is of course not debatable. In fact, the SWP has already <a href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=847">initiated operations</a> on the ground.<br /><br />It is imperative that socialists in RESPECT that do wish to see the project continue and evolve into something useful for the working class movement engage the SWP rank and file (those of them that are principled and approachable that is) in their branches and persuade them not to follow their leadership, if it chooses to abandon RESPECT. It should be clear to everyone by now that the swip leadership is not interested in building socialist unity not under its rigid and direct control. The destruction of Socialist Alliance and the split in the Scottish Socialist Party have been evidence enough of the incapability of the SWP to commit themselves to anything that is not their pet project. Whatever strategy the SWP follows if it leaves RESPECT it is bound to degenerate into nothing more than a Trot sect. Another unity project (especially one initiated by the swips, whom by now, nobody trusts) is bound to never get off the ground while an ultra left turn of going it alone and building "the Party" will lead in them meeting the fate of the WRP. In any case, it is important that the better, healthier elements within the SWP are neither allowed to be swept along by the CC, nor fall to apathy and drop out of politics altogether.<br /><br />Finally, it must be said that it would be rather unfortunate for RESPECT to be rid by the SWP and then fall to Gallowayism, becoming an identity-less left opposition to Labourism, without a clear working class coordination. Any alliances socialists in RESPECT make with the filthy opportunist that is Galloway must be tactical and temporal and they should be prepared to organise themselves in a unified pole to counter any future swing to the right, whether on abortion, LGBT issues, or socialism itself.<br /><br />These are my two nutshells. So long, humans.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-32683272880030145602007-10-13T11:47:00.000+00:002007-10-13T11:51:51.516+00:00Crazy search.Right, I don't usually do "Search of the week" kind of posts, but I thought this was fairly interesting. <br /><br />Apparently, one of the google searches that led people to my blog was about.....<br /><br />"<span style="font-weight:bold;">i fucked my brothers arse stories</span>"<br /><br />Do you know where it led them?<br /><br /><a href="http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.com/2007/06/brothers-my-arse.html">Here</a>.<br /><br />Reckon the gods of the Internet are trying to tell us something?Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-41223505829043112852007-10-12T16:22:00.000+00:002007-10-12T17:15:55.864+00:00Income disparity in the US reaches record levelsAccording to a report released by the Internal Revenue Service, concentration of wealth amongst the richest 1% of the population in the United States has climbed to unprecedented heights by post-war standards. From <a href"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AhQeZ8R80VgkBp.5PPAEUCib.HQA">Yahoo news:</a><br /><br /><p></p><blockquote><p> The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier, reflecting a widening income disparity among different classes in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing new Internal Revenue Service data.</p> <p> The data showed that the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4 percent the year before, the paper said.</p> <p> It said that while the IRS data goes back only to 1986, academic research suggests that the last time wealthy Americans had such a high percentage of the national income pie was in the 1920s.</p> <p> The article cited an interview with President Bush, who attributed income inequality to "skills gaps" among various classes. It said the IRS didn't identify the source of rising income for the affluent, but said a boom on Wall Street has likely played a part.</p></blockquote><p></p>The contradiction between the overall increase of wealth and the simultaneous increase in poverty is of course a fundamental characteristic of capitalism as Marxists have been pointing out for decades. With the neo-liberal hegemony having displaced the formerly commonly accepted Keynesian economics, this contradiction becomes of course even more sharp. The political weakness of the working class after a series of defeats, from the failure of the Miners' Strike to the catastrophic fall of the Soviet, which have resulted in the collapse more or less of the socialist movement as a strong antagonist to the bourgeoisie, has only strengthened the latter and facilitated its offensives against the workers of the world.<br /><br />Of course the increasing brutality of our most absurd mode of production makes it easier for the exploited masses to see it for what it really is, a crime against human progress, and thus provides more opportunities for the building of class consciousness. On the downside (as if there weren't enough already) it seems rather improbable to me that the working classes of imperialist metropolises will develop this consciousness before a large scale collapse of global imperialism.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-77967218867889001472007-10-07T17:10:00.001+00:002007-10-07T17:18:34.893+00:00Green Left Weekly on Hugo Chavez<i>The following is an assessment, from a Marxist perspective, of the political role of Hugo Chavez as well as the prospects for a decisive break with capitalism in Venezuela, published in the Australian Green left Weekly. I think the points it raises are fairly valid and the analysis of the author reflects my own. With the Bolivarian process picking up momentum in Venezuela and the founding conference of the PSUV only weeks away, I think it is very important to keep an eye on even the finest of developments in the country.</i><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><br />Hugo Chavez: Social-Democrat or Revolutionary?</span><br /><br /><div style="font-weight: bold;">Stuart Munckton</div> 5 October 2007<br /><br /><br /><b style="font-size: 110%;">Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution, led by socialist President Hugo Chavez, has captured the imagination of people around the world and sparked widespread commentary on the nature of the process of social change under way in the oil-rich South American nation. </b> <br /> <br /> <div id="articleCntent">Named after Simon Bolivar, who liberated much of the continent from Spanish colonialism, the process of change has been aimed at overcoming the country’s underdevelopment and widespread poverty. When Chavez was elected in 1998, the country had been devastated by neoliberal policies that bled the country dry largely on behalf of US corporations, with the complicity of a corrupt Venezuelan elite.<br /><br />Any discussion on this process of change inevitably centres on the role of Chavez, the revolution’s central leader. A common analysis of the politics of Chavez, the government he leads, and, in some cases, the broader revolutionary movement based on the impoverished, working people, is that they can be understood as “social democratic”. Social-democratic politics tend to be understood as seeking to implement reforms that alleviate some of the worst aspects of the profit-driven capitalist system, to the benefit of ordinary people, without breaking with capitalism itself.<br /><br />Certainly, the Chavez government has implemented a wide number of reforms that in and of themselves don’t do away with capitalism — a system based on private ownership and control over the economy, run for profit and based on the exploitation of working people — but have still benefited the poor majority.<br /><br />However, describing the process as social democratic misses the profoundly revolutionary nature of the struggle being led by Chavez (who in almost every speech he gives calls for the need to construct socialism and describes himself as the “subversive within Miraflores”, the presidential palace).<br /><br />The line of march for the Bolivarian revolution pushed by Chavez, who elaborates on revolutionary strategy in many speeches, especially on his weekly television program <em>Alo Presidente</em> (when not singing folk songs), is not for the process of change to stop with reforms to Venezuela’s existing power structures. He has used reforms to weaken the political and economic power of Venezuela’s capitalist class, while at the same time strengthening the confidence and organisation of the oppressed (the workers, urban poor, <em>campesinos</em>, women and indigenous people) in order to replace the structures of the old society with new ones based on the oppressed themselves.<br /><br />This is a very difficult struggle, with many weaknesses and internal contradictions. It involves the ongoing creation and organisation of a revolutionary movement involving millions of people, who through their mass, coordinated action are capable of creating a completely new social system. Socialism — a society based on a democratically planned economy run according to people’s needs — cannot be decreed from above by a president, nor by simply elaborating a well-written program, as it involves the transformation of social relations for millions of people.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Much analysis, especially in the corporate media but unfortunately among much of the international left as well, focuses almost exclusively on the role of Chavez as an individual. However the correct way to analyse his role is in relation to the masses that have been drawn into political motion, and ask whether Chavez and his government’s policies work to advance the organisation of the oppressed in order to break the political and economic power of the capitalist class, or whether the policies hold this back.</span><br /><br />In some cases, claims that Chavez is a social democrat are used to attack him by sections of the revolutionary socialist movement internationally. These arguments go further than suggesting simply that the revolution hasn’t gone far enough, something Chavez himself repeatedly emphasises — for instance, while announcing a series of radical measures aimed at creating a “new revolutionary state” and that nationalisation of “strategic industries” following his re-election on an explicitly socialist platform in December, Chavez insisted the revolution had “barely begun”. Left critics suggest that Chavez and his government either have no desire for significantly more radical measures, or falsely believe that the government's approach is to implement more radical measures over the heads of the masses, which they rightly point out would be bound to fail.<br /><br />However an analysis of Chavez as social democratic has also come from some outspoken in their support for the Chavez government and the process of change under way, such as the left-wing writers Tariq Ali, John Pilger and Stephen Lendman, all of whom play invaluable roles in promoting and defending the Bolivarian revolution.<br /><br />While for those revolutionary socialists who wish to label Chavez a “social democrat” it is intended to highlight the perceived limitations of his politics (and by implication the mass movement that supports him), for many people the concept of genuinely social-democratic politics, based on state provision of welfare, health care and education and at least a degree of respect for people’s rights, seems a very good thing in this age of savage neoliberalism.<br /><br />However understanding why the Bolivarian revolution is not simply a case of Chavez taking up a banner dropped by social-democratic parties, like the ALP and the British Labour Party, rushing to implement brutal anti-worker policies, is crucial to understanding why such parties have moved so dramatically to the right during the past few decades.<br /><br />In his book <em>Build it Now: Socialism for the 21st Century</em> (which Chavez strongly praised on <em>Alo Presidente </em>and urged Venezuelans to read), Canadian Marxist Michael Lebowitz uses his experience as a policy advisor to a social-democratic New Democratic Party state government in Canada in the ’70s to show that for social democrats, the interests of the capitalist system have always come first — and if advancing the interests of working people conflicts with the needs of the system, then it is the former that gets dropped.<br /><br />In the First World the post-war economic boom allowed for the creation of a welfare state and other measures that improved the lot of working people, but since the boom ended in the mid-’70s, the capitalists have attempted to wrest all of these gains back. Social-democratic parties across the board have proven willing to implement neoliberal austerity measures to this end.<br /><br />In Venezuela, the advent of Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution have amounted to a break with the class-collaborationist politics of social democracy that seek to subordinate struggles by workers to the interests of capital by promoting the idea of common interests between two fundamentally irreconcilable social forces — working people and capitalists.<br /><br />Within Venezuela, these politics were expressed by Accion Democratica, a political party that alternated in power with the conservative COPEI party and controlled the unions, and today is part of Venezuela’s counter-revolutionary opposition.<br /><br />Although the program Chavez initially sought to implement after his election did not break with capitalism, the mild reforms aroused strident opposition from the capitalists, outraged at even minor encroachments on their privileges. The capitalist class was defeated in its attempts to overthrow Chavez when working people took the streets in April 2002 during a US-backed coup and during a lockout by bosses in December that year. This lad Chavez to conclude that the changes Venezuela desperately needed were impossible within the framework of capitalism.<br /><br />However, many commentators point out that, even with the pro-people, anti-capitalist measures implemented so far, capitalism is far from abolished in Venezuela. These reforms have included the government wresting control of the oil industry; forcing foreign oil companies into joint ventures that give the Venezuelan government majority control; increasing nationalisation of “strategic industries”; a program of land reform to break up large agribusiness for the benefit of campesino cooperatives; the promotion of a “social economy” based on a massive expansion in cooperatives; and a series of measures that restrict the ability of capitalists in Venezuela to put their profits above the needs of the people — price controls, heavy restrictions on their ability to sack workers and increasing workers’ rights. In fact, despite these reforms, corporate profits have grown with the economic boom.<br /><br />The key question in Venezuela is not merely the subjective intentions of Chavez, who has sparked a mass discussion on socialism in Venezuela, but the willingness and capacity of the millions of oppressed to take political and economic control out of the hands of the capitalists. Through the political battles over the last few years, this has continually increased, opening the way for increasingly radical measure. The key to the revolutionary process can be found in a book that Chavez urged Venezuelans to read during his <em>Alo Presidente</em> program on April 22 — <em>The Transitional Program</em> by Leon Trotsky, a leader of the Russian Revolution and an opponent of its Stalinist degeneration.<br /><br />Written in 1938, the book is an argument for how a program of struggle for increasingly deep-going reforms that, without abolishing capitalism, make deep inroads into the capitalist system, can raise the level of consciousness and organisation of the working people and open the road to socialism.<br /><br />Transitional measures aim to proceed from the mass of people’s existing level of consciousness and, by pushing measures that solve the needs of the working people while undermining capitalism, lay the groundwork for much deeper measures towards a socialist economy. Such transitional measures — such as nationalising key areas of the economy, introducing elements of workers’ control and shortening the working week with no loss of pay — can act as a bridge between the existing capitalist system and an increasingly socialist economy under the control of the working people and run according to their needs.<br /><br />The transitional approach seeks to find ways to draw masses of people into political activity and increasingly radicalise the broadest layers so they are willing and able to fight for even more radical measures. This explains why, at the same time as Chavez promotes policies increasingly attacking capitalist interests, he continues in his speeches to urge the capitalist class to join the revolutionary project. Some revolutionary socialists, who already understand that the capitalists will never accept the measures implemented by Chavez, see this as evidence of social-democratic politics. However, Chavez is not speaking to those already convinced of socialist revolution, but to the millions of people in Venezuela, including the more than 4 million who voted for the opposition — the overwhelming majority of whom are not capitalists but middle and working class people misled into backing the pro-capitalist opposition.<br /><br />An example of this came on June 2, when Chavez addressed hundreds of thousands of supporters in a demonstration to defend his government from attacks by the US-backed, right-wing opposition. Claiming his government had no plans to “eliminate” the Venezuelan capitalist class, Chavez added: “If the Venezuelan bourgeoisie continues to desperately attack us, utilising the refuges it has left, then the Venezuelan bourgeoisie will continue to lose these refuges one by one!<br /><br />“This message is for the Venezuelan bourgeois class. We respect you as Venezuelans, you should respect Venezuela, you should respect the homeland, you should respect our constitution, you should respect our laws. If you don’t do this … we will make you obey the Venezuelan laws!”<br /><br />Presenting the struggle in such a way aims to ensure it is the actions of Venezuela’s capitalists themselves that expose them and provide the justification in the eyes of millions of people for more radical measures that aim to overturn capitalism completely.<br /><br />This mass action-based approach is the essence of a genuinely revolutionary strategy, one that applies in all countries, although according to national conditions. It is necessary to understand that while the revolution is a work in progress, its aim and trajectory are not simply tinkering with the system along social-democratic lines, but its abolition and replacement with socialism.<br /><br />[Stuart Munckton is a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist tendency in Australia’s Socialist Alliance. Visit <a href="http://www.dsp.org.au/">http://www.dsp.org.au</a> for more information.]</div> <div class="footer" style="font-size: 90%;"><br />From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #<a href="http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2007/727">727</a> 10 October 2007. </div>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-55537272524075543152007-10-05T12:55:00.000+00:002007-10-05T14:00:13.769+00:00Post-reproductive rights?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper882/stills/408f5ea428048-1-1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper882/stills/408f5ea428048-1-1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Right, a while ago, in fact, maybe a few months ago, there was a conversation on the SSP online forums about something pertaining to reproductive rights. As this was quire boring, since pretty much everybody agreed with each other, the conversation gradually branched out to the question of whether a man should be expected to provide for his biological child if he had made it clear during the time that the mother was pregnant, that he did not wish to be the child's father and would have preferred the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Obviously, the ultimate choice over whether there is an abortion of not belongs to the woman, never mind what religious nutjobs who care about the "rights" of the father want to believe. But after the child is born, is there a convincing argument to support the idea that the biological father should have any kind of legal responsibility to the child and also, is this argument constructed on a moral basis acceptable to socialists?<br /><br />I think not. I believe that the way one approaches the right of women to choose determines to a great extent their attitude to this issue as well. As a socialist, and a Marxist one at that, I do not support the right to an abortion because of any metaphysical notions of any kind, but because of the very objective, material reality that it is only the woman who suffers the physical costs of pregnancy and therefore it is only her who has a moral right to decide whether she will, or will not suffer them to their full extent. The father's ("father" is a rather shaky notion in itself, but I might discuss this in another post) moral right can only be restricted to expressing an opinion on the matter. For me, this is pretty straightforward stuff where notions of life (I don't consider an unborn child alive anyway) need play no part.<br /><br />But after the child is born, that is, leaves the woman's body, the woman ceases to have a physical connexion to it and its fate is thus no longer a matter of physical self-determination. From the moment the woman, exercising her right to choice, decides to carry the child to term, she also of necessity accepts the implications and responsibilities this choice entails (this does not mean that the mother should necessarily keep the child after it is born, but that it will be born and that it will be up to her to choose what to do with it, should the biological father have forfeited his rights over same). The attitude of the biological father must necessarily be one of the variables the woman considers when she chooses to keep the child. If she doesn't care about what the biological father thinks and wants to have and keep the child anyway, then fair enough, she should receive support from the state to raise the child as comfortably as possible. If she agrees with the father but believes that "killing babies" is wrong then that's also ok, she can have the child and then give it up for adoption. If she <span style="font-style: italic;">absolutely</span> wants her child to grow up with its biological father when he does not to be one, then the rational choice is to abort.<br /><br />Forcing the father by legal means to maintain any short of relation to the child would essentially be a violation of physical self-determination similar to what we want to prevent by defending women's right to choose. Forcing someone (man or woman) to direct their physical activity in the form of labour, or the fruits thereof, towards something they do not want to is, social norms aside, in essence no different to forcing someone to carry a child to term (indeed, pregnancy lasts 9 months, supporting a child to maturity lasts at least 18 years) and is actually the same alienation of labour we as socialists claim to stand against.<br /><br />The above was a quite stream of consciousness-like post, so I would appreciate comments from everybody, especially those of you who happen to be female and more well versed into the issues surrounding reproductive rights than myself. Cheerio.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-82410571019438595092007-09-29T18:58:00.000+00:002007-09-29T19:02:36.497+00:00Uhm, this is just wrong, ok?Dear Daily Record,<br /><br />Please don't do this ever again.<br /><br />Kthanx<br /><br /><center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/ko-korakious/wrongjustwrong.jpg" /></center><br /><br />No comments.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-8473964082505359572007-09-27T21:14:00.000+00:002007-09-28T02:42:25.804+00:00Elections in Greece: Positive results for the left<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.grisel.net/images/greece/parliament.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.grisel.net/images/greece/parliament.JPG" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><i>The following is my take on the recent elections in Greece. It will be also appearing on Emancipation and Liberation soon, but I thought I'd post it here as well, because I know you were waiting for it.</i><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">That the Greek parliamentary election of the 16th of September would result in a significantly different composition of the legislature than the one Greeks are used to was more or less common knowledge. Three and a half years of extreme government incompetence and quite shocking scandals such as the telephone surveillance case<span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> and the abduction of Pakistani men by British agents<span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span>, both having serious implications on national sovereignty, as well as increasing incidents of police brutality, especially during the student protests against the proposed educational reform (on which I'll comment in another post), ensured that support for the conservative government of Nea Demokratia (ND, New Democracy), would retreat significantly from the 45.36% of the vote tallied in 2004 and the strong absolute majority of 165 out 300 parliamentary seats this guaranteed. Moreover, the fact that the whole of the rather short campaigning period took place under the shadow, or better, under the eerie glare of a rather large part of the country being ravaged by wild fires which were anything by accidental, made certain that there would be a significant protest vote gained by the far left and, to a lesser extent, the far right.<br /><br />Both of the above happened more or less as expected, with ND suffering a loss of 3.52% and 13 seats, tallying 2,995,321 votes (41.83%), which significantly decreased their parliamentary power, leaving them with a very slight majority of only 152 seats. Meanwhile, the combined far left vote increased by 4.04% to 13.19%. KKE (the Communist Party) gathered an impressive 8.15% (+2.26) of the vote returning 22 MPs (+10), while SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), with 5.04% (+1.78) returned 14 MPs (+8). In large cities, the gains made by the left were significantly higher, with, for example, KKE reaching 14.55% in the V' Peiraios district and SYRIZA 9.27% in A' Athinon. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the far right <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> (Popular Orthodox Rally) entered Parliament for the first time, tallying 3.80% (+1.61) and winning 10 seats.<br /><br />What was more surprising is the serious setback suffered by PASOK (Panhellenic Socialist Movement, the Greek equivalent of the Labour party). Support for the SPD-style Social Democrats retreated below the level of the 2004 election to 38.10 % (102 MPs, -2.45%), the lowest in more than 20 years<span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span>.<br /><br />The emerging picture is that of a clear shift of popular support away from the two large bourgeois parties towards radical smaller forces. Whether this is just an isolated protest vote incidence or the beginning of a more long term trend pointing to an intensification of class struggle remains to be seen. What is certain however is that Greek society has become far more receptive to more radical politics meaning that an increasing amount of space will be opening up for the far left to organise in the near future. Before going into what the immediate tasks of the Greek left are, it would be useful to provide some background on the parties currently in Parliament which it would be fair to say, will be the prime forces shaping Greek politics in the next four years (unless of course a revolution happens, workers councils spontaneously spring up and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, but I wouldn't be getting my hopes up for that).<br /><br /><b>The Parties</b><br /><br /><i>Nea Demokratia</i><br /><br />Nea Demokratia was founded by Konstadinos Karamanlis, the first post-dictatorship Prime Minister of Greece. It is the traditional party of Greek capital and its satellite strata. While international commentators generally refer to them as conservatives, a more correct parallel would be continental European Christian Democracy. Unlike most centre-right parties, it is not a group of right wing liberals, but on the contrary, includes a variety of rightists from David Cameron like "modern" fluffy conservatives, to intensely ideological, ultra religious xenophobic cavemen like the former Minister of Public Order, who used to refer to riot police as the “praetorian guard of the country”. The Party is currently led by Kostas Karamanlis, the founder's nephew who seems to have been placed at the helm more for his name than his political skills.<br /><br />Right after emerging victorious, Karamanlis restructured the government, removing extremely unpopular ministers like the aforementioned Public Order brute from their posts (in fact, the Public Order ministry was abolished as an independent body and was incorporated into the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation), in an obvious effort to rebuild the party's citizen friendly image. However, this does not in any way mean that there will be any large scale retreat from the aggressive neo-liberal policies ND has been pursuing against the exploited working strata of Greek society with the tacit support of PASOK. Nevertheless, its significantly weakened position in Parliament is bound to make the party far more responsive to social movement pressure.<br /><br /><i>PASOK</i><br /><br />Above, I described PASOK as SPD-style social-democrats. The reason I did so is that, like the SPD, PASOK has been on an increasingly right wing trajectory without however having been transformed (yet) into a fully fledged neo-Thatcherite party like New Labour. The similarities however, end here. Unlike both Labour and SPD, PASOK did not arise organically out of the struggle of the working class, it did not emerge as the political wing of the trade union movement and was definitely never a radical socialist political force. That is not to say that, it is not, like Labour, the party were most of the working class is, but that its apparatus is not composed by cadres of a proletarian character.<br /><br />The party, or movement as they style themselves, was founded following the collapse of the Colonel Dictatorship in late 1974 by Andreas Papandreou, son of the prominent classical liberal politician Georgios Papandreou. From the very beginning, the social basis of PASOK lay in the radical wings of the petty and national bourgeoisie. Its early policy platform was clearly populist left nationalist, and in that manner, they share a lot with the SNP, although <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s independent status makes it difficult to draw further parallels. However, like the SNP, precisely because PASOK lacks a deep, organic working class basis, it has been able to engage in a series of political u-turns, like dropping withdrawal from both NATO and EU as a policy in the period following its first electoral victory in 1981. For this same reason however, it is also far easier for the working class sections that do support PASOK to abandon it.<br /><br />The current leader of the "movement" is Giorgos Papandreou, son of the founder, who acceded to the presidency shortly before the 2004 elections, in an effort to rebuild party popularity after 8 years of neo-liberal "modernisation" under Costas Simitis had severely eroded its support basis. Despite employing populist rhetoric and conjuring his father's ghost on every opportunity, Papandreou has failed to stop PASOK's bleeding of support to the left. After defeat in the latest elections had become evident, he announced that he would be seeking reelection as president, however, shortly after that, Evagelos Venizelos, who while popular within PASOK, is considered to be on the conservative wing of the party, also announced his candidacy. Elections are to be held sometime in November. I will return to their significance for the left later.<br /><br /><st1:country-region st="on"><i>LAOS</i></st1:country-region><br /><br /><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> is a strange case. While it would be fair to say that it is a far right wing party, its perception by many as fascist is rather mistaken. <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> was founded by former ND member and MP, Giorgos Karatzaferis, following his expulsion in 2000. Since then, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> has engaged in a number of extremely haphazard political maneuvers, adopting policies in what seems to be an entirely random manner. Its contradictions are evident on a daily basis, with prominent members promoting books that supposedly debunk the "myth" that there was any homosexuality in ancient <st1:country-region st="on">Greece</st1:country-region>, while Karatzaferis himself has stated that homophobia must be fought and voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on homophobia in <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place>. Furthermore, while <st1:country-region st="on">LAOS</st1:country-region> maintains that there are too many immigrants in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>, Karatzaferis has often rejected nationalism as an idea, describing himself as a patriot and an enemy of globalization instead. Further, while members of <st1:country-region st="on">LAOS</st1:country-region> have often made anti-semitic comments, Karatzaferis has signed the EU motion on anti-semitism<span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> while official party literature denounces marginalisation on any grounds and makes it clear that <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> respects all nations and religions. If anything, <st1:country-region st="on">LAOS</st1:country-region> has only diluted the far right in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>, pulling it towards a more moderate direction, even though its parliamentary group contains some of the most virulently reactionary elements in the Greek political scene.<br /><br />While there is definitely a difference between what LAOS as a party puts forward and what its members actually believe (LAOS includes former members of extreme right organisations that have often been involved in violent attacks against immigrants and left activists), it should be remembered that small parties can only have a political effect on society through the issues they raise and the arguments they put forward, rather than what they actually practice, simply because they are not in a position to actually do anything of any importance. The situation might have been more problematic if <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> had managed to get into office by entering a coalition with ND had the latter not established an absolute majority in Parliament, but this is a possibility we need not presently concern ourselves with.<br /><br />What is more, the percentage of the electorate that was attracted to <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> is almost certainly not made up of potential fascists and virulent nationalists, but by less conscious exploited strata, as well as disgruntled ND voters. Its electoral campaigning was a classical example of patriotic populism, attacking "globalisation", irresponsible bankers, foreign interests etc. while also criticising the government on its handling of "national matters" like the FYROM name question.<br /><br /><i>KKE</i><br /><br />The Communist Party is the oldest party in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>, founded in 1918. It has a very rich history of both outstanding heroism and shameful class treachery. Unlike most European CPs, it did not turn to reformism and social-democracy after the fall of the <st1:place st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place>. Instead, the hardliners who marginally dominated the Central Committee purged the party of "revisionist", or "renewing", depending on which side you are on, elements which formed a large part of the apparatus. The expelled members went on to form Syn, on which I will comment below. Then, KKE also suffered a split in its youth wing, with the majority of the membership leaving to form another party, which has now become completely marginal.<br /><br />Despite these major setbacks, KKE managed to rebuild itself and its youth, becoming the largest far left political force, with more than 10,000 members. Its success is largely based on its insistence on explicitly class based politics, its focus on staunch opposition to all imperialist projects, both NATO and EU inspired as well as its diligent participation in all workers' struggles.<br /><br />On the downside, KKE is extremely bureaucratic, leaving little, if any room for initiative to its grassroots activists. It is extremely sectarian, refusing to cooperate with other left wing groups and parties despite the fact that it could use its political muscle to become the driving force behind left regroupment in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>. However, it does show some signs that it could be moving towards a healthier political path, with its official rejection of stage theory some time ago being the prime example. Unfortunately, the very strict model of "democratic" centralism the party adheres to makes it extremely difficult to discern its internal political developments.<br /><br /><i>SYRIZA</i><br /><br />The Coalition of the Radical Left, is, as its name implies, not an actual party but an electoral coalition. It is quite peculiar however in that it is not composed of groups of roughly equal political weight, but is instead dominated by one party, Synaspismos, or Syn, around which a few marginal organisations have grouped. These are: the Communist Organisation of Greece (Maoist), International Workers' Left (a split from the Greek SWP), Red (a split from the latter), Movement for the United Action of the Left, Active Citizens, Ecological Intervention, Renewing Ecological Communist Left, Popular Unions of Bipartisan Left Groups, and the Democratic Social Movement. Apart from the latter, it would be fair to say that no one, other than left wing activists, has ever heard of these groups. It is thus very unlikely that anyone, apart from their members, intended to vote SYRIZA in order to support <i>them</i>. It would be safe therefore to regard the growth of support for SYRIZA as a coalition, as a growth of support of Synaspismos as a party. In fact, "Synaspismos" is Greek for "coalition", suggesting that many of SYRIZA's voters are not aware of the distinction between the party and the coalition. Thus, the politics of Syn form the core of all SYRIZA policies, even if the smaller groups maintain some influence on their content.<br /><br />Synaspismos itself was formed in the early 90s after the aforementioned expulsions from the Communist Party. The expelled members joined up with the Eurocommunists that had split from the party in the late 60s. As is the case with most Eurocommunist and reformed CP formations, Synaspismos's social basis was far less proletarian in composition, with the party being strongest amongst the more privileged strata of the working class as well as the radicalised elements of the middle classes. Naturally then, Synaspismos conducts its politics with little, if any reference to class as the fundamental cleavage in society, while socialism is rarely mentioned as the party's ultimate political goal, with abstract references to a "more just society" being made instead. This movementist, RESPECT like approach is entirely in line with Syn's leadership plan to construct a broad, left of PASOK alliance, as in opposed to an explicitly socialist political force. While there's is an argument (correct or wrong) to be made for such a strategy in countries like England, on the basis that the political level of the working class is not high enough to allow the growth of a radical class-based socialist party, in the context of a society that is obviously receptive to open class politics as is shown by the growth of KKE, this is nothing sort of reactionary.<br /><br />In its defense, Syn has a far healthier internal political structure/culture than that of the KKE, which, allowing the formation of platforms is fairly similar to that of the SSP. However, the ideological cohesion of Syn is far weaker than the SSP's even before the split. The SSP suffered from including socialists with very contradictory ideas of how socialists should conduct their struggle, but the idea of socialism as a society that is a complete negation of capitalism was never disputed. Syn on the other hand includes in its ranks anyone from orthodox Marxists to radical social-democrats. This is a rather insoluble contradiction that has often led to embarrassing incidents of Syn members from different factions opposing each other on tv panels.<br /><br />I hope that the above has given the reader a more or less solid idea of the nature of the prime political parties in Greece; we can now proceed to examine the prospects opened up for the left by the electoral result.<br /><br /><b>Prospects and Tasks</b><br /><br />While both the retreat of the main bourgeois parties and the growth of the radical left were substantial, it is important to remember that they were not nearly as great as the scale of the destruction wrought by the summer fires should have caused them to be. This is not the place to discuss how bourgeois hegemony maintains itself even in the most adverse circumstances. It is important however to realise that if the left does not remain persistent in its resolute opposition to neo-liberal offensives, as well as organise <i>effective</i> resistance against them, this breakthrough might very well be for naught. While a collapse of the scale of the SSP vote is extremely unlikely, simply for reasons of historic loyalty to KKE of a sizable portion of the left, a retreat to the levels of 2004 would still be very disappointing.<br /><br />In the immediate future, there will be a number of issues that will require swift action to be taken by both KKE and Syn-SYRIZA. Firstly, the attitude of the government towards the communities destroyed by the fires will surely cause much disillusionment and aid will most definitely be insufficient, inefficient and tokenistic. Further, it is certain that a large part of the burned areas will be given to land developers to build on. Infact, this has already started in some areas. There will definitely be significant local opposition to this and it is imperative for both left poles to be visibly present. Unfortunately, given the rural nature of said areas and their long conservative tradition, it is unlikely that a strong left current will be established there. It is however important that the left is present, if only to help raise its national profile, as the destruction of the Peloponese is regarded as a serious matter by the whole of Greek society.<br /><br />Second, after having restructured itself, the government of Karamanlis will surely embark on an offensive of "modernising" reforms that will be directed against the working class. The one that is bound to have the highest profile, at least in the immediate future, is the proposed revision of the constitution to amend article 16, guaranteeing the public and universal character of education in the country. The student movement that shook Greece last year, although bound to be significantly demobilised and weakened after a whole summer of catch up classes and exam periods, will surely be brought to the forth once again. While the movement suffered from the lack of a correct political orientation, being basically led by corrupt elements of the student union and professor bureaucracy, which saw the "framework-law" reforms - which has since been passed - as an attack against their privileges (which they were), there is little doubt as to the need to fight against the proposed constitutional revision, which would almost certainly destroy what little quality public education in Greece has. The student movement therefore will offer a good chance for the left to build and organise.<br /><br />Finally, the succession struggle in PASOK will inevitably cause much upheaval within the working masses that still support them. If the populist Panadreou was unable to stop PASOK's bleeding of support despite his overtures to the left, then Venizelos, the likely winner of the contest, who is a far more thoroughly bourgeois politician will only increase the rate of decline. It is thus more likely that PASOK will soon start to fight ND on its own ground. Bizarrely, this might actually work for them, as ND will most likely move to the right on token issues as pressure from <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">LAOS</st1:place></st1:country-region> increases and since the difference between PASOK and ND is almost entirely tokenistic, it is not improbable that the more centre oriented ND support base will move towards PASOK. In any case, a huge space will be opened to the left of PASOK that the left should move to occupy. In this respect, the president of Syn and SYRIZA, Alekos Alavanos is entirely correct in remarking that radical social democracy should be approached by anti capitalist forces<span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span>. However, the Syn leadership is wrong in trying to achieve this by means of finding common ground, when it clearly has the political weight to pull the left of PASOK elements towards an anti-capitalist direction, meaningfully different to the dead end of anti-neoliberalism. Any alliance of Syn with the radical social democracy on their grounds will only strengthen its internal social democratic factions and increase pressure for entering a coalition government with PASOK, a possibility which has never been rejected <i>in principle</i> by the Syn leadership.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion: The problem of left bipolarity and the KKE or Syn dilemma</b><br /><br />As long as this division within the radical left persists, any resistance against the increasing aggressiveness of the bourgeoisie will be severely fettered by sectarianism, while any hope of it turning into an actual working class offensive will remain just that, a hope. While it is true that responsibility for kicking off the project of meaningful left unity lies with KKE as both the larger and the more radical force of the two (and unfortunately, the most sectarian of all), Syn-SYRIZA should be criticised on the basis that it does not engage in any action that might make the KKE Central Committee more open towards the prospect of rapprochement. Specifically, Syn's complete lack of principled opposition to the European Union's directives (in fact, the nature of its opposition amounts to critical support), must be abandoned in favour of a more clear cut rejection of the whole project like its position on NATO. Further, the radical wing of Syn should try to pull the party towards a more class oriented approach to politics, away from its current new left movementism, which is a sure recipe for dilution of principles. It is Syn that must provide the initiative for left regroupment on a radical socialist basis, even in the form of an electoral pact, as any such move is unlikely to come from KKE.<br /><br />This situation creates an almost insoluble dilemma for non aligned Greek leftists. Electorally, one has to choose between a mass party with explicit class, socialist politics which is however totally bureaucratic and sectarian, and a smaller loose coalition of vaguely radical left forces without a clear political orientation which could in the future possibly enter a bourgeois coalition. There is no easy solution to this problem and one has to choose based as much on personal convictions and feelings as on objective political analysis. Those of us who follow the Greek left without being actively involved in it, can only hope that the self-activity of the working masses will at some point force their vanguard groups to get their act together.</p> <div style=""><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--> <hr align="left" width="33%" style="font-size:78%;"> <!--[endif]--> <div style="" id="edn1"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> For a fairly good piece on this, see the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_telephone_tapping_case_2004-2005</p> </div> <div style="" id="edn2"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> Greek society was in the dark about this, until it was uncovered by the BBC. See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4526502.stm</p> </div> <div style="" id="edn3"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> See the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation website for an analytical breakdown of electoral results. http://www.ekloges.ypes.gr/pages_en/index.html</p> </div> <div style="" id="edn4"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span>The content of the motion can be found here: <span style=""> </span>http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B6-2005-0079+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN</p> </div> <div style="" id="edn5"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6900670482368277699&postID=847396408250535957#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> Interview of Alekos Alavanos on NET (in Greek): http://www.syn.gr/gr/keimeno.php?id=7563</p> </div> </div>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-3265210939903976322007-09-24T22:22:00.001+00:002007-09-24T22:24:39.348+00:00Farooq Tariq going underground<i>Farooq Tariq is having problems with the Pakistani authorities yet again</i><br /><br />Going underground<br /><br />By: Farooq Tariq<br /><br />I was avoided another arrest last night on 23rd September 2007. I had just returned home at 11pm from Toba Tek Singh, a five hour drive from Lahore. I am planning to contest general elections for national parliament from Toba Tek Singh, my home city. When the bell rang, I was sure it is police again. My partner Shahnaz asked me who can come at this time of the night. Our children have just gone to sleep, but Mashal (14) our daughter got up as well with the bell ringing constantly.<br />I asked Shahnaz to check who they are and if police is there do not tell that I am at home. We had decided that I will not be arrested this time easily. Police has to work and work little harder to catch me. If I am at home and police comes, they have to break the doors to get me out. I will not voluntarily come out. I was also sick and tired of police knocking my door again and again.<br />Shahnaz went out and she was tricked by the police to open the door. They did not tell her that it is police; instead they said friends of Farooq. But when she opened the door, she found dozens of police men in uniform and they asked where I am. Shahnaz who has now become used to police arrivals at our door step, told them courageously that he is not here and he is in Toba Tek Singh. My daughter Mashal was also with her watching the drama.<br />They did not insist to enter home instead asked my mobile number, which was given to him. The police officer connected my number and my cell started ringing at home, Mashal immediately felt the danger and ran inside to stop the phone. The running of Mashal inside home could have convinced the police officer that I am at home but he did not force himself inside the door and said thanks to Shahnaz.<br />Shahnaz closed the door but police remained there for some time. I as watching from inside home fearing of police climbing the walls and break in. But it seems that police officer was just doing his duty and not really interested to go any further. It was the same police officer with his team who had arrested me last time on June 4th 2007 from my same home.<br />I then sent SMS to the friends and press informing that I just avoided the arrest this time. Police is arresting most of the activists from the opposition parties and this time including the main leadership of the opposition parties. This practice is to avoid more demonstrations against General Musharaf who wants him to be reelected again for the next five years from a parliament who was elected for five years term. This parliament has elected General Musharaf with the help of the religious fundamentalists in 2002. But this time the religious parties do not want him to be elected and has decided with other political parties to resign from the parliament instead of electing him.<br />The regime has arrested dozens of activists and leaders of different political parties and is raiding houses of more activists like me. I do not want to be arrested this time and has decided to remain active but to avoid arrest as well.<br />Going to jail again and again is no good and comrades and friends have made jokes and jokes about me. Whenever, I meet a friend, he asks me when have you come out (jail) or when are you going in?<br />My son Abdullah (7) told me this morning that it now my turn to play „find and hide‰ game with police. When he was only one year old, police came to arrest me at my home and at the time both Shahnaz and myself were not at home, when Razia, the women who was taking care of Abdullah told police that Farooq is not at home, he said ok where is his son, I will take him with me and then Farooq will definitely come to present his arrest, a normal practice by many police come in Pakistan. He did not know that my son is only one year. Razia went inside home and brought Abdullah outside and told the police officer in anger, yes, you can arrest him, he is son of Farooq. Looking at Abdullah, the police officer was ashamed and said sorry and went back not come again for some time.<br />When I was living in rented place, my house boss was arrested and my office boss was arrested instead of me when police was unable to find me at home and at office. I went to one friend who was editor of Daily Jang to help the release of my home and office bosses, when he heard, he advised me to leave the buggers with police, and told me that at least you do not have to pay rent anymore.<br />So a new game has started with police, I will attend the demonstration on 27th September alongside with the advocates in any case and till then will try that police should not get hold of me.<br />So be ready for a new possible solidarity campaign please.<br /><br /><br />Farooq Tariq<br />general secretary<br />Labour Party Pakistan<br />40-Abbot Road Lahore, Pakistan<br />Tel: 92 42 6315162 Fax: 92 42 6271149 Mobile: 92 300 8411945,<br /><br /><a href="mailto:labourpartypk@yahoo.com">labourpartypk@yahoo.com</a> <a href="http://www.laborpakistan.org/" target="_blank">www.laborpakistan.org</a> <http://www.laborpakistan.org/> <a href="http://www.jeddojuhd.com/" target="_blank">www.jeddojuhd.com</a> <http://www.jeddojuhd.com/>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-60426291881602243232007-09-03T20:13:00.000+00:002007-09-03T20:26:15.889+00:00SSP statement on victory against cuts<i>Comrades from England (and the world) may not be aware of the plan of the SNP/Lib-Dem controlled Edinburgh City Council to axe about 22 schools and nurseries as well as implement further cuts that would result in job losses and other things that nobody on the left likes. Well, whether you were aware of it or not, you will be happy to learn that the SNP decided to <a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1402702007">scrap the plan</a> after a spontaneous movement of <a href="http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MID=367137231&MemberId=4585111370">students</a> and parents rocked their shocks. The Lair brings you the SSP statement on this very heartening victory</i><br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/inpictures/embra_0807/images/DSC_0103-Edit.jpg" /></center><br /><br />Under an onslaught of protest from school students, community activists, parents and trade unionists, SNP councillors on Edinburgh City Council have been forced to end their support for a devastating series of schools, nurseries and community centre closures.<br /><br />A general strike of UNISON members employed by the council brought services to a standstill on Thursday 23rd of August, heavily supported by school students and community campaigns such as Save Our Old Town and Save Meadowbank.<br /><br />This was followed by a city wide protest of school students on Friday 31st that saw children from primary to secondary taking protest action.<br />Withdrawal of SNP support for the closures effectively ends the immediate threat to essential community resources.<br /><br />Anti cuts campaigners are jubilant after a highly effective Edinburgh wide campaign was rapidly mobilized with the support of existing community campaigns and hundreds of new activists.<br />Former MSP Colin Fox and UNISON activist Catriona Grant played a key role in brining together trade union and community activists.<br />The SSP was also represented amongst the school students by Lothians Scottish Socialist Youth organiser Sarah Higgins.<br /><br />Yet again the people of Edinburgh have taken protest action in defence of public services and for people, not profit.<br /><br />The previous Labour administration was beaten back in its attempt to privatise the entire municipal housing stock by a grass roots tenants campaign that defeated a multi million pound advertising blitz.<br />Now Edinburgh communities have again taken action that has defeated attempts to dismantle municipal facilities.<br /><br />The SSP has been at the heart of the movement to defend public services in Edinburgh and the Lothians since our inception nearly a decade ago and are proud to be a continuing part of the people’s battle to defend the basic principle of public services; for people not profit.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-60412823155017678282007-09-02T14:00:00.000+00:002007-12-07T16:57:03.699+00:00Capital Inferno. Wildfires in Greece<span style="font-style: italic;">The Lair is now open. The Squirrel Vanguard decided to bring you quite a bombastic opener for this year; we hope you will appreciate it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The following article I found somewhere in the endless <a href="http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=756510">dusty corridors of the world wide web</a>. It deals with the recent wildfires that ravaged (and are still ravaging) a great part of Greece, burning villages and killing more than 65 people. The author used a number of sources to put together the puzzle of what can only be described as a coordinated offensive by capital, foreign and domestic. References are to Greek articles, although I translated their titles into English in order to provide some context. Remember folks, the Lair never lies to you.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Greece under attack by tourist-developer cartels</span><br /><br />In the last week of August of 2007, Greece underwent the most enormous catastrophe in her history since the restoration of Parliamentary Democracy in 1974. Western and Southern Peloponnese, the “heart” of both ancient and modern Greece, as well as other places like Athens’ suburbs and Evia Island, have been totally destroyed by wildfires. 65 people have been killed (among them was a mother with her four young children), several more are missing, numerous villages have been wiped off the map and millions of acres of forest or agricultural land have been converted into ashes.<br /><br />Apart from the loss of human lives, the destruction wrought by the arsonists will have far reaching effects that will surface in due time. The devastation of forests will result in an overall rise of temperature, floods in the winter, corrosion of the ground and landslides. Furthermore, the razed areas will be affected economically by a tremendous rise of unemployment, a huge emigration of their native population to Athens or other big cities, while the whole of Greece will face an overall decline in agricultural output, since those areas were key producers of vegetables, fruits and, most importantly, olive oil.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, a major crime has been committed. A crime, however, that is not spontaneous, but premeditated. The 290 different centers of fires that broke out in Peloponnese definitely point to arson.<br /><br />In order to locate the arsonists, one has to look at the strong financial interests which have been pressuring for the “development” of the destroyed areas for several years up to now.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Ionian Road</span><br /><br />The construction of a national highway in Peloponnese under the name “Ionian Road” – specifically the south part of Ionian Road, as Ionian Road is extended in Central and Northern Greece too – connecting her four major cities, Korinthos, Patra, Pirgos, and Kalamata, was conceived as an idea in 1996, but it was postponed mainly due to the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens which absorbed most of the state’s resources. The new right-wing government of Nea Dimokratia promised in 2004 to start building the highway soon. At last, its construction was auctioned in July of 2007 to the native and multinational construction companies Vinci–El.Technodomiki–TEV, Aktor, J&P Avax, Hochtief and Athina, and it was supposed to start right away, with the prospect of being completed in 2011[1].<br /><br />The Ionian Road would secure road access to the enormous tourist facilities that were being built in Western Peloponnese, and those that were still being planned at the time. The completion of the Ionian Road ought obviously not to take more than the required time; therefore, its construction shouldn’t be interrupted by “aggravating” forests, biotopes and ecosystems as well as environmental and community activists. the Nea Dimokratia MP for the Elea region of Western Peloponese G. Kontogiannis, had stated clearly, as early as 2004: “The political leadership of the Ministry of Public Works believes that the Ionian Road has to proceed rapidly so as to make up for the delays of the last few years…”[2].<br /><br />Ionian Road was originally scheduled to cross over places of high environmental significance, such as Lake Kaiafa in Zaharo area, which had been included in the Natura 2000 European catalogue. As the chairman of Zaharo’s Environmental Protection League, Mr. Agrapidas said in July, “The combination of ground and lacustrine ecosystems as well as their co-existence with antiquities, mythological places and the thermal fountain renders Lake Kaiafa ecosystem a unique cluster that has been declared an archaeological site and a landscape of special natural beauty”.<br /><br />The prefectorial council of Elea, in which the aforementioned area falls under, refused to cede Lake Kaiafa for the construction of Ionian Road, despite the strong pressure by the Ministry of Public Works. According to Mr. Agrapidas’s claims, there was an alternative route for the highway, not crossing the area; nevertheless it might have been longer and of higher cost[3]. At last, the Ministry succumbed to the demands of the locals and decided on the 24th of July to divert Ionian Road towards another direction, far away from the lake, so that its fragile ecosystem would not be harmed[4]. However, a mere month later, the area around Lake Kaiafa was burned to the ground. The constructors of the highway will now face little resistance in their exploitation of the devastated area.<br /><br />Strangely enough, the centers of most of the fires that broke out there coincide perfectly with the original plan for the Ionian Road! Compare the NASA satellite photograph of the Peloponese burning to the Ionian Road plan.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/ko-korakious/map.jpg" /></center><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Other Interests in the Western Peloponese</span><br /><br />Lake Kaiafa had also attracted the attention of other benevolent investors and developers. In 2003, the former Deputy Minister of Economics D. Georgakopoulos of the former government of the “socialist” PASOK, was charged with pressuring the Domanial Service of Elea, the region that he was elected in, to declassify Lake Kaiafa as a protected territory in order for it to be granted to big tourist corporations for the development of hotel complexes and golf courses. He had also presented a relevant report according to which an investment of 150 million euros would be made on Lake Kaiafa for the “modernization” of spas and other facilities of the area[5], which referred to the ecologists who protested against the plans as “ecoterrorists”[6]. Now that the beautiful biotope around the lake has been burnt up, the “investors” and their political agents won’t need to counter any bureaucratic barrier or “ecoterrorism” in order to declassify it.<br /><br />Apart from Lake Kaiafa, many other places in Western Peloponnese through which the Ionian Road will pass, are also considered to be “ideal” for the development of tourist businesses. For instance, in the Messinia region in the South-West of Peloponnese more than one billion euros are going to be invested in 11 big hotel blocks of 5 stars, luxurious summerhouses, sea therapy and spa facilities, a seasonal center as well as 4 huge golf courses. The major investor in this area seems to be a notorious Greek ship-owner, V. Konstantakopoulos, who runs Costamare Shipping SA, based in Panama, but strong multinational corporations seem to operate alongside him; Kempinski multinational corporation which is mostly active in South-Eastern Asia is going to exploit the sea therapy and spa facilities and a famous American company has undertaken the exploitation of the golf courses[7]. Konstantakopoulos has appropriated enormous areas of agricultural land with olive trees, some times without the consent of their owners, as well as land in areas alongside the Navarino lagoon (also protected by NATURA 2000) openly defying the law. The few “bureaucratic” problems considering the permissions of Archeological and Forest Service that had remained were overcome after his visit to the presidential palace and his meeting with the Prime Minister K. Karamanlis, in 2005. He also secured 45% subsidization by the state for his investments[8]! And now, that much of the Messinia district has been consumed by the (not so) wildfires, he definitely feels even luckier as he can extend his business to the devastated area expropriating the land he needs in depreciated prices.<br /><br />Another place in Western Peloponnese that is considered by the “investors” to be a bargain is Katakolo in Elea district. In late August, the famous international business association World Trade Center Group sent their representative, David H. Lee, to Katakolo and ratified an agreement with state officials for the “development” of the area[9].<br /><br />The region around ancient Olympia has also been the subject of potentional exploitation. Many domestic and foreign “investors” have proposed deploying the surrounding area by building modern stadiums, hotels and other facilities and even use this place for organizing the Olympic Games[10]! One of the reasons that they were not permitted to implement their plan was that this surrounding area was forestland. After the fire though, there is no more forest surrounding Olympia so that barrier is no longer present.<br /><br />Most people in Greece know that Western Peloponnese has the most magnificent coasts and beaches in the whole country. Nevertheless, her people were very traditional and closely linked to their land and property and with the agricultural sector of the area being particularly strong, they had never desired to exploit their region in a tourists-industry fashion. The tourist “investors” had good knowledge of this fact and in order to successfully exploit the area, they first needed to preemptively destroy any popular resistance to their plans and they couldn’t care less if then of people there died in flames. As for the people who survived, most of them will move to Athens to seek a job, while the few remaining there, will apparently work as waiters or security guards to the huge hotel block that will spring soon. The investors seem to have achieved what they had intended.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Germans' special role</span><br /><br />Mountain Taygetos and Parnonas in Central and Southern Peloponnese respectively, were also burned. It was common knowledge among those local communities that powerful German interest groups desired avidly to transform the mountains into ski resorts and chalets. The Germans had in the past been interested in exploiting Mountain Grammos in Northern Greece, which was partially burned this summer in July. German capital has also been active in Western Peloponnese and Evia buying enormous pieces of land, either as private investors or under the cover of offshore companies. Not surprisingly, one of the contractors that will participate in the construction of Ionian Road in Peloponnese, Hochtief, is German and interestingly enough it is owned by Kaitel, the son of the homonymic notorious Nazi general. It seems that while German imperialism failed to occupy Greece in World War II having been beaten and humiliated by her strong resistance movement, it succeeds in 2007 without military invasion, just with some fires and the help of their modern collaborators; not the security battalions, but the regional and central bureaucrats ruling the Greek state.<br /><br />Yet, the similarly crucial role of British and American interests should not be ignored. Having almost fully “occupied” Corfu and Crete Island with their hotels and golf courses, they coveted Peloponnese as well, buying huge swathes of land to be used for tourist developments. Indeed, they are very loyal to their colonialist traditions of 1944 when the British bombed Athens and killed 40.000 civilians in order to crash the resistance movement, which had achieved to liberate Greece before they came in, and of 1967, when the U.S. imposed a seven-year fascist dictatorship, which totally destroyed the country.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The golf lobby</span><br /><br />One of the strongest blocks of interests, if not the strongest, which desire the “resortisation”, so to speak, of the Greek coasts are the prospective constructors of golf courses. The huge level of environmental destruction that the construction of golf courses will lead to, such as waste of water, use of enormous quantities of artificial fertilizers and disruption of the nearby ecosystems doesn’t seem to concern the Greek government which does everything possible to grant large areas in the countryside to golf investors. The Minister of Public Works, G. Souflias, claimed in May of 2007 that “considering the golf issue there are many deficiencies, as Greece has just 6 golf courses whereas France has more than 500, Italy more than 200, Spain more than 300 and Portugal 36”. Moreover, another high-rank officer of the ruling party, the Deputy Minister of Economics, P. Doukas, is at the same time the president of the Greek Golf Association, and had publicly declared in 2005 that even more golf courses are necessary. It should be noted however that the main opposition party, PASOK, before the elections of 2004, had promoted the support and the expansion of the golf industry in Greece, and after the elections, which it lost, it hasn’t been opposed to golf policy of the Nea Dimokratia government at all[11].<br /><br />As expected, all the environmental studies and reports that warn about the destruction that golf courses will cause have been deliberately ignored. “Who passes by those studies in favor of tourist development?” wanders Mrs. E. Mpriasouli, professor in the Department of Geography in the Aegean University. “They think that this way they are going to get the hotels full of people. 70% of global tourism is manipulated by a single organization (i.e. Global Tourist Organization). They promote the golfer cluster and they blackmail us to accept this model. The same happened with the pools. […] This model of tourism concerns the foreigners who stay and do everything inside the tourist facility. They don’t go outside of it, they don’t consume any domestic products, and of course everything is produced and constructed by big companies”[12].<br /><br />Western Peloponnese’s long coastline was ideal for the golf industry to construct several golf courses. By 2005, the International Golf Association was very optimistic that in 2006 and 2007 there would be a very big golf ‘boom’[13]. However, so far the locals and the environmentalists struggled hard against this prospect. Now that there is no environmental value in the devastated areas, that ‘boom’ will face little resistance. In confirmation of that, the aforementioned Deputy Minister of Economics, who is renowned in Greece for his cynicism, appeared on national TV two days after the disaster, and he attempted to soothe the pain of the people living in the disaster areas by promising that a development plan, considering tourism and especially golf courses, will start being implemented there right away! Of course, the sold out Greek Mass Media, both public and private, branded the plan as a great benefaction.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Government's and main opposition's complicity</span><br /><br />The government of Nea Dimokratia, which has been ruling from March 2004, has devoted itself in the tourist development of the countryside and coasts in order to increase the annual influx of tourists. “There are one million Europeans who are interested in buying a summerhouse in Greece” was one of the main arguments of government officials, who used to refer to tourism as Greece’s heavy industry[14]! Thus, the Ministries of Civil Works and Tourism put up a plan of tourist “development”, under the name of New Zoning Framework for Tourism, which blatantly offered land and water to the tourist cartels.<br /><br />According to the abovementioned framework, an “investor” can buy land everywhere, and simply by naming the investment as a “tourist” one, get a big subsidization and build four times more than a privateer, as long as they sell the 70% of the houses to privateers and run the rest 30% as a hotel. They have also the right to build in environmentally protected areas or skerries provided they name them “tourist”! This situation is aggravated by the inexistence of a National Cadastral Register, which would at least classify some forestlands or biotopes as such and might prevent them from being built[15].<br /><br />However, for this plan to be successful an overall reconsideration of zoning in the country needed to take place, that is to say, permissions for appropriating forestland should be awarded. Therefore, in early 2007, the government tabled a constitutional amendment according to which, article 24, stating that construction in forestland is strictly forbidden, would be practically abolished. The official opposition, PASOK strongly condemned the amendment and blocked the ratification of it by withdrawing from the voting - the funny thing is that, in 2003, when PASOK was in power, it tried to pass an identical amendment, but Nea Dimokratia, then the official opposition, refused to support it. Although, finally, article 24 was not abolished, the prospective arsonists were encouraged to hasten their plans, and consequently, in the summer of 2007, Greece suffered the greatest number of wildfires in her modern history.<br /><br />Furthermore, the Sub-Ministry of Environment, which happens to fall under the Ministry of Public Works and is responsible for using the state funds provided to the latter for the protection of the forests and biotopes, did very little on this. Most of the, already few, resources for environmental protection were transferred back to the Ministry of Public Works in order to support works already under way, using the ridiculous excuse that the Sub-Ministry of Environment was unable to spend it all[16].<br /><br />Another way in which the government is responsible for the holocaust is that it caused the collapse of the Fire Brigade. The Ministry of Public Order, under whose jurisdiction the Fire Brigade falls, hadn’t recruited the required number of firemen, preferring instead to hire thousands of policemen! In addition to this, the virulently right wing Minister of Public Order, V. Polidoras, transferred incompetent officers, who were eventually proven to be completely incapable to combat the numerous wildfires, to key positions simply because they were members of the ruling party[17].<br /><br />The tourist-developer cartels soon realized the incapacity of the Fire Brigade and the insufficient measures for the protection of the forests, and therefore, aided by the high temperatures and the strong winds in this area, obviously decided it was a very convenient time for them to put their plan into action.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The scapegoats</span><br /><br />When the first fires in the Peloponnese broke out, everybody thought it would be the ordinary land developers who casually burn pieces of forestland every year in order to build on them. Yet, when several new fires broke out which, unprecedentedly, burned whole villages to the ground, killing tens of people, the public started suspecting an organized plot by strong native entrepreneurs or even multinational companies. Greece was apparently under attack, and since the fire brigade and their political chiefs in the Ministry of Public Order were proved to be totally incapable to put down the fires, the government tried to spin the mayhem unleashed by global capital and its domestic lackeys to its own advantage. Two days after the first fires, the Prime Minister, following the advice of his image-makers, appeared on National Television wearing an ordinary jacket, like George Bush did right after September 11th, and stated that Greece faces an asymmetric threat. Nevertheless, he obviously didn’t name those actually responsible for the fires, whose identities he most definitely knows. On the contrary, his colleagues in the government secretly or even openly blamed anarchists and political extremists for the arsons claiming that “they want to destabilize democracy”!<br /><br />The mass media which support the government invented new imaginary enemies like the Turks, the Albanians or even PASOK, blaming them for the wildfires! PASOK, of course, condemned these scenarios as conspiracy theories, but on the other hand, it just put the blame on the government accusing it of incompetence. It is more than obvious that PASOK knew that the arsonists were the tourist-industry cartels, but it didn’t want to stand up to them, as, when in government, it was (and will be) tightly intertwined with them.<br /><br />The police and its dependent secret services, all of them being famous on a world scale for their incompetence and stupidity, but very effective at beating up defenceless immigrants and protestors, did their best to find the perpetrators of the terrible crime. The result was the arrest of an old woman in Zaharo for causing the fire by negligence while she was cooking in her backyard, an Albanian immigrant who was misleadingly presented as the one having put some fires in order to take revenge from his Greeks employers for mistreating him, and a 62 year old pensioner arrested in Aeropoli of Lakonia who was a former member of PASOK and was forced to admit that he was one of the arsonists[18]. Yet, in this case the police needn’t have necessarily acted as stupidly as always; the mission surely assigned to them by the government was to cover up the actual arsonists.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br /><br />As days pass and more evidence comes to the surface, it becomes more and more obvious that the instigators of this recent destruction in Greece are the multinational tourist-sector cartels. Nevertheless, the implementation of that arson attack was not something that ordinary arsonists (usually foreigners hired by petty developers) could have done; on the contrary, it required perfect organization, planning and coordination. Thus, the perpetrators of it are definitely the cartels’ instruments, that is to say foreign secret services.<br /><br />It is widely accepted that tourist cartels of Western Europe and America with the collaboration of their Greek business representatives, and the tolerance of the corrupted local politicians, have been trying to convert Greece into a huge tourist resort for well-off Europeans and Americans and her people into waiters. For decades, the E.U. has been using economic violence, forbidding Greece to subsidize her own industry and agricultural production or to impose import duties to their products while the U.S. have been blackmailing her to buy their weapons exploiting and inflaming the tension between her and neighbouring Turkey (also a great customer of the US weapons industry), in a manner reminiscent of Italian mafia “protection”. However, this kind of violence didn’t bring swift results and they decided to resort to physical violence, like the one that they regularly used to exert in their colonies.<br /><br />So far, the Euro-American cartels seem to have achieved their target to devastate a big part of Greece. But her people have not said their last world yet. They will definitely claim their land back.<br /><br /><br />[1] Corinth, Patra, Pirgos, Motorway to be ready by summer 2011, GoWest.Gr, 24/7/07, http://www.gowest.gr/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&amp;amp;amp;amp;id=9777&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1585<br /><br />[2] ND will end PASOK’s fiasco over the Ionian motorway, Indymedia Athens, 27/8/07, http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=752934<br /><br />[3] The road can be moved, the lake, not quite, Kathimerini, 08/07/2007.<br /><br />[4] Statement of Public Works Minister, Mr Yeorgios Souflias, on the signing of the contract re the North-West Road of the Peloponese, 24/7/07, http://www.minenv.gr/download/2007-07-24.dilosis.g.souflia.gia.ypografi.symbasis.elefsina-korinthos-patra-pyrgos-tsakona.doc<br /><br />[5] Kayafa healing springs; investors needed, Rizospastis, 15/4/2003.<br /><br />[6] 18- hole crime, Golf construction hysteria in Greece, Eleutherotypia, 3/4/2005.<br /><br />[7]Tourism for Global Capital,Aristera! http://www.koel.gr/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;id=964&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=34<br /><br />[8] 18 holes in a forest, Apiganias: Development or Destruction? Eleftherotypia, 1/5/2005<br /><br />[9] Meeting of Sp. Spyridonas with International Entrepreneurial Delegation. Press release, 21/08/2005.<br /><br />[10] Olympia is Reborn, Kathimerini, 6/8/05.<br /><br />[11] 18- hole crime, Golf construction hysteria in Greece, Eleftherotypia, 3/4/2005.<br /><br />[12] Ibid.<br /><br />[13] Ibid.<br /><br />[14] Their country? Sold. Eleftherotypia, 17/6/2007.<br /><br />[15] Ibid.<br /><br />[16] Hypocrisy – Environment and Public Works Ministry tried to cut back 30 million euros on “protected areas”. Eleftherotypia, 21/7/2007.<br /><br />[17] From Karamanlis’s promises to… Souflias’s palpitations, Eleftherotypia, 28/7/07.<br /><br />[18] Questions over 62 y.o.’s arrest in Aeropoli for arson. In.gr, 30/8/07, http://www.in.gr/news/article.asp?lngEntityID=827585&lngDtrID=244Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-64565562895630396412007-08-19T11:43:00.000+00:002007-08-19T11:55:50.540+00:00Police Brutality in GreeceThis is one of the summer posts. The Lair is not yet open. We'll be back soon. For now, enjoy this <a href="http://teacherdudebbq.blogspot.com/2007/06/idiocy-of-prejudice-meets-prejudice-of.html">video</a> from the birthplace of democracy. The transcript is fairly accurate.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-60816693178422149362007-07-23T10:34:00.000+00:002007-07-23T10:38:04.937+00:00Summer Mode<i>Comrades, I am currently in Greece and being tortured by the heatwave. Therefore, I can't for the life of me muster enough attention to make a good post. So, from now on and until I return to Scotland, I will be posting random articles I find interesting and/or amusing. Cheerio.</i>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-24652467174351880992007-07-10T09:13:00.000+00:002007-07-10T09:21:38.339+00:00SWP thuggery<i>The following is from <a href="http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/680/swp%20thuggery.htm">Weekly Worker</a>. Readers should know by now that my politics are quite at odds with the CPGB's, however, I thought that the following was too serious not to be passed on by the Lair.</i><br /><br />Condemn physical assaults on this year’s Marxism!<br /><br />On July 7, the second full day of this year’s Marxism, SWP national organiser Martin Smith physically assaulted Communist Party comrade, Simon D. The attack occurred while our comrade was waiting for the session on ‘Organising for fighting unions’ to begin.<br />Simon was a member of the SWP for three years up to 2006, when he was suddenly expelled (by phone!) for “bringing the party into disrepute” - the catch-all charge loved by bureaucrats everywhere. In fact, all he was ‘guilty’ of was raising some criticisms and questions publicly and reporting on his blog - verbatum - the words of leading SWPers at a Respect meeting in Tower Hamlets. At the comrade’s appeal, led by Pat Stack and where Martin Smith gave ‘evidence’, he was not given any specific examples of his alleged crimes. He was subjected to a show trial with no pretence of allowing the comrade a fair hearing and then was simply turfed out.<br />In the following weeks, comrade Simon attended a Camden SWP public meeting on Respect. Incredibly, the next day Martin Smith left a message on the comrade’s phone telling him that he was henceforth “not allowed to go to any SWP events”. Smith also said he had written to the party organiser in comrade Simon’s area to let them know this. Comrade Simon texted back pointing out that it was advertised as an SWP public meeting and surely, as a member of the public, he was entitled to go. The response came back: “When you are expelled from the [SWP], that means you are not allowed to attend any SWP event, public meeting, Marxism, period.”<br />To make this crass exclusion official, Smith sent through a letter a few weeks later that put this in black and white: “an expelled member of the SWP cannot attend SWP public events (that includes Marxism/rallies/public meetings)” (Weekly Worker June 8 2006).<br />The fact is that comrade Simon has attended SWP meetings since - despite threats. Indeed, how many people at this year’s Marxism were once expelled from the SWP? Applied consistently, this would see the exclusion of hundreds of comrades on the left of the working class movement who have been in that organisation and fallen foul of its crass bureaucratic regime.<br />Clearly Smith is personally slighted because his foul role in the comrade’s crude show trial and expulsion was publicly exposed by the Weekly Worker. This is clearly what prompted Smith to aggressively approach comrade Simon, to demand his ticket to the whole event be returned and to physically attack him. He was wrestled to the floor, sustaining bruising, abrasions and back strain. A second SWPer then joined in and they started to go through our prone comrade’s pockets to take his Marxism ticket.<br />This is a foul and cowardly act. In their sect, SWP leaders are used to wielding unaccountable power, they treat the ‘party’ and the wider movement almost as their own property. Disgustingly, when Simon was expelled, Pat Stack told him “You’re now not going to have any life on the left - your activist days are over”. Who the hell do these people think they are? Since when have they been in charge of our common movement? Since when has it been their prerogative to decide who is a working class partisan and who is not?<br />However, this Stack comment and the attack on Simon reveal the foul, anti-Marxist mindset of people who treat their own members as little more than paper-selling and leaflet-distributing machines. And ordinary SWPers are the people who should really be disturbed by the physical assault at this year’s Marxism.<br />After all, the likes of the thug Smith cannot shut up comrade Simon or - even more frustratingly for him - the Weekly Worker itself. We will feature this story next week to make sure that Martin Smith is exposed for the anti-democratic goon that he is and that this information is widely disseminated in the movement in this country and internationally.<br />SWPers have no such outlet, of course. We can brush off these sorts of crude incidents; Martin Smith’s reputation will take the really bad bruising here. But comrades of the SWP - if you tolerate this despicable culture in your ranks, what about when you develop differences, what about when you want to criticise and hold your leaders to account?<br />That’s the real lesson from this new SWP assault on political opponents and it is one SWPers themselves should really take to heart.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-49010427417316301272007-06-23T11:19:00.000+00:002007-06-25T10:57:40.767+00:00Brothers my arse<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.crimesharetv.com/Images/george-galloway-dance.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://www.crimesharetv.com/Images/george-galloway-dance.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Most of you will probably remember the rather amusing <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1521&id=632732007">public meeting</a> held by Solidarity just before the election, when Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway referred to each other as "brothers" during their oh-so-original thunderously booming speeches. To those of you who -by some hideously bizarre paradox of the universe- believe that Galloway is even vaguely associated with the concept of principle and honesty, I am extremely sorry to bring you the following revelation.<br /><br />Yesterday's Herald <a href="http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1493753.0.0.php">reported</a> that RESPECT is planning to start organizing north of the border. Our ultra-ninja-squirrel-informants had already informed us that this was being planned, with Galloway proposing at RESPECT's last National Council the setting up of a committee to investigate the possibility of establishing RESPECT presence in Scotland (or is it North Britain?). Back then, I did not want to comment on that filthy idea back then, as there were no other sources and the Squirrel Vanguard always protects its informants. Now however, it's all out in the open and thus, I can rip into it.<br /><br />From what I know, Galloway is not at this moment planning to set up yet another party of the left (although whether RESPECT can be considered "left" is rather debatable at this point), but rather, as the Herald puts it, to forge a new alliance, no doubt under his shining leadership. It is quite telling however that, again according to the Herald piece, "a source close to the Respect leader said yesterday the Respect-Solidarity pact not to compete with each other 'expired with the election'".<br /><br />The questions surrounding this potential move are manifold. First, assuming for the sake of argument that it was even theoretically possible for the strange mixture that is Squalidarity to somehow align with RESPECT, it would be rather interesting to see how the two "brothers" will resolve the matter of who gets to be the Great-Wise-Dear-Sunoftheparty-Leader. In Squalidarity, the Sheridan-Byrne co-convenorship was such only in name, with the Tangerine Man always in the spotlight and Byrne being a grey blur. Neither Galloway nor Sheridan however strike me as the kind of person who's willing to share, let alone forfeit, their Caesarian post. It seems to me that Galloway and the SWP have realised that Sheridan is going to get his arse handed to him by the Scots legal establishment and are preparing to abandon him. Some brotherhood right there!<br /><br />What's more striking however is the sheer dumbness of the whole project. Firstly, there's the cadre problem. No one in Solidarity, apart from the SWP, would contemplate joining RESPECT Scotland. Everybody knows that CWI-Scotland hate the swips. In a discussion I had on the now no longer public <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspotURL=http%3A%2F%2Fmilitant-tendency.blogspot.com%2F">Militant</a> blog, one of the CWI Squalids was busting his arse to convince me that Solidarity is not RESPECT-Scotland. If Solidarity <i>does</i> become RESPECT-Scotland and CWI stay in it, they will face the contradiction of their Scottish group being part of an organization that's in opposition to their pet project in England. The non-platform Squalids on the other hand are almost exclusively pro-independence Sheridan worshipers. It is rather hard to imagine them joining a unionist coalition that is mostly known for being led by George Galloway. While this might not seem much of a setback, considering that the main activist base of Solidarity in the Central Belt are the swips, it should be kept in mind that the distinctive characteristic of Solidarity is that the bulk of its cadre is concentrated in rural areas like the Highlands and Islands and the South of Scotland, where there is little, if any SWP presence.<br /><br />Secondly, it appears that the SWP all-wise Central Committee has failed to realise that the RESPECT model has next to zero chance of working in Scotland. The Muslim community in Scotland is not nearly as politically important as it is south of the border and more importantly, there is already a figure in Glasgow around which war-resenting Muslims can rally. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6622915.stm">Bashir Ahmad</a> was elected to Holyrood from the SNP regional list, becoming the first ever Asian MSP. Similarly, the other half of RESPECT's politics, George Galloway, has little, if any, popularity in Scotland. On what basis a Scottish RESPECT could function remains a mistery to this humble Squirrel Lair.<br /><br />Finally, there's also the possibility that the initiative will create trouble within RESPECT itself, as I suppose that the more principled, less colonially minded <a href="http://socialistresistance.net/">organizations</a> that participate in this strange blend of anti-war politics, socialism and political Islam, will not be quite happy about the move.<br /><br />Bizarrely, this might even end up benefiting the far left in Scotland, by replacing Solidarity with something even more idiotic and even less popular.Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-14695245224710858662007-06-18T00:23:00.000+00:002007-06-18T00:28:13.149+00:00SNP and the abolition of endowment<b>Comrade Neil Bennet comments on the recent decision by the SNP to <a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=925732007">abolish</a> the <span><span style="font-size:100%;">£2200 endowment fee for students in Scotland.</b><br /><br /></span></span> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Students and socialists were (quite rightly) celebrating this week, with the news that the SNP executive is going to fulfil its election promise to scrap the £2,289 ‘graduate endowment’ fee levied by the Labour-Lib Dem coalition in the first term of the Scottish Parliament.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p>The system, set up in 2001, was essentially a compromise – put in place to allow the Lib Dems to claim they had fulfilled their own election commitment to scrap student fees – when really they had done nothing of the sort.<span style=""> </span>Rather they had simply reduced them and altered the timing of their payment. Oh, and they changed the name!</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p>While we should welcome the SNP move to drop the ‘graduate tax’, as it has come to be known by some – we should be a little bit more concerned about the quiet dropping of the nationalist’s more radical policies on student finance.<span style=""> </span>Only two months ago, during the election campaign, the SNP were loudly proclaiming not only their promise to get rid of the endowment – but also to <b style="">scrap all outstanding student debt </b>and <b style="">replace student loans with maintenance grants.</b><span style=""> </span>In other words they were close to promising free university education – precisely what the student movement and the left have long campaigned for.<span style=""> </span>It is undoubtedly policies like this – as well as anti-war posturing and the framing of the election debate around independence – that drew so many left-wing voters to the SNP in May.<span style=""> </span>As Labour education spokesperson Hugh Henry (correctly, but with astonishing hypocrisy) described the move – “[It is] meagre and disingenuous” and “tinkers at the edge of what the SNP promised to students”.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p>Average student debt in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> upon graduation in 2005 was £7,561, before taking into account the endowment, and over a quarter owed more than £12,000 on top of the back-ended fee payment.<span style=""> </span>These figures will be likely to have increased over the subsequent two years.<span style=""> </span>So while the reduction in student debts by just over £2000 is very good news indeed for current and future students in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Scotland</st1:country-region></st1:place> , those graduating before 2008 are left out in the cold. What’s more the promise of free education is once again a long way off – and the spectre of debt will continue to hang over all but the wealthiest of potential students for a long time to come.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p>Ostensibly the more radical policies are being put to the side because the SNP – as a minority government – couldn’t hope to push such expensive policies through parliament – they would need the Lib Dem’s support, and they are only willing to go so far.<span style=""> </span>However it is very telling that the nationalist administration aren’t even willing to have the battle – that they value proving themselves capable of maintaining a stable government far more than they value any of their policies – from student finance to independence.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p>What is interesting however is that they would choose to push for a popular, ‘left-wing’ policy so early in the life of the new parliament.<span style=""> </span>It could be a promising sign – or it could be a little respite before a neo-liberal storm is unleashed – think New Labour and the National Minimum Wage in 1999 – a token progressive gesture to the – and we all know what was to follow.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p>In the meantime the left and the students’ movement in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> have been given an opportunity – we have been given an aim and a target.<span style=""> </span>The government has made us promises that it doesn’t intend to keep.<span style=""> </span>Now it’s up to us to force them to change their minds.</span></p>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-69020419008797385402007-06-14T12:23:00.000+00:002007-06-18T00:35:09.930+00:00Bonapartism, basic concepts and ChavezJim Denham (of the <st1:city><st1:place>Alliance</st1:place></st1:city> for War and Liberalism) has been crticial of Hugo Chavez and his government, calling them <a href="http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.com/2007/05/venezuela-freedom-what-would-lenin-do.html#comment-7332364814718387443">‘a bonapartist formation, with nothing to do with socialism (assuming that by "socialism" you mean the rule of the working class)’</a>. When I posted a Gramsci quote which says that perhaps calling a formation ‘Bonapartist’ is not the be all and end all of the matter Jim responded with <a href="http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.com/2007/05/venezuela-freedom-what-would-lenin-do.html#comment-675937775684790917">‘[s]o much for basic Marxist concepts’</a>.<br /><p class="MsoNormal">I think that position Jim takes here is an interesting one, and worthy of further exploration, especially as it exposes a real weakness in the approach of the British left in general. The Gramsci quote I posted only suggested that establishing something is Bonapartist is not the end of the matter, as it does not stop the need for further enquiry. Denham seems to be insisting that ‘Bonapartist formations’ are a basic concept of Marxist thought, and they tell us that the regime can have ‘nothing to do with socialism’.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The first point to note is that I am not a Trotskyist and I don’t really know that much about the Trotskyist position. This made it hard for me to even think of Bonapartism as a ‘basic concept’ of Marxist thought (I know it gets mentioned in the 18<sup>th</sup> Brumaire but still). But even if it is a basic element in Marxist thought, calling it a concept really doesn’t seem to help anyone, in fact Jim seems to have become an ideologist, <a href="http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm">for whom</a>:<o:p><br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>[R]elations become concepts; since they do not go beyond these relations, the concepts of the relations also become fixed concepts in their mind.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, against Jim I raise Lenin, who refuses to acknowledge that Marxism is about ‘basic concepts’ that allow us to pre-judge a given situation. Against such positions Lenin insisted that the <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/12.htm">‘very gist, the living soul, of Marxism [is] a concrete analysis of a concrete situation’</a>. So in this respect I think that Gramsci is right and Jim is wrong, just establishing that a given social formation is Bonapartist tells us nothing about its relation to socialism or the emancipation of the working class – instead we have to ask the Marxist question – <i style="">who benefits?<o:p></o:p></i><br /><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i style=""><u>The Old man himself<o:p></o:p></u></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The thing is, it seems to me that Trotsky himself realised this when he did his work on Bonapartism. I just randomly skimmed Trotsky’s article <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm">The Workers State, Thermidor and Bonapartism</a> and came up with the following extracts:<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>The overturn of the Ninth Thermidor <i style="">did not liquidate the basic conquests of the bourgeois revolution</i>, but it did transfer the power into the hands of the more moderate and conservative Jacobins, the better-to-do elements of bourgeois society.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>In <st1:country-region><st1:place>France</st1:place></st1:country-region>, the prolonged stabilization of the Thermidorean-Bonapartist regime was made possible only thanks to <i style="">the development of the productive forces that had been freed from the fetters of feudalism</i>.</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And perhaps the kicker is:<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">Without historical analogies we cannot learn from history. <i style="">But the analogy must be concrete; behind the traits of resemblance, we must not overlook the traits of dissimilarity</i>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p></blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">Essentially what these quotes tell us is that although Napoleon was not the most advanced representative of the bourgeois revolution, he nonetheless preserved and stabilised the growth of the bourgeois revolution in <st1:country-region><st1:place>France</st1:place></st1:country-region>. What isn’t written here, but perhaps is more to the point, is that Napoleon <i style="">spread the bourgeois revolution</i> (and you’d think the AWL would love that) to the rest of <st1:place>Europe</st1:place>, as is evidenced by the fact that the Civil Code dominates the continent.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, even for the paradigm case of Bonapartism, Napoleon himself, it is possible to say that he served a progressive role, in consolidating the gains of the bourgeois revolution, spreading it, and generally not liking feudalism. Of course, Louis <i style="">didn’t</i> play such a role, but this shouldn’t blind us to the fact that it is entirely possible that Bonapartism <i style="">can </i>play a historically progressive role.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i style=""><u>Cui Bono?<o:p></o:p></u></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But of course this is all well and good when we’re talking about <i style="">bourgeois revolutions </i>(although I seem to remember hear some Trots talking about spreading the gains of October etc.) but the typical response to what I have said is – ‘the emancipation of the working must be the act of the working class itself’ or ‘socialism from below’(!!!). Now, although I think these slogans themselves have to properly put into context, I <i style="">do</i> agree that the proletarian revolution is always one that will be qualitatively different from <i style="">every </i>revolution that has preceded it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, agreeing with Jim here, I still don’t think it’s the end of the matter. At the very least we need to ask – <i style="">has Chavez opened a space for the emancipation of the working class</i>? So, rather than just shout ‘Bonapartist (!!!!)’ we need to ask ‘who benefits’ from the Bolivarian revolution, and we need to enquire if it has benefited the working class.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And surely on this level we can say (at the very least) ‘yes’. Chavez has firstly put socialism and the working class on the agenda in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Venezuela</st1:place></st1:country-region> and indeed the world stage. This <i style="">must</i> be a good thing for the perspective of the working class. <a href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407lebowitz.htm">I think the work of Mike Lebotwitz</a> has been instructive here. Even if we disregard Chavez’ concrete policies relating to the economy it is pretty clear he has opened up a space for the working class in a way that has never happened in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Venezuela</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">He has opened up the political process to the working class, and indigenous people so that it does not lie solely with the oligarchs and its representatives. The ideas of co-management, no matter how limited their application, help smash the myth that the workers cannot do without he bourgeoisie. The barrio healthcare initiatives are helping the Venezuelan workers get back their confidence and dignity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I think the confidence and dignity argument is and important one, which ought not to be overlooked. In <st1:country-region><st1:place>Venezuela</st1:place></st1:country-region> the workers may not rule, capitalism may still not be overthrown, the old state machine may not have been smashed, but the working class and its organisations have grown, they are taken seriously, they are confident and organised. Surely this sort of empowerment is the key to any successful self-emancipation.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It is Jim's prerogative to disagree with my characterisation of Chavez (which was obviously provisional and sketchy), but I hope I have at least shown how a Bonapartist regime might be characterised as 'progressive'. Hopefully this will at least stop the pointless screams of "Bonapartist!!!!!!!!!" at the mention of Chavez' name.<o:p></o:p></p>Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08570084990430000647noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6900670482368277699.post-27719194914473571242007-06-12T15:05:00.000+00:002007-06-12T15:13:20.814+00:00Guest post.<b>The Lair is excited to host its first guest post. Charlie Marks, from <a href="http://charliemarks.wordpress.com/">Rebellion Sucks!</a> made an excellent post about the growing tension between Holyrood and Westminster, with Alex Salmond seizing every chance to pick up a fight with the central government and asserting the authority of the devolved parliament. The post is reproduced here in its entirety.</b><br /><br /><p><em>We return to the national question in Scotland, as materialised in this instance by the Cheshire cat grin of Alex Salmond; victims of the Lockerbie disaster are put through more anguish; Tony Blair visits Muammar Gaddafi and agreements are reached, but not all of them disclosed; and light is cast on the murky world of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” flights and a variety of people find the whole thing disagreeable.</em></p> <p><b>Calm before a storm</b><br />The SNP/Green minority administration in Scotland has got off to a steady start, cutting tolls and halting cuts in the NHS – not that this makes it any less of a bosses’ government. For sure, the SNP is financially backed by, and serves the interests of, sections of the national bourgeoisie in Scotland. (And as for the Scottish Greens…)</p> <p>On the international side of things, First Minister Alex Salmond made the headlines – and the London <em>Newsnight</em> programme – by exposing a deal planned by the British government to hand over the man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing to the Libyan authorities. This was all without consultation with the Scottish administration or disclosure to the Scottish Parliament.</p> <p>Yet Kirsty Wark, who was presenting <em>Newsnight</em> on Thursday, gave Salmond a hard time. Wark’s hostility is perhaps indicative of her political views; she has holidayed with Jack McConnell in the past and she could easily present the Scottish edition, but instead flies down to London each week to present the English and Welsh version.</p> <p>Salmond had made an emergency announcement in the Scottish parliament on Thursday, disclosing all he knew and making a great play of his party’s openness as against the secrecy of New Labour: details of possible agreements made by the British government have not been disclosed. So it’s true that he’s milking it for all it’s worth, but the focus should be on the issues raised by the matter.</p> <p><b>The first of many?</b><br />All of the parties in the Scottish parliament were united behind Salmond in denouncing any deal to return the prisoner, Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, currently held in Greenock jail, to his country of origin. New Labour’s Jack McConnell, who was the previous First Minister, admitted that the issue had come up while he was in power and Tony Blair was apparently warned that he should notify Scotland by the Foreign Office of the content of his talks with Gaddafi during a recent visit to Libya.</p> <p>The row over the Lockerbie bomber marks the first outbreak of discord between Edinburgh and London. Outgoing Prime Minister Blair has yet to congratulate Salmond on his party’s electoral victory and assumption of the role of First Minister for the devolved parliament – though we are told that Prime Minister in-waiting, Gordon Brown, has contacted Salmond.</p> <p>Previous Labour/Liberal coalitions were more closely tied to Westminster, and there were no formal channels through which Scotland and the UK government conducted affairs. The SNP are pushing for a formalisation of relations between central government and the devolved parliament: now that there is truly a Scottish government, political independence seems a step closer. </p> <p><b>The bomb, the bomber, Blair, and BP</b><br />PanAm flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, killing 270 people, half of them Americans. The US initially fingered a Palestinian group called the PFLP-GC, based in Syria but after the first Gulf War, in which the Syrians backed the invasion of Iraq, the focus switched to Libya.</p> <p>Two men were tried at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands under Scots law in 2001, but only al-Megrahi was found guilty – the other defendant, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was returned to Libya. The trial was farcical and the verdict doubtful: the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been investigating al-Megrahi’s case for the last four years. In 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing, whilst denying it had commissioned it – in the hope that sanctions against the country would be lifted.</p> <p>Blair visited the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” for a second time as part of his farewell tour and met with its leader Colonel Gaddafi, now one of the good guys. The meeting was not merely to remind us of Blair’s foreign policy “achievements” – Gadaffi shook hands on a £900 million deal to allow British Petroleum back into Libya. For BP, the deal could be worth tens of billions, and it is something of a coup for Blair as big oil has been barred from Libya since the seventies when foreign capital was expelled the economy was taken into public ownership.</p> <p>The visit was a reminder that all will be forgiven of wayward Third World leaders if they follow the neo-liberal agenda. (Take note Robert Mugabe: you can get your honorary degree back, if you want it.) The deal made between the Libyan government and BP was also a reminder of that British foreign policy is completely enmeshed with British capitalism. Like we needed reminding…</p> <p>It had to be Blair meeting Gaddafi, both in 2004 and 2007: a meeting of Bush and Gaddafi would be to confusing for both the American and Libyan masses. Libya had been presented as the archetypal “rogue state” and Gaddafi the original Muslim bad boy, supposedly sponsoring terrorist groups around the world – and in 1986, the US carried out a bombing raid on Libya which was timed to make the evening news back home.</p> <p><b>21st century gulag archipelago</b><br />Human rights groups have been invited to meet with the SNP’s Justice Secretary to discuss the issue of CIA rendition flights through Scottish airports, something else for Salmond to use to argue for independence. It is good that the Scottish government is taking the matter seriously, though the reasons for doing so are probably opportunistic.</p> <p>A European Commission inquiry concluded with the assertion that the US had operated secret prisons in Romania and Poland to which they had transported terror suspects to be interrogated and tortured. A report instigated by the Association of Chief Police Officers – and revealed on the same day as Marty’s findings were announced – has pooh-poohed suggestions that CIA flights might have passed through England, but did not look into the situation in Scotland.</p> <p>Members of the British government had previously denied knowledge of such an unlawful programme and suggested that it was a little far fetched; now Harriet Harman, minister for Constitutional Affairs, and contender for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, is making noises about the scandal.</p> <p>On a related matter, former US Defense Secretary Colin Powell has said that the illegal detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be shut down and the “detainees” moved into to the federal legal system in an effort to regain international faith in American justice. (This is somewhat far-fetched, especially when you consider that when the American legal system was established, black people were regarded as being three-fifths human, and now people of colour make up a majority of the States’ vast prison population. By the way, Powell is not arguing that the US armed forces exit Cuba, only that the military prison is closed.)</p> <p>Turning to the British tabloid press, the matter of rendition flights has been viewed negatively by right-wing <em>Daily Mail</em>, which has condemned the CIA’s programme and the UK government’s collusion. Everyone will use it to their own ends, I suppose. But if the boot was on the other foot and a Tory government had been complicit in US breaches of the law, it would be a different story for the <em>Mail</em>.</p>Korakioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07593180610210015493noreply@blogger.com253