 SEOUL, South Korea (RTSG) – On December 3rd, residents of the capital of the Republic of Korea were rudely awakened in the middle of the night to the sounds of helicopters and jets flying over their houses after the president declared martial law. President Yoon Soek-Yeol gathered an emergency meeting of the press at 10:23 PM to announce the establishment of martial law in the country, decrying what he called “North Korean communist forces” that he alleged were “paralyzing the essential functions of the state and undermining the liberal democratic constitutional order.”  Lawmakers had to hop the fences of the National Assembly building, South Korea’s legislative meeting hall, to avoid police and military forces that had blocked off all entrances to the building. After thousands of protestors showed up outside the building, there was chaos between protestors and the military, though no deaths or injuries happened. After several hours of uncertainty, members of the South Korean parliament voted to lift the martial law at around 1 AM. By 2 AM, all troops had left the compound. The events of December 3rd shocked not just the East Asian nation, but also the rest of the world. The Republic of Korea has not instituted martial law since 1980, and since then, the country has created ostensibly strong democratic systems. The events of this week seem to have disproved that assumption. The question remains: how did this happen? President Yoon Seok-Yeol has been one of the Republic of Korea’s most unpopular presidents since his election in 2022, which he won with a barely 1% margin of victory. He and his party, the People’s Power Party (국민의힘), rode to victory promising deregulation and tax reductions. As a result, he was particularly popular among the youth in Seoul, the largest metropolitan area of South Korea. Now, however, it seems that his fortunes have changed significantly after repeated attacks from the opposition, the Democratic Party (더불어민주당). Suffering from one controversy to another, Yoon saw his approval ratings dip to 19% nationwide at the beginning of November. Recently, the Democratic Party launched a prosecution targeting Yoon’s relationship with an election broker and owner of a polling agency. The election broker, named Myung Tae-Kyun, was under scrutiny for gloating that he held power over the President and his wife in a leaked phone call, and the president himself is under investigation for exercising inappropriate power over the People’s Power Party in selecting officials for election brokering and the like. Additionally, Yoon’s presidency has seen a marked increase in tensions between North and South Korea, with the latter restarting several provocative military exercises against the North. North Korea (officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) has continued to respond to these advances in a tit-for-tat series of escalations, including dropping propaganda leaflets over the capital city of Seoul. Most recently however, the North accused the South of flying drones over the North’s capital city, Pyongyang. Amidst all this pressure, Yoon declared martial law, primarily to stop the investigation and to “restore government functions.” However, lawmakers in South Korea are already preparing to remove the president, with six of the opposition parties banding together to draft an official motion to impeach Yoon. The People’s Power Party, despite opposing the declaration of martial law, has stated it will not support the motion to impeach. AuthorSeraph This article was produced by RTSG. Archives December 2024
0 Comments
 Al-Qaeda affiliates with a history of receiving western funding have reactivated in Syria along with Turkish-backed fighters to recapture significant amounts of territory in the war-ravaged nation. It’s hard to say exactly what’s happening in the moment, but I will say it’s mighty convenient how Russia being tied up in Ukraine and Hezbollah being decapitated by Israel leaves Syria once again exposed to the longstanding regime change agendas of the same western empire who’s been backing both of those proxy conflicts.  Syria is more complicated and harder to understand than Gaza, but if you look into it you’ll find mountains of evidence that for many years the US and its allies and partners have been actively fomenting violence, chaos and destruction in that nation to effect regime change. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant or dishonest, as is anyone who calls you a Russian propagandist or an Assad lover for stating this well-evidenced fact. There are a lot of people who see through the imperial lies about Gaza but still buy into the imperial lies about Syria, largely because the lies about Gaza are so much easier to see through. Immense amounts of propaganda and information ops have gone into framing the violence we’ve been seeing in Syria since 2011 as a completely organic rebellion against a tyrannical dictator who just wants to murder civilians because he is evil. But if you bring the same sincere curiosity and rigorous investigation to this issue that you brought to the plight of the Palestinians, you will discover the same kinds of lies and distortions which you’ve seen the western political/media class promote about Gaza being spun about Syria as well — frequently by the same people. This is how unpacking the lies of the empire tends to unfold for folks. Your eyes flicker open because of some really obvious plot hole in the official narrative like Vietnam, the Iraq invasion, or Gaza, and then once you’ve seen through those lies you start getting curious about how else you’ve been deceived. You start pulling on other threads and learning more and more, and then after a while you start seeing the big picture about the US-centralized empire inflicting horrific abuses upon humanity all around the world with the goal of dominating the planet. If you saw through the lies about Gaza, don’t stop there. Keep going. Keep pulling on threads. Keep learning. Stay curious. They lied about Gaza, they lied about Iraq, they lied about Libya, they lied about Ukraine, and they’re lying about Syria too. Don’t listen to anyone who tries to dull your curiosity. Ignore anyone who tries to shout you down and shut you up for asking inconvenient questions. Keep waking up from the matrix of empire propaganda until your eyes are truly clear. ❖ Boris Johnson told The Telegraph in a recent interview that the west is “waging a proxy war” in Ukraine, which, while obviously true, was once considered by the western political-media class to be a very taboo thing to say. “We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job,” Johnson said. “For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel.” For years it was considered Kremlin propaganda to call the war in Ukraine a western proxy war against Russia. Now the line is “Well this is obviously a proxy war so we need to give our proxies more weapons, duh!” ❖ We’re taught that heroes look like western soldiers and cops taking out bad guys, when really heroes look like Palestinian journalists risking everything to tell the truth about genocidal atrocities that are backed by western governments while western journalists make propaganda. ❖ I don’t want the Australian government to ban kids from social media, I want the Australian government to stop supporting Israel’s genocidal atrocities and stop turning this country into a giant US military base in preparation for Washington’s war with China. ❖ It should be illegal to force homeless people to relocate. If a rich neighborhood is the best place to sleep rough then the rich should be forced to look at a daily reminder of the dystopia they live in until the underlying problems which cause homelessness have been fixed. You shouldn’t be allowed to hide such things to make people comfortable. All the laws designed to criminalize homelessness and force the unhoused to relocate are just one more way our dystopia hides its abuses and contradictions from public view, the same as propaganda and internet censorship and murdering Palestinian journalists. They want the homeless out of sight and out of mind in the same way their wars and genocides are out of sight and out of mind. They just want the homeless to go “away”, because they can’t fix the injustices and inequality which cause homelessness without upending the power structure they rule. They wish all the symptoms of poverty and injustice in our society could be hidden on the other side of vast oceans like their wars are. AuthorCaitlin Johnstone This article was produced by Caitlin Johnstone. Archives December 2024  The G20 summit in Rio earlier this week offered the quite intriguing spectacle of a deeply divided world, geopolitically and geoeconomically, trying to put on a brave ‘holiday in the sun’ face. There was plenty of fluff to amuse attentive audiences. French President Emmanuel Macron surrounded by a beefy security detail strolling on Copacabana beach near midnight; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen barefoot in the sand, stunned by the lapping waves; the White House lodger, US President Joe Biden – with his expiry date in less than two months – missing the G20 family pic because he was talking to a palm tree. Right before the summit, Biden posed on a soundstage in the rainforest, complete with two giant teleprompters, pledging to save the Amazon just as his handlers in Washington let leak the “authorization” for Ukraine to attack targets inside the Russian Federation with ATACMS; a qualified preamble for a possible WWIII. With Rio providing the ultimately gorgeous set, at the very least, tempers at the renovated Museum of Modern Art, the G20 venue with the Sugarloaf in the background, were bound to mellow out. This even allowed for a short, tense handshake between Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a true leader of the Global South, and Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a US asset who hates Lula’s guts. China steals the show The populist Brazilian head of state, whose political capital transcends all barriers, was, of course, an impeccable master of ceremonies, but the real star of the show was Chinese President Xi Jinping – fresh from his previous triumph, when he was for all practical purposes coronated King of Peru during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima - complete with the inauguration of the $1.3 billion port of Chancay, the new South American node of the Pacific Maritime Silk Road. As China is all about global connectivity corridors, Chancay-Shanghai became an instant new motto ringing all across the Global South. Beijing’s prime role as an engine and cooperation propeller across Asia–Pacific also applies to most of the G20 members. China is the largest trading partner of the 13 APEC economies, and is responsible for 64.2 percent of Asia-Pacific’s economic growth. This prime role extrapolates to China’s BRICS colleagues among the G20, as well as brand-new BRICS partner-nations such as Indonesia and Turkiye. Compare that with the G7/NATOstan contingent of the G20, starting with the United States, whose main global offerings range from Forever Wars and color revolutions to weaponizing of news and culture, trade wars, a tsunami of sanctions, and confiscation/theft of assets. So, predictably, there was some serious underlying tension permeating the G20, especially when it came to the face-off between the G7 and the Russia-China strategic partnership. Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t even bother to attend, sending his uber-competent Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov instead. As for Beijing, after 7 years of combined Trump-Biden trade and tech war, the Chinese economy continues to grow by 5.2 percent a year. Exports now account for only 16 percent of China’s GDP, so the economic powerhouse is far less vulnerable to foreign trade machinations. And the US share of that 16 percent is now only 15 percent; that is, trade with the US represents only 2.4 percent of Chinese GDP. Even under what can be described as NATOstan’s all-out tech sanctions, Chinese tech firms are growing at warp speed. As a result, all western tech companies are in deep trouble: massive retrenchment, factory downsizes, and shutdowns. Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus with the rest of the world has expanded to a record one trillion US dollars. That’s what horrified Western economists qualify as China on a “collision course” with some of the world’s biggest – yet dwindling – economies. Efforts to ‘Ukrainize’ the G20 agenda The Brazilians had to dodge quite a few precision bullets to extract some success out of this G20 summit. US Think Tankland, on the eve of the summit, went on an all-out propaganda campaign, accusing BRICS nations of doing nothing but posture and complain. The G20, on the contrary, with “all major creditors on the table,” might be able to redress “financial grievances” and development deficits. The Brazilians were clever enough to understand that an indebted NATO bloc exhibiting less than zero political leadership would do nothing under the G20 framework to redress “financial grievances,” not to mention contribute to “enfranchise” Global South nations. The only thing that would interest the Hegemon’s financial elites out of a G20 meeting is to “deepen partnerships,” a euphemism for further co-option and vassalization with an eye on 2026, when the US will host the G20. China, just like Brazil, had other ideas. Enter the campaign to fight hunger and poverty, officially launched in Rio. The Global Times has re-emphasized how China “has lifted all 800 million people out of poverty and achieved the poverty reduction goals of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ahead of schedule.” In his G20 speech, Xi called all members to “make a fresh start from Rio,” by practicing “inclusive globalization” and “true multilateralism.” NATOstan, as every grain of sand in the Sahel desert knows, simply abhors multilateralism. The official theme of the Rio G20 was “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet.” The Hegemon’s ruling classes, irrespective of who sits in the White House, are not interested in a “just world,” only in maintaining unilateral privilege. As for “sustainable planet,” it is code for what the Davos Gang wants: the toxic imbrication of interests of the UN, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and NATO. The G7/NATOstan did try by all means to hijack the agenda of the Rio G20, as confirmed by diplomatic sources. Yet the Brazilians stood firm in the defense of Global South-led multipolarity, negotiating a compromise agenda that, for all practical purposes, evaded getting deeper into the Hegemon's latest Forever Wars, Ukraine and Gaza. With NATOstan as a whole de facto supporting the Gaza genocide, the G20 85-point Final Declaration could, at best, offer a few consensual generalities, at least calling for a ceasefire in Gaza - which was promptly vetoed by the US at the UN Security Council immediately after the G20 summit's conclusion. Lavrov, at his G20 press conference, offered some extra nuggets. He said that while the west did “try to 'Ukrainize' the G20 agenda, other members insisted that other conflicts be included in the final declaration … Those countries reluctantly agreed to discuss the points of the G20 final declaration on the Middle East [West Asia].” Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa Lula’s personal imprint at the G20 represented a Global South move: to establish an alliance against hunger, poverty, and social inequality, and at the same time impose extra taxation on the super-wealthy. The devil will be in the details, even as over 80 nations have already subscribed, plus the EU and the African Union (AU), along with several financial institutions and a series of NGOs. The alliance should, in principle, benefit 500 million people up to 2030, including the expansion of quality school meals for over 150 million children. It remains to be seen, for instance, how the AU will make it happen in practice. In the end, to a certain auspicious extent, the Rio G20 worked as a sort of complement to the BRICS summit in Kazan, trying to pave the way towards an inclusive multi-nodal world framed by social justice. Lula significantly stressed the key connection linking the latest G20s: the Global South - ranging from Indonesia, India, and now Brazil to South Africa, which will host the G20 next year, bringing “perspectives that interest the vast majority of the world’s population.” Incidentally, that, right there, includes three BRICS and one BRICS partner. On a personal level, it was quite an experience to observe the G20 fresh from a series of rich dialogues in South Africa itself, centered on the construction of African unity in a multipolar world. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa reiterated it when he said in Rio that this passing of the baton from Brazil is the “concrete expression of the historical, economic, social and cultural links that unite Latin America and Africa.” And unite, hopefully, the whole Global Majority. AuthorPepe Escobar is a columnist at The Cradle, editor-at-large at Asia Times and an independent geopolitical analyst focused on Eurasia. Since the mid-1980s he has lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore and Bangkok. He is the author of countless books; his latest one is Raging Twenties. This article was produced by The Cradle. Archives December 2024  They say those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, much of the public seems to have a rather selective memory where recent American history is concerned. When examining the depraved actions confirmed to have been perpetrated by the United States government in recent decades and contrasting such an unflattering image of the American government with the portrait painted by apologists for the American political elite, one might conclude that much of the public has fallen victim to a disinformation campaign conducted by the mainstream media and their ruling class allies who would rather the population forget about their misdeeds. Over the years, such misdeeds have included mind control experiments, lying the nation into war, mass surveillance, poisoning illegal substances to dissuade citizens from consuming them, and much more. And yet, despite the many examples of how morally bankrupt the elite are in the United States government, there are still large swaths of the population who trust that the political establishment is acting in good faith or that such atrocities committed by the Unites States government could only have been perpetrated in the past. What those who come to the defense of the political elite do not realize is that one of the most overt examples of the United States government’s lack of morality is occurring in plain sight in the way the American government enforces the petrodollar system. But one might ask, “What is the petrodollar system?” To understand the petrodollar system, historical context is vital. Towards the end of the Second World War at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, an assortment of Allied leaders met to establish a new economic world order. From the ashes of the world economy stood the United States as the leading economic power and it was at the Bretton Woods Conference that a new monetary system that relied on the American currency was established. According to such a system, the U.S. dollar could be converted into gold at a fixed rate while foreign currencies themselves were pegged to the American currency. When a nation lost confidence in the U.S. dollar, they would have the option of exchanging their holdings in dollars for gold. This system generated a demand for American currency and such a demand gave the United States government reason to print more money. The Federal Reserve, a private banking entity, benefitted from a global demand for the U.S. dollar since it was the Federal Reserve that loaned the money to the United States government to be paid back with interest and it was the Federal Reserve that set the interest. When the Bretton Woods system was set up, it seemed that the answer to the problems faced by the global economy had arrived. Yet, the Bretton Woods system suffered from a severe Achilles’ heel. This Achilles’ heel was that this system was dependent on a stable American economy. In the 1960s, the American economy faced adversity due to the costs of the Johnson administration’s domestic programs whose stated aims were to alleviate poverty and the Vietnam War. Because of the economic woes facing the United States at the time, many a nation began to request gold in exchange for U.S. dollars. The days of the Bretton Woods system were numbered. 1971 marked the death of the Bretton Woods system. It was in this year that President Nixon ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold. This had the effect of turning the U.S. dollar into a fiat currency, a currency whose value is not decided by another commodity. Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it wouldn’t take long for a new economic arrangement to take shape. The Nixon administration was aware that the fall of the Bretton Woods system would cause an overall decline in demand for the U.S. dollar. However, an opportunity to generate demand for the U.S. dollar would present itself with the Yom Kippur War and later oil crisis. In 1973, a coalition of Arab nations attacked Israeli forces to take back territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War. In retaliation for support given to Israel by the United States and other western nations, the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries enacted an oil embargo. As a result, the price of oil dramatically shot up. For his part, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger worked to negotiate an end to the embargo. Specifically, he worked out an agreement with the Saudi government in which Saudi Arabia would sell their oil in the U.S. dollar in exchange for weapons and the protection of Saudi oil fields by the United States Armed Forces. Not long thereafter, all the other OPEC nations agreed to sell their oil in American currency and the petrodollar system was born. With that historical context surrounding what the petrodollar system is in mind, one might ask, “What makes the petrodollar system so diabolical?” The answer to that question can be found by examining how this system is enforced. Simply put, nations that jeopardize the petrodollar system often find themselves in the crosshairs of the globalists. The most infamous example of this kind of imperialism is the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the Iraqi economy was devastated by the sanctions imposed upon it. Among the sanctions was one that banned Iraq from exporting oil. This changed in the mid-90s with the creation of the Oil-for-Food Program, a program that allowed Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian needs. In 2000, the Iraqi government, believing the European market to be best, requested they be allowed to sell oil in the euro. Following the approval of the Iraqi request by the United Nations, the Unites States government, unwilling to allow the petrodollar system to be jeopardized, began a propaganda campaign to build a case for an invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of its dictator, Saddam Hussein. Much of this campaign was composed of lies. Arguably one of the most infamous of these lies was the claim that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Another of these lies came in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks when the Bush administration tried to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist group implicated in the attack, Al-Qaeda. Yet, no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime was ever found. Furthermore, no weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered following the invasion. This means that the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq were sacrificed over the imperialistic agenda of the globalists who framed the war as a mercy mission to rid the world of a terrorist-supporting tyrant who was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Yet, those who masterminded this illegal war have still not faced justice. However, the Iraq War is not the only example of this kind of imperialism. Other countries that have gone on to threaten the petrodollar system in one way or another have included Libya, Syria, and Iran. In the case of Libya, the globalists succeeded in regime change. As for Syria, the globalists are still trying to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. With regards to Iran, the United States and its allies spent two decades occupying Iran’s neighbors while perpetuating propaganda depicting Iran as a terrorist-supporting nation hell-bent on building nuclear weapons to attack Israel. In short, this kind of imperialism persists to this day. So, the next time someone you know makes the mistake of running defense for the corrupt ruling class, kindly remind them of this ongoing example of the lack of morals and ethics of the American political elite. AuthorGrant Klusmann is an author on Substack and a member of the Wisconsin chapter of the American Communist Party. His writing primarily focuses on foreign policy and anti-imperialism. This article was produced by Grant Klusmann. Archives December 2024  Truth is cheap. Not in the sense that it is worthless. But quite literally, it just is there. All that an understanding of truth requires is our ability to comprehend the world; to see how things are connected to each other, how they exist in various processes, and how they always carry within them opposing tendencies, upon whose interaction, movement is produced. Our spontaneous interaction with the world is always-already embedded in a view that sees how things are constantly changing and affecting everything else around them. It is in the schools where we learn how to disconnect things from their time and place. And this action of abstract thought, although helpful to obtain certain forms of detailed knowledge of particulars, corrupts our spontaneous awareness of the dynamic integration of reality. This is not to say that truth is simple. After all, once we are developed enough to ask the question, the bias towards disconnection and staticity would’ve already been inserted in our minds by the dominant institutions. A process of “brain washing” our “brain washing” is necessary. But nonetheless, truth is always readily available. To acquire truth there is no need to massage reality. The way the world is, is sufficient. Truth does not require makeup crews. It is. Lies, however, have a high cost of maintenance. To lie is to fabricate. To lie is to distort. It requires effort. The lie, unlike the truth, is not just there. The presence of the lie presupposes its absence. The lie is there because it wasn’t. The lie is there because the way the world was, was insufficient for the men and institutions who lie. Lies are costly. They require the wholesale creation of new worlds, based disingenuously on the world. To lie is, as Michael Parenti would say, to invent reality. The liar, which includes men and their historically determined institutions, is the demiurgos of a new universe. From the matter of the world, they provide form to a new one. But this is costly. The lie is haunted by the ever-present reality of change. Change presents the real possibility for fissures to arise in the invented world. The lie clings hopelessly on to the purity of the first moment, the moment when it fooled fools into entering its invented world. The liar must operate, out of necessity, with a purity fetish. They must resist the desecration of the sanctity of their invented world by the developments in the real world. Truth is in the attunement of our understanding of the world and the real changes in it. Lies long for Parmenidean permanence. In a real world where nothing is permanent and fixed, lies, the invented world, is constantly in an existential struggle against reality. Reality wears it out; it increases, in time, the costliness of the invented world’s survival. The lovers of purity are, consciously or not, lovers of lies. Lies are not only based on purity, that is, the pure moment when the invented world obtains followers, its own beings-in-the-world. Purity itself is a lie. They are partners in a crime against the real world, against truth. The final crack will be dealt by those who were thrown into the invented world. Their own followers will be their headsmen. It is popular to say that a “lie has no legs.” It would be more correct to say that a lie’s legs are as capable as the pocketbooks that secure the prosthetics. Billions are needed, for instance, to sustain the Zionist entity’s Hasbara program. Only a phone, a universal object in the modern world, is needed to record the truth. With millions of phones that have recorded and shared the genocide, truth has pierced, for many, the invented worlds of imperialist lies. The costly resources forwarded to sustain lies-based new worlds are no guarantee of the long-term survival of these worlds. The prosthetic, expensive though it might be, could break with constant stress. That is what the truth, the world, provides lies, the invented worlds. It provides it with a constant stress, a haunting ever-presence that looms over the invented world. At nodal points it cracks it, and like Shiva, becomes a destroyer of worlds. José Martí held that a lie can run for a hundred years, but the truth can catch up to it in a minute. In that hundred years of running, the lie felt the truth breathing down its neck, like a shadow which becomes a striking shade when the moment is right. Today the invented world of the imperialists is seeing the stress fractures of the evermore-visible truth. No amount of money will fix the prosthetic legs of their lies, of their invented worlds. The question, today, is not whether it will crack, but when. AuthorCarlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy professor. He is the director of the Midwestern Marx Institute and the Secretary of Education of the American Communist Party. He has authored many books, including The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism(2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview(2022), and the forthcoming On Losurdo’s Western Marxism (2024) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2025). He has written for dozens of scholarly and popular publications around the world and runs various live-broadcast shows for the Midwestern Marx Institute YouTube. You can subscribe to his Philosophy in Crisis Substack HERE. Archives November 2024  On October 29-30, 2024, the General Assembly of the United Nations debated the Cuban resolution, “The need to end the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” The October 29 session began with addresses to the General Assembly by seven political and regional groups of nations: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), consisting of ten countries; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 57 nations on four continents; the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, 18 member States; the African Group, 55 member States; the Community of Latin American States (CELAC), 33 member states; the Caribbean Community (Caricom), 15 member states; the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), 120 member states; and the G77 and China, 134 member States. In addition, thirty-one nations took the podium to address the question. All spoke clearly in support of the resolution, and many condemned the arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on a spurious list of nations that supposedly sponsor terrorism. On October 30, 187 countries voted in favor of the resolution, with two opposed (United States and Israel). The small central-eastern European country of Moldavia abstained.  Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla addressed the General Assembly in presentation of the resolution. He began with a powerful example of the impact of the U.S. blockade on Cuban society. For five days, from Friday, October 18 to Wednesday, October 23, Cuban families were deprived, except for a few hours, of electricity, with anxiety that food would spoil, and it would not be possible or very expensive to replace it, and many lacked running water. Hospitals operated under emergency conditions, and schools and universities suspended classes. Political, economic, and cultural activities were closed, and only vital institutions remained open. The economy came to a halt. Rodríguez declared that the Cuban economy in recent years has experienced difficulties without precedent, in spite of the fact that the government works tirelessly to find solutions. There are various causes of this situation, he noted, but the most outstanding factor is the deliberate intention of the United States to suffocate and sabotage our national economy, placing significant obstacles to impede our growth and development. The U.S. government knows very well, Rodríguez maintained, that the blockade violates the UN Charter and international norms, and that it has a direct and indirect effect on the Cuban system of health and the general wellbeing of the people. The U.S. policy deliberately intends to impoverish the people and provoke shortages, as the centerpiece of a multidimensional unconventional war against Cuba, with the intention of provoking the collapse of the Cuban Revolutionary Government. Even though the blockade has not provoked political instability in Cuba, it functions as a message of warning to the entire world that there is a price to be paid for rebellion. The Minister noted that the strengthening and intensification of the blockade was initiated by the Trump Administration in the period 2017 to 2019, and the new measures have been maintained by the Biden Administration. These measures have included pressures and threats directed against companies and banks in third countries that have commercial and financial relations with Cuba. A dimension of this is the inclusion of Cuba on a spurious list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism, which, in spite of its absurdity, enables the government of the United States to threaten and penalize companies and banks in third countries. It thus functions as a key element of economic coercion in the unconventional war against Cuba. In addition, the recent measures have included the blocking of an expedited visa for European citizens to travel to the United States, if they have previously made a trip to Cuba, thus damaging Cuban tourism, the nation’s principal source of international currency. The surprising fact, Rodríguez declared, is that Cuba, during six decades of the blockade, was able to construct a social project that attended to the fundamental needs of the people with respect to nutrition, housing, education, health, and transportation; and that Cuba persists with the support of the people and with political stability in the current stage of the intensified blockade. As result, Cuba enjoys great prestige in the world today.  The U.S. reply in the General Assembly debate The rules of the General Assembly grant the right to the United Sates to reply to the resolution, and a solitary representative of the U.S. diplomatic corps assumed the responsibility. Cuban diplomats frequently express sympathy for their professional diplomatic colleagues of the U.S. diplomatic corps in this situation, because they are placed in a situation where they must defend the indefensible before the clear condemnation of the representatives of the world. In this case, the U.S. representative began with his best pitch: he declared that the sanctions are part of U.S. global efforts "to promote democracy and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba." In an editorial on October 30 in Granma, Carmen Maturell Senon and Claudia Thalía Suárez Fernández point out that the UN Charter and international norms do not grant the United States the legal authority to judge the political practices of other nations. Moreover, as is commonly argued in Cuba, the United States does not have the moral authority to judge the political practices of other nations from a democratic perspective, taking into account numerous undemocratic situations and practices, frequently cited, provided by critical currents within the United States. Although such Cuban counterarguments against the U.S. charge of undemocratic practices in Cuba are valid, I have never been entirely satisfied with such a response. The accusation that Cuba has an authoritarian government that violates human rights is widely believed, at least in part, among the people of the United States. And there is an international norm in favor of democracy and against totalitarian or authoritarian governments. The accusation of authoritarian practices by Cuba has credibility, because there is lack of understanding of the actual functioning of the Cuban political process of people’s democracy, which has structures different from representative democracy. The Cuban political system does not provide freedom of choice of competing political parties, as in representative democracies; rather, it provides alternative mechanisms for the voice and political participation of the people, in the form of people’s assemblies with true political power and mass organizations of workers, farmers, students, women, and neighborhoods, which are constitutionally integrated into the Cuban political process. Cuba developed this alternative approach to democracy during the 1960s and 1970s, in the aftermath of the delegitimation of the political parties and the system of representative democracy in Cuba during the 1940s and 1950s. Therefore, I maintain that, in debates about the U.S. blockade, we who defend Cuba should explain how Cuba’s system of people’s democracy works, so that the imperialist claim that it is promoting democracy in Cuba can be dismissed, on the grounds that Cuba has democracy of a different form, rooted in its history of having struggled for democracy in the context of a neocolonial situation. The Cuban democratic process is designed to grant power to the people and to block the usurping of power by an elite that represents its interests and those of a foreign power. People’s Democracy in Cuba: A vanguard political-economic system Aside from his myopic approach to democracy, the U.S. representative was guilty of a couple of misrepresentations. First, he mentioned 1,000 supposed political prisoners that were detained illegally in Cuba, stemming from the events of July 21, 2021. In fact, as Maturell and Suárez point out, 177 citizens were detained during the events of July 11 for serious offenses, with 790 detained with lesser charges. They were accused of vandalism, attacks on persons, and destruction of public property. In legal processes characterized by respect for due process, proof of violence was provided by statements of witnesses and victims as well as expert witnesses who examined videos published in different media, which allowed the identification of the accused in such criminal acts as public disorder, instigation to commit crimes, damage to property, robberies with force and violence, attacks of persons, sabotage, and sedition. The great majority of the persons accused are no longer detained, having been acquitted of the charges, paid their fines, or completed their sentences. (Description of the events of July 11 can be found in Chapter Five, People’s Democracy in Cuba). In addition, the US representative asserted that U.S. regulations with respect to Cuba permit the exportation of food and medicine to Cuba. In fact, the conditions stipulated for such commerce are onerous and costly, and the authorization is bureaucratically complex, such that it is not a workable option in practice. Cuban entities have attempted to use it, and they have found that it appears to function as a mechanism to justify the U.S. claim that food and medicine are being sold to Cuba. In the recently held Forum of Cuban Civil Society against the Blockade, the shortages of medical equipment and supplies and medicines in the Cuban health system were described by Cuban doctors, including Dr. Jorge Juan Marinello, president of the Cuban Society of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine; Dr. Albia Pozo Alonso, director of the Cuban Journal of Pediatrics; Olga Agramonte Llanes, president of the Cuban Society of Hematology; and Eugenio Selman-Houssein, director of the William Soler Cardiological Center. Moreover, the U.S. representative did not say a single word with respect to the inclusion of Cuba on the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism. It is widely recognized throughout the world that this is an entirely baseless accusation against Cuba. Yet the inclusion of Cuba on the spurious list is a central mechanism of the intensification of the blockade since 2019, because it provides a legal mechanism for the blocking of commercial and financial transactions with Cuba by companies and banks in third countries. The arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on the list was rejected by many of the delegations that took to the podium to express their country’s call for the end of the blockade. § Further Considerations To state the obvious, the U.S. blockade of Cuba violates the sovereign right of Cuba to determine its own political-economic system, in accordance with its national characteristics and history. And it violates the sovereign right of third countries to regulate the economic relations of their corporations and citizens. As such, it violates the UN Charter and international norms. Moreover, it violates the economic rights of U.S. citizens and residents. This is well understood in the world. Cuba has become a symbol in what some leaders and intellectuals of the Global South have called World War III, a multidimensional unconventional war between Western imperialist nations, led by the United States, and nations of the Global South and East that are leading an anti-imperialist process of construction of an alternative world order based in mutually beneficial commerce and cooperation. At the current time, the power elites and the people of the United States are not ideologically prepared to discern that their best interests in the long term would be served by cooperation with the emerging process of alternative construction. Regardless of the obstacles placed in their path, the nations of the Global South and East will continue on the road of developing in practice a world order characterized by cooperation and respect for the sovereignty of all nations. Their persistence will increase the probability that either the American power elite or the American people will awaken to enlightened consciousness, through which it would be discerned that the rise of China and the Global South and the persistence of Cuba are not threats to the United States. Rather, these world dynamics provide the USA with the opportunity to adjust course in foreign policy and find an anti-imperialist road, which would provide the key to the fulfillment of the American promise of democracy, inherent in the nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelveys blog. Archives November 2024
From the big Western cartelized media, traditionally hostile to the Cuban Revolution, coverage of the situation has been largely irresponsible, with clear ideological biases contrary to the Cuban socialist project, which prevents us from extracting from these analyses elements for an objective understanding of the fundamental causes that have led the island to the current situation. Especially when we insist on seeing it outside the socioeconomic panorama in which the country is developing. Looking at Cuba in a regional context helps to understand, first of all, that the island’s energy crisis is not an extraordinary scenario, but is unfortunately quite common in the region. Building and sustaining a modern and reliable energy system is an extraordinary challenge for developing economies. The dynamics of contemporary societies impose an increasingly higher energy demand on the generation capacities of countries, as an infinite number of electrical devices are being incorporated adding more demand on the power systems. At the same time, the increase in the average global temperature, droughts and other climatic disorders impose additional stress on the grids, which often end up dangerously overloaded. In Mexico, for example, in May of this year, high temperatures and the resulting increase in demand led to blackouts in 16 of the country’s 32 states. In Costa Rica, the drought drastically reduced the country’s generation capacity, which depends on hydroelectric generation for 70% of demand, forcing the rationing of electricity consumption. A similar situation has hit Colombia, whose reservoirs remain 16 points below the historical average. In Ecuador, drought and generation obsolescence have now led to outages of up to 14 hours a day. Venezuela has also been facing blackouts in several states of the country, as a result of US sanctions, internal sabotage and the deterioration of the energy infrastructure. On the nearby island of Puerto Rico, a U.S. colony, blackouts are a frequent reality, with situations such as the one on June 13, where a disconnection left more than 300,000 customers without service. Undoubtedly, Cuba has one of the worst generation scenarios in the region at present. The island faces the same climatic situations and deterioration of infrastructures that are common to the countries in the area, but with the significant aggravating factor that for more than sixty years the nation has had to deal with a strangulating economic, commercial and financial blockade, intensified by Donald Trump in the pandemic which the government of Joe Biden has left the most aggressive provisions untouched, including the permanence of the island in the infamous list of Countries Sponsors of Terrorism, which hinders any attempt to access financing that would help to overcome the crisis. To get an idea of the dimension of the material cost, the human cost is more difficult to gauge, just take a look at the recent report prepared by Cuba for the vote by the UN General Assembly on October 30 of resolution 78/7 entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. Between March 1, 2023 and February 29, 2024 alone, the damages and material losses caused by the blockade amounts to more than five billion dollars, some 189 million dollars more than the figure presented in the previous report. In the absence of the blockade, Cuba’s GDP, at current prices, could have grown by around 8 percent in 2023. In more than six decades, the accumulated damage amounts to 1 trillion 499 billion 710 million dollars. Specifically in the energy and mining sector, the report presented by the island details that the accumulated damages in the period amount to no less than 388 million 239 thousand 830 dollars. Since 2019, the U.S. government began the persecution of ships and shipping companies that transport fuel to the island. In that year alone, 53 vessels and 27 companies were sanctioned. Companies such as the Italian Termomeccanica, acquired by the American Trillium and the firm Accelleron, refused to supply the country with parts and pieces indispensable for the maintenance of thermoelectric power plants. As a result of this, together with the lack of financial resources, the maintenance cycles have been lengthened, often failing to comply with them. Currently, 13 of the 15 generation units are out of the maintenance cycle. Therefore, to understand the electric power crisis in Cuba, implies, in fairness, to measure how much the U.S. blockade is affecting the entire economic, productive and social fabric of the island. Without exonerating political responsibilities that may exist internally, no serious analysis can ignore the siege against the island as the first factor of the current crisis. The narrative of the mainstream corporate press, complicit with the West, seeks to present as proof of the failure of socialism what is, above all, the responsibility of imperialism. This is not the first time that those of us born on this island find ourselves in a complex situation. It is worth recalling, perhaps, an anecdote that expresses one of the profound meanings of the Cuban revolutionary process since its beginnings in the 19th century. In a moment of desperation in 1871, during the Ten Years’ War, when there was a shortage of war supplies, food, medicines and the pressure was increasing on the troops operating in
AuthorJosé Ernesto Novaes Guerrero, is a Cuban writer and journalist. Member of the Hermanos Saíz Association (AHS) , the National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba (UNEAC) and the Coordinator of the Cuban chapter of the Network in Defense of HumanityREDH. This article was produced by Resumen. Archives November 2024  The XVI BRICS Summit, held under the theme of “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” met in Kazan, Russian Federation, from October 22 to October 24, 2024. Delegations from thirty-five countries and six international organizations participated in the Summit. BRICS was established as an intergovernmental economic-commercial association in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2010. On January 1, 2024, BRICS officially expanded its membership to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Iran. The Sixteenth Summit in Russia was the first summit of the expanded BRICS, often referred to as BRICS Plus or BRICS+. There were three important developments in the Kazan Summit. First, an evident deepening of the commitment of BRICS to construct an alternative, multilateral and more just world order. Secondly, the creation of an alternative method of payment among the BRICS nations, which avoids the need to use the U.S. dollar. And thirdly, the inclusion of thirteen nations in the newly created category of BRICS Partners.  § The deepening of the construction of an alternative, multilateral world order From the beginning, BRICS contained an inherent orientation toward the creation of an alternative, more just, multilateral world. But also from the beginning, the evolution of BRICS as a project of ascent by its member nations was a possibility, which would imply the continuity of the political-economic structures of the world economy, which function to sustain and intensify global inequalities in power and wealth. Ascent would imply only that there would be a partial redistribution of power and wealth in the world-system, with stronger emerging nations receiving more of the spoils. And it would imply a failure to address the unsustainable contradictions of the world-system. However, during its evolution, BRICS has evolved with an increasing commitment to the creation of an alternative world order. This was especially evident in the Xiamen Declaration issued by the 2017 Summit in China, which affirms that since the founding of BRICS in 2006, the member nations have: fostered the BRICS spirit featuring mutual respect and understanding, equality, solidarity, openness, inclusiveness and mutually beneficial cooperation. . . . We have shown respect for the development paths of our respective choices, and rendered understanding and support to each other's interests. We have upheld equality and solidarity. We have furthered our cooperation with emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs). We have worked together for mutually beneficial outcomes and common development. The Declaration commits to the promotion of a more just and equal world. We will enhance communication and coordination in improving global economic governance to foster a more just and equitable international economic order. We will work towards enhancement of the voice and representation of BRICS countries and EMDCs in global economic governance and promote an open, inclusive and balanced economic globalization, thus contributing towards development of EMDCs and providing strong impetus to redressing North-South development imbalances and promoting global growth. The evolution toward commitment to the construction of an alternative world order was evident in the 2024 Summit in Russia. The Kazan Declaration reaffirms the commitment of BRICS to mutual respect, sovereign equality, inclusiveness, and collaboration. It declares, “we note the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order. Multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to unlock their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation.” The Declaration further declares the importance of the principles of the UN Charter as the “indispensable cornerstone” for ensuring cooperation based on mutual respect, justice, and equality. This commitment to the construction of an alternative world order was echoed by the discourse of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was host and moderator of the activities and sessions. At the BRICS Plus Outreach plenary session of October 24, Putin noted that the plenary session will discuss pressing issues in the world today, including sustainable development, poverty, climate change, technology, terrorism, and international crime. He declared that “it is crucial for BRICS members to discuss all these issues with countries from the Global South and East that share our approach. All our countries share similar aspirations, values and a vision of a new democratic world order that reflects cultural and civilisational diversity. We are confident that such a system should be guided by the universal principles of respect for the legitimate interests and sovereign choice of nations, respect for international law and a spirit of mutually beneficial, honest co-operation.” Putin observed that the construction of a more just international system is not easy, because its development is hampered by forces of domination, who seek to impose what they call a “rule-based order,” which is in reality an attempt to contain the independent development of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These forces resort to illegal unilateral sanctions and the manipulation of currency markets; and they interfere in the domestic affairs of nations, ostensibly promoting democracy. Their methods are “twisted” and “perverse.” He further declared: I would like to reiterate that Russia, like all BRICS countries, is open to cooperation with all countries of the Global South and East to promote inclusive and sustainable development and ultimately build a better world. It will be a world where every nation’s stance and interests are taken into account, their right to sovereign development and their identity are respected, and the absolute value of all cultures, traditions and religions is recognised. At an international press conference following the event, Putin noted that the participation in the Summit of delegations from thirty-five countries indicates the growing interest in cooperation with us from states that are indeed pursuing truly independent and sovereign policies. Each of these countries has its own path of development, distinct models of economic growth, and a rich history and culture. It is obviously this civilisational diversity and unique combination of national traditions that underlie the strength and enormous potential for cooperation not only within BRICS but also within the broader circle of like-minded countries that share the group's goals and principles. In a similar vein, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared at the Summit that “BRICS countries should conform to the general trend of the rise of the Global South, seek common ground while reserving differences, and work with one heart and one mind to further consolidate shared values, and safeguard common interests. . .. BRICS countries must work together to build BRICS into a primary channel for strengthening solidarity and cooperation among Global South nations and a vanguard for advancing global governance reform.” [Reported on the Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China].  The creation of an alternative form of payment The Kazan Declaration endorses the use of newly developed cross-border instruments to facilitate the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. The Declaration assigns the foreign ministers and central bank directors the task of further consideration of the use of local currencies and payment instruments and platforms, reporting back to BRICS by the next presidency. Putin reiterated at the Expanded Meeting of the Summit that “creating incentives for using national currencies in trade and investment remains high on our agenda.” He noted, in response to a question at the press conference following the Summit, that the BRICS nations are using their respective national currencies in trading with each other. Each of the BRICS nations have developed their own systems for international payments using national currencies. The Venezuelan outlet Misión Verdad reported that a presentation of a system of payments in development was made at the BRICS Business Council of October 17-18, 2024. While each country has a centralized banking system that facilitates the control of transactions in each State, the BRICS Pay platform would establish an interconnection of the networks of national payments, which would permit the participating national banks to establish direct ties with foreign banks and other financial institutions. The new structure of payments would enable rapid and inexpensive international commercial transactions, without depending on foreign platforms. It would permit the use of national currencies, avoiding the use of the dollar or the Euro. Misión Verdad further reports that the creation of a new mechanism of international payments has been developing since the BRICS presidency of South Africa in 2017. It has been mentioned from time to time the possibility of creating a new currency, something like the creation of the Euro in the European Union. So far, however, BRICS has been oriented in practice to the development of secure and rapid payments involving the use of national currencies. It seems to me that this route is more consistent with the BRICS stress on the sovereignty of each nation, because the nations involved do not lose control of their national monetary policy. In the case of the European Union, some of the weaker economies were significantly damaged by their inability to control monetary policy under the Euro regime. It perhaps is a historic lesson from the experience of the dollar and the Euro that a common currency among nations benefits the stronger economies in the union. BRICS, however, is forging a union based in the sovereignty and equality of all, and it thus far is oriented to developing new methods of payments using national currencies.  The establishment of BRICS “partner countries” as a new category With recognition of the considerable interest in BRICS by the countries of the Global South, the Kazan Declaration endorsed the category of BRICS Partner Country, which was named as a modality in the BRICS Summit in South Africa. In the press conference following the Summit, Putin reported that the list of countries for the first phase of expansion has been agreed upon. All these countries have filed requests, and BRICS will send out invitations and proposals to future partner countries, formally requesting them to join the work of BRICS. Upon receiving favorable responses, the countries on the list will be announced. Serguei Monin reported from Kazan in Brasil de Fato on October 24 that the BRICS countries have agreed to include thirteen nations in the category of partner states: Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda. These are by and large nations with a progressive and/or anti-imperialist orientation. Venezuela was excluded from the list as a result of a veto by Brazil. There has been much speculation in Latin American media concerning the reason for the veto by the government of Lula, who has played a central role in the process of Latin American union and integration. I do not find credible many of these various speculations, which suggests confusion on the question. As best as I can discern, Brazil has a short-term interest in excluding Latin American partners from BRICS, especially the larger nations, because most of the infrastructural investments in the region by the BRICS Development Bank currently go to Brazil. Any government committed to the BRICS approach would overrule such short-term considerations in favor of the long-term interest in common development, which implies the inclusion of more Latin American countries in BRICS. But at the present time, Brazilian sectors less committed to the development of an alternative world order are part of the Workers’ Party coalition in power in Brazil, and Lula is compelled to make concessions to these sectors within the ruling coalition. The question of Venezuela is not settled. At least Russia and China favor the inclusion of Venezuela, which possesses a foreign policy fully consistent with BRICS values. And Venezuela has much to offer the BRICS group, including oil reserves. If Venezuela remains excluded during the current phase of expansion, the Bolivarian nation nonetheless would be able to take advantage of strategic partnerships with BRICS member countries, as presently is occurring with respect to China and Russia. Deepening bilateral relations with BRICS member nations would strengthen Venezuela’s petition, paving the way for Venezuela’s inclusion in the Group. Putin declared that Russia disagrees with Brazil with respect to Venezuela. He expressed the hope that Brazil and Venezuela would work out their differences, and he noted that Lula had asked him to pass a message to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In a bilateral meeting with Maduro during the Summit, Putin expressed his appreciation for Venezuela’s commitment to its sovereignty and for the contributions of the Venezuelan government to the construction of a multilateral world order.  A note on the participation of Cuba The Cuban delegation at the Summit was headed by Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel decided not to attend the Summit, because of the electrical blackout and the damage inflicted by Hurricane Oscar. He remained in Cuba to direct the civil defense response. In his address to the Summit, Rodríguez referred to these events in Cuba, pointing out that the consequences would have been more grave, if it were not for “the selflessness of fifty-two thousand electrical workers, engineers and managers; the conscious participation and popular mobilization in support of recovery; the understanding and complete tranquility of the citizenry; and the effective conduct of the Government.” (Indeed so). The Minister of Foreign Relations declared that “BRICS has emerged as a fundamental actor of increasing relevance, authority and leadership on the global geopolitical stage and a real hope for the countries of the South on their complex path towards achieving a more just, democratic, equitable and sustainable international order.” He noted Cuba’s emphatic rejection of any attempt to impose a so-called “rules-based” international order, which violates international law and the norms and principles of international relations. Cuba especially appreciates the road of the BRICS Group toward the structural reform of an international system that is obsolete, unjust, speculative, and exclusive. Meanwhile, he noted, the BRICS Bank of Development plays an increasingly decisive role as an alternative source of financing for the nations of the Global South, with more just conditions; BRICS is contributing to the construction of a new and inclusive international financial architecture, thereby reducing dependency on the U.S. dollar. The Cuban Foreign Minister asked the representatives of the BRICS member states to support Cuba’s formal solicitude to become a “Partner Country.” He pointed out that Cuba has maintained historic ties with the BRICS member nations; and Cuba is able to make contributions to the group in such areas as the pharmaceutical biomedical industry, health, education, and science and innovation.  Final Considerations BRICS is the culmination of a historic tendency that has been expressing itself since the Bandung Conference of newly independent states of Asia and Africa in 1955. It is a tendency that is logically consistent with the interests of the Global Majority and with the dialectical march of human history. It therefore can only be stopped by the destructive unleashing of global war by the imperialist powers, or by the self-destruction of the movement itself through politically immature exaggerated rhetoric, which inflames the passions and eclipses reasoned and well-conceived strategies. Russia, China, and Cuba model the politically mature reasoned approach that is necessary to preserve the forward march of the construction of an alternative world order, more just and sustainable, necessary for the peace and prosperity of humanity in future epochs. The consolidation of an alternative world order would be a defeat for the power elites that rule the USA and the other Western powers. But it would not be a defeat for the peoples of the West. Quite the contrary. For the peoples of the West, the construction of a new world order by the Global South and East would be good news, because the leaders of the processes of change of the South and East call upon the peoples of the West to participate in and cooperate with the emerging world order. They are not playing a zero-sum game; they believe in a sustainable common future based on a win-win philosophy. It has been so since Bandung and the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, through which the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa and the neocolonized nations of Latin American and Caribbean have put forth a proposal for North-South cooperation to complement South-South cooperation. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelvey blog. Archives November 2024 11/3/2024 The West Only Has Pretend Heroes Like Spider-Man And SpongeBob By: Caitlin JohnstoneRead Now As the US-backed atrocities in the middle east get uglier and uglier, I keep thinking about something that was said by an Iranian cleric named Shahab Moradi after the US assassinated Iran’s immensely popular general Qassem Soleimani in 2020. Moradi complained that Iran can’t even really retaliate for the assassination because the US doesn’t have any real heroes of its own like Soleimani, saying, “Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob?” I’ve never seen a more incisive and withering critique of western culture, and I probably never will. It’s such an accurate statement and paints such a clear picture of what this civilization is really like that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could possibly top it. There are no real heroes with popular support in the western empire, because everything that’s truly heroic gets stomped down here, and everything that gets amplified to popularity is either vapid distraction or directly facilitates the interests of the evil empire. Our own generals are busy butchering civilians for oil and geostrategic control. Our military personnel are imperial stormtroopers. Our police are the security guards of capitalism. Our most prominent journalists are all propagandists. Our most prominent celebrities are famous because of their ability to pretend to be fictional characters doing fake things in Hollywood movies. Our most prominent artists are famous because of their ability to churn out formulaic pop songs about empty-headed bullshit. Our most widely recognized symbols are corporate logos. Our most highly regarded professionals are those who can sell westerners the most future landfill manufactured by wage slaves in the global south. Our most well-known government leaders are those who’ve sold their souls to oligarchs and imperialists and can lie to the public most convincingly. The only westerners doing truly heroic things here get thrown in prison, or murdered, or pushed into obscurity, because the only truly heroic thing anyone can do in today’s world is to take a stand against the western empire. Those who bravely resist the US war machine or make themselves inconvenient for western empire managers don’t get to become popular heroes. You don’t see the westerners who work to stop weapons shipments to Gaza being celebrated for their efforts on CNN and the BBC. You don’t see antiwar activists getting Hollywood movies made about their work — at least not until the wars they were protesting lie safely in the distant past. You don’t see journalists who work to expose the most egregious crimes of the empire being elevated to fame and fortune. The only figures who get elevated to fame and fortune in this fake plastic dystopia are those who either actively serve the interests of the empire or who passively distract people from its abuses. Donald Trump. Elon Musk. The Kardashians. Taylor Swift. Spider-Man and SpongeBob. Those are the only heroes we’re allowed to have here in any major way. You can have real heroes if you want, but if you tell the average westerner their names the first word out of their mouth will be, “Who?” Every once in a great while someone will sneak past the many security checkpoints into fame and begin opposing the empire, but they are always quickly demonized and marginalized by the imperial perception managers. And for every Roger Waters or Susan Sarandon, there are a thousand imposter heroes making themselves extremely convenient for the rulers of the western empire. This is the civilization we live in. A mind-controlled wasteland where everything is fake and stupid. The only path toward fulfillment and inner peace in such a dystopia is to dedicate yourself to tearing it down, brick by plastic brick. AuthorCaitlin Johnstone Archives November 2024 11/3/2024 Beyond Protest Votes: Can Jill Stein and the Green Party Push America Toward Revolutionary Change? By: Jonathan BrownRead Now As the 2024 presidential election campaign heats up, one thing is for certain: there is a widespread lack of enthusiasm for either of the major party candidates. This is hardly surprising. The 2024 election is occurring during a moment of unprecedented crisis for the U.S. political establishment. There is widespread distrust in public institutions, a deeply unpopular incumbent president who is carrying out a genocide in Gaza, a failing economy, and a world on the brink of nuclear war. One of the two major presidential candidates is a former “top cop” who was anointed to the Democratic Party presidential nomination through a backroom deal that bypassed the will of the voters. The other major party candidate is a corrupt real estate mogul and reality TV con man with multiple felony convictions. Both candidates have received hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy oligarchs; both have promised that, if elected, they will continue the status quo of endless war and corporate tyranny. Is it any wonder, then, that many disillusioned voters are looking to third party candidates as an alternative to the two mainstream parties? Perhaps the most prominent third party campaign on the ballot this year is Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. The Green Party is a self-described “eco-socialist” party that “opposes capitalism” and runs on a campaign platform of “people, planet, peace.” In numerous speeches and interviews, Stein has railed against the evils of the two-party system, denounced the “war machine,” and called for a populist message of getting Big Money out of politics. Such positions make Stein’s campaign an increasingly popular choice among disgruntled voters, but perhaps the issue that most stands out is her steadfast opposition to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. With many potential Democratic voters outraged over the Biden/Harris administration’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes, Stein seems poised to make inroads among voters who otherwise would be in the Harris camp. In fact, recent polling has suggested that Stein leads Harris among Muslim voters in key swing states, much to the dismay of parisian Democrats. But is Jill Stein and the Green Party a viable alternative to the two-party system? Or is she merely “controlled opposition” – a spoiler running a vanity campaign for protest votes that does not really challenge the power of monopoly-capitalism? This is a critical question for Marxist-Leninsts to ask ourselves this election. Can the Green Party be a viable path to achieving revolutionary change in America? Or are the Greens merely a pressure group oriented towards the Democratic Party? Perhaps one way we can answer these questions is by examining how the Democratic Party has reacted to Jill Stein’s candidacy, and how, in turn, Stein herself has responded to the Democrats. It can be observed that the Democratic Party has a long record of hostility against the Green Party in general, and Jill Stein in particular. The Democrats blame Ralph Nader for costing Al Gore the 2000 election, and Stein for the 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton. Of course, the Democrats do not wish to compete against the Greens in a fair and open election. Instead, they believe they are entitled to win votes, simply because they are not Trump. So instead of viewing the challenge of a third party campaign as an opportunity to self-reflect and improve their policies, the Democrats have instead opted to rely on dirty tricks to stifle Green Party’s chances at winning, leading to the Democratic Party operatives and their puppets in the corporate media to launch a barrage of attacks on the Stein campaign. One tactic has been to employ the fraudulent “democratic-socialist” congresswoman and establishment shill, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to smear Jill Stein as running a “predatory” campaign to steal votes from the Democrats. Another strategy has been to simply kick the Green Party off the ballot. Despite claiming that “democracy is on the ballot” in 2024, the so-called “Democratic” Party has no qualms about employing an array of anti-democratic maneuvers to remove the Green Party candidate from the ballots in key swing states. But perhaps the most odious strategy the Democratic Party has employed thus far is its use of red-baiting techniques straight out of the Cold War to smear Jill Stein as an agent of Russia and a lackey of Vladimir Putin. It was not that long ago that Democrats mocked Cold War rhetoric as outdated. In 2012, for example, then-President Obama lambasted Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s fear-mongering over Russia by declaring, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years.” But things changed drastically in 2014, when the U.S. government orchestrated a coup in the Ukraine to install a puppet regime that would facilitate the expansion of NATO onto Russia’s borders. Since that time, the Democratic Party has leaned heavily into an aggressive militarism against Russia, both to destabilize Russia’s growing geopolitical influence and to facilitate Western control over Russia’s considerable natural gas reserves. The long-term goal, as President Joe Biden has acknowledged, is to use Ukraine as a proxy to carry out a regime-change war against Putin, leading to the disintegration of the Russian Federation into a multitude of smaller states. Around the same time that the U.S. Empire was plotting to destabilize Russia, it began covertly arming Islamic extremist groups in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad aimed at securing control over Syria’s oil pipelines. Assad resisted the US attempt at overthrowing his government and was supported by Russia in an effort to prevent the U.S. military from doing to Syria what it had previously done to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of this set the stage for the Democratic Party to position itself as a neoconservative war party that is committed to permanent military expansion abroad and an aggressive campaign of Cold War McCarthyite hysteria at home. The lynchpin of this campaign is the use of false allegations of malign Russian influence to silence any political opposition. After losing the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton promoted a conspiratorial campaign known as “Russiagate” to scapegoat Russia for her electoral defeat, peddling the falsehood that Trump was installed to power via Russian interference in the election. This is ironic, given that it was actually Bill Clinton who meddled in Russia’s 1996 election to help Boris Yeltsin defeat the Communist Party candidate. Hillary Clinton’s red-baiting campaign had the dual effect of both sewing doubt in the legitimacy of the electoral process, while also becoming a convenient tool for the Democrats to use for smearing all opposition parties as Russian agents. This McCarthyite campaign of red-baiting has been successfully employed not only against Donald Trump, but also left-wing opposition to the Democrats. During the 2020 Democratic Party primary campaign, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was targeted by a Russiagate smear campaign. In response, Sanders fell in line behind the Democrats’ McCarthyite narrative, engaging in some red-baiting of his own by accusing Trump of being “good friends” with Vladimir Putin. Sanders continued his pattern of hostility towards Russia in 2022, when he called for sanctions and voted to send billions of dollars in armaments to Ukraine. After 2016, Jill Stein became a primary target of Russiagate allegations. Stein’s frequent appearances on the Russian news station RT were subjected to scrutiny. A 2015 gala dinner in Moscow became a particular point of controversy, where Stein was photographed sitting across from Vlladimir Putin. She was also photographed meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York. Then, a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that “Russian troll farms” were using social media to encourage minority groups to vote for the Green Party in the 2016 election. “Is Stein a fellow traveler or a useful idiot?” asked an NBC News editorial, in typical McCarthyite language. The red-baiting amped up even further during Stein’s 2024 election campaign. When Stein made an appearance on the popular radio talk show The Breakfast Club in September, she was grilled by the Democratic Party-aligned hosts with renewed allegations of Russian collusion. Then, former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan demanded Stein denounce Putin as a war criminal in a highly contentious interview. Hasan repeatedly badgered Stein, talking over her and demanding that she declare Putin a “war criminal.” Unfortunately, Stein’s performance in the interview came across as weak, muddled, and defensive. She refused to outright answer Hasan’s questions, and failed to push back against his flawed line of reasoning. She argued that Putin was a war criminal “in so many words” and that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was a “criminal and murderous war.” However, she implied that her reluctance to label Putin an outright “war criminal” was not rooted in any sort of solidarity with Russia, but rather a mere desire to give the U.S. a stronger negotiating position against Putin. Humiliated by the interview, Stein released an official statement to clarify her position on Russia. In this statement, Stein unequivocally condemned both Putin and Assad as “war criminals responsible for immense suffering and devastation.” She equated Russia’s support for Assad with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and bizarrely accused Russia of being an “imperialist power.” She went on to rattle off a long list of U.S. and Israeli leaders – including Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – that she defined as “war criminals.” It is important to note, however, that Stein’s statement did not condemn Vlladamir Zelensky – the corrupt NATO puppet in Ukraine – as a war criminal. Nor did she condemn the CIA for attempting to overthrow the Syrian government which prompted Russia to intervene in the first place. Stein’s statement is nothing more than a full-blown capitulation to the U.S. war machine. She is attempting to play both sides, employing a variation of the old Trotskyite slogan “neither Washington nor Moscow.” The problem with Stein’s “both sides are bad” approach should be obvious to any committed anti-imperialist. By condemning Putin and Assad as “war criminals,” Stein equates the countries that are resisting imperialism with countries that are engaging in imperialism. In other words, she is drawing a false equivalency between the victim and the aggressor. In doing so, she reveals the true colors of her campaign and of the Green Party itself. Far from being a revolutionary party – a legitimate alternative to the Two-Party System – the Green Party positions itself as “Democratic Party lite.” They claim to oppose the war machine while they reinforce the same Western imperialist narratives against Russia and Syria that the Democrats do. In doing so, Stein reveals that her commitment to anti-imperialism is rather thin. Although Stein has spoken positively about multipolarity, when Stein is pressured, she capitulates and falls into line behind the forces of U.S. imperialism. When push comes to shove, she condemns the countries that are building the new multipolar world that she claims to support. How can Stein claim to be against U.S. imperialism while opposing the countries that are on the front lines of the fight against imperialism? This inconsistency places Stein’s claim of being a viable alternative to the two-party duopoly in serious doubt. What the American working-class needs is not a protest vote for a wishy-washy candidate who wants to offer a kinder, gentler face of U.S. Empire. Instead, what we need is a strong and courageous party that will be the vanguard of the working-class – that will fight against U.S. imperialism and will stand in solidarity with the new emerging multipolar world, declaring openly its support for Russia’s self-defensive actions against NATO aggression, and for Syria’s self-defense against an attempted CIA-backed coup. If Stein and the Green Party cannot offer this minimal level of anti-imperialist commitment, then the true colors of the Green Party have been revealed. While Stein and the Greens should be applauded for their opposition to the two-party system, and anti-democratic measures to limit their ballot access must be condemned – we must accept that the Greens are not a viable alternative to the system. Supporting the Greens, then, is not a revolutionary strategy for achieving social change. The American Communist Party is the only force in U.S. politics that can mount a consistent challenge to U.S. imperialism and stand in solidarity with the rising multipolar world. AuthorJonathan Brown teaches high school social studies in Athens, Georgia, where he inspires students with his deep passion for exploring society and history. He also teaches sociology as an adjunct professor at Athens Technical College. Jonathan holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia and a master’s degree from California State University, Northridge, where he studied culture and politics from a Marxist perspective. Outside the classroom, Jonathan plays guitar in a punk rock band and is an active member of the Jewish anti-Zionist community. He is a committed member of the American Communist Party. Archives October 2024 10/29/2024 Educational Dual Power: Learn the Marxism-Leninism the Academy Will NEVER Teach You! By: Carlos L. GarridoRead Now The American political philosopher, Michael Parenti, said that the only thing about regular working people that the ruling class cares about is what they think. The owners of capital spend exuberate amounts of their dearest love – money – on crafting institutions that control how people think, the parameters of acceptable and unacceptable views. Frameworks of thought which facilitate the reproduction of the dominant social relations are proliferated, those which challenge these are silenced. The academy, which fancies itself as the center of free and critical thought, is the locus through which the most advanced forms of capitalist apologetics is derived. This apologetics, as Georgy Lukács described in The Destruction of Reason, doesn’t always have to be direct. In advanced capitalist societies the greatest defenders of the system are not necessarily those who explicitly defend it. Conscious of the crisis-driven character of the system, the capitalist class is competent enough to understand that to sustain its power it must control not only the narrative which champions the dominant order, but also the institutions and discourses which purport to challenge it. Indirect apologetics emerges as the most efficient defense of hegemony. It can take many forms. But in general, it puts forth a critique of the system which is culturalist, transhistorical, and superficial. The grievances people hold are prevented from rising to the level of systematic consciousness, to an awareness of the roots of their individual ills in the capitalist form of life itself. Systemic issues, in turn, are obfuscated as cultural issues or problems of “human nature.” No revolutionary should be naïve enough to think that they will be given the intellectual tools to change the world by the bourgeois academy. It is not in the capitalist academy where we find those ropes Marx and Engels spoke of. At best we might find some yarn, but that is far from sufficient for our purposes. For one to expect the intellectual apparatuses of the dominant order “to be impartial in a wage-slave society,” Lenin aptly tells us, “is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital.” The purpose of the academy is to create the officers which lead the army of the capitalist intellectual apparatuses. They are the ones who make sure the boat is not rocked. When they fail, the armed bodies of men, the police, military, etc., appear. What must those of us who seek to radically change our societies do? If for our task of winning the masses we can’t be ideologically trained in the traditional institutions of “higher learning,” we must build our own educational institutions. This is what, in part, dual power is all about. This is what is required to build hegemony for our class. We must construct educational dual power. There is no better example of the metaphorical rope the capitalist sells us than the advances in technology we have seen over the last two decades. Through means such as zoom, a class on Marxism-Leninism taught at night in the midwestern United States can be attended by a revolutionary in New Delhi after feasting on his breakfast chole bhature. This is precisely the opportunity I wish to present to you, dear reader. As the Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist think tank in the U.S., and as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Party, I wish to invite you to join my two-part course on Marxism-Leninism. In this course we will learn about the outlook that has been the most successful in challenging the parasitic order of the capitalists. From November to December, and then from January to February 2025, we will study the classics of the 20th century, from Lenin to Stalin to Mao, and provide for ourselves the revolutionary ideological tools the official academy will never give us. This is how, in the modern age, we use the ropes the capitalists sell us. Sign up HERE. AuthorCarlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy professor. He is the director of the Midwestern Marx Institute and the Secretary of Education of the American Communist Party. He has authored many books, including The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism(2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview(2022), and the forthcoming On Losurdo’s Western Marxism (2024) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2025). He has written for dozens of scholarly and popular publications around the world and runs various live-broadcast shows for the Midwestern Marx Institute YouTube. You can subscribe to his Philosophy in Crisis Substack HERE. Archives October 2024  Since its establishment in July 2024, the newly formed American Communist Party (ACP) has swiftly become a hot target for anti-communist vitriol from both left- and right-wing factions. Forced to fortify its resolve in its infancy, the ACP has highlighted the contradictions of the radical liberal left, revealing them as fascists at their core. In the face of true Marxist-Leninist principles, these critics appear perplexed by the ACP’s unwavering commitment to serving the working masses, rather than engaging in endless debates over the social-identitarian issues that have long stymied the American left. This distortion of Marxism into a mere social movement, rather than the rigorous economic science it is, drives our opponents to weaponize the “woman question” and the oppression of women against our party. In 2022, I wrote a critique in Midwestern Marx, analyzing how numerous socialist and self-proclaimed communist parties in the U.S. have failed to grasp the lived reality of American women, and consequently, have fallen short in their efforts to bring them into the communist fold effectively. For decades, the radical left has presented prostitution, the sex trade, abortion, and gender ideology as the solutions to alleviate the struggles of working American women. Even more troubling, they have demonized and dismissed women who reject these shallow offerings, showing no willingness for self-reflection. Today, it is the American Communist Party (ACP)—and the ACP alone—that offers working women a vision of a future beyond mere tokenism and the hollow idealism surrounding womanhood. Only the ACP can put women on the Marxist-Leninist path. The Plague of Feminism on Leftists It is crucial to clarify that rejecting feminism as an ideology does not mean Marxists are indifferent to the role of women in society and the economy. The radical liberal left often reduces any critique of their ideology to a simplistic liberal-versus-conservative framework, but this is a profound misunderstanding. Marxists reject feminism because it misidentifies the primary antagonism as one between men and women. In contrast, we understand the true conflict to be between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Feminism mistakenly suggests that bourgeois, capitalist women share common interests with working-class, proletarian women. Even more troubling, it implies that the bourgeois woman is oppressed by the working man, further perpetuating the myth that the antagonism between the sexes is irreconcilable—that men and women are inherently and perpetually in opposition to one another. It is unnecessary for us to differentiate between "Marxist Feminism," "Liberal Feminism," or "White Feminism" because, at its core, feminism remains a bourgeois ideology—and by extension, an anti-communist one. Feminism, in any of its forms, serves the ruling class by perpetuating the illusion that merely placing women in positions of power equates to advancing women’s interests. Much like the Democratic Party, our critics view our commitment to women’s liberation solely by the presence of women in leadership roles—whether on our Executive Board or as presidential nominees—while showing little concern for actual policies that address the economic realities of working women, let alone a meaningful analysis of womanhood. To demand the promotion of women purely for the sake of virtue signaling is, in itself, an insult to women’s competence. It suggests that we are to fill quotas, rather than rise on our own merits and prove our capability to lead as if we are asking for a favor rather than demonstrating our readiness. Moreover, this line of thinking assumes that our male comrades are incapable of advancing women’s interests—echoing the flawed feminist notion that men and women are fundamentally at odds, like oil and water. Our critics seem to demand our appeasement as if we owe them loyalty instead of staying true to our class. They, who could never win the trust of the working woman or man, somehow believe themselves entitled to dictate our party’s direction. How laughable! The Aversion to Womanhood and Motherhood. To date, the socialist and so-called "communist" parties in the U.S. have failed to offer any program that addresses the real needs of working American women. Some parties have blatantly ignored the American people entirely, let alone the specific concerns of working women, while others merely follow the lead of the Democratic Party. For them, women's issues begin and end with the right to abortion and the commodification of our bodies. They reject any connection between female anatomy and womanhood, dismissing Engels' insights in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, where he asserts that “the first division of labour is that between the man and women for child breeding” which in turn provides the basis to develop monogamous marriage in hand with the emergence of private property. This, as Engels writes, becomes “the first class oppression with that of the female sex by the male sex”, inextricably linking femaleness with that of womanhood. In the radical liberal view, womanhood is reduced to a subjective feeling, something one can opt in and out of—completely detached from any material foundation. This inability, or unwillingness, to define and understand the material basis of womanhood puts these parties fundamentally at odds with any real representation of working women. In 2023, the U.S. experienced historically low birth rates, as economic conditions have made it nearly impossible for many women to raise children and for families to grow. Instead of addressing this crisis, radical liberals and their left-wing allies, in lockstep with the Democratic Party, focus solely on defending the right to abortion, ignoring the economic realities that make motherhood unattainable for many. They do not believe in the right of women to motherhood—nor do they address the fact that many women feel forced to terminate pregnancies simply because they cannot afford to raise a child. This is not to suggest, however, that motherhood and domestic labor should define the entirety of a woman’s aspirations. In socialist societies, women have been and continue to engage in the shaping of culture, sciences, politics, industry, leadership and beyond. Reactionaries attempt to limit women to the confines of the home, while liberals often dismiss the significance of the home altogether. In contrast, we affirm that working women hold vital roles in both spheres. Only the American Communist Party (ACP) offers a comprehensive program to tackle the economic hardships that make starting a family and securing a home nearly impossible for young working Americans. With policies like canceling all debt, implementing extensive land and housing reforms, and nationalizing healthcare, the ACP addresses the root causes of these challenges. At a time when the U.S. has more college-educated women than ever before, rents are skyrocketing, and the average cost of childbirth exceeds $19,000, these policies offer real solutions for young families and women. Rather than limiting the conversation to pro-abortion slogans, the ACP provides a true choice—a path that empowers women economically and socially. The women of the ACP have no need for hollow photo ops, grandstanding speeches to like-minded crowds, or other empty symbols of representation that our critics seem to value. Our women are on the ground, helping families feed themselves and secure internet access in Appalachia, they are providing clothing to homeless and battered women in New York’s Catskills. Feminism’s view of women’s liberation insists that to lead, women must mimic men, adopting a masculine façade that feels unnatural to us. But the women of the ACP—like all working American women—are leading in our homes, caring for our families, and nurturing our communities. The brand of feminism championed by leftists has failed, proving itself an ally of the ruling class parties. We have no interest in following their path to answer the woman question. We are forging a new path for our compatriots. We, the women of the ACP, are the true communist women - the New American Women. AuthorKayla Popuchet is a Peruvian-American from New York City with a background in Latin American history and Slavic studies from City Universities of New York system. She currently works in housing law, dedicated to advancing social fair housing policies in Manhattan and the Bronx. She is also a member of the American Communist Party. Archives October 2024 10/28/2024 Haiti: Resistance Under Attack, Calls For International Solidarity By: MOLEGHAF, Popular Resistance.Read Now VIV ANSANM (the paramilitary gang strangely named “Live Together”) has plunged our population into a terrible darkness in Solino, Fò Nasyonal, Nazon, Kriswa and other nearby popular neighborhoods or ghettos in Port-au-Prince. None of us are free to leave our homes. We don’t know which way to go. The bloodthirsty death squads kill the poor and unfortunate inside their shacks. They burn through homes and memories. We, the population of Solino, have long resisted this barbarism. Stand with us, We need help! The neocolonial Haitian state and their foreign masters lay the basis of these massacres. We cannot continue in this situation. Solidarity is our only hope. Fighting Imperialism Those who admire and support Haiti in the English-speaking world should understand what is happening. Like the genocidal war on Palestine, the attacks against Solino are easy to understand. After all, our misfortune is not mandated by heaven, thank goodness. The sellout Haitian bourgeoisie, at the service of U.S. imperialism, controls our country. The ruling class seeks to break the back of all forms of Haitian resistance. By burning our neighborhoods down, they exterminate our very ability to exist and resist. While the United Nations is allegedly sanctioning and embargoing weapons and bullets, the murderous group “LIVE TOGETHER” magically has access to hundreds of thousands of U.S. weapons. These bandits have only become stronger and better armed, and continue to seek reinforcements among their fresh, hungry recruits. The production of gangs and violence has become big business in our capital city. There is a fresh reservoir of desperate young women and men ready to pick up the nearly 1 million illegal, trafficked U.S. guns. This is how the United States embassy spearheads their strategic, ongoing underdevelopment project of Haiti. Since our 2021 national uprising—and long before—U.S. and Western imperialism have targeted our neighborhoods, particularly in the Western department of Port-au-Prince. Though hundreds of Kenyan troops now occupy us, the attacks against our peaceful communities continue. The basic formula is that bourgeois gangsters with political connections arm their gangsters in flip flops to attack us. The ruling class wants to take Solino so they can dig their heels in and expand deeper into upper Delma, then Petyonvil. They recruit more hungry assassins as they expand. The more space the gangs occupy, the more resistance crumbles and big investors can exploit and suck the blood of our people. We understand the plan. The oppressed masses must find unity and strength everywhere to stop this criminal project. The “LIVE TOGETHER” alliance of gangs led by Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherezier and his bloodthirsty lieutenants such as Izo, Kempès, Lamò san jou among others, contain within them the shock troops of the bourgeoisie. They emerged in the void left by the 2010 earthquake, the pillaging of our public funds, such as PetroCaribe, and the ongoing abuse we endure at the hands of the “international community,” aka our colonizers. It is a lever they use when they need to intimidate the masses of people who are resisting all forms of neoliberal policy implementation in Haiti. The Political Timing and Context Since the installation of the puppet Transitional Presidential Council (KPT), the “Live Together” gang has sought to take Solino. Sometimes they even use revolutionary-sounding rhetoric like a dirty blanket to cover their filth. During the installation of American imperialist satellites in the KPT, these vultures spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week killing, robbing and burning the homes of the hapless men and women who merely seek to survive another day without being raped or murdered. Their goal was to depopulate Solino and use it as a base to raid other areas until they control the entire city. Their plan did not work. After they installed their latest puppet government, the owners of the dogs reeled them back in. The former president of the Transitional Presidential Council, Edgar Leblanc Fils and Garry Conille, agreed to negotiate with the capitalist class to give the oppressed masses a little 6-month peace. How generous of them! Suddenly there was an unexpected change. The bourgeoisie furiously demanded that the “LIVE TOGETHER” gang attack the population of Solino ten days after the transfer of power to Lavalas’ Lesly Voltaire in the Transitional Presidential Council. Official corruption investigations mention the names of the ruling class’s children while preventing the institutions that are there from making necessary moves to prosecute and end this question of corruption. The “LIVE TOGETHER” gang is now engaged in vicious attacks in the popular neighborhoods, burning houses and massacring the population. Broader Implications for Haitian Resistance We must understand that the attack on the Solino neighborhood is timed to distract from the scandal that has broken out between the KPT and the Government of Garry Conille. From the perspective of the capitalist class and the traditional politicians, Solino and other bastions of resistance are a threat to them. If the masses can kick out the armed thugs, then the resistance can prevail. Despite decades of the most brutal repression against the Lavalas movement, the population living in these neighborhoods still has an undying love for the Lavalas political movement, the party of the twice-kidnapped and twice-couped president Jean Bertrand Aristide. The ruling Haitian Bald Headed Party (PHTK) and its allies are fighting all organizations and political parties that represent the aspirations of the masses. That is why they unleash the force of hell onto us, the oppressed masses. This explains why they are seeking to break the back of the popular social movements. They are afraid of the following formula: popular organizations + Socialist Party + the masses = National Front for a real popular power. In addition to this, the fascist president of the Dominican Republic, Luis Abinader, is deporting thousands of Haitians, humiliating them as if they were garbage. What we need in our most dire moments is solidarity, not more stereotypes, hatred and violence. The current political context is indeed worrying. Misinformation and poor analysis can cloud judgment, leading you to take a regrettable stance against the very people you seek to help. There are those foreign blan journalists who have naively suggested that MOLEGHAF and our communities should negotiate or even join the “Living Together” death squad. To them we say: milk and lemon do not mix. We cannot sit down with our executioners anymore than our sisters and brothers in Palestine can sit down with the genocidal zionists. The masses and their conscious political parties of the Haitian left will never close our eyes to reality. We are running for our lives, but where can we go? Almost all the Port-au-Prince is rotten with bandits. For every Haitian family living in the Western department, you will find one or two living in the gang-controlled areas. We are tired of crying and running. The mountain ahead of us is steep, but we must keep climbing. Faced with this social and economic crisis, we must remain strong. We must rise to fight. A well-organized people, united in solidarity, cannot be defeated. Long live the popular resistance of the heroic Haitian people! AuthorDavid Oxygène, General Secretary MOLEGHAF This article was republished by Popular Resistance. Archives October 2024  The idea of communism has long been misunderstood, clouded by stereotypes, misconceptions, and a great deal of propaganda. To many, it conjures images of authoritarian regimes, forced conformity, gray, boring buildings, tasteless food, and unhappy people. Why would anyone want to bring it to reality in the United States of America? What does it really mean to be a communist? With the launch of the American Communist Party earlier this year, many people are curious to learn more. They won’t have to wait long, as the party got straight to work from the outset and has already achieved notable successes. Much like Amazon’s satirical series Comrade Detective, which playfully depicts Cold War-era Romania, American communists are now translating socialist ideals into everyday action. The show follows two detectives, Gregor Anghel and Iosif Baciu, fighting crime and defending their communist state from Western capitalist influences.  Through exaggerated scenes and a Cold War backdrop, Comrade Detective offers a parody of communism. However, beneath the satire lies a deeper exploration of what communism truly means: a commitment to the people, the working class, and the community. Beyond Propaganda: Communism in Action For communists, beliefs are not merely theoretical - they must be proven through tangible actions that improve the lives of others. Whether it’s fighting systemic injustice, promoting equality, or fostering community cooperation, the central tenet is collective responsibility. This means directly addressing the needs of the most vulnerable in society, such as the homeless, the hungry, and those affected by social and economic inequality or environmental disasters. In response to the Federal government’s glaring neglect of its citizens during Hurricane Helene, our comrades from the North Carolina chapter stepped up, delivering thousands of dollars worth of essential supplies to communities in need.  Local organizations have shown their appreciation by presenting the North Carolina chapter of the American Communist Party with the "Touched by an Angel Award." Comrades from the Georgia chapter used donations from the ACP Hurricane Helene fund to collaborate with a local church in Dublin, which was providing aid to those affected by the hurricane. The church publicly thanked the Communist Party in a Facebook post for their contribution.  One of the most basic but powerful ways to practice communism in real life is by feeding and helping the homeless. Unlike capitalist systems, which often prioritize profit over people, communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth and resources so that no one goes hungry or lacks shelter. Providing food and assistance to those who are struggling isn’t just an act of charity - it’s an embodiment of the communist belief in equality, where everyone deserves access to basic human rights. Last weekend, on October 13th, the American Communist Party took action and distributed over 500 winter coats, sleeping bags, and tents to the homeless in Chicago. They also prepared 300 hot meals and served them in Humboldt Park. This was just one of the many actions ACP members have been taking across the country for months.  The Communist Commitment to the Public Good Another vital aspect of communism is the belief in maintaining public spaces for the benefit of all. This involves cleaning up the streets and organizing communal efforts to beautify neighborhoods. Public space belongs to everyone, and it is our responsibility to ensure its cleanliness, safety, and accessibility. After distributing coats and feeding those in need last weekend, ACP members cleaned Humboldt Park in Chicago to make it more enjoyable for all residents.  This collective responsibility contrasts sharply with capitalist systems, where privatization often leads to the neglect of public areas. In Comrade Detective, the characters take pride in their city, protecting it from capitalist influences they view as corrupting forces. American communists similarly take direct responsibility for improving their neighborhoods. It’s not enough to criticize inequality or capitalism; one must also offer solutions and work alongside others to create a better society. To be a communist is to actively work toward a more equitable society, whether by feeding the homeless, cleaning public spaces, or organizing for workers' rights. It’s about putting ideals into practice and proving oneself through action, not just rhetoric.  In today’s world, the need for such action is greater than ever. The growing disparities between the rich and the poor, and the systemic injustices faced by marginalized communities, all demand a collective, communist-inspired response. True communism is not about empty slogans - it’s about rolling up your sleeves and doing the work necessary to build a society where everyone can thrive. And the American Communist Party is leading by example. AuthorSlava the Ukrainian Socialist This article was produced by The Revolution Report. Archives October 2024  On October 10, 2024, in the Cuban online news outlet Cubadebate, there appeared an article by Francisca López Civeira, a well-known Cuban historian, on the initiation of the first Cuban War of Independence on October 10, 1868. On that date, Carlos Manuel de Céspedes declared from his Demajagua Estate in Manzanilla the launching of a war of independence from colonial Spain. López informs us that prior contemporary events had been favorable for the pronouncement of independence. In 1866-1867, a reformist effort in Spain had failed, thus strengthening the independence cause. Conspiratorial groups emerged across the island, especially in the eastern and central regions. In September 1867, the Glorious Revolution resulted in the overthrow of Queen Isabella II, initiating division and instability in the Spanish government that would last several years. Puerto Rico launched an independence uprising on September 23, 1868; and on the continent, Latin American states that had attained independence during the first quarter of the century were experiencing processes of liberal reform, which rejected any effort by Spain to reconquer her former possessions. The conspiratorial groups, López informs us, were composed fundamentally of landholders and professionals tied to particular regions in Cuba. Their strong regional affiliations influenced their views on key issues confronting the Revolution, including the question of slavery. Céspedes demonstrated his commitment to the abolition of slavery on October 10, when he not only announced the initiation of a war of independence, but he also proclaimed liberty for his slaves and called upon them to join in the independence struggle under conditions of equality. Subsequently, the Constitution of Guáimaro, in establishing the Republic of Cuba in Arms on April 10, 1869, declared that “all the citizens of the Republic are entirely free.” On December 25, 1870, Céspedes, as President of the Republic of Cuba in Arms, declared the total abolition of slavery. However, the independence war of 1868 failed to attain its goals. The 1878 Pact of Zanjón with Spain ended the war without conceding the independence of Cuba, and it granted liberty only to those slaves who had fought in the insurrectionist ranks. Various factors contributed to the failure of the Ten Years’ War: the opposition to the struggle on the part of the Western landholders, who feared that the unfolding forces would unleash an uncontrollable revolution from below; divisions between the executive and legislative branches of the Republic in Arms, which led to the destitution of Céspedes as president in 1873; the deaths of Céspedes in 1874 and Ignacio Agramonte in 1873, the two principal leaders of the revolution; and a tendency toward regionalism and caudillismo in the revolutionary army. In essence, the Revolution of 1868 did not attain the necessary unity of the people, and it lost its exceptional leaders. There were objective economic factors in the failure of the Revolution of 1868 to attain the necessary unity. In the eastern provinces, sugar production and slavery were less developed, and therefore, cattle haciendas continued to be prevalent in some of the eastern provinces. The cattle haciendas fulfilled a semi-peripheral function in the world-economy, supplying beef to the sugar plantations of the western provinces, which in turn exported sugar to the commercial centers of the world-economy. In their semi-peripheral role, eastern cattle ranchers were embedded in the internal market, and they therefore had a long-term interest in the expansion of the internal market and in an autonomous Cuban economic development sustained by the greater purchasing power of the people. This meant that the cattle ranchers had a long-term interest in alliance with slaves, freed slaves, workers, small farmers, and professionals, all of which would benefit from an autonomous economic development that casts aside Cuba’s peripheral role. At the same time, not all the eastern landholders were cattle ranchers; some were owners of sugar plantations, which fulfilled a peripheral function of supplying raw materials to Spain and other core nations. They sought to include the western estate bourgeoisie, owners of sugar plantations, in the independence movement, by making concessions to their interests and concerns. The western sugar bourgeoisie was hesitant to support a war of independence due to fear that it would unleash a slave revolution, as had occurred in Haiti. These class, ideological and regional divisions prevented the independence movement initiated in 1868 from attaining the unity necessary for the taking of political power. López notes that on January 24, 1880, in a famous speech in New York City before Cuban revolutionary emigrants, a 27-year-old José Martí declared that the daily lives of Cubans living in the areas controlled by the Cuban revolutionary forces during the Ten Years’ War had been essentially changed, as a result of the fact that different social groups were interwoven in the terrain of struggle. The mass of combatants of the revolutionary army was composed of the middle strata of society—including intellectuals, peasants, and freed slaves—who on the basis of their performance were promoted in the military structure, and they also were elevated in popular recognition. After the Revolution of 1868, the Cuban people would not be the same, in spite of its failure to attain its principal goals of independence and abolition. Since the independence war of 1868-1878, the Cuban revolution has passed through different stages. The Independence War of 1895 to 1898 attained formal political independence, but true sovereignty was denied by the U.S. military intervention of 1898 to 1902. Moreover, the death in battle of Martí in 1895 meant that the Cuban Revolution was deprived of an exceptional leader who uniquely possessed the depth of understanding necessary for confronting U.S. neocolonial intentions. Subsequently, the people’s revolution of the 1920s and the 1930s, which included an independent reformist government of 100 days, was frustrated by U.S. support in 1933 for the future dictator Batista. In 1953, Fidel announced, with the attack on Moncada, a new stage of the Cuban Revolution, which he declared was a new stage of war in the single Cuban revolution that was initiated in 1868. Thus, the pronouncement of October 10, 1868, would be the beginning of the process of revolutionary transformation, recognized as such by Martí and Fidel. López writes that “the Revolution of '68 was a fundamental event for the consolidation of the nation and for new revolutionary projects. October 10 was its birth, its foundational moment.” § The necessary unity of the people is ultimately attained Fidel Castro possessed an exceptional capacity for understanding, which enabled him to discern the objective possibilities for establishing the necessary unity of the people’s revolutionary struggle. And he possessed the capacity to explain to the people, enabling him to forge a unity rooted in objective-political conditions, thus bringing the Revolution of 1868 to its culmination. As the Revolution approached triumph in 1958, Fidel was able to forge an anti-Batista political coalition. But for the Revolution in power, a more substantive political-economic unity would have to be established. In 1959, the representative democracy of the neocolonial republic had been discredited, and Fidel began to speak of the need for some form of direct democracy or humanist democracy. Initially, this took the form of mass assemblies, mass organizations, and popular participation in a nationwide literacy campaign. The initiative culminated in the development of people’s democracy, characterized by people’s power, mass organizations, constitutional assemblies, popular consultations, and a vanguard political party. With respect to the economy, Fidel understood the need to end Cuban dependency on the production of sugar for export and a system of forced agricultural labor in the form of low-waged plantation labor and low-income tenant farming, which reinforced the underdevelopment and the poverty of the country. He understood the need to modernize and diversify the economy, thereby stimulating economic growth that would provide resources for high quality free public education and public health as well as for housing and transportation. Fidel’s envisioned economic program required mutually beneficial trade with the USA, in which Cuba would purchase from the United States not consumer goods, as in the past, but machines, equipment, parts, and supplies necessary for Cuban industrial production and modernized agricultural production of a diversity of crops. And the program would be strengthened by the participation of the Cuban industrial bourgeoisie, insofar as it did so in a spirit of cooperation with the national project. With these requirements in mind, Fidel arranged for substantial participation of the national bourgeoisie in the revolutionary government that was formed on January 1-2, 1959. And Fidel undertook an eleven-day trip in April 1959 to the United States, where he spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors; gave speeches at Harvard, Colombia, and Princeton universities; addressed a multitude of 40,000 in New York’s Central Park; had ten interviews with various representatives of the news media; and held several press conferences. Fidel’s message was that Cuba will undertake an agrarian reform program in order to expand its agricultural production, thereby enabling it to buy machines for its industrial production in Cuba. He declared that he anticipated that Cuba would buy more from the United States than in the past but buying things necessary for Cuban production. Even though the United States possessed the political and economic conditions to accept Fidel’s proposal of cooperation with Cuba, the American power elite was incapable of considering it. We now know from unclassified documents that the USA at the time of Fidel’s visit was well-entrenched in a project of regime change with respect to Cuba. But Fidel continued to hope that the United States would see the advantages of cooperative relations with revolutionary Cuba. For its part, Cuban big industry rejected Fidel’s call for participation in the Cuban revolutionary project. It balked at the measures being adopted by the Cuban Revolutionary Government, which were designed to break the neocolonial relation with the USA. It opted to abandon the country and to join the United States in its project of regime change. Thus, in accordance with real unfolding dynamics, the unity that was forged during the 1960s by the triumphant revolution became a unity of the people, including professionals, peasants, workers, students, and women in a project of sovereign economic development, based in cooperation with the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc. It did not include the Cuban national bourgeoisie, which incorporated itself in the Cuban counterrevolution, based in south Florida. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, the Cuban revolutionary socialist project has been able to sustain the unity of the various sectors of the people, albeit with some erosion, and without the emergence of viable opposition. At the same time, Cuba has adjusted to the collapse of the Soviet Union through the deepening of relations of mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries, first with Europe and Canada, then with Latin America, and subsequently, with the emerging economies and anti-imperialist states of the Global South and East. Cuba has taken a leading role, along with other nations of the Global South and East, in the construction of a more sustainable and more just world-system. Since 1980, the United States has evolved to a decadent, aggressive form of economic and militarist imperialism, to the detriment of its own economic development and prestige in the world. Its self-destructive policies, combined with the sound structures of the alternative project of the Global South and East, point to a good possibility for the future emergence of a more just and peaceful world, unless this possibility is destroyed by imperialism in decadence. Cuban persistence in the context of difficult worldwide dynamics is remarkable, and it is rooted in the unity of the various sectors of the people in the construction of a socialist nation, as the best option to protect their interests. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelvey. Archives October 2024 |
Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed