Month: May, 2012
Montreal student strikes
| May 24, 2012 | 9:23 pm | Action | Comments closed

Check out this link:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/education/student+strikes+Montreal+protest+goes+international/6660739/story.html

David Rovics tour schedule in Texas
| May 24, 2012 | 8:42 pm | Action | Comments closed

David Rovics is not just a musician with a social conscience, but also a social justice activist with real talent as a composer and musician. Many of us remember his concerts at the peak of the war in Iraq. Well, he’s back in Texas, making three stops this time, and showcasing his latest compositions.

Thursday, May 31st, 8 pm
Houston Center for Culture
708 Telephone Road Suite C
Houston, Texas

Friday, June 1st, 7 pm
The Pavilion
915 Lazy Lane
San Marcos, Texas

Saturday, June 2nd, 6:00PM–Reception, followed by concert

Interfaith Peace Chapel at the Cathedral of Hope,

5910 Cedar Spring Road
Dallas, Texas

From his website:
David Rovics grew up in a family of classical musicians in Wilton, Connecticut, and became a fan of populist regimes early on. By the early 90’s he was a full-time busker in the Boston subways and by the mid-90’s he was traveling the world as a professional flat-picking rabble-rouser. These days David lives in Portland, Oregon, and tours regularly on four continents, playing for audiences large and small at cafes, pubs, universities, churches, union halls and protest rallies. He has shared the stage with a veritable ‘who’s who’ of the left in two dozen countries, and has had his music featured on Democracy Now!, BBC, Al-Jazeera and other networks. His essays are published regularly on CounterPunch, and the 200+ songs he makes available for free on the web have been downloaded more than a million times. Most importantly, he’s really good. He will make you laugh, he will make you cry, he will make the revolution irresistible.

For more on David Rovics, see www.davidrovics.com

A little math lesson for the 99%
| May 20, 2012 | 8:47 pm | Action | Comments closed

by James Thompson

It is well-known that the top 1% control 42% of financial wealth in this country. What does this mean for the 99%? This brief paper will be a quick and simple look at this from the perspective of the 99%.

In 2009 the estimated total net family household wealth for the entire country was $54.2 trillion. The population of the United States was 305 million in 2009. Let’s talk about equitable wealth distribution.

As indicated above, this is a very simple analysis. If you do the simple math and divide $54.2 trillion by 305 million people, that would mean there should be $177,049.18 for every man woman and child in this country in 2009. 42% of $54.2 trillion comes to $22,680 billion. Again, this is the share of the top 1%. If you divide that figure by 305 million people, that comes to $74,360.66 for every man, woman and child in this country.

In 2007, the aggregate annual net family household income was $7.723 trillion. The top 3.65% (those earning more than $200,000) earned 17.5% of that total family income or $1.351525 trillion for that year. If that $1.351525 trillion was distributed equally among the 305 million people living in this country, that would amount to $4431.23 for every man, woman and child.

These simple calculations are not intended to be a final solution to all of our nation’s financial problems. However, it can be easily seen that if incomes and wealth were more equitably distributed, all people could be quite comfortable.

Obviously, more sophisticated analyses are needed to come up with a plan for distribution of wealth to all peoples in this land. However, it is also obvious that the current system is not in the interest of the 99%.

The Nobel Peace Laureate
| May 15, 2012 | 8:21 pm | Action | Comments closed

Via www.mltoday.com

Written by Fidel Castro

I will hardly refer to the Cuban people, who one day rid their country of the United States domain, when the imperialist system had reached the height of its power.

Men and women of different ages paraded on May Day down the most symbolic squares in all provinces of the country.
Our Revolution emerged where it was least expected by the empire, in a hemisphere where it was used to act like an all-powerful master.

Cuba came to be the last country to get rid of Spanish colonialism and the first to shake off the heinous imperialist tutelage.

Today I am thinking particularly about the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its heroic struggle against the ruthless plunder of the resources with which Nature has endowed that noble and self-sacrificing people who one day sent their soldiers to faraway places in this continent to bring the Spanish military power to its knees.

Cuba has no need to explain why we have been in solidarity not only with all the countries of this hemisphere but also with many others in Africa and other regions of the world.

The Bolivarian Revolution has also been in solidarity with our homeland. Its support was transcendental during the years of the Special Period. That cooperation, however, in no way came up at Cuba’s request. Neither did we demand any condition from any of the peoples that required our educational or medical services. We would have offered Venezuela our maximum support no matter the circumstances.

For revolutionary Cubans, to cooperate with other poor and exploited peoples has always been a political principle and a duty towards humanity.

I feel great satisfaction to watch, as I did yesterday, through Venezolana de Televisión and Telesur, the profound impact that the adoption of the Labor Organic Law enacted by the Bolivarian leader and president of the Republic, Hugo Chávez Frías, caused among the people. I had never seen anything like that in the political landscape of our hemisphere.

I paid attention to the huge crowds that gathered in the squares and avenues of Caracas, particularly the spontaneous comments made by the citizens who were interviewed. I had hardly – ever, perhaps – seen the level of emotion and hope that transpired in their statements. It became evident that the overwhelming majority of the people are humble workers. A true battle of ideas is being powerfully waged.

Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, courageously stated that we are living through a change of times rather than through times of change. Both Rafael Correa and Hugo Chávez are Christians.

But, Obama, what is he? What does he believe in?

One year after the murder of Bin Laden, Obama is competing with his rival, Mitt Romney, to justify that action which was perpetrated at a facility close to the Military Academy of Pakistan, a Muslim country allied to the United States.

Marx and Engels never talked about murdering the bourgeois. According to the old bourgeois concept, the judges were the ones who judged and the executioners were the ones who executed.

There is no doubt that Obama was a Christian; one of the facets of that religion helped him to learn the trade of conveying his ideas, an art that meant a lot to him during his meteoric rise to the upper echelons of his party.

The principled declaration of Philadelphia of July of 1776 stated that all men were born equal and free and that they were all endowed by their Creator with certain rights. As far as we know, three quarters of a century after independence the black slaves, with their wives and children, continued to be sold at public squares; and almost two centuries later, Martin Luther King, a Nobel Peace Laureate, had a dream, but he was murdered.

The Oslo Nobel Committee awarded Obama his prize, and he almost became a legend. However, millions of persons must have watched the images. Nobel Laureate Barack Obama traveled hurriedly to Afghanistan as if the world ignored the mass murders, the burnings of Muslims’ sacred books and the desecration of the corpses of murdered persons.

No honest person will ever assent to the perpetration of terrorist actions. But, has the US president any right to judge or kill, to become both the judge and the executioner and commit such crimes in a country and against a people on the opposite side of the planet?

We watched the US President in shirtsleeves, running up a steep staircase, walking at quick pace down an overhead corridor and stopping to give a speech to a large military contingent that applauded unwillingly the words of the illustrious President.

Those men were not all American-born. I thought about the colossal expenses this meant, whose burden is being borne by the world. After all, who is bearing the burden of that huge cost which exceeds already 15 trillion dollars?

That is what the illustrious Nobel Peace Laureate offers humanity.

May 3, 2012

“Human Rights” gone Wild
| May 14, 2012 | 8:51 pm | Action | Comments closed

By Zoltan Zigedy

Via http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

You have to marvel at the bizarre media circus triggered by the zany tale of “human rights activist” Chen Guangcheng. Chen’s saga began fantastically, evolved strangely, and continues as a hypocritical argument between Republicans and Democrats over who is the real friend of human rights.

Media accounts are vague on what earned Chen the mantle of “human rights advocate.” Some point to his opposition many years ago to the campaign in the Peoples’ Republic of China to limit population growth by urging families to birth only one child. There is also agreement that Chen was convicted and served four years in prison and was under home detention until the night of April 22.

On that night, according to Chen’s friends and repeated by the US officials, Chen escaped from his detention, scaled at least eight walls, and wandered around for 20 hours until he hooked up with a fellow dissident who drove him a considerable distance to an ultimate rendezvous with officials from the US embassy in Beijing. This feat is all the more remarkable because the media reports that Chen is blind. US news outlets hailed this accomplishment without any incredulity. Nor did they suggest that there was any connection between the “escape,” the resulting furor, and the beginning of high-level US-PRC talks scheduled to begin 10 days later. For the happily gullible US media these steps were mere happenstance.

After his arrival, confusion reigned. No one could quite figure out what Chen wanted, including US embassy officials. According to The Wall Street Journal, US officials found him “self absorbed.” They remarked how it “feels like the guy is unfairly attacking the US.” What began as another opportunity to show the PRC’s insensitivity to human rights was quickly dissolving into a fiasco.

At different times Chen insisted on talking by phone with PRC Premier Wen, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and Representatives Chris Smith and Nancy Pelosi in the US. For days, US embassy personnel chatted with Chen about his wishes. At the same time, he called friends in the PRC and the US to discuss his options. PRC officials calmly dialogued with the embassy—no doubt bemused by the increasing impatience of the US officials.

After six days, US officials believed they had determined Chen’s intention. He wanted to stay in the PRC, but with the caveat that he be admitted to law school in his native province. Despite his lack of a formal education, PRC officials quickly granted his wish. But wait: first, he wanted to be reunited with his family. Again, officials granted his wish, whisking his family to Beijing on a fast train.

Thinking the “incident” had been resolved, embassy officials drove Chen to a Beijing hospital to be treated for minor injuries. Overnight, he changed his mind again and demanded he be sent to the US to take advantage of a visiting scholar offer tendered by Jerome Cohen of NYU. He alluded to vague threats by PRC authorities that were denied by embassy officials. Finally, the Chen “human rights” struggle was capped off by a remote open mike dialogue with the US House of Representatives where he surprised House members with the revelation of his forthcoming journey to the US. By the way, Chen has since announced that he reserves the right to return to China when his US R&R is completed. Human rights indeed!

One obvious lesson of the Chen episode is that there is an avenue for convicted criminals to extort a law degree or a trip overseas if he or she plays the cards right, though I would not recommend that anyone try this in the US.

But the more serious lesson is for the myriad human rights groups in the US and Europe. Their ready acquiescence to “causes” that coincide with the interests of their respective ruling classes casts a shadow on their body of work. The critical observer cannot help but notice the coalescing of many human rights campaigns with the foreign policy objectives of the US and its NATO allies.

It’s an old story, beginning in the Cold War with a noticeable tendency for the most prominent rights groups to find human rights violations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but curiously overlooking the ravages of anti-Communism in the US. But after the Helsinki Accords of 1975, the human rights provision (though no other element) became an anchor for US and European foreign policy. Millions of dollars were directed towards Western human rights organizations and NGOs that compromised any objectivity for the routine payoff. Human rights pressure intensified on the Socialist countries while waning in the West. Of course some groups and activists were merely gullible; they inherited blindness to repression and oppression in their beloved backyard while bearing a nativist distrust of things foreign or different; cultural ignorance and disrespect of differences always exacerbated the blunders of human rights campaigners. And imperialists were quick to exploit these weaknesses.

In recent history, the irresponsibility of human rights activists has contributed to the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the demonization of countries seeking an independent path from that chosen by the US and its allies, countries such as Cuba, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, the PRC, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, and Syria. Some groups seem to have forgotten the other nine points of the Helsinki Accord.
This institutionalization of human rights organizations, along with their penetration by governmental agencies, has challenged their credibility. The obscene campaign against Libya has resulted in civilian deaths and the brutal rule of bandits and racists. And the current campaign against the Syrian government brings frequent bombings by opponents and a great loss of civilian lives. Surely some human rights advocates owe us an accounting.

As The Colombia Journalism Review reports, the recent Mike Daisey account of workplace abuses in the PRC went viral after paradoxically appearing on This American Life (They show little interest in American workplace abuse). Eight hundred and eighty-eight thousand downloads followed. Consequently, Change.org, the ubiquitous on-line petition campaigner, solicited 256,425 signatures opposing this alleged abuse.

But Daisey’s account was a fraud, laden with inaccuracies and spurious charges. Consequently, This American Life retracted the Daisey episode. Yet only 486 people signed a petition urging the withdrawal of the Change.org petition. The damage was done. The stain remains.

We deserve better human rights advocates: less obsequiousness and gullibility, more responsibility and seriousness.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

Introduction of the GS of the CC of the KKE, Aleka Papariga, to the press conference
| May 13, 2012 | 8:00 pm | Action | Comments closed

Via http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-05-11-synentefxi-aleka/

The Assessment of the KKE regarding the revealing procedure-fraud of the exploratory mandates, which were part of the general plan for the mass manipulation and the disarmament of the people with the focus on the next elections

This is the reason why the KKE, when it was asked before the elections what it would do in case it received the exploratory mandate, clarified honestly and boldly before the people (without caring about the cost it would have regarding votes) that it WOULD immediately return the mandate. The KKE clarified that it will not participate in a government of bourgeois management that objectively entails an anti-people way out from the crisis. It is very well aware of the position and the practice of other parties, that none of the proposed governments, either those in favour of “negotiation” or those in favour of the “amendment” and a new Memorandum can solve the acute problems, even approach the needs of the people. This is the content of the historical responsibility, regarding which SYRIZA denounces us. We reply to them by commenting that they are demonstrating a historically irresponsible stance in relation to the people.
Respecting the institution of the mandates does not mean that the various parties should make exploratory attempts with hypocritical discussions and proposals since one or more parties have decided not to participate in the government as they want a new round of elections for their own purposes. Why, for instance, did SYRIZA not say from the beginning that it wants a one party government so as to avoid this wretched game which unfortunately will continue over the next few days?

For this reason we asked for elections yesterday, not because elections constitute, as it is usually said, the culmination of the people’s intervention, the solution for the people’s problems but in order to stop the deception. In any case, we are heading for elections. T

Therefore, the people must be ready to intervene drawing conclusions from this process of deception. These are staged games. But even if they form a government at the last moment the people should again be vigilant because elections will be around the corner.

OLD AND NEW MODERNIZED DILEMMAS

We assess at the same time that each party via the procedure of the mandates attempted to place at the centre of the people’s attention new misleading dilemmas so that if new elections are held the people will be trapped in old and modernized dilemmas and that the endurance of radical popular masses will be reduced in the face of the pressure.

Such dilemmas are:

FIRST: euro or drachma, despite the fact that whether with the euro or the drachma the people will be destitute.

SECOND: Greek or European solution, despite the fact that the issue will be determined by the class struggle and confrontation within Greece first of all and of course at a European level, not by negotiations but by strengthening the European labour and people’s movement in its struggle against the EU, in rupture with it.

THIRDLY: Austerity or development, but the path of capitalist development entails austerity in the conditions of the sharpening capitalist competition, and sharpening inter-imperialist contradictions.

FOURTH: right or left, Memorandum or Anti-memorandum, dilemmas which will also take on other forms, according to the developments, through the new form of the two poles centre-right-centre-left. These dilemmas, for which Syriza bears very serious responsibilities, marginalised and obscured the real contradictions inside Greece and the EU.
T
he real question for the Greek people is:

GREECE-WORKING PEOPLE INDEPENDENT AND FREED FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMITMENTS OR A GREECE INCORPORATED IN THE IMPERIALIST EU? The real contradiction inside Greece and in the EU is between the capitalist businesses, the monopoly businesses and the interests of the working class, the self-employed in the city and countryside, the contradiction between the governance of the people’s power and the power for the perpetuation of the bourgeois class.

Especially Syriza with its continuous mutations and also its general programme is attempting to use a left façade to persuade the people that the capitalist and workers can co-exist and prosper. Indeed, it is demanding social support for a left government, with the desire of persuading the people to take the position of the applauding audience, when the people must be demanding, must monitor and must be emancipated in relation to the government. It wants a priori to impose reduced expectations on the people with the dilemma left-right, in the logic of PASOK in the 1980s. With its positions today it is of course not a faithful imitator of PASOK, which then had advanced slogans such as EEC AND NATO ARE THE SAME SYNDICATE, OUT WITH THE AMERICAN BASES. It imitates its tactics, which is very negative for the people.

Each of the parties which had the responsibility of the mandate, and those that took part in the dialogue, utilised the open interventions of the EU and the IMF to consolidate the dilemmas. These despicable interventions are not new or unprecedented. They existed further back in the past, there were open and blackmailing dilemmas during the Papandreou and Papademos governments and will continue after the elections whatever government is formed. Here it is also revealed that a government, which states that it wants to keep Greece in the EU at all costs cannot negotiate or renegotiate for a pro-people way out from the crisis, in favour of the people’s rights. Finally, it will sign the EU decisions, at the most uttering some minor objections as PASOK did during its first period of government.

The only patriotic pro-people position is the unilateral cancellation of the debt, the struggle for the disengagement from the EU and its blackmails.

These blackmailing and intimidating dilemmas are creating the two new poles of two-party rotation, absolutely painless for the business groups, and in the end useful for the EU, as they all agree with the participation in the EU and therefore compliance with it. The people must not reinforce these two poles with their vote, reproduce them or support them in any way.

By attacking each other, they are seeking to stabilize and embed in the consciousness of the people the inevitability of assimilation into the EU, and consequently in NATO and the participation in imperialist wars, despite the fact that they do not touch on the latter, as if it does not concern the government, which will be elected. It is not at all accidental that among the various proposals and the 5 points promoted by Syriza in society, this is not included either as an axis or in the content: namely, what would the governmental delegation of the Tsipras government do when it takes part in the NATO summit, with the imperialist strategy of “intelligent defence” as its theme, that is to say with the subject of measures and policies to make the imperialist alliance more flexible and deadly. We remind you that the NATO summit will be held on the 20-21 of May. Unless of course Syriza, is seeking a one-party government, wants to avoid committing itself now or to avoid its participation in a summit, which just a few days after the formation of a government would expose it through the signing of the NATO summit’s decision.

The eclecticism and the choice of topics are characteristic of Syriza’s 5 points so that it can approach a specific audience, as if a government does not have to deal with all the problems. We witnessed the intervention of the Hellenic Federation of Industrialists to safeguard the stability of Greece in the EU in opposition to the people and in order to prevent the sharpening of the class struggle.
ND is mocking the people’s consciousness with the misleading argument that Syriza is leading the country out of the EU and Syriza is responding that it will ensure that Greece stays in the EU at all costs, something which is true. While at the same time it is lying when it claims that the “EU one-way street” can become more humane and pro-people. PASOK is stating that it can find agreement with Syriza as it says it is in favour of the EU and the euro. Syriza is lying that it will cancel the memorandum and the loan agreement and that it will free the people from the debt. And these three together with the Democratic Left are leading the people to the same blackmailing fear, but from different approaches, and are placing a barrier against a truly different and radical alternative solution.

These are dilemmas which absolutely serve the agonized attempts of the ruling class, faced with the danger of a popular uprising, to regroup its political staff, through the creation of a new renewed bipolar system of the centre-left and the centre-right, centre-right and the left with the governmental left fully assimilated into it. The governmental left, which allegedly does not hesitate to take on responsibilities, is the vehicle for the assimilation, subjugation and even breaking of the labour movement, the foiling of its social alliance with the self-employed in the city and countryside. Armed with the stick and when necessary the carrot, to turn the movement into an applauding spectator, bought off with temporary benefits (crumbs in the conditions of reduced demands) due to the crisis and destitution), which are painless for the system. A special goal so that this strategic aim can be achieved is to weaken in every way, including using repression, the vanguard role of the KKE in the labour and people’s movement, in the rallying of anti-monopoly anti-imperialist forces, or to force it to mutate, so that the system’s safety net is reinforced. The only ones who would be satisfied by such a development would be the industrialists, the ship-owners, and the monopoly groups. Neither of these two inter-connected attempts will be successful.

The election battle has begun. It is an opportunity for the suffering people to understand that there is a real danger that the radicalism, which they demonstrated, that the tendency to seek an alternative solution will be subjugated to the illusion of the “solution here and now”, the lesser evil, “something better” whatever that may be.

We are not living in the 1970s and 1980s during the ND and then the PASOK governments, in favourable conditions for capitalism. This period has ended, a period which allowed certain concessions to be made and reforms, which were harmless for the system in Greece, which had been previously been carried out in capitalist Europe. The path of capitalist development inevitably leads to economic crisis, to today’s circumstances, when a historical revenge has been taken against the peoples of Europe through the abolition of all the gains and concessions made after the war and in the case of Greece after the dictatorship.

The opportunity is being presented to those who wish to struggle for a better life- in the midst of the grotesque image of this week of mandates, when each party is trying to sound pleasing, to present itself as a militant negotiator- to correct the people’s vote in order to strengthen the KKE.

To reflect on the essence of the pro-people way out of the crisis and pro-people development and on what a people’s government means.
The future will be even more difficult and the people must not play a waiting game, and must not believe that the results of the elections can correct or overthrow the barbaric political line, which they have experienced, which is due to capitalism and the assimilation of Greece in the EU, with or without Merkel and Sarkozy.

The people have a major opportunity today to utilise their experience and not to throw it away in the name of the crisis, the dilemmas and illusions. The people and the country need a strong KKE and a movement fully emancipated from every governmental, employer and EU embrace. Consequently the vote must serve the regroupment of the labour movement, the social alliance and this is the reason why the strengthening of the KKE is important.

The people will pay a high price for every retreat from this perspective. The price will be new torments and disappointments and the loss of valuable time.

Athens 10/5/2012 THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE CC OF THE KKE

e-mail: cpg@int.kke.gr

A “Left government” is a “leaking lifeboat” for the people who are suffering
| May 13, 2012 | 7:29 pm | Action | Comments closed

Via http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-05-09-aristeri-kyvernisi

The head of Syriza, A. Tsipras, who received on the 8th of May the exploratory mandate from the President of the Republic to form a government and began contacts with the heads of the parties, is resorting to tactical shenanigans and headline grabbing stunts.

The head of Syriza contacted the GS of the CC of the KKE, Aleka Papariga, by telephone and asked for a meeting in the framework of his contacts with the party leaders regarding the formation of a government. Aleka Papariga answered that there is no subject for discussion for such a meeting.

In his statement, A. Tsipras repeated the proposal for a “left government” with the aim of “redistributing the tax burdens, dealing with the fiscal problems in terms of social justice, the productive reconstruction of the country and the ecological planning of development”.

The minimum conditions SYN/Syriza have set for cooperation are:

“The need for the immediate cancellation of the implementation of the measures of the memorandum and especially those shameful laws which cut wages and pensions even further.”

The cancellation of laws which abolish basic labour rights and in particular the law which determines that after the 15th of May the extension of existing collective bargaining agreements will be abolished and that collective agreements themselves will cease.

The promotion of immediate changes to the political system for the deepening of democracy and social justice, first of all by changing the electoral law, by introducing full proportional representation, as well as the abolition of the law regarding the responsibilities of ministers.

The public control of the banking system, which today, despite having received nearly 200 billion euros in liquidity and guarantees from state funds, remains in the hands of the executives who bankrupted it. We demand that Black Rock’s report be published immediately. The banks must be transformed into instruments for the development of the economy and the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses.

The creation of an Auditing Commission to explore the odious section of the state debt, a moratorium on its repayment and the quest for a just and viable European solution.”

In its statement, the Press Office of the CC of the KKE notes the following regarding the statements of Alexis Tsipras:

In his statement today A. Tsipras used the mandate which he received to assist his next election campaign, making partial proposals which have the character of a pre-election campaign statement aimed at the most desperate people in order to mislead them and steal votes.

Despite the basic fact that a government must deal with more than 4 or 5 issues- it must deal with all the issues- A Tsipras bypassed this reality as if it did not exist. The KKE highlights the following:

The memorandum and the loan agreement are not going to be abolished by the proposals of A. Tsipra. Despite this fact, he presented certain proposals, as pro-people way out, which conceal the generalised anti-people offensive of the monopolies and their parties, the commitments which all the EU member-states have undertaken, such as the “Europe 2020 Strategy”, policies which are incorporated in the memorandum and the loan agreement.

The proposals of A. Tsipras clearly state that the workers will be called on to pay again for a large section of the debt for which they are not responsible, while the people needs the cancellation of the debt. At the same time these proposals leave the way open for privatizations and for the implementation of new anti-worker measures by the capitalists (salaries of 400 euros, flexible labour relations etc.). They leave the reactionary changes in education, healthcare and welfare untouched.

The declarations regarding the public control of the banks for the benefit of the small and medium-sized businesses are a conscious effort at deception, as they condemn them to taking out new loans in the conditions of their suffocating encirclement by the monopolies.
The proclamations of A. Tsipras regarding “productive reconstruction with sensitivity to ecological matters” are related to the same development path which has already led to the deep crisis and the bankruptcy of the people, while it ignores the Common Agricultural Policy and its consequences for the poor farmers.

The silence regarding the permanent treaty obligations undertaken by the Greek governments within the framework of NATO and the imperialist plans to intervene in the Eastern Mediterranean, is extremely characteristic of the submission of SYN/Syriza to the ruling class and its international allies. Such a government will complicate and sharpen the people’s problems.

The people must divorce themselves from all those who call on them to continue along the nightmarish “EU one-way-street”, whether they have a pro or anti-memorandum façade.

The battle will be determined first of all within Greece and not only within the EU. In addition, the notorious “ European wind of change” which Hollande is allegedly bringing, is not related to the peoples but the struggle of the monopolies of every country for domination.

9/5/2012

e-mail:cpg@int.kke.gr