Month: February, 2010
March 20 Anti-War Rally in Houston
| February 25, 2010 | 2:49 am | Action | 1 Comment

Stop the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Bring All the Troops Home Now!

Money for Jobs, Housing and Healthcare!

Join the National Day of Protest on the 7th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq

Saturday, March 20, 2 pm
Rally at Mason Park
S. 75th St. and Tipps St., Houston

Organized by the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, Harris County Green Party, Proyecto Latinoamericana, International Socialist Organization, Latin American Organization for Immigrant Rights, International Action Center, and CPUSA Houston.

The Bourgeois Media Argues the Peasant Militia Does NOT “Already Exist”
| February 23, 2010 | 2:14 am | Analysis, Latin America | Comments closed

By Arther Shaw via VHeadline

There is no rational reason for these “fears of confrontation” if the cattle ranchers and landholders mind their own business and if the cattle ranchers and landholders stop sending death squads and mercenaries to murder peasants and to evict peasants from land that the peasants or the State own. On the other hand, if the cattle ranchers and landholders continue to send their death squads and mercenaries to murder peasants, the ranchers and landholders should have “fears of confrontation.”

These cattle ranchers and landholders don’t feel any “fears of confrontation” from the US imperialist military build-up in Colombia, next door to Venezuela. These cattle ranchers and landholders seem discriminatory about what developments they allow to excite their “fears of confrontation.”

These big cattlemen and wealthy landowners are key elements of the bourgeois-led opposition in Venezuela. The capitalist press will go to any lengths and tell any lie to disassociate the rural bourgeoisie from their death squads and mercenaries who mercilessly and murderously prey on peasants.

“Faced with the onslaught against peasants through an escalation of aggressions, sabotage and hired killings by the most reactionary forces of our society, the duty of the state … is to protect the poor farmers,” Hugo Chavez wrote in his newspaper column, February 21.

Chavez is right. It is the duty of the State to protect poor farmers because the State in Venezuela is a democracy which exercises power in accordance with the rule of law. These “aggressions, sabotage and hired killings by the most reactionary forces of our society” are not the rule of law, but rather these actions are an attempt by the opposition to rule illegally through the use of violence. These actions are an attempt by the opposition to overthrow the rule of law. The law must suppress violence or the violence will suppress the law. What is being seen, here, is not only opposition-sponsored violence against supporters of the revolution and others, but also an opposition-sponsored “escalation” of violence.

A law … against violence that is not effectively enforced … ceases to be law that rules.

The rural proletariat of Venezuela possesses the right stuff to bring an end to the escalating opposition’s violence in the countryside and to deal with US imperialist savages and mercenaries should they cross the border from Colombia.

The AP wrote “Chavez … has repeatedly warned that the US military could invade Venezuela to seize control of its immense oil reserves. US officials deny that any such plan exists.” The denials of US imperialists are worthless because US imperialist are confirmed and habitual liars. They lied about their non-involvement in the 2-day overthrow of Venezuelan democracy in 2002. They lied about the reasons for their 7-year aggression, occupation, and genocide against the Iraqi people beginning 2003. They lied about their involvement and the reasons for their involvement in the 2-year overthrow of Haitian democracy beginning in 2004. They lied about their involvement in the ongoing overthrow of Honduran democracy in 2009. If “US officials deny that any such plan exists,” that only proves irrefutably that such plans exist and are in some stage of implementation. The bourgeois media report the denials of US officials as if the denials were plausible because the bourgeois media are as worthless and as mendacious as the imperialist regime in Washington.

“The [Venezuelan] government claims that more than 300 peasants have been killed — purportedly by mercenaries for wealthy landholders — since authorities launched a sweeping land reform initiative in 2001,” the AP wrote. The AP and the rest of the bourgeois media are trying to be slick and sly when they talk about mere “claims” and about what “purportedly” happened. The AP thereby denies the occurrence of the massacre of peasants and the complicity of the opposition for the massacres.

Do you know why the AP denies the occurrence of the massacre of 300 peasants since 2001? The AP helped to cover-up the massacres.

Do you know why the AP denies the complicity of the opposition for the massacres? The AP is part of the opposition.

Since 2001, every time the toe of a Venezuelan bourgeois was stepped on, the AP wrote a lot of stories about “repression.” But, when a peasant had his head blown off, the AP said nothing over a nine year period, even though the humanity of the poorest peasant is ten times more worthy than that of the richest bourgeois … the latter a corrupt land thief.

One of the favorite propaganda lines of the bourgeois media, especially the AP, is “The security forces that already exist should provide security for all of those in the countryside.” This is precisely what the security forces are doing. The term “all of those in the countryside” includes the peasants, the vast majority of the people in the countryside.

The bourgeois media argues that the peasant militia does not “already exist.”

So, the bourgeois media says the peasant militia should not provide security! If what already exists has proven unable to provide security for “all those in the countryside,” why should the security forces be limited to what already exists?

When the bourgeois media and opposition say they want to limit the security forces in the countryside to those that already exist and that are unable, so far, to provide security, this shows that bourgeois media and the opposition don’t want to provide security for “all those in the countryside.”

The bourgeoisie doesn’t want the peasants to be secure. Well, tough luck … the peasants want to be secure.

Cuban 5 International Campaign for Visitation Rights
| February 17, 2010 | 11:18 am | Cuban Five | Comments closed

Argentinean personalities have sent a letter to Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano demanding visas for two Cuban women so they can visit their husbands imprisoned in the United States for more than 11 years.

The letter, delivered early in the morning of February 16th to the US Embassy in Buenos Aires has the signatures of Nobel Peace recepient Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Estela de Carlotto President of Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, Nora Cortiñas Mother of Plaza de Mayo – Founder Line, writer and journalist Stella Calloni, Graciela Rosemblum President of the Human Rights Argentinean League, jurists Beinusz Szmukler and Carlos Zamorano, Fray Antonio Puigjané, Capuchino Priest, Sociologist Atilio Borón and Philosopher León Rozichtner. All signers are Argentinean members of the International Commission for the Right of Family Visits.

A copy of this document has been sent to several international human rights organizations.

The signers denounced the United States for violating the right of family visits and for denying visas to the wives of Gerardo Hernández, serving two life sentences and René González serving 15 years.

In the letter, which can be seen on several websites, those who signed asked: Where is justice and the sense of humanity in the US?

As it is publicly known, Gerardo and René are two of the Five Cuban Patriots imprisoned in the United States for monitoring criminal based in Miami.

The letter also denounced the fact that while the Five continue to serve unjust prison terms, on March 1st the international criminal Luis Posada Carriles will appear in a Court in El Paso, Texas for charges of lying to immigration authorities instead of facing justice for the numerous crimes he has committed.

SEND LETTERS, FAXES, E-MAILS
OR MAKE A PHONE CALL

On July 15, 2009 the US denied for the tenth time the visa application presented by Adriana Pérez

We ask you to please contact Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the following:

1) To immediately grant a HUMANITARIAN VISA to ADRIANA PEREZ to visit her husband GERARDO HERNÁNDEZ in prison and end the violation of the right of family visits.

2) To grant multiple visas to all family members of the Cuban Five so they can visit their imprisoned loved ones in the US.

To contact the US State Department:

US State Department
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Fax number: 1-202-647-2283
Phone number: 1-202-647-4000

In July, 2008 Olga Salanueva was classified as “permanently ineligible.” On December 18, 2009, she was denied humanitarian parole.

We ask you to contact Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking the following:

1) To immediately grant a HUMANITARIAN VISA to OLGA SALANUEVA to visit her husband RENE GONZALEZ in US prison.

To contact Homeland Security:

Janet Napolitano
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Fax number: 1-202-282-8401
Phone number: 1- 202-282-8000
Comment line: 1- 202-282-8495

If possible please send copies of your letters to the United Nation Human Rights Council e-mail: InfoDesk@ohchr.org

Urgent Action e-mail urgent-action@ohchr.org
Complaint Procedures 1503 e-mail 1503@ohchr.org.

How Communism Brought Racial Equality To The South
| February 16, 2010 | 9:14 pm | Uncategorized | Comments closed

Transcript from National Public Radio, posted for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Throughout this Black History Month, we have been focusing on new news about black history, new scholarship that has emerged in recent decades that sheds new light on the story of black people in America.

Today, we want to hear about communists in the civil rights movement. Now, thats a sensitive subject since those working for equality have often been accused of being communist in this country, but some were.

And were joined now by Robin Kelley, author of Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression. It documents how the Communist Party worked to secure racial, economic and political justice. Hes a professor of American studies and history at the University of Southern California. And this semester, hes the Harmsworth Professor of American History at the University of Oxford. And we welcome you to the program. Thank you for joining us.

Professor ROBIN KELLEY (American History, University of Oxford; Author, Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression): Thanks, Michel. Its great to be here.

MARTIN: How did you get interested in this topic? And as I mentioned, it is a sensitive topic because there are those, for decades, whove worked to tamp down the suggestion that anybody in the civil rights movement was attracted to the Communist Party at all.

Prof. KELLEY: Exactly. And this is a story that actually predates the civil rights movement as we know it, going back to the 1930s. I became interested in this as a doctorate dissertation back in the mid-80s when I was very active in other social movements in actually in the L.A. area. And I wanted to know how the Communist Party organized African-Americans, particularly in places where black people were the majority.

And so, at first, my study took me to South Africa. And I was planning to do a comparative study looking at South Africa and the West South. I couldnt get into South Africa in 1986 because of the state of emergency. And so, I discovered the second blackest place in the world and that is Alabama. And there, I discovered a very vibrant movement that very few people wrote about, there basically are two stories. One memoir by a man named Hosea Hudson and then another story in a book called All Gods Dangers which is about an African-American sharecropper.

MARTIN: All Gods Dangers: The Life of Nate Shaw, I remember that.

Prof. KELLEY: Exactly. But his real name was Ned Cobb. Nate Shaw was a pseudonym. And its a beautiful book that tells his life story and only a portion of it deals with his membership in the communist-led sharecroppers union, which at one point had about 12,000 members in the black belt counties of Alabama.

MARTIN: And were all the members black?

Prof. KELLEY: Well, in Alabama, there was a point when basically all the members, except one, were all African-American sharecroppers and tenant farmers.

MARTIN: How did the Communist Party gets started in Alabama?

Prof. KELLEY: In 1928, the communist position internationally was that African-Americans in the South have the right to self-determination. Meaning: they have the right to create their own nation in the South. In this position that came out of Moscow, it came from other black communists around the globe.

And with that idea in mind, they sent two organizers to Alabama and they went to Birmingham. And they chose Birmingham because it was probably the most industrialized city in the South. And they went there thinking they would organize white workers. And from white workers, black workers would follow. But no white workers had come forward.

And so, the first two organizers was a guy named James Julio(ph), who was a Sicilian worker who had migrated to Alabama, and another guy named Tom Johnson(ph), and together they went out looking for white workers and black workers came.

And black workers came in fairly large numbers right away because to them, they had a memory of reconstruction, the memory of the Civil War. And in that kind of collective memory, they were told that one day the Yankees will come back and finish the fight. Well, when they saw these white communists, they said, oh, good, the Yankees are here. We cant wait to join.

MARTIN: What was the Communist Partys message at that time and why were these black folks so attracted to it?

Prof. KELLEY: Well, there were three things they focused on. One, because it was during the Great Depression, their primary focus was the unemployed. And so their demands were, we want either work or some kind of support from the government. The second thing was, in 1931, we had the famous Scottsboro case, where nine young black men were arrested falsely for raping two white women and they end up going to jail.

Well, these cases happen all the time where black men are falsely accused. The difference was that the Communist Party made the Scottsboro issue an international issue. They put it in the newspapers. They spread the word all over the globe in different languages. And these unknown figures, some of them became a kind of (unintelligible).

And finally, the third thing was basic civil rights: the right to vote, the right to sit on juries, you know, the right to not be Jim Crowed or segregated. These things certainly drew out black working people.

MARTIN: You know, there are civil rights organizations that had the same agenda like the NAACP, for example, which was formed in 1909. Was there overlap between traditional civil rights groups that we know today and the Communist Party or were they are very separate?

Prof. KELLEY: Initially, when the Communist Party arrived and began organizing black workers, the NAACP in Birmingham and all of Jefferson County was just sort of a shadow of itself. They had six dues-paying members. The Communist Party had about 500. And why is that? Because the NAACP at that time, at least locally, was interested in supporting black business and the black elite and the black middle class. They didnt really have a civil rights agenda per se.

And when the Scottsboro case opened up, the leader of the NAACP, Walter White, his concern was whether or not these boys did it. Whereas the communists said, look, we know that theyre class war prisoners. We know that theyre victims. And they made a big case out of it.

So, pretty soon, the NAACP and the Communist Party began competing for the hearts and minds of the parents of the boys. And nationally, NAACP leaders said that, look, whatever you do, dont let the communist win.

MARTIN: At its height, how many members would you say the Communist Party had in Alabama, particularly among African-Americans?

Prof. KELLEY: Well, theres a couple of ways to think about this. One, in terms of actual dues-paying members, they never had more than 600, 700. But then, if you look at all the other auxiliary organizations, the International Labor Defense, which focused on civil rights issues, they had up to 2,000. The Sharecroppers Union had up to 12,000. You had the International Workers Order. You had the League of Young Southerners. You had the Southern Negro Youth Congress. If you add up all these organizations, it touched the lives easily of 20,000 people.

MARTIN: There is a lot about this period that is not talked about today, for example, the way lynchings actually occur, you know, as public spectacle or something. And I mean, a lot of people like to think that these are like isolated incidents when they were not. And so, one of the things that I think people do understand is how violently the political white establishment – lets just say it – would fight back against attempts to organize among blacks. It sort of put down any sort of stirrings of leadership. So, how did all these people function in these organizations?

Prof. KELLEY: Well, we have to divide the history of the party up into two periods. From 1930 to about 35, they were really underground, you know? After 35, they kind of came aboveground and tried to become legitimate. And thats another story. But lets talk about the underground period. On the one hand, they did have public demonstrations and it did confront the police. Many people were beaten during these demonstrations, including white activists who are communists.

But how do they maneuver? What they had to do was basically take advantage of the invisibility as black people to function. Give (unintelligible) example, whenever they had to put out leaflets, sometimes black women who are communists would pose as laundry workers and carry what appeared to be laundry into the house of a white comrade. But inside those baskets, might be paper and a mimeograph machine.

MARTIN: Hmm.

Prof. KELLEY: And then they would make the mimeograph. Then they bring the leaflets out to pass these leaflets on to workers who would go to their jobs. And when no one’s looking, drop the leaflets on the ground, let the wind blow them everywhere and pretend like they dont know anything about it. In the rural areas, they might put up, you know, little posters and leaflets up in trees late at night when no one will see them. And then, you know, if you compare, say, a place like New York City where in the period when so many families were being evicted from their apartments because they cant pay the rent, what they do in New York is they confront the police. They put the furniture back in the house, they’d stand up.

But in Alabama they do little secret things, like if the water was turned off, communists would figure out a way to turn the water back on. Or if the electricity was turned off, they used jumper cables to run electricity. Or, if someone got evicted from their home, the communists, as a group, would go to the landlord and say, look you have a choice, you need to put that guy or that family back into their house or the next day your house may turn into firewood.

My favorite story is, you know, one of the big issues for unemployed people was getting relief from social workers. And sometimes it would be impossible just to get your basic flour and lard and whatever. And whenever workers had trouble with social workers, the Communist Party would get penny postcards and write on these penny postcards, anonymously: The workers are watching you. And send them to the social worker.

MARTIN: Hmm.

Prof. KELLEY: To threatening them to basically give the people what they need. And so, these are all ways in which they maintained an invisibility, but were very, very present on behalf of the working class.

MARTIN: If youre just joining us, youre listening to TELL ME MORE from NPR News. Im speaking with historian Robin Kelley for our Black History Month series. Were talking about African-Americans and the Communist Party in Alabama. He wrote about it in his book Hammer and Hoe. How successful do you think the Communist Party was at brining about a change in Alabama, which is the place that you seem to think it was the most effective or widespread, or at least the most present in this period? And the reason Im asking is that even now, I mean, Alabama has yet to elect an African-American to a state white office, for example.

Prof. KELLEY: Right.

MARTIN: One person who is running now, Congressman Artur Davis. But if hes look he will be the first till 2010. So, how effective do you think the Alabama Communist Party was?

Prof. KELLEY: Well, I think it was very effective in some areas. One, even in training and organizing. Some of the most important organizers in steel, in iron were communists; who, after 1935, were some of the lead organizers in training and organizing, which really made a difference in workers lives in the 50s and 60s. The other thing is that there were many people who were trained in the Communist Party who went on to become Civil Rights activists. Asbury Howard, who was a radical (unintelligible) who went onto to play a significant role in Alabamas Civil Rights Movement.

And then, Rosa Parks. Was does Rosa Parks had to do with any of this? Well, some of her first political activities were around the Scottsboro case, you know? She never joined the party, but as a young woman, she and her husband, in fact, attended some of the meetings. Then the other area is, just in the rural areas – this may seem like a small thing, but imagine if youre picking cotton at basically 30 cents a day and you fight and fight and you can get your wages up to 50 cents or a dollar a day. It took about five years and a lot of blood shed, but they were able to raise the wages as a result.

So, they may not be huge victories, but I know one thing, the infrastructure that was laid forward becomes the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama, was laid in many ways, not entirely, by the Communist Party.

MARTIN: Why do you think this history isnt better known? I mean, these are not the names and the faces that you see on the calendars?

Prof. KELLEY: They are not. And part of it has to do with a long history and the Cold War, and the fact that we think of communist as these terrible horrendous people. But more importantly, if you think of them as somehow outside of American culture and history, when what I and others who have written on similar areas have argued, is that is very much native and home grown. I mean, the Communist Party in Alabama, they began their meetings with a prayer.

These were Christians. These people believed in Jesus, in redemption. And they believed in armed self defense, and they believed that Russia would come and save them if anything got to be really bad. It just made perfect sense to those who lived in that period.

MARTIN: What happened to the Communist Party in Alabama? How do it does it still exist – I guess, maybe it would be the question. I dont know. Are they still there? Is anybody still around?

Prof. KELLEY: They are sort of around actually, but not like they were. What happened to them? Two things. After 1935, the party decided to come above ground and build alliances with liberals and others who are not communists, but who are against Nazi Germany and Italy and that sort of thing. So, what ends up happening is that, you can form alliances with liberals in New York – you cant do that in Alabama because white liberals are not that friendly – southern liberals. And so, what they did was they gave up a lot of the militancy. They gave up their industrial base and other things for the sake of building alliance with people who dont want to form alliance with them.

And so they lost interest. And many of their main activists left the South and moved North. The other thing that happened was, Bull Connor, who was very active (unintelligible) becomes like the man in the 40s and 50s. And Bull Connor and his police force waged a war on the Communist Party in the middle 40s. By that time, the main organization was called the Southern Negro Youth Congress, which was not entirely communist, but it was a group of young black men and women who, in fact, prefigured SNCC, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And they had their last meeting in Birmingham in 1948 under enormous police repression and violence.

And that sort of spelled the end of them. And so by that time the Communist Party itself, on a national scale, was declining with the Cold War, and the Smith Act and other things which let people to go underground or go to jail. So, it was part of a national process of snuffing out the Community Party as a whole.

MARTIN: Hmm. So, what would you hope people would take away from all the work that youve done, documenting this history?

Prof. KELLEY: Well, first what I really emphasize is the fact that these were ordinary people, most of whom could not read or write, who were able to, on their own, form a very strong and productive movement that saw not just black peoples problems, but all peoples problems as connected. They saw joblessness and Civil Rights, and the right not be raped or lynched, self-protection – that all these things are part of one big struggle. And they really did succeed in building an interracial movement. Even if the whites were in the minority, those whites were there with them. And that vision, that ordinary people can make change, was a legacy they left us.

MARTIN: Historian Robin Kelley is author of Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression. He is professor of American Studies at the University of Southern California. But he joined us from the U.K. where hes current serving as Harmsworth Professor of American history at the University of Oxford. And his latest book is Thelonious Monk: The Life and Times of an American Original. Thank you so much for contributing to our Black History Month series.

Prof. KELLEY: Thank you, really enjoyed it.

(Soundbite of music)

MARTIN: In a moment, our moms conversation. A collection of essays challenges what many of us think of as requirements for a happy home.

Ms. REBECCA WALKER (Social Commentator; Author, One Big Happy Family): Looking at these families deepened my sense of compassion for my own family.

MARTIN: Rebecca Walker is with us to talk about her new book, One Big Happy Family. Thats just ahead on TELL ME MORE from NPR News.

Houston Justice for Janitors Rally
| February 15, 2010 | 8:14 pm | Labor | Comments closed

On Thursday, February 18 at 3:30 p.m. at Wedge Tower, 1415 Louisiana, in downtown Houston, come participate in a rally for just wages for Houston’s hardworking janitors! Your voice is needed for the janitors to be successful!

Discussion: A View From a New Member
| February 13, 2010 | 1:24 am | Analysis, Party Voices | Comments closed

By Ron Gray via Political Affairs

I am inclined to agree with much of the recent article “Save the party.” However, concerning the internet, while not a panacea it can be a very useful tool. I am an internet recruit. Since affiliating myself with the party, I and four other web heads have started a club (pending party acceptance). I have written an article about the news media’s ignoring important statements made by the new CEO of Bank of America which was published, in People’s World. Another member is working on an article and a membership campaign after a furniture factory closing in North Carolina. Our club is working on a campaign to change people’s perception of the party here in the Carolinas. Once quite strong in the Carolinas, we have lost our advantage due to inactivity and the passing of former members. We must embrace this new technology, using it to our best advantage: to drive membership, fund raising and keep comrades informed and motivated. I agree with you that we can’t accept just anyone that sends in an application without some vetting process. There has to be some balance. There might be some people that because of illness or handicap can only participate via internet. But, they may make significant contributions. The ultimate goal must be finding and nurturing active, contributing members. To make the party strong we must have a large tent and allow for exceptions and diversity even in our membership policy. As Communists, Diversity and flexibility have been our strengths and bureaucracy and rigid policy our weakness.

I agree we must differentiate ourselves from the democrats and more closely examine ourselves against our Marxist ideals I agree that any step in the right direction should be embraced wherever it might come from but, we are communists not democrats. Let us boldly proclaim our identity and the noble truths it stands for. If we weaken our stand we run the risk of losing those principles that make us unique. We are a uniquely American communist party but, we must remain in unity and solidarity with our comrades in other countries with a view to worldwide communism. I too wish we could run a potent candidate in every election in America. However, at our current level of popularity I fear we run candidates at the peril of gaining a reputation of being a party of impotent “also rans”. This can become an entrenched perception which is difficult to overcome. Still, at some point we must step up and fight for a leadership position but, it should be in a race where we can give a good account of ourselves and if not win, at least show strength. Let us choose our fights wisely.

Finally, one thing we must not do is allow ourselves to become divided. It’s good to have diversity of opinion and to debate it strongly and openly but when a decision has been made let us come together in solidarity and give it our full support. I believe that it is good that we can criticize our leaders, in fact it is downright healthy and an American tradition to do so. When we do, let it be constructively, offering solutions to our problems and offering no unnecessary offense to our comrades that bear the burden of leadership. The diversity of ideas within our party must not become a “war of ideas” such as exists between democrats and republicans and will be their downfall. We will win by being the party of diversity, ideas, flexibility, compassion, a balanced approach and solidarity.

Venezuela: No ‘repressive apparatus’
| February 7, 2010 | 7:40 pm | Analysis, Latin America | Comments closed

By Arthur Shaw via VHeadline

The people of Venezuela, not just Hugo Chavez, are setting up a working class state to replace a bourgeois state. The working class state will have a pristine democratic form, largely defined by the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution. Bourgeois propaganda outlets, like VenEconomy, see a working class state that is not chiefly composed of the bourgeoisie and that doesn’t chiefly exercise state power for the bourgeoisie, as “despotic,” no matter how pristine the democratic form of the working class state.

VenEconomy tries to palm-off its vile class arrogance as democracy. That is what it truly “looks” like.

* Trying to make trouble, VenEconomy wrote “Ramiro Valdes is here as the head of a Cuban technical commission that has come to cope with Venezuela’s current electricity crisis.”

Ramiro Valdes is the Cuban Minister of informatics and communications and one of six vice presidents of Cuba. The technical commission, which Valdes heads, will consider cost-efficient ways to expand the generation of electricity and to reduce the consumption of electricity in Venezuela. Cuba, with a huge force of highly-trained electrical engineers, has extensive experience on the national and international levels in what Cuba calls the “energy revolution” and Valdez has been deeply involved in the energy revolution on the national and international levels. The mass of electrical engineers of many countries largely believe in the monopoly capitalist approach to energy problems, not what revolutionaries call the “energy revolution.”

Many countries, especially in the Caribbean, have sought and accepted Cuban cooperation in their energy revolutions. Most of these countries speak highly of Cuban cooperation in the field of electrical generation and consumption. In addition to cooperation from Cuba, Venezuela has sought and accepted cooperation from Argentina, Brazil, and China on cost-efficient ways to win the energy revolution.

US imperialism is violently opposed to Cuban ideas on how poor or less developed countries can win the energy revolution. US imperialists believe that Cuban ideas about the generation and consumption of electricity adversely affect the interests of monopoly capital, especially the worldwide AES company, in the energy industry. VenEconomy, of course, grovels before US imperialists.

VenEconomy doesn’t believe Valdes is in Venezuela to help win the “energy revolution” … VenEconomy believes Valdes is in Venezuela to do something else. So, VenEconomy asks “The question, then,what is task has Ramiro Valdes been assigned to carry out in Venezuela by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?” VenEconomy answers its own question when it says “Chavez revving up the repression apparatus.”

Why is he allegedly doing this?

At this point, VenEconomy goes queer on us, saying it has two contradictory reasons why the alleged “repression apparatus” is being revved up.

First, Chavez is too weak to survive unless he revs up.

Second, Chavez is so strong that he can afford to rev up…

Obviously, VenEconomy has no idea of what it is talking about.

Relying chiefly on Colombian and Venezuelan terrorists, the bourgeois-led opposition in Venezuela has resorted to violence, especially murder and assaults, as its main electoral tactic.

The opposition is trying to intimidate the Venezuelan voter, by mass murder and mass assaults, into abandoning the revolution. But the increasingly working class state in Venezuela will maintain law and order without revving up some “repression apparatus.”

Indeed, there is no “repression apparatus” to rev up under the current revolutionary government.