By Arthur Shaw via VHeadline

An alliance of the Venezuela bourgeoisie and US imperialists unreasonably expects to score big in the upcoming legislative elections in September this year. This alliance, sometimes called the ‘opposition,’� historically does better in legislative elections than in elections for posts in the executive branch of the State, e.g. President, Governors, Mayors, etc. In the 2005 legislative elections, however, the alliance of the bourgeoisie and imperialists ran and hid from a electoral confrontation against the powerful revolutionary forces over the seats in the National Assembly, the supreme lawmaking body in Venezuela . In other words, in 2005, the opposition boycotted the legislative elections.

If the opposition doesn’t score big in the September races for the National Assembly, the defeat will likely be a crushing blow to the alliance of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and US imperialists against the revolutionary sector of the Venezuelan working class. This time, the opposition can’t evade a defeat by running and hiding or boycotting the elections.

A defeat in September will also speed up the shift toward violence in the opposition’s strategy and tactics.

The US imperialist military build-up in neighboring Colombia shows that imperialists are already losing confidence in their ability and in the ability of their pro-imperialist quisling forces in Venezuela to beat the revolutionary and liberal workers of Venezuela in any kind of electoral showdown. To guarantee that most of the corruption from the imperialists regime in Washington continues to go to the political side of the opposition, the Venezuelan bourgeoisie intends to work hard and go all out to score big in September. If the ‘peaceful’ side of the opposition doesn’t score big in September, the imperialists will likely divert more of the money they now use to corrupt bourgeois parties, civil society, and the State in Venezuela , to the violent or terrorist side of the opposition. The violent side of the opposition includes Colombian and Venezuelan terrorists now operating in Venezuela, degenerate and morally filthy US mercenaries, Venezuelans now undergoing terrorist and genocide training in Colombia and in USA, and utterly savage and barbaric US troops at US bases in Colombia and in the region. Again, the lost of corruption money from the US National Endowment for Democracy, US Agency for International Development, CIA, DIA, FBI, US State Department, and a number of pro-imperialist foundations and think-tanks by elements and sectors of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie on the peaceful side of the opposition could cause a total financial collapse of these bourgeois elements and sectors. These elements and sectors of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie depend on corruption as their main source of income for personal consumption.

THE CORRUPTION OF THE VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION

Based on documents obtained from the bourgeois US regime under the Freedom of Information Act, prominent revolutionary writer Eva Golinger estimates that something like $50 million in corruption money has flowed during the last seven years out of the US imperial treasury through various conduits and finally into the pockets and bank accounts of the corrupt opposition in Venezuela. Whether the opposition scores big in September will depend, in large part, on how much corruption the opposition gets out of Washington . Golinger estimates that the imperialists spent about $4.7 million to corrupt the Nov. 2008 regional elections in Venezuela . So, something like $4.7 million will likely serve as the floor or the minimum amount of corruption that the opposition will get for 2010 legislative races, because the National Assembly races are a lot more important than the regional races. Most likely, the opposition in Venezuela will get something like $9 or $10 million from the US imperialists to corrupt the 2010 legislative elections.

If any US citizen or US resident accepted ‘anything of value’ [not to mention $9 or $10 million] from a foreign government, like the Venezuelan Government or its agents, ‘in connection with’ any US election [federal, state, county, or municipal], this US citizen or resident could get up to 20 years in a US prison and a fine up to $250,000 under the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA), at 2 USC 441e. When one asks US reactionaries why they oppose corruption of the US government and US politics by foreign sources, while the imperialist regime in Washington promotes corruption in Venezuela and in other countries, these two-faced and sanctimonious US reactionaries say they can corrupt others and, at the same time, resist corruption from others, because something named ‘God’ blesses America.

Although corruption is a necessary condition for an opposition big score in September, corruption isn’t a sufficient condition for a big score. In other words, corruption, alone, no matter how lavish, can’t defeat revolutionary sector of the Venezuelan working class. To score big, the opposition must also work hard and adopt an ‘effective’ strategy and tactics in legislative races.

HARD WORK

With the bourgeoisie and increasingly with the proletariat, a great expenditure of energy for a prolong period is not necessarily hard work, because the idea of work often implies a smart expenditure of energy or, at least, an expenditure at or above the prevailing rate of productivity of labor in field in which the expenditure occurs. An expenditure below the rate of labor productivity is wasted labor and worthless in the market place. In other words, if the expenditure isn’t even work, then the expenditure can’t be hard work. In ‘Capital,’ Marx calls this idea ‘socially necessary labor.’

One of the main goals of US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is to raise the level of productivity of reactionary electoral labor to the world prevailing rate of productivity. To this end, NED runs a series of institutes  the IRI for Venezuelan reactionaries, the IDI for Venezuelan moderates and liberals, the ACILS for reactionaries, moderates, and liberals in the labor movement � which train pro-imperialist flunkies of Venezuelan origin at facilities in Venezuela , USA , all over Latin America, EU, and Israel in the mechanics of electoral struggle. These NED institutes have trained, in the class room, thousands of highly competent reactionaries during the last 15 years and arranged to provide them with electoral experience, in the field, in Venezuela , USA, and all over Latin America .

• Although it is distasteful to admit it, we must make no mistake about this question, these lousy reactionaries or flunkies nurtured by NED  are very good at their art.

Until about 2006, NED recruited most of the flunkies for training in its electoral institutes from the ranks of the main bourgeois parties and from a reactionary labor federation in Venezuela .

The main bourgeois parties were:

(1) Democratic Action (AD) is reactionary bourgeois in ideology although occasionally it claims to be social democratic. The AD is the biggest member of the group of clowns that make up the opposition. Henry Ramos leads the AD which is deeply fragmented over its cut of corruption from US imperialists. Because of its size and influence, AD demands most of the corruption money. But the other bourgeois parties and US imperialists refuse to yield to AD demands.

(2) New Times (UNT) is reactionary bourgeois in ideology and disputes AD’s claim that AD is the biggest clown of the opposition. Omar Barboza nominally leads the UNT as a figurehead for Manuel Rosales, a fugitive from justice who hides in Lima , Peru , after accusations that Rosales took or stole $8 million in corruption money from US imperialists during 2002-2004. Largely, AD and UNT see the 2010 legislative elections as a contest between AD and UNT not against the revolutionary forces behind Hugo Chavez to establish, once and for all, whether ADD or UNT is the biggest clown of the opposition. This determination has huge financial consequences.

(3) Social Christians ( COPEI), is ultra-reactionary bourgeois in ideology and was once the second biggest clown in bourgeois politics before the emergence of UNT. Luis Ignacio Planas leads COPEI and often complains that COPEI doesn’t get a fair share of corruption from US imperialists. Ignacio Planas tends to blame AD and UNT equally for robbing COPEI of its just cut of corruption.

(4) Justice First, reactionary bourgeois in ideology, used to present itself as the professional youth of Venezuela . Now, ten years after the birth of Justice First, the NED-created party is only a part of the professional middle-aged of Venezuela . Julio Borges leads the Justice First and despises the UNT for undermining his 2006 unofficial primary race for the opposition presidential nomination. Borges says his internal polls and other polls by the opposition forces showed in 2006 that he would have far exceeded the paltry 37% that Manuel Rosales, the UNT candidate, got in the 2006 presidential race against Hugo Chavez who got a whopping 63%.

(5) Social Democrats (PODEMOS), bourgeois liberal in ideology and a renegade from the revolutionary process, wants to run for seats in some promising middle class districts in the September. But the opposition, especially Justice First, claims this is divisive and demands PODEMOS in the name of ‘unity’ run in revolutionary working class districts where PODEMOS can’t win. A big chunk of PODEMOS broke away in Jan. 2009 and the chunk re-constituted itself as the Humanist Popular Front, another bourgeois liberal outfit. The Humanist Popular Front stole five of PODEMOS National Assembly deputies. In the legislative elections of 2005, PODEMOS won 15 seats in the National Assembly, the second largest party caucus in the legislature. Turmoil within PODEMOS has since reduced the number of PODEMOS seats to seven. Ismael Garcia ‘leads’ PODEMOS and everything he touches instantly turns into either ashes or manure usually, the latter.

In addition to the five clowns of the opposition, mentioned just above, are about 30 riff-raff bourgeois parties of no importance.

Until late 2006, NED (US National Endowment for Democracy) recruited flunkies for its electoral institutes mostly from these organizations. NED had to negotiate compensation issues with the leaders of the bourgeois parties to get and to exploit the electoral labor of these people. But with the emergence of the reactionary middle class college student movement in early in 2007, NED reached out to the largely unaffiliated middle class college students, trained hundreds of them, and obtained direct control over them without the bourgeois parties as intermediaries. There is a degree of antagonism or competition between the old hands of the bourgeois parties who view the new electoral operatives from the reactionary middle class college student movement as cheap, low class streetwalkers, willing to work for almost nothing or for ‘coolie’ wages. The imperialists must unite these two groups of campaign workers into a united force.

• There is a question about how hard either of these groups of electoral operatives can work if they spend their time urinating into each other’s bowl of soup.

‘EFFECTIVE’ STRATEGY AND TACTICS

(1) Ideally, the peaceful form of political struggle usually consists of four steps talks (meetings, conferences, lectures, seminars, discussions, etc.), walks (marches, demonstrations, parades, protests, picketing, etc.), campaign (fundraising, targeting, voter contact, free media, paid media, candidate activity, opposition research, volunteers, etc.) and vote to win or hold state power. In September, the vote is to hold a certain amount of state power.

(2) Ideally, the armed form of political struggle also usually consists of four steps � talks, walks, fight, annd finally seize state power or hold it.

The political form of the class struggle of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and US imperialists against the revolutionary part of the Venezuelan working class is evolving from (1), the peaceful form, to a combination of (1) and (2). Specifically, (2) is the adoption of terrorist tactics by the opposition to intimidate the Venezuelan people into abandoning the revolution. In other words, imperial administrative control of the opposition is passing from NED and USAID to CIA, DOD, DIA, and US mercenary firms.

By ‘terrorist tactics’ we mean, among other things, random murder of members of the Venezuela working class and targeted murders of revolutionary supporters by the armed forces of the opposition. In other words, murder in this context is the deliberate killing of Venezuelans by the opposition, without justification or provocation for mere political ends and for corruption money and this bestiality from the opposition is already happening in Venezuela on a grand scale. The US military build-up in nearby Colombia promises an escalation in the use of murder by the opposition as a political tool and as a means of earning corruption money. ‘Terrorist tactics’ also include something called assault which is targeted at revolutionary supporters, voters and operatives. In order that there no confusion about what we mean by the ‘terrorist tactics ‘ of the opposition, we define assault as intentionally causing bodily injury to revolutionary supporters or threatening to cause such bodily injury by the scum, trash, and filth that works with opposition. We hope this clearly expresses our point about the terrorist opposition.

Many supporters of the bloodthirsty opposition concede that terrorist tactics are already in broad use in Venezuela by Colombian and Venezuelan terrorists with organizational and financial ties to the opposition. But these opposition supporters argue that humanity can’t properly acknowledge a story as real until the bourgeois media prominently and continuously report the story. These opposition supporters smugly point out that the bourgeois media don’t as yet connect the terrorist killings/assaults in Venezuela to the opposition, the alliance between the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and US imperialists. So, these opposition supporters insist that humanity can’t properly acknowledge as real the transparent connection between the terrorist forces and the opposition.

• In other words, the bourgeois media, the opposition alleges, not only report but also create reality.

In addition to the dozen or so traditional branches of an electoral campaign, the revolutionaries, this time, should introduce a new one, perhaps called ‘campaign security.’ For without extraordinary carnage and mayhem, it will very hard for the opposition to score big in September.

What is a big score for the opposition?

Most likely, we should talk about a big score and a ‘real big score.’ A big score is the opposition winning more than one third of the 167 seats in the National Assembly because the revolutionaries need two thirds of the 167 seats to amend the organic law of Venezuela which is second only to the Venezuelan Constitution in legal authority. A ‘real big score’ is the opposition winning 51% of the National Assembly seats. This ‘real big score’ would be a disaster for the Revolution but the Revolution could still sustain itself. It is most unlikely however that the opposition will score either real big or big, as defined above.

Again, if the opposition gets more than a third of the seats in September, the victory for the opposition is big. But if the opposition gets over half, then its victory is real big. Conversely, if the revolution gets over half of the seats, its victory is big. But if the revolution gets over two-thirds of the seats, then its victory is real big.

In addition to terrorism, the opposition will surely used its traditional strategies and tactics namely, working for a big reactionary turnout on election day and working for a big revolutionary and liberal abstention. NED-trained electoral operatives are generally very good at get-out-the-vote operations (GOTV) and the Venezuelan flunkies of NED are among the best anywhere. The main issue with the reactionary turnout is whether the old hands of the above-mentioned bourgeois parties and the fresh reactionary middle class college students or former students, directly under the command of NED, will urinate in each others’ bowls of soup. Presently, the students or former students make no secret of their contempt for both the old hands and for the leaders of the bourgeois parties.

The revolutionary victory in the electoral/legislative struggle over the constitutional amendment in February. 2009 shows that the Revolution has recovered from the shocking 45% abstention that produced a huge revolutionary defeat in the struggle over the constitutional reform in December 2007. In Feb. 2009, the abstention was only 35%, down 10 points from December 2007. With a 35% abstention in September 2010, the revolution can easily win a simple majority. What’�s more, if the revolution can keep the abstention down at 35%, the revolution may win a super 66% majority, needed to amend the organic law. But the geographical configuration of a 65% turnout and a 35% abstention will prove decisive in winning a two thirds majority. If the geographical configuration is correct, it is possible to win 66% of the seats with less than 66% of the vote.

In respect to the geographical configuration, Ismael Garcia, the PODEMOS renegade from the revolutionary process, falsely accuses the National Electoral Council of gerrymandering in seven of Venezuela ‘s 23 states and its two largest cities, Caracas and Maracaibo . Garcia says the redrawn district lines favor revolutionary candidates in September. As required by the Venezuelan Election Code, the National Electoral Council redrew some district lines in the seven states and some district lines in two cities to reflect increases and decreases in district populations. Three of the seven states where districts were redrawn are already revolutionary strongholds. So, gerrymandering is clearly not the motive behind the redrawing. One of the two cities where districts were redrawn is a long time reactionary stronghold. So, the new district lines are unlikely to change the outcome in September. When the Venezuelan Election Code was amended last year to require redrawing of district lines to reflect the current demographic situation of the district, the bourgeois media in neither Venezuela nor the USA protested the introduction and enactment of this amendment to the election code. As yet, neither the bourgeois media nor the opposition have challenged the statistical finding that significant demographic changes have taken place in the districts that were redrawn. As yet, neither the bourgeois media nor the opposition have challenged the premise that failure to redraw district lines after significant changes in the demographic situation is itself a form of gerrymandering.

CONCLUSION

The odds that the revolutionary forces will win a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly is only ‘likely,’ but not by any means ‘very likely.’ And, as such, the outcome of the September races lies very much in the sphere of contingency. Most likely, only a major blunder by the opposition equal to the 2005 boycott blunder can lift the odds of two-thirds revolutionary majority from a mere ‘likely’ to ‘very likely.’

So far, the principal issues of the opposition are water, lights, consumer prices and violence. Violence is the opposition best issue. Opposition believes the greater the violence, the better the odds for a reactionary win.

In all of the more or less proletarian parties the PSUV, the PPT, and PCV, there are misplaced working class liberals and misplaced working class reactionaries sobbing that the current carnage and mayhem in Venezuela are spontaneous phenomena of capitalism, not the organized phenomena of capitalism, that is, of US imperialism and Venezuelan bourgeoisie, the opposition. Some revolutionaries believe the errors of these working class liberals and reactionaries because of the tears and emotion that gush out of these misfits as they sob.

A revolution that can’t defend itself is worthless, Lenin said. If the sobbing misfits are proved correct about their idea of the spontaneity of the violence, then no harm will result if revolutionary forces prepare ubiquitously to defend the people and the process, in a electoral context.

On the other hand, if the misfits are wrong and the violence is organized by the rotten opposition, then defensive preparations of the whole proletariat, in the electoral context, will proved invaluable as the amount of opposition-sponsored violence rises.

By Fidel Castro Ruz via MRZine

In my Reflection of January 14, two days after the catastrophe in Haiti, which destroyed that neighboring sister nation, I wrote: “In the area of healthcare and others the Haitian people has received the cooperation of Cuba, even though this is a small and blockaded country. Approximately 400 doctors and healthcare workers are helping the Haitian people free of charge. Our doctors are working every day at 227 of the 237 communes of that country. On the other hand, no less than 400 young Haitians have been graduated as medical doctors in our country. They will now work alongside the reinforcement that traveled there yesterday to save lives in that critical situation. Thus, up to one thousand doctors and healthcare personnel can be mobilized without any special effort; and most are already there willing to cooperate with any other State that wishes to save Haitian lives and rehabilitate the injured.”

“The head of our medical brigade has informed that ‘the situation is difficult but we are already saving lives.'”

The Cuban health professionals have started to work nonstop, hour after hour, day and night, in the few facilities that remain standing, in tents, and out in the parks or open-air spaces, since the population feared new aftershocks.

The situation was far more serious than was originally thought. Tens of thousands of injured were clamoring for help in the streets of Port-au-Prince; innumerable persons lay, dead or alive, under the rubble of clay or adobe used in the construction of the houses where the overwhelming majority of the population lived. Buildings, even the most solid, collapsed. Besides, it was necessary to track down, in the destroyed neighborhoods, the Haitian doctors who had graduated from the Latin American School of Medicine. Many of them were affected, either directly or indirectly, by the tragedy.

Some UN officials were trapped in their dormitories and tens of lives were lost, including the lives of several chiefs of MINUSTAH, a UN contingent. The fate of hundreds of other members of its staff was unknown.

Haiti’s Presidential Palace crumbled. Many public facilities, including several hospitals, were left in ruins.

The catastrophe shocked the whole world, which was able to see what was going on through the images aired by the main international TV networks. Governments all over the world announced they would be sending rescue experts, food, medicines, equipment, and other resources.

In accordance with the position publicly announced by Cuba, medical staff from different countries — namely Spain, Mexico, and Colombia, among others — worked very hard alongside our doctors at the facilities they had improvised. Organizations such as PAHO, friendly countries like Venezuela, and other nations supplied medicines and other resources. The impeccable behavior of Cuban professionals and their leaders, who chose to remain out of the limelight, was absolutely void of chauvinism.

Cuba, just as it had done under similar circumstances, when Hurricane Katrina caused huge devastation in the city of New Orleans and the lives of thousands of American citizens were in danger, offered to send a full medical brigade to cooperate with the people of the United States, a country that, as is well known, has vast resources. At that moment what was needed were trained and well-equipped doctors to save lives. Given New Orleans’ geographic location, more than one thousand doctors of the “Henry Reeve” contingent mobilized and readied to leave for that city at any time of the day or the night, carrying with them the necessary medicines and equipment. It never crossed our mind that the President of that nation would reject the offer and let a number of Americans who could have been saved die. The mistake made by that government was perhaps due to the inability to understand that the people of Cuba do not see in the American people an enemy; they do not blame them for the aggressions our homeland has suffered.

Nor was that government capable of understanding that our country does not need to beg for favors or forgiveness of those who, for half a century now, have been trying, to no avail, to bring us to our knees.

Our country, also in the case of Haiti, immediately responded to the US authorities’ requests to fly over the eastern part of Cuba as well as other facilities they needed to deliver assistance, as quickly as possible, to the American and Haitian citizens who had been affected by the earthquake.

Such have been the principles characterizing the ethical behavior of our people. Together with its impartiality and firmness, these have been the ever-present features of our foreign policy. And this is known only too well by whoever have been our adversaries in the international arena.

Cuba will firmly stand by the opinion that the tragedy that has taken place in Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, is a challenge to the richest and more powerful countries of the world.

Haiti is a net product of the colonial, capitalist, and imperialist system imposed on the world. Haiti’s slavery and subsequent poverty were imposed from abroad. That terrible earthquake occurred after the Copenhagen Summit, where the most elemental rights of 192 UN member States were trampled upon.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, a competition has been unleashed in Haiti to hastily and illegally adopt boys and girls. UNICEF has been forced to adopt preventive measures against the uprooting of many children that will deprive their close relatives of their rights.

There are more than one hundred thousand dead victims. A large number of citizens have lost their arms or legs, or have suffered fractures requiring rehabilitation that would enable them to work or manage their lives on their own.

Eighty percent of the country needs to be rebuilt. Haiti requires an economy that is developed enough to meet its needs according to its productive capacity. The reconstruction of Europe or Japan, which was based on the productive capacity and the technical level of the population, was a relatively simple task compared to the effort that needs to be made in Haiti. There, as well as in most of Africa and elsewhere in the Third World, it is indispensable to create the conditions for a sustainable development. In only forty years’ time, humanity will be made of more than nine billion inhabitants, and it is faced right now with the challenge of a climate change that scientists accept as an inescapable reality.

In the midst of the Haitian tragedy, without anybody knowing how and why, thousands of US marines, 82nd Airborne Division troops, and other military forces have occupied Haiti. Worse still is the fact that neither the United Nations Organization nor the US government has offered an explanation to the world’s public opinion about this deployment of troops.

Several governments have complained that their aircraft have not been allowed to land in order to deliver the human and technical resources that have been sent to Haiti.

Some countries, for their part, have announced they would be sending an additional number of troops and military equipment. In my view, such actions will complicate and create chaos in international cooperation, which is already in itself complex. It is necessary to seriously discuss this issue. The UN should be entrusted with the leading role it deserves in these delicate matters.

Our country is accomplishing a strictly humanitarian mission. To the extent that it is possible, it will contribute the human and material resources at its disposal. The will of our people, who take pride in their medical doctors and workers who cooperate to provide vital services, is strong and will rise to the occasion.

Any significant opportunity for cooperation that is offered to our country will not be rejected, but its acceptance will be entirely dependent on the importance and significance of the assistance that is requested from the human resources of our homeland.

It is only fair to state that, up until this moment, our modest aircraft and the important human resources that Cuba has made available to the Haitian people have arrived at their destination without any difficulty whatsoever.

We send doctors, not soldiers!

By Sam Webb via People’s World

What seemed a foregone conclusion – the reappointment of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for another four-year term – has turned into a matter of contention. For this we have to thank Massachusetts voters. Their rebellion that took the unfortunate form of electing a right-wing Republican to fill the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy has recalibrated nearly everything in politics, including and not least, the reappointment of Bernanke. No one was expecting his coronation, but nearly no one expected anything but token resistance to his reappointment by President Obama.

Until now the most vocal critic of Bernanke has been Vermont senator and socialist Bernie Sanders. But now Sanders has some new allies in the Senate. Whether it is enough to derail the president’s appointment is doubtful at this point, but it is a fight worth making. Two good reasons come to my mind.

For one thing, Bernanke – and before him the so-called oracle at the Fed, Alan Greenspan – were two of the main engineers of our protracted economic slump. When some economists were issuing warnings about the speculative bubble in the housing market and the grave consequences if it burst in the years prior to the meltdown in 2008, Fed czar Bernanke was making speeches about the “Great Moderation.” According to him, sudden and sharp contractions of the economy were a thing of past. Hello! Talk about being asleep at the switch!

For another thing, since the bubble burst Bernanke has shown little if any desire to use monetary tools to address the long-term unemployment crisis. His actions suggest that he is content with how the economy is performing, even though many economists argue that jobless rates are going to remain high for a long time unless special measures are taken.

Paul Krugman, the Noble prize winner in economics and New York Times columnist, writes in a recent column, “Mr. Bernanke has offered no hint that he feels the need to adopt polices that might bring unemployment down.”

Still, Krugman gives his former colleague and economics department chair at Princeton “a less than ringing endorsement” (his words) for reappointment, although in “damning Bernanke with faint praise,” (my words) he provides the rest of us with ammunition to block Bernanke’s reappointment.

It is said the administration feels that “another defeat (in the wake of the Massachusetts elections and the limbo status of health care) would be worse than association with Bernanke” (as Robert Kuttner put it), but is sticking with Bernanke a gamble worth making since he is a symbol of Wall Street-Washington collusion that tens of millions of people deeply resent?

There are a whole stable of economists who are technically qualified, ready to enforce tough regulations on Wall Street and its speculative excesses, and sympathetic to working people. Nominating one of these individuals, if well explained, could show the American people that the president has “their back.”

Which leads me to a larger question that the past decade and a half of Fed mismanagement of the economy raises: should the Federal Reserve be democratized? Should its policy committee that sets interest rates and credit conditions include people’s representatives? Who’s going to regulate the regulators?

Currently, the Fed and its governing bodies conduct their business without any public oversight. Decisions that impact on the lives of hundreds of millions are reached behind closed doors. And its members are appointed from a narrow pool of bankers for the most part (the independence of the Fed is laughable as far as finance capital is concerned; it has enjoyed a long marriage to the financial moneybags and banksters.)

I suppose these present arrangements could be justified if the performance of Bernanke and his Board of Governors were exemplary. But, as I indicated above, that isn’t the case. The Fed as currently constituted and managed is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

A democratically constituted and transparent Fed won’t solve the economic crisis by itself, but it could be an important tool to reinflate and restructure the economy to the advantage of working people – employed and unemployed. It could also signify a new departure on the part of the White House to forcefully address the anger and desperation that people are feeling.

Until then, let’s send Bernanke, along with his soulmates in the White House, Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, on a well-deserved vacation.