I am halting the tasks which have been totally occupying my time recently to dedicate some words to the singular opportunity presented to political science by the 60th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

The annual event demands a singular effort on the part of those holding the highest political responsibilities in many countries. For them, it constitutes a difficult test; for the aficionados of this art, more than a few given that it vitally affects everyone, it is hard to resist the temptation to observe the interminable but instructive spectacle.

In the first place, there exists an infinity of thorny issues and conflicts of interest. For a large number of participants, it is necessary to take a position on events which constitute flagrant violations of principles. For example: what position to adopt on the NATO genocide in Libya? Do some persons wish to place on record that under their leadership the government of their country supported the monstrous crime perpetrated by the United States and its NATO allies, whose sophisticated fighter planes, piloted or non-piloted, executed more than 20,000 attack missions on a small Third World state of barely six million inhabitants, alleging the same reasons as those previously used to attack and invade Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan and which are now threatening to do so in Syria or any other country in the world?

Was it not precisely the government of the UN host state which ordered the butchery in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the mercenary Bay of Pigs attack on Cuba, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, the “dirty war” in Nicaragua, the occupation of Grenada and Panama by the U.S. military forces and the massacre of Panamanians in El Chorillo? Who promoted the military coups and genocide in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay, which resulted in tens of thousands of dead and disappeared? I am not talking about things which happened 500 years ago, when the Spaniards initiated genocide in the Americas, or 200 years ago, when the yankees exterminated native Indians in the United States or enslaved Africans, in spite of “all men are created equal,” as stated in the Declaration of Philadelphia. I am talking about acts that have taken place in recent decades and which are taking place today.

These acts must be recalled and reiterated when an event of the importance and prominence of the meeting underway in the United Nations takes place, and where the political integrity and ethics of governments is put to the test.

Many of them represent small and poor countries in need of support and international cooperation, technology, markets and credits, which the developed capitalist powers have manipulated as they please.

Despite the shameless monopoly of the news media and the fascist methods used by the United States and its allies to confuse and deceive world opinion, the resistance of the peoples is growing, and this can be appreciated in the debates taking place in the United Nations.

More than a few Third World leaders, in spite of the obstacles and contradictions indicated, have expressed their ideas with courage. The very voices emanating from the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean no longer contain the servile and embarrassing accent of the OAS, which characterized pronouncements of heads of state in past decades. Two of them have addressed this forum; both of them, Bolivarian President Hugo Chávez, a mix of the races which comprise the people of Venezuela, and Evo Morales, of pure millenary indigenous origin, stated their ideas in the meeting, one in a message and the other directly, in response to the speech of the yankee President.

Telesur broadcast the three speeches. Thanks to the network, in the night of Tuesday the 20th we heard President Chávez’ message, read carefully by Walter Martínez during his “Dossier” program. As head of state of the UN host nation, Obama gave his speech on Wednesday morning and Evo gave his during the early hours of the afternoon of the same day. For the sake of brevity I will take essential paragraphs from each text.

Chávez was unable to attend the United Nations Summit in person, after 12 years of untiring struggle without resting for a single day, which placed his life at risk and affected his health, and who is now fighting selflessly for his full recovery. However, his message could not but approach the most decisive issue of the historical meeting. I transcribe it virtually in full:

“I address these words to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization […] to confirm, on this day and in this forum, Venezuela’s total support of Palestinian statehood: the right of Palestine to become a free, sovereign and independent country. It is an act of historical justice to a people who have carried within themselves, always, all the pain and suffering of the world.

“The great French philosopher Gilles Deleuze […] states with the tone of truth: ‘The Palestinian cause is above all the compound of injustices which this people has endured and continues to endure.’ And it is also, I dare to add, a constant and unyielding will of resistance which is already written in the heroic memory of the human condition. […] Mahmoud Darwish, the infinite voice of the potential Palestine, speaks to us from the sentiment of the awareness of this love: ‘We do not need the memory/because Mount Carmel is within us/ and the grass of Galilee is on our eyelids/ Don’t say: let us run to my country like the river! / Don’t say it! / Because we are in the flesh of our country/ and she is in us.’

“Against those who fallaciously maintain that what has happened to the Palestinian people is not genocide, Deleuze argues with implacable lucidity, ‘In all cases there is an attempt to act as if the Palestinian people not only should not exist, but have never existed. It is, in other words, the degree zero of genocide: to decree that a people do not exist; to deny them the right to existence.’”

“[…] the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East must of necessity move through doing justice to the Palestinian people; this is the only way of winning the peace.

“It pains and angers us that those who suffered one of the worst genocides in history have become the hangmen of the Palestinian people; it pains and angers us that the inheritance of the Holocaust is the Nakba. And it angers us, bluntly, that Zionism continues to utilize the accusation of anti-semitism against those who oppose its outrages and its crimes. Israel has exploited and is exploiting, blatantly and vilely, the memory of the victims. And it is doing so to act, with total impunity, against Palestine. In passing, it is worth noting that anti-Semitism is a Western, European misfortune, in which Arabs do not participate. Let us not forget, moreover, that it is the Palestinian Semite people who are suffering the ethnic cleansing being practiced by the colonial Israeli state.”

“[…] It is one thing to reject anti-Semitism, and it is a very different thing to passively accept that Zionist barbarity is imposing an apartheid regime upon the Palestinian people. From an ethical point of view, whoever rejects the former, has to condemn the latter.”

“[…] Zionism, as a view of the world, is absolutely racist. In their terrifying cynicism, the words of Golda Meir are irrefutable evidence of that: ‘How are we going to return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. There is no such thing as Palestinians. It was not, as is thought, that a people called Palestinian existed, that considers itself as Palestinian, and that we arrived, threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist.’”

“Read and reread the document historically known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917: the British government assumed the legal authority of promising the Jews a national home in Palestine, deliberately ignoring the presence and will of its inhabitants. It should be noted that for centuries, Christians and Muslims lived together in peace in the Holy Land, until Zionism began to claim it as its entire and exclusive property.”

“At the end of World War II, the tragedy of the Palestinian people was exacerbated, consummated by their expulsion from their territory and, at the same time, from history. In 1947, the ominous and illegal United Nations Resolution 181 recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state and a zone under international control (Jerusalem and Bethlehem).

[…] 56% of the territory was granted to Zionism for the constitution of its state. In fact, this resolution was in violation of international law and flagrantly ignored the will of the large Arab majorities: the right to self-determination of the peoples became a dead letter.”

“[…] as opposed to what Israel and the United States would have the world believe via the communication transnationals, what took place and is still taking place in Palestine, let us say it with [Edward] Said, is not a religious conflict: it is a political conflict, of a colonial and imperialist stamp; it is not a millenary but a contemporary conflict; it is not a conflict that was born in the Middle East but in Europe.

“What was and what continues to be the crux of the conflict? The discussion and consideration of Israel’s security, but not in any way that of Palestine. This can be confirmed by recent history: suffice it to recall the latest genocidal episode unleashed by Israel with Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

“The security of Palestine cannot be reduced to the simple recognition of limited self-government and police control in its enclaves of the West Bank of the Jordan Rover and in the Gaza Strip, leaving aside not only the creation of the Palestine state based on pre-1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital, the rights of its nationals and their self-determination as a people, but also compensation and the consequent return to the homeland of 50% of the Palestinian population dispersed throughout the entire world, as established in Resolution 194.

“It is incredible that a country (Israel), which owes its existence to a General Assembly resolution, can be so disdainful of resolutions emanating from the United Nations, denounced Father Miguel D’Escoto, calling for an end to the massacre of the people of Gaza at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009.”

“It is impossible to ignore the crisis of the United Nations. Before this same General Assembly in 2005 we sustained that the United Nations model had been exhausted. The fact that the debate on the Palestinian question has been postponed and that it is being overtly sabotaged, is yet another confirmation of this.

“For a number of days now Washington has been stating that it will veto in the Security Council what will be the majority resolution of the General Assembly: the recognition of Palestine as a full member of the UN. Together with the sister nations which comprise the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), in the statement of recognition of Palestinian statehood, we have already deplored the fact that such a just aspiration could be blockaded in this way. As we know, the empire, in this and in other cases, is trying to impose a double standard on the world stage: it is the yankee double standard which violates international law in Libya, but allows Israel to do what it wants, thus making itself the principal accomplice of Palestinian genocide at the hands of Zionist barbarity. Let us recall some words of Said, which hit the nail on the head: ‘Due to Israeli interests in the United States, the policy of this country in terms of the Middle East is, therefore, Israeli-centric.’”

“I want to end with the voice of Mahmoud Darwish in his memorable poem:

‘On this earth there is something worth living for: on this earth is the lady of the earth, the mother of beginnings/the mother of ends. She was called Palestine. She is still called Palestine. / Lady: I deserve to live, because you are my lady, I deserve to live.’”

“She will continue to be called Palestine: Palestine will live and will win! Long life to free, sovereign and independent Palestine!

“Hugo Chávez Frías.

“President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

When the meeting began the following morning, his words were already present in the hearts and minds of those assembled there.

The Bolivarian leader has never been an enemy of the Jewish people. A man of particular sensitivity, he profoundly detests the brutal crimes committed by the Nazis against children, women and men, young and old alike in the concentration camps where Gypsies were also victims of atrocious crimes and an extermination attempt, which no one, however, remembers or mentions. Thousands of Russians likewise perished in those camps, as an inferior race within the Nazi racial framework.

When Chávez returned to his country from Cuba, the evening of Thursday, September 22, he spoke indignantly of Barack Obama’s speech at the United Nations. Very rarely have I heard him speak with such vehemence about the leader whom he has treated with the utmost respect, given his history as a victim of racial discrimination in the United States. He never considered Obama capable of behaving as George Bush had and appreciatively preserved the memory of the words they had exchanged when they met in Trinidad and Tobago.

“Yesterday we were listening to an assortment of speeches, the day before yesterday as well, there in the United Nations, precise speeches such as that of President Dilma Rousseff; a speech of great moral value such as that of President Evo Morales; a speech which we could describe as a monument to cynicism, the speech of President Obama which his own face betrayed, his own face was a poem; a man calling for peace, just imagine. Obama calling for peace. With what moral authority? An historic monument to cynicism, the speech of President Obama.

“We were listening to precise speeches, clarifying ones, that of President Lugo, that of the President of Argentina, taking valiant positions before the world.”

When the New York meeting began on the morning of Wednesday, September 21 – after the comments by the President of Brazil opening the discussion and the introduction de rigueur – the President of the United States took the podium and began his speech.

He began, “Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty. Even as we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred of war, there are still convulsions in our world that endanger us all.”

It is not clear at what point the UN may have prevented the outbreak of a World War III.

“I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place – Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization – remained at large. Today, we have set a new direction.

At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq – for its government and Security Forces; for its people and their aspirations.”

What country is Obama really talking about?

“As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people. So let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding.

“When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline. This is critical for the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s also critical to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home. Ten years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken heart in the center of this city. Today, as a new tower is rising at Ground Zero, it symbolizes New York’s renewal, even as al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.”

Who was Bin Laden’s ally? Who trained him and armed him to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? It wasn’t the socialists, or revolutionaries from anyplace in the world.

“So, yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The United Nations’ Founding Charter calls upon us, ‘to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.’”

Who has military bases all over the world? Who is the largest exporter of weapons? Who has thousands of spy satellites? Who invests more than one billion dollars a year in military spending.

“This year has been a time of extraordinary transformation. More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.”

He then cites the situations in South Sudan and Ivory Coast. He doesn’t say that in the first instance, U.S. transnationals have descended upon the oil reserves of this new country, whose president in this very UN General Assembly said that it was a valuable, but finite, resource which he plans to use rationally and optimally.

Nor did Obama indicate that peace was established in the Ivory Coast with the support of colonialist soldiers from an eminent member of the bellicose NATO alliance which has just dropped thousands of bombs on Libya.

A bit later he mentions Tunisia and takes credit for the popular movement which overthrew the government in that country, which was an ally of imperialism.

Even more astonishingly, Obama fails to acknowledge that the Untied States was responsible for the installation of the tyrannical, corrupt government in Egypt of Hosni Mubarak who, absconding with the principles of Nasser, allied himself with the imperialists, stole billions from his country and tyrannized his valiant people.

“One year ago,” Obama said, “Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life — men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian — demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa — and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab world.

“Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom. And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. The Arab League called for this effort; Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks.

“Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in Tripoli.

“This is how the international community is supposed to work — nations standing together for the sake of peace and security, and individuals claiming their rights.

“All of us have a responsibility to support the new Libya — the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.

“The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him.”

Notice the poetic language with which Obama dispatches the subject of Bin Laden, despite whatever the responsibility this one-time ally might have been, shot in the face before his wife and children, his body thrown into the ocean from an aircraft carrier, ignoring the customs and religious traditions of more than a billion believers, as well as elementary principles recognized by all legal systems. These are not methods which are, or will ever be, conducive to peace

“Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way that they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Dictators are on notice. Technology is putting power into the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, some peoples, some religions, some ethnicities do not desire democracy.

“The promise written down on paper – ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ – is closer at hand. The measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security. And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations. And we have more work to do.”

He immediately takes up another Islamic country where, as is well known, his intelligence services along with those of Israel, systematically assassinate the most outstanding scientists involved in military technology.

Next he threatens Syria, where U.S. belligerency could lead to a massacre even more frightening than that of Libya.

“As we meet here today, men and women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more have poured across Syria’s borders.
“The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice — protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. And the question for us is clear: Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors? The United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders. We supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people. And many of our allies have joined in this effort. But for the sake of Syria — and the peace and security of the world — we must speak with one voice. There’s no excuse for inaction. Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.”

Has, by chance, any country been exempted from the belligerent threats of this illustrious defender of international security and peace? Who granted the United States such prerogatives?

“Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. America supports those aspirations. We must work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.

“In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability. We’re pleased with that, but more is required. America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc — the Wifaq — to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people. We believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart. It will be hard, but it is possible.”
He does not mention at all that one of the region’s largest military bases is located there and that U.S. transnationals control and access at will the vast oil and gas reserves of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“We believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfil the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights depend on elections that are free and fair; on governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; justice that is equal and fair. That is what our people deserve. Those are the elements of peace that can last.

“Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy — with greater trade and investment — so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also with civil society — students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the press.

“We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country. And we’ve sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who’ve been silenced.”

After this extended lecture, the eminent Nobel Prize winner delves into the thorny issue of his alliance with Israel which, of course, is not among the privileged owners of advanced systems of nuclear weapons and the means to reach distant targets. He knows perfectly well how arbitrary and unpopular this policy is.

“I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there’s one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state. Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek – the question is how do we reach that goal.”

He then launches into a long lecture explaining and justifying the inexplicable and unjustifiable.

“Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem. Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied.
“There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state. But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. “The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth…

“Each side has legitimate aspirations — and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.”

In the meantime, the Palestinians remain exiled in their own land, their homes are destroyed by monstrous machines and a hateful wall, much higher than the one in Berlin, separates some Palestinians from others. The least Obama could have done was acknowledge that Israel’s own citizens are tired of the squandering of resources invested in the military, denying them peace and access to the basic means of life. Like the Palestinians, they are suffering the consequences of policies imposed by the United States and the most bellicose, reactionary sectors of the Zionist state.

“Even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize – we must also remind ourselves – that peace is not just the absence of war. True peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity: nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance and disease.”

Who understands this gibberish from the President of the United States before the General Assembly?

He immediately thereafter presents an unintelligible philosophy:

“To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, we’ve begun to walk down that path. Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers.”

Is there greater terrorism than the aggressive, bellicose policy of a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons which could destroy human life on the planet several times over?

“America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of fissile material needed to make them,” Obama continued promising us, “and so we have begun to move in the right direction.

“And the United States is committed to meeting our obligations. But even as we meet our obligations, we’ve strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. And to do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them. … The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful.”

He’s back to the upbraiding. This time, Iran is not alone, the Democratic Republic of Korea is included.

“North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the South. There’s a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.”

I will continue tomorrow.

Fidel Castro Ruz
September 25, 2011
7:36 p.m.

Translated by Gr

– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:

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

If international solidarity is to be a cornerstone of building a militant and oppositional left in the US and other developed countries, then we have much work to do. Tragically, much of the left continues to tacitly or enthusiastically view NATO and US intervention in the affairs of far-off, small countries as support for just causes – noble military offensives for democratic change or the promotion of human rights.

Since the demise of the last great counterforce – the Soviet Union – the US and its allies have used their domination of all major sources of information to posture their many aggressions as altruistic efforts to secure stability, peace, democratic change and support for human rights.

Of course there is nothing new in this posture. Since the birth of imperialism, powerful developed countries have striven to shape the world in such a way that it benefits their economic and geo-political interests. They have sought to explain these interventions by offering transparent, but morally seductive, accounts of their motives. From the “civilizing” mission of British imperialism through the rabidly anti-Communist demonology of US administrations, imperialists have sought to mold the world in a way that best advances the narrow interests of their national bourgeoisie, especially its supra-national interests.

What is new is the incredible gullibility of so many to swallow the lame justifications for aggression against weaker, more vulnerable countries. When you slather great power intervention with noble-sounding homage to democracy and human rights, it remains imperialism. When powerful countries use their resources to fashion the world – regardless of their pretended motives – the result never serves either democracy or the interests of the subjected peoples.

I have in mind, of course, Libya.

While the media assiduously portrays the Libyan civil war as a popular rising and part of the so-called “Arab Spring,” they calculatedly avoid the obvious differences. Unlike the mass risings in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and some other Middle Eastern countries, the opposition to the Gaddafi government quickly took the form of an armed uprising. Within a month, a shadowy alternative government and armed resistance was established. In less than another month, US and NATO intervention occurred, sanctioned by a hasty UN resolution ostensibly passed to “protect innocent civilians” with a vigilant umbrella of air power, a “no-fly zone.”

Despite the pretext of the resolution, NATO intervention has been decisive in determining the outcome of the civil war. Air Power, arms, advisers and covert operations have wholly shaped every engagement, as well as terrorizing the Gaddafi loyalists. In addition, Qatar, Jordan, and the Emirates have supplied resources to the anti-Gaddafi cause, which certainly include advisors and might well involve combatants. What may have begun as an expression of political opposition was quickly transformed into a military action fronted by a surrogate regime and its rag-tag military, all serving the interests of the leading NATO countries.

The media portrays the Gaddafi government as Satan incarnate. This characterization is most agreeable to those in the West who trust no one but white guys in business suits. But even many of the left and most liberals fall prey to their own cultural biases by seeing Colonel Gaddafi as alien and unpredictable, without any reference point to the culture or social context from which he sprang. They are much more comfortable with “rebels” in Nike shoes and Western T-shirts.

But the issue is not whether Gaddafi is a good guy or bad guy, as simple minds in the West so often characterize conflicts. I confess that I know far too little about conditions in Libya, its history and its political life. I’m confident that pundits like Juan Cole or Stephen Zunes who have jumped out emphatically in support of NATO’s “humanitarian mission” know little more beyond uncritical internet research, anecdotes and hunches. The real issue is whether or not non-Libyans should have a say or, more urgently, a hand, in determining the fate of this North African country. Surely, those with the most at stake, those living in Tripoli, Benghazi and other cities or villages in Libya are both best equipped and most deserving to decide these matters without the eager “helping hand” of NATO.

This, of course, is the principle of self-determination enshrined in the United Nations charter and declarations of rights, a principle that has been shamefully abused since the post-Soviet domination of the UN by the US and its allies.

Self-determination is also a guiding principle, a core element, in the anti-imperialist posture. Anti-imperialists reject any actions or policies that restrain a people from determining their own course of action. But anti-imperialism is much more. It is also to confront and resist those great powers that overtly or covertly shape the fate of weaker nations for their own economic and political interests. For those living in those great powers – in this case, the US and other NATO countries – it is a special duty to vigorously and militantly support and advocate for the victims. The ideological softness fostered since the disappearance of a principled socialist bloc has sown confusion, luring many to side with imperialism in the several great-power encroachments and wars contrived since that time. The Balkans, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and many other areas have experienced imperialist meddling, even military actions, all under the banner of human rights and democracy.

Blindness to imperial maneuvers produced little outcry when the G-8 countries – the primary imperialist countries – pledged $40 billion in “aid” for the “Arab Spring” countries in late May of this year. While few details were offered, the G-8 leaders stressed economic and social “reforms,” “transparency” and private sector development, all code words for fostering regimes amicable to imperialist penetration.

To Egypt’s credit, it emphatically turned down a US offer to supply the newly liberated people with $165 million to support “democratic and economic development” through the stealth imperialist agency, USAID. Egyptian officials were stunned when Hilary Clinton announced that these funds would come from existing aid programs and were to be administered directly by USAID and without the consent or involvement of Egyptian representatives. Egyptians wisely saw this as US interference in their internal affairs in order to influence the course of its ongoing revolutionary process.

On the Libyan question, skeptics point to the cozy relations Gaddafi has enjoyed with the West since 2003 as counter to the claim that the US and NATO are operating out of imperial hostility. Further, they cite economic ties as erasing any possible self-interestedness – energy resources, for example – that would motivate imperialist aggression.

For sure, recent releases from Wikileaks and other sources demonstrate warm, bilateral relations between US officials and Gaddafi right up to the January events. Even closer ties are now known between Libyan officials and the CIA. But this only demonstrates incredible hypocrisy on the part of the aggressors.

Even more revealing of imperial cynicism is the strange story of the rebels’ military commander, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj. In a recent AP story, Belhaj is identified as a CIA target swept off the streets of Bangkok in 2004 by the CIA, tortured, and rendered to Libya where he was imprisoned by pre-arrangement with Libyan authorities. The fact that Belhaj — labeled a “terrorist” only a few years ago — is now acceptable to the West as the principal military leader of the anti-Gaddafi forces seems to cause no discomfort.

But do the US and its NATO powers have an economic interest in seeing Gaddafi removed from power in Libya?

Contrary to the skeptics, the NATO aggressors have a major and telling interest in seeing Gaddafi removed. In a little noticed article in the back pages of the April 15, 2011 Wall Street Journal, author Guy Chazan lays out the case for the major oil companies in seeking Gaddafi’s departure (For West’s Oil Firms, No Love Lost in Libya). Chazan notes that foreign companies enthusiastically “poured in” to Libya after 2003; he cites a major player: “Libya was very fashionable… [e]veryone saw it as a great opportunity.”

But despite some major early deals, things turned sour. “Under a stringent new system known as EPSA-4, the regime judged companies’ bids on how large a share of future production they would let Libya have. Winners routinely promised more than 90% of their oil output to Libya’s state-owned National Oil Corp., or NOC.”

In addition, Libya kept its “crown jewels”—the onshore oil fields producing most of its oil – in the hands of state-owned companies. In 2007, even long engaged “friendly” companies were made to renegotiate their contracts to conform to EPSA-4. Foreign companies were forced to hire Libyans for jobs, including top managers.

One big loser was Italian oil firm, Eni SpA, which had to pay $1 billion to extend its contract with the Libyan government. Even more painfully, the Libyans reduced Eni’s share of production from 35-50% to a mere 12%. It’s no wonder that the Italian government was the most enthusiastic supporter of the NATO aggression. Nor is it anything more than a bitter irony that Eni CEO Paulo Scaroni pronounced the NATO assault on Gaddafi’s government “a lucky outcome.”

Chazan reports that “A clutch of companies left Libya as their five-year contracts began to expire, among them Chevron Corporation, BG Group PLC, and Australia’s Woodside Petroleum LTD.”

No doubt they are now eager to return with a more favorable regime on the verge of taking power under NATO’s protective arm.

In the last week of August, Eni SpA signed a contract with the “interim” government of Libya to fulfill all of the natural gas and petroleum needs of the Libyan people, a suitable reward for the fulsome efforts of Italian imperialism. No one in the capitalist media saw this naked payoff as shameless.

When the “friends of Libya” conference convened in Paris on September 1, 2011, the 63 countries representing themselves as “friends” spoiled their celebration by feuding over the disposition of the Libyan oil resources. “French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he thought it would only be reasonable if French companies benefited from preferential access to Libyan contracts, given that Paris, together with the UK, led the foreign military offensive in Libya”, as reported in The Wall Street Journal (Amid Harmony on Libya, a Spat Over Its Oil, 9-2-2011). So now the scramble for Libyan oil begins.

Convincing some that NATO intervention in Libya was an act of imperialist aggression may well be a hopeless task. Many are blind to capitalist motives, just as they are ignorant of historical patterns. Yet, imperialist aggression continues as blatantly and arrogantly as it has for well over a hundred years.

V.I. Lenin, writing in 1900 of the naked aggression against China by the “Great Powers,” presages the imperialism of 2011:
And now the European capitalists have placed their rapacious paws upon China, and almost the first to do so was the Russian Government, which now so loudly proclaims its “disinterestedness.” It “disinterestedly” took Port Arthur away from China and began to build a railway to Manchuria under the protection of Russian troops. One after another, the European governments began feverishly to loot, or, as they put it, to “rent,” Chinese territory, giving good grounds for the talk of the partition of China. If we are to call things by their right names, we must say that the European governments (the Russian Government among the very first) have already started to partition China. However, they have not begun this partitioning openly, but stealthily, like thieves. They began to rob China as ghouls rob corpses, and when the seeming corpse attempted to resist, they flung themselves upon it like savage beasts, burning down whole villages, shooting, bayonetting, and drowning in the Amur River unarmed inhabitants, their wives, and their children. And all these Christian exploits are accompanied by howls against the Chinese barbarians who dared to raise their hands against the civilised Europeans…

How is our government’s senseless policy in China to be explained? Who benefits by it? The benefit goes to a handful of capitalist magnates who carry on trade with China, to a handful of factory owners who manufacture goods for the Asian market, to a handful of contractors who are now piling up huge profits on urgent war orders (factories producing war equipment, supplies for the troops, etc., are now operating at full capacity and are engaging hundreds of new workers). In the interests of this handful of capitalists and bureaucratic scoundrels, our government unhesitatingly sacrifices the interests of the entire people. And in this case, as always, the autocratic tsarist government has proved itself to be a government of irresponsible bureaucrats servilely cringing before the capitalist magnates and nobles. (The Chinese War)

That was the ugly face of imperialism in China, this is the ugly face of imperialism in Libya today.

Statement by the Communist Party of Ireland

28 August 2011

The Communist Party of Ireland expresses its solidarity with the Libyan people now facing into a future of occupation, dominated and controlled by imperialism—by the United States and Britain, France, and other EU powers.
The imperialist powers acted early to forestall any development of democracy in Libya. They fraudulently obtained the support of the United Nations Security Council for a “no-fly zone,” the terms of which they had no intention of observing. In contempt of international law, and their own laws, they gave military backing to a collection of long-time agents of theirs, defectors from the Gaddafi regime, and Islamic fundamentalists allied to al-Qa‘ida. With the spurious excuse of protecting civilian lives they launched a bombing campaign that cost thousands of lives. Their elite units—SAS, Foreign Legion, and SEALs—were there from the beginning.
As is well known, these powers show complete tolerance when their allies and client states carry out torture, murder, and massacres, and their protestations of concern for human rights are therefore empty rhetoric. The character of Gaddafi or his government had nothing to do with their war aims. Their object was to re-establish control over Libya’s oil wealth and to reinforce their economic dominance in Africa. Their clients in the “interim government” have already promised to co-operate. Its establishment marks an important goal of the EU in relation to its Mediterranean and African strategy.
The supine support given to the recolonisation project by the Irish Government shows once again its complete subservience to imperialism. The Irish media also have been happy to act as tools, repeating war propaganda.
As events have unfolded over the last months, it is clear that the “interim government” has been receiving military as well as political advice and will be mere stooges of the west in the coming years. It was also a signal to the masses in the Arab world in their struggle for democracy and economic and social justice that their demands will be allowed only so long as they do not threaten the interests of imperialism in the region.
The Libyan people now face a massive struggle to defend the gains made over the last four decades, such as free universal health and education and living standards that are the highest in Africa and among the highest in the Arab world. The anti-imperialist role that Libya played over a number of decades, particular in the early years after the Gaddafi revolution, was never forgotten by the western powers, in spite of the friendly relations established in recent years.
The Libyan people now as never before need the solidarity of progressive forces throughout the world as they once again experience occupation and foreign domination.

By James Thompson

As we close in on August 2, 2011 I am reminded of the drama associated with the election of George W. Bush. After the election closed, it dragged on and on and finally a packed Supreme Court ruled in favor of the short, plump dictator for the wealthy. This little demagogue resembled another short, plump dictator for the wealthy in Germany even though he lacked the oratorical skills of the German.

Now we face another crisis point in global capitalism in which red faced Republican demagogues are playing chicken with some of the most important programs in our limited social safety network to include social security, Medicare, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits, and public education as well as a host of other government funded public programs.

The question many people are asking is “Why would the Republicans risk political disaster by attempting to destroy some of the most popular social programs ever created in this nation?”

The answer is fairly simple. This struggle over the debt ceiling dramatizes the class struggle in ways not seen in this country since the Great Depression.

Republicans are merely following the dictates of their superiors, i.e. the captains of U.S. industry, the ultra wealthy capitalist class. They know that even if they lose the election, they will be well compensated for their heroic efforts to fight for the interests of the wealthy.

Republicans are on the front lines of the class struggle and doing a magnificent job of upholding the interests of the wealthy. They are saying “Who needs the working class in the U.S.? We can get cheap labor in other parts of the world. Why pay all these benefits to people we don’t need and educate their children to boot? Why provide them and their elderly and children with health care?” We must remember that the U.S. Government is of the wealthy people, by the wealthy people and for the wealthy people. With profits threatening to shrink, why should the wealthy class continue to throw bones to the poor? Why should the wealthy strengthen the position of the class with which they are struggling?

It is quite a drama for the world to see. Many people in other parts of the world are laughing so hard at the antics of our government that it is hard for them to keep from choking.

Who do the Republicans have to count on for support in their valiant efforts to defend the wealthy from the demands of the working class? It certainly is not the people of the U.S. The people support the continuation of funding of social programs by an 80 to 20 margin. So, they must turn to their only allies, the Democrats. Some people may want to blame the Republicans for the current mess, but it is also the Democrats who have participated in the creation of this nightmare for working people.

For many years working people have watched the coordinated effort of Republicans and Democrats to erode our social safety net. We are not stupid, as the ruling class thinks we are. We can see when Republicans block progressive legislation by filibuster and the use of many constitutionally condoned maneuvers. Similarly, we can see when craven Democrats do not use similar maneuvers to block legislation that is not in the interest of working people. We also see a President who fails to veto right wing legislation and leaves working people at the mercy of the wealthy. This is a President who was elected by a mass movement of working people which included all racial groups. Once in office, he turned his back on working people and has thrown many working class leaders under the bus to serve his well heeled masters. Current negotiations have broken down, but recently President Obama and his right wing sidekick, John Boehner, were licking their chops over the prospect of cutting $3 trillion from the government budget. More tax breaks for the wealthy, including tax incentives for offshoring more jobs, were under serious consideration. Who knows what sort of Frankenstein will emerge when the servants of the high and mighty finally decide what they can get away with without too much fuss and muss?

So, we working class people are not stupid. We can see that elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, merely serve their masters once in office and forget about the needs of their constituents.

We know that Democrats and the President could block the funding of the endless wars started by George W. Bush and enlarged by Barack Obama. We know that they could also end the tax cuts for the wealthy. We know they could reduce the funding for the prison industrial complex and provide rehabilitation instead of indentured servitude for the incarcerated. We know they could decrease the military budget. We know they could save education, health care, social security and other governmental services for all the people. In fact, we know they could expand services for working people and this would strengthen our economy and reduce the risk of war.

But we also see that they are not doing what they were elected to do. They are “just following orders” from the masters who only care about increasing their own profits.

What can working people do? We must act in a concerted, unified way to not only oppose the draconian budget cuts but to push for more progressive legislation to support the interests of the working class. We must engage in struggle at all levels available to us. We must demand progressive legislation to support jobs, and an end to the countless wars. We must demand that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. We must demand that funding for prisons be reduced and funding for rehabilitation of the incarcerated be increased. We must demand that health and education be fully funded and their funding must be expanded to prepare for our future. We must demand that there be full funding for cultural programs and the arts. We must demand full funding for all governmental services.

These are short term goals and we must fight for them.

We must also realize that the only way to end the devastation of the class war, which is a huge burden on all sectors of the population, is to implement socialism. Only with socialism can we secure our future and the future of our children. As long as we wait on politicians who are bought and paid for by the wealthy to uphold the interests of the working people, we will be sorely disappointed. With the implementation of socialism, the working class can become the ruling class. This is the only way to save humanity from the inevitable devastation that capitalism will bring to us. Unopposed, endless wars will lead to countless more lives lost and could lead to the end of humanity and all living things on this planet.

It is time for working people in this country to step up to the plate and fight for our rights. We must learn from the heroic efforts of people in other countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, UK and many others. Failure to act responsibly and in solidarity with workers in other countries is merely complicity with the ongoing destruction fostered by the very wealthy at the expense of working people. Will working people continue to beg the wealthy for handouts or will we start to fight back and demand our share of the wealth we create? Only the working class can answer this question.

Will the working class demand a “deal” for workers and their interests or will they settle for “no deal?”

PHill1917@comcast.net

Check out this video

To understand the fate facing the people of Greece, you have to imagine an intruder coming to your home, putting a gun to your head and demanding that you turn over your earnings, surrender your savings, and sell off your car, your television, and your refrigerator t. Greek citizens neither benefited from the profit frenzy of international bankers nor encouraged their irresponsible behavior, yet they are being asked – no, forced – to pay the price for the damage incurred in the collapse of the world capitalist system.

Greece – a small corner of the European Union – and its people know little of the exotic instruments concocted in the world’s financial centers to overproduce massive amounts of phantom capital fueling the growth of this rapacious system. They are only indirectly acquainted with the arrogant, irresponsible actions of giant investment banks like Bear Stearns, Lehmann Brothers or Goldman Sachs. Very few Greeks see their future tied to the success of the predatory financial behemoths that roam the global economy. And yet they are being forced, at gun point, to pay for their losses.

When the media fog lifts, this is clearly the plight of Greece’s eleven million citizens.

If home invasion, armed robbery, and extortion are crimes, then surely Greece is a crime victim. And the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund are the criminals. They are aided and abetted by the bond bandits who prey on debt, pouncing on a country struggling to revive its sinking economy. And their puppets – pathetically willing accessories to the crime – are the PASOK leaders and parliamentarians who attempt to legitimize the crime.

With few exceptions, countries have been obliged to take on additional debt to stimulate economic growth in the face of a severe drop in global investment and broad demand. Capitalist economies have no option other than sinking further in decline. In earlier times, deficit, debt-producing spending produced improved growth and accompanying inflation. Growth and inflation, in turn, increased tax revenues and cheapened debt, allowing the public debt to shrink in proportion to the economic product. This has long been a feature of capitalist recoveries from mild to severe recessions. Conventional economists teach this as though it were a universal law.

But we live in exceptional times and conventional economists are seldom right about anything any more.

Today, two factors have changed this dynamic. First, the near-total domination of neo-liberal ideology has shaped opinion to fear public debt of any degree. What was once the dogma of the fringe right has, thanks to over forty years of focused, class-based intellectual encroachment, spawned a uniformity of thought among the media, politicians, and opinion makers bordering on faith and defying history and facts. What began as the so-called “Washington Consensus” in 1989 has become an international consensus, gaining near-theological obeisance. International capitalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund have eagerly embraced its tenets.

Debt hysteria, like patriotic fervor, induces baseless fears that perversely shape policy decisions. Like contrived patriotism, debt fright masks a hidden agenda – in this case, a hatred of all socially useful public spending.

Secondly, for decades, changes in the global economy ushered in a new dynamic that manipulates and exploits debt far beyond anything we have seen before. With many of the capital-rich countries surrendering their manufacturing to low-wage areas, financial activities – the management, manipulation and creative expansion of capital – took on a greater role in these economies. New techniques, instruments and institutions evolved to accumulate surplus value – profits – in the hands of the few engaged in the financial game.

As capital accumulated – US financial profits accounted for over two-fifths of all profits before the collapse – it became increasingly difficult to maintain the rate of return spurred by financial ascendancy. (In Marxist terms, the tendency for the rate of profit to decline reared its ugly head.) Riskier and riskier speculation sought to find a home for the overproduction of capital until the system collapsed, the scenario that we all know so well.

Fueled by an injection of public funds, the financial sector has returned to speculation with a vengeance. In addition, they are now finding new profits in attacking the debt of the most fiscally vulnerable countries and forcing the conversion of private debt into public debt. The financial sector was neither wounded nor chastened by its folly. Instead, it has roared back, attacking sovereign debt in vulnerable countries like Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Speculative capital has turned virulently predatory.

The combination of these two elements – one subjective, one objective – has placed Greece in a death spiral. With unemployment soaring over 16%, taxes on the poor enacted, homelessness on the rise, salaries and benefits sliced, and social services eviscerated, Greek workers face a future of decline.

II

If there is one insight central to the science of Marxism, it is that appearances seldom reveal the real social realities; indeed, they most often mask them. The interplay of personalities, the clash of proclaimed interests, or the statements of policy makers conveyed by the corporate media are seldom the actual forces at play in social developments. Instead, material forces evolving from the system’s dynamics are usually the decisive factors in driving change.

In the case of Greece and, soon, the other vulnerable European Union countries, finance capital — particularly its most predatory elements (hedge funds and private equity firms) — has exploited the crisis to generate profits by betting against Greece’s ability to manage its debt. These bets have predictably influenced the market, making it even more difficult for Greece to secure and pay off its debts. As selling and redeeming bonds became more costly, Greece lost the ability to generate a recovery from further deficit spending.

Without a boost from public sector spending to jump-start economic activity, tax revenues shrank further, crippling Greece’s ability to meet debt payments and again find favor with the bond profiteers. The painful, tortured route to economic destruction ensued.

The only sensible exit from the vise gripping Greece was to stand up to finance capital and extract a new deal or exercise its sovereignty by voiding its debt – defaulting. But Greece’s “socialist” party, PASOK, instead turned to the eager criminals of the IMF, the EU and the European Central Bank for “help”. Only the Greek Communist Party and the advanced sector of the working class, PAME, advocated swift exit from the financial vise.

III

Where the media presents Greece’s plight as simply one of irresponsible government bringing pain on itself and the attendant economic hardships as the market’s revenge, the truth is far different. The Greek crisis is what an unrestrained, dominant, and predatory financial sector produces. But we must also recognize that the financial monster devouring Greece is itself the product of a capitalist system dependent upon finance to sustain its continued accumulation of surplus value. Those who think that taming the financial behemoth will restore a kinder, gentler capitalism are ignorant of the system’s logic.

By turning to the triumvirate (the EU, IMF and the ECB), the PASOK government surrendered the country’s sovereignty and its economy to three enemies of the Greek people, three enemies with often contradictory agendas.

The European Central Bank is the strong-arm enforcer for European banks. Its goal is simply to ensure that Euro-banks are not damaged by any Greek events, that the banks’ investments and loans are protected. It adamantly opposes any policy that will ask euro-banks to sacrifice. The ECB opposes default at all costs, threatening to not buy Greek bonds if Greece defaults. It supports EU bailouts because they transfer Greek debt from the private sector to the public sector. J.P. Morgan estimates that public sector sovereign debt liabilities against Greece will surpass their private sector counterparts in 2013 as outstanding bonds are paid off. This trend is expected to continue, going forward. The ECB welcomes this exit by private banking since it will leave the banks immune from any negative consequences. They have no interest in the fate of Greece’s working people.

The International Monetary Fund, on the other hand, serves as an active agent for international capital. Through extortionate loans, it imposes the conditions for capitalist exploitation upon countries desperately in need of financial help. Privatization, diminished social securities, and dis-empowered workers constitute its agenda. Clearing a path for US imperialism drives the policies of the IMF, with the interests of the other imperialist powers playing a secondary role.

The details of the austerity package for Greece – privatization, unemployment (to discipline workers), destruction of social services, etc. – are the work of the IMF. It was with glee that international capital welcomed the demand for a $71 billion privatization of Greek public assets, including Athens Airport and Greek railways. The Wall Street Journal cynically dubbed it a “National Tag Sale.” The IMF, too, has no interest in the fate of Greece’s working people.

The European Union, a political body, reflects the political will of the dominant governments of the EU: Germany and France. Both countries’ governments subscribe wholeheartedly to the neo-liberal dogmas, prescribing austerity for growing public debt. In this respect, they endorse and lead the EU to support the IMF regimen. But they have political reservations about the terms of the extortionate deals crafted to impose austerity. They resist committing their own public funds to buy the Greek government’s collaboration in selling out the Greek people. So-called “bailouts” come at the expense of public funds provided by the EU constituent governments. They prefer to find another weapon to hold to the head of the Greek people. But the EU, as well, has no interest in the fate of Greece’s working people.

Like all criminal syndicates, the unity of the triumvirate is threatened by selfish interests. The German government recently proposed a restructuring of privately held Greek debt (largely euro-banks), but the ECB slammed the door on this since it would call on European banks to sacrifice. France is now proposing similar actions with the ECB similarly in opposition. Neither government wants to commit its own public funds to the sustenance of Greek government debt. While they agree on the crime, they cannot agree on the weapon.

IV

It would be a profound mistake to see the mugging of Greece as an isolated, inconsequential event. Rather, it is a template for the way ahead for international capital.

In the days before the betrayal of the Greek people by the 155 PASOK representatives, stock markets world-wide were falling, in fear that the massive strike and demonstrations of the Greek people might frighten these spineless politicians into rejecting the extortionate deal demanded by the IMF, the ECB and the EU. The mere possibility that resistance would derail the program shook the foundations of capital. In the days following, the markets leaped forward more than they had in months.

Greece is neither isolated nor inconsequential.

The pattern established in Greece is being repeated in other countries, like Portugal, Ireland and Spain. Italy and the UK are next in line, with others to follow. The game plan will undoubtedly be tailored to different circumstances and different balances of forces, but capital will relentlessly strive to squeeze profit from the living standards of working people and expropriate the public wealth held socially. The weapon in this assault is debt manipulation.

Some on the left sounded the death knell of neo-liberal capitalism in the depths of the crisis. Clearly, that was a profound mistake. Neo-liberalism, financial predation and global capital have mounted a vigorous counter-attack, leaving those illusions dashed.

We can, however, draw important lessons from the Greek struggle. While the Greek people, led in this conflict by Communists and class-conscious workers, failed to stop the mugging, they are not defeated. They will have much to say about the next chapter in this unfolding story.

For us in the US, the assault on the Greek people should remind us of what we face. While we should be inspired by the resistance in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states, we must recognize what a daunting, difficult struggle lays ahead. And we should not be seduced by phony political allies like the Democratic Party, the US counterpart to PASOK, in this fight.

With all respect to our many causes, this is the central battle of our times.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

—
Posted By zoltan zigedy to ZZ’s blog at 7/06/2011 04:58:00 PM

Written by Editorial Board, Rizospastis, KKE (Communist Party of Greece)

On Friday the blogs which are guiding the movement of the “indignant” citizens published a statement of the “indignant” citizens in Syntagma Square [main square of Athens, Greece] that called on the left forces to leave the squares.

Thus, the “anonymous” leaders of the “movement of the squares”, the “non-party aligned”, “spontaneous”, “non-politicised” citizens appear to be politicised and declaring themselves “anti-left”.

Perhaps that’s the reason why they are hiding behind their anonymity. Up until this point they declared as their enemy the policy that brings poverty and unemployment while their slogan was to get rid of the memorandum and the politicians that implement it. This element along with the fact that they organise mobilisations expresses a political position.

Now they are showing one more aspect of their political stance and practice attributing the barbaric policy that leads the people and the youth to destitution generally to all the parties -including the KKE. Of course, they do not demonstrate who benefits from this policy; they do not show the real enemies which are the monopolies, the capitalists.

They are against the organised class-oriented trade union movement arguing that the trade unions must leave the squares. But the trade union movement is not homogenous. Is there any relation between the government and employer-led trade unionism that assisted the adoption of the barbaric measures and PAME that organised strikes and mass rallies against them along with PASEVE, PASY, OGE and MAS?

The self-definition of “non-party aligned” that they have used so far, which was extolled by the media groups of the capitalists, as well as their logic concerning the issue of democracy, proves to be nothing less than hypocrisy. Likewise, their intention to allegedly unite the people even on the basis of the vague anti-memorandum content of “the movement of the squares” since positions like “out with the left”, “parties out”, “trade unions out” are divisive while they are not that democratic , or, to be more accurate, they are undemocratic.

At the same time, and while they oppose the memorandum and the horrible measures they do not say a word against the government, the EU, the political forces that agree with this policy. They are merely talking in general about the politicians who implement it with vague arguments while they equate the KKE with these parties.

The prevention of the political and ideological expression of the working people, who have the right to have their own point of view and express it openly and publicly in general and in particular within the movement, where the ideological political struggle unfolds, is not only at odds with democracy, especially within the movement, but it also muzzles it.

Furthermore, each movement, even the spontaneous ones but even more so the movement in the squares has an objective, no matter if one agrees with it or not. But this action reveals that the leaders of the movements of the squares have a point of view: either you come to the square with our ideological-political positions leaving yours out of the movement or don’t come at all, stay away from the squares.

It seems that it is a well elaborated tactic in order to draw dividing lines between popular forces which are organised in trade unions, parties, which do not conceal their ideology, their policy even their party identity and those who go to the squares, who are also ordinary people most of whom have believed in the bourgeois parties that betrayed their hopes for a better life, are disgusted with the bourgeois policy and are looking for a way out.

After all whom does the logic “parties and trade unions out” serve ? At this point, we will not repeat that those from the blogs are preparing a party with the name “Immediate Democracy” as stated on TV . But there is also one truth that they do not want to come to the fore, that they try to conceal as the bourgeois media do at times; namely that not all parties are the same, that the so called non-party movement of the squares is a political entity, which, although it calls itself non-party aligned, is a political entity and has a political position against the other parties irrespective of what it claims for itself.

From the first time that this form of mobilisations appeared we posed a question: Who is hiding behind the blogs and the internet? Why they do not appear? What does their anonymity mean? Shouldn’t this fact concern those who gather in the squares? Because they should know which forces invite them and organize these activities. Because the blogs are not enough, nor does everything begin spontaneously from a blog, even if they contribute to the mobilizations as does their huge promotion by the media.

But it seems that anonymity helps those who are behind the blogs and not only them. After all the experience of the people’s movement shows that there are also organised forces that appear as forces of the “movement” and oppose – no matter if they do it intentionally or not- the organised people’s movement while when they are in action they hide their faces with hoods.

Now the movement of those with no name has emerged. The people who are concealing themselves have a specific purpose, which they are also trying to hide. They present themselves as pro-people leaders but they do not point to the real opponent of the people.

The people who cover their faces with hoods oppose the state’s repressive mechanisms, the windows of shops and banks-they consider these to be their opponents and not the monopolies. Their activity fosters tendencies for the movement to lose its organized character, impede the participation of the people and does not cultivate a rebellious consciousness.

The procedures of direct democracy allegedly express participation from below in anti-memorandum activity. But which political force will impose its will so that the memorandum is abandoned? For them they are against politicians and political parties. So who will do it? Other politicians, and perhaps other organized forces with the political line which is being expressed in the squares, which are not against the monopolies and the capitalists. So we are talking about another reformed bourgeois system. Maybe this is their aim?

Of course, the specific view “parties out” makes some people from specific parties appear as defenders of their party line in the morning, they flatter those who express the “non-party position” despite the fact that these very people are leading party cadre, and in the evening they go to the squares as “non-party people”. This is hypocrisy on a massive scale, if not outright fraud. Ordinary people, young people participate in the squares to express their indignation, discontent, anger at the government, the EU, the Troika. But they do understand or do not accept the political line for the overthrow of the system.

These working people must not be ensnared in the net which the system is preparing through the so-called “non-party” and spontaneous. The conflict with the monopolies is not colourless. There needs to be a plan, a strategy, ideals, contribution and sacrifices. It means allying with the KKE, the class-oriented radical forces, new forces, which are starting to mobilise overcoming their inertia and tolerance, must make this step forwards.

“Parties out” is a conservative point of view. The political parties are organizations which with their political line and ideology express specific interests. Our society is divided into social classes and strata. The bourgeois class, on the one side, the dominant one, has the power, which some of its parties manage in the government and on the other side the working class. There exist intermediate strata which are differentiated economically, as well as socially. The intermediate strata, which are in a lower economic position, are objectively allies of the workers and opponents of the monopolies. The “parties out” view equates the KKE with the bourgeois parties. It conceals the real opponent of the people, the monopolies, which have the power.

The worker is deluding himself if he believes that the mobilizations in the squares are enough to liberate him from the old and new problems which have been foisted on him, without a movement which begins from and is rooted in the factories and industries, in every workplace, against the capitalist class. When the movement is not strong in the factories, whatever mobilisations take place do not have solid foundations. The real arena of class struggle is the workplace, the industry.

It is there where the workers come into daily uncompromising struggle with the big businessmen – which flows from their relative class relations, the relations of exploitation, because the wealth and profits of the capitalists are produced by the labour of the workers. Some say in the squares as well, and this is also necessary, but primarily in the place where the class opponents come into conflict. Here is the real core of the class-oriented political struggle.

The worker is deluding himself if he believes that people’s mobilizations must be far from all the parties or against all of them. Such a movement is condemned to be subjugated to the political line of the capitalists, to contribute to the perpetuation of exploitation.

The worker is deluding himself if he believes that the bourgeois political system can function in the people’s interests.

The bourgeois political system cannot be corrected, only overthrown.

The worker is deluding himself if he promotes the demand to get rid of the memorandum, without accompanying this with the demand for withdrawal from the EU and the overthrow of the state of the monopolies in Greece.

The people needs the movement which gives it a clear prospect. This means an organized struggle allied to the KKE, a struggle through the class-oriented movements of PAME, PASY, PASEVE, OGE and MAS. Only these forces can oppose the strategy of the monopolies and their servants with the strategy for the people’s interests.

Without such a strategy, the people will not find a way out.

Editorial board, Rizospastis, via 21st Century Manifesto
June 5, 2011