10/29/2024 Educational Dual Power: Learn the Marxism-Leninism the Academy Will NEVER Teach You! By: Carlos L. GarridoRead NowThe 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
0 Comments
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 NowVIV 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 10/21/2024 AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY HOLDS IT FIRST-EVER NATIONAL CONVENTION By: Louis and Seraph of RTSGRead NowCHICAGO, Oct 12 (RTSG) – Nearly three months after declaring the establishment of the American Communist Party (ACP), hundreds of party members and dozens of chapter representatives from across the United States and Canada met to attend the official inauguration of the party in Chicago. Attending the convention were notables like Eddie Smith, Carlos Garrido, and other members of MWM, Chris Helali, as well as Haz Al-Din, face of the Infrared Show. Jackson Hinkle also made an appearance via a call made from Russia. Party executives covered numerous topics during the convention, including the establishment of the party’s constitution, the party’s program, and outlining the general organizing and leading principles behind the American Communist Party. The constitution officially states that “The Party upholds and strives to deepen the American revolutionary tradition beginning in 1776 and for the construction of a sovereign and united Republic by, for, and of the American people.” It continues to say that it is the successor of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), which they have deemed to have dissolved itself by “refusing to abide by the laws they themselves establish” and by “unconstitutionally intimidating and coercing all remaining clubs within the Party to renounce the petition movement”, as stated in their declaration. According to the constitution, it is the “official reconstitution of and successor to the historical Communist Party USA.” Their program, announced in Chicago and available to read on their website, states that the goal of the ACP is, among a multitude of other things, is to stand for “the immediate closure of all overseas military bases, the unconditional destruction of NATO, and the elimination of transnational financial institutions such as the IMF in favor of sovereign economic agreements and win-win cooperation“. “The ACP is focused on results.” Some participants were interviewed by our on-the-ground reporter. When asked what they thought of the event, one respondent named Braxton, aged 21 from North Carolina, said that he was “very impressed” by the convention, adding that both the constitution and the party program signaled a “great direction for the party”. Before this convention, the party had yet to publish an official constitution, something that was a highlight of the event. Jake, a 23 year old from New York, when asked how he felt about the event, said that he was happy to finally be able to meet all the chapter executives and members. He was “excited to see all the different chapters, all the different perspectives, different lines of work, [and] plans everybody has”. Jake also expounded upon his reasoning for joining the ACP. “I’m a former member of the CPUSA,” he said. “I always strongly believed in the need for a Communist party in America. ACP is the first one in modern times to actually show promise, and to actually represent Marxism-Leninism”. Braxton also had a similar story. “I was a delegate in the national convention for the CPUSA,” he stated. “I saw all the flaws from the CPUSA, and I saw that there was a petition movement going on.” The petition Braxton is referring to is the movement that occurred during the leadup to the last CPUSA national convention, where members pleaded the leaders of the CPUSA to not enforce a vote for the Democratic party under the reasoning that the Democrats supported the state of Israel, which is currently conducting a genocide of the Palestinian people. “The leader of the petition movement told me about the ACP,” Braxely continues, “and I looked into it, and everything sounded great”. “Communism offers hope.” Another respondent named Raphael, when asked about the appeal of communism in the U.S., responded that “Communism offers hope. It is also the most rational system. You can see its success throughout all of history.” “Every time it is tried, it has succeeded. And this is what I want for America.” Raphael was also asked about the aversion to the concept of communism held by Americans. “America”, he began, “is a country of families. And the communists, in history, have been the first on the frontlines to defending families.” “No matter what the Western media tells you, you can bet that everything they say is a lie,” he added. “The proof is in the pudding. The Chinese have the strongest families. It’s not just traditional values, it’s their system of communism.” Matthew, a 26 year old from Florida, when asked the strengths of the party, remarked that “[The ACP] is more active. We’ve had more than two-hundred people from all across America come and converge for a national convention. It’s more than what I’ve seen from other socialist parties. They’re more receptive to speaking to lower-ranked members.” When asked what separates the American Communist Party from other leftist organizations, Raphael resolutely stated that “It’s very simple. The ACP is focused on results.” On-the-ground reporting by Louis, written and edited by Seraph Republished from RTSG, with thanks! Author Louis and Seraph of RTSG This article was produced by The Revolution Report. Archives October 2024
On Monday, the Director of General Affairs of the Cuban Foreign Ministry, Carlos Pereira, announced that his country had requested to join BRICS+.
“Cuba has officially requested its incorporation into BRICS as a ‘partner country’ through a letter addressed to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who holds the presidency of a group that is consolidating itself as a key player in global geopolitics and a hope for the Global South countries,” Pereira stated. During an interview with the TASS agency, Russia’s ambassador to Cuba, Victor Koronelli, confirmed Cuba’s request and recalled that Cuban representatives have already participated in several multidisciplinary events within the BRICS framework over the past year. He also mentioned that Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has been invited to participate in BRICS Plus/Outreach, a meeting that will take place during the upcoming BRICS summit in Kazan.
At the 2023 BRICS Summit, Cuba was invited as the pro tempore president of the Group of 77 + China. On that occasion, Cuban representatives advocated for enhancing synergies and effective coordination between BRICS and the G77.
Additionally, Cuba also defended respect for the United Nations Charter and urged the establishment of a new, more stable, predictable, and diversified international monetary order. Formed in 2010, BRICS is an economic cooperation group that emerged as an initiative by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Since 2024, this group has included 10 countries, among them Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
teleSUR/ JF Source: PL – Minrex
AuthorteleSUR Staff ArchivesOctober 2024 The West Still Fears the Bolsheviks Although it's been over a century since the 1917 Russian Revolution, scrolling through social media might make you feel as though Lenin and Stalin have just seized power. A new Red Scare is emerging, with both historical revolutionaries and modern-day Marxist-Leninists becoming targets in the capitalists' crosshairs. As conditions deteriorate for Americans during yet another election that offers little improvement to the lives of the working class, the rise of a new political party is prompting the Western media to intensify its anti-communist rhetoric. Domestic attacks by the FBI and local police departments are also increasing against organizations and groups for having any semblance of a connection to the country formerly controlled by the Bolsheviks. Whether it is on social media or having your home raided by federal agents, in the future we may all look back on 2024 as the beginning of a new, total crackdown on Communists in the United States. How the Mighty Have Fallen There has always been a pattern in U.S. political discourse where both Republicans and Democrats have historically used anti-Communist rhetoric, though they do so in different ways. The political Right tends to label progressive movements or policies as "socialist" or "communist," particularly in debates over social programs, LGBTQ+ rights, or economic regulations. Meanwhile, the political Left often criticizes countries like China and Russia on the basis of human rights or authoritarianism, distancing themselves from Soviet-style communism, while upholding liberal capitalist ideals. The difference in our present moment is that new actors are now speaking up against Communism, even those who were once unwittingly among the biggest critics of Western imperialism. One notable example is the recent heel turn of Kim Schmitz, better known by his online persona Kim Dotcom. Kim has been on the run from U.S. authorities over his website MegaUpload being charged with violating copyright laws. Kim has long been an outspoken critic of Western imperialism and worked to expose how they use their power to censor opposing voices. Yet, Kim suddenly changed his tune and instead began an onslaught of tweets attacking the Bolsheviks, as though he were tweeting live from the 1917 revolution. Kim tweeted the following on September 3rd: “The largest slaughter of innocent life in history was the Bolshevik Revolution with 60 million dead. Understand what happened and who was responsible and you’ll know what’s coming.” Kim went from supporting the Special Military Operation in Ukraine to slandering the Bolsheviks while many of the Russian military members still don the hammer and sickle. What would lead someone to publish textbook imperialist lies after being one of the biggest critics of Western disinformation? Two weeks before Kim’s tweets, it was announced that his time in New Zealand might be ending soon as their government agreed to extradite Kim to the United States to face punishment for the crimes brought upon him over his time with MegaUpload. With over 1.6 million followers and as an authoritative voice on cybersecurity, was Kim given the choice to either get in line with the new Red Scare or face extradition? It is interesting that since the news of his extradition was released, Kim has barely tweeted, but that, when he has, it is not the same critical voice opposing Western imperialism and control of the media. Instead, Kim now appears to be a standard conservative voicing their support for Trump in the upcoming election. Since Kim took this new approach of not criticizing anyone except Kamala Harris and the LGBT community, news of his extradition has been muted. For someone like Kim, it would be hard to believe he defanged himself without any outside influence. Hit Piece on the American Communist Party The attacks from the Imperialist media is not limited to past Communist movements, and they are equally taking steps to manufacture an incorrect image of modern Communist organizations. Following the American Communist Party’s launch in July, there has been no shortage of attacks against the newly formed party. While attacks from internet “leftists” were to be expected, the mass media quickly took the opportunity to disparage the American Communist Party (ACP). On September 15, CNN released a video titled “MisinfoNation: The Lost Left”. The description of the video reads, “O’Sullivan meets former “Bernie Bros,” whose disillusionment with politics has led them to embrace far-right extremism. Some of them spend most of their waking hours online playing video games, say they feel left behind in the United States, and are now embracing conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and even Vladimir Putin.” As anyone familiar with the manipulation tactics of the Western media, the leadership of the ACP was not fairly portrayed, and the selective clips of an interview with Jackson Hinkle point to an obvious hit-job. Would it not be beneficial to anyone seeking to learn about an organization to interview the leader of said group? That would be considered fair journalism; so of course, we had no footage of ACP Executive Chairman Haz Al-Din explaining the motives and goals of the ACP, even though an interview was conducted with Al-Din. Even the description of the video misleads viewers, fostering a negative perception of the ACP even if they don't bother to actually watch the content. The ACP has only been around for two months, yet the Western media wasted no time tarnishing the ACP as nothing more than a new group of radical, online socialists who are only different insofar that they are also "white supremacists." Where are the critical documentaries of The Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the numerous other “socialist” organizations that claim to be anti-imperialist but routinely take the same positions as one faction of the bourgeoisie they claim to vehemently oppose? These groups have had a significant head start compared to the ACP, but never has there been such a coordinated attack against any of them at the hands of the American media. Now that they have begun their attacks against the ACP, in hopes people will shrug them off when they eventually notice the work ACP does, we can expect the accusations to increase in frequency and absurdity. Associated with Russia? You’re in Danger Too Whether online or in-person, having an opinion that conflicts with the United State’s policy of war and terror is now exposing yourself to possible retribution from the state. The Uhuru Movement has been fighting a years-long battle against the U.S. government for this reason. The Uhuru Movement is a political and social organization led by the African People's Socialist Party (APSP), founded by Omali Yeshitela. The group advocates for the liberation and self-determination of Black people worldwide, particularly those of the wide-ranging African diaspora. In 2023, they were accused of acting on behalf of the Russian government in a campaign aimed at spreading pro-Russian propaganda and influencing local elections. The case of the Uhuru Movement was settled on September 12 this year as a federal jury delivered a mixed verdict in the case involving four members of the Uhuru group, convicting them of conspiring with Russian agents but acquitting them of the more serious charge of acting as agents of a foreign government. While Yeshitela feels this was a positive ending in the verdict, the hardship imposed on the Uhuru Movement by the federal government should be seen as a warning to others in the United States who voice their opposition to U.S. imperialism. It is important to ask, would the verdict in the Uhuru Movement have been the same if the mainstream media also conducted a documentary-style hit piece on them? While we cannot be sure, it is definitely clear that we are in a new Red Scare that is going to try to drag down all anti-imperialist voices in the coming years. AuthorTravis Cunha This article was produced by The Revolution Report. Archives October 2024 In 1989 Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed that we had arrived at the “end of history.” Capitalist liberal “democracy” was cherished as the culmination point of humanity’s development, proven in the defeat of “communism” it achieved in the so-called “Cold War.” More than three decades have passed and that world which was supposed to be final is itself coming to an end. It was an interesting “end of history,” where the U.S. waged uninterrupted wars in the global South (especially the Middle East) which took the lives of tens of millions, and which displaced many more. However, it is clear to even the most dogmatic defenders of the old unipolar world that we are in a period of revolutionary transition. The logic which animates geopolitical relations is being radically altered. The days were the U.S. unilaterally imposed its will on the world are coming to an end. Today a new, multipolar geopolitical logic is being born, and it is governed by a mutual respect between nations and civilizations, and an intercourse of trade based on win-win, not win-lose, relations. It is fair to say, then, that we are living in the “end of the end of history.” This should not have been unexpected for anyone with the slightest awareness of history itself. History shows that development is an ever-going phenomenon; it demonstrates that everything that comes to be, irrespective of how final and secure it may at first appear, will eventually, as Goethe said, “perish wretchedly.” The “end of history” was never the “end of history.” It was simply a period were the U.S.’s imperialist power could go unchallenged by any formidable rival. The “end of history” was nothing but a short interlude in a global struggle against Western imperialism, wherein the U.S. held on to a ceaselessly weakening unipolar dominance. This short interlude provided the time for a resurgence of global powers that could challenge the U.S.’s plan for a “New American Century.” These new global powers, such as China, Russia, Iran, etc., are working upon the legacy of rich ancient civilizations, whose millennium-long cultural insights and experience they have managed to incorporate into their rapid modernization. It has been a modernization, importantly, which has been free of the perils which accomplished Western capitalist “modernization,” namely, the genocide of the Amerindian populations, the African slave trade, and centuries of colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism. Internally, far from witnessing the extreme national inequalities which accompanied growth in the capitalist West, these civilizations have managed, as China says, to promote “common prosperity,” to greater or lesser extents, amongst their people. It has genuinely been a tide that has lifted all, or at least most, boats. For the German philosopher, G. W. F. Hegel, “the History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom… Freedom is the sole truth of Spirit.” Fukuyama’s phrase on the “end of history” was first uttered by Hegel, who proclaimed that the “History of the World travels from East to West… Europe is absolutely the end of History.” If history is understood as the development of the self-consciousness of the concept of freedom, as Hegel understood it, then “the East knew only that One is Free; the Greek and Roman world, that some are free; [and] the German-Christian World knows that All are free.” In terms of conceptual recognition, the West today continues to recognize that “all are free.” In fact, it precisely carries out its imperialist operations around the world under the auspices of promoting freedom, democracy, and equality. It uses the concepts of freedom, democracy, and equality to entrench the most profound real unfreedoms, tyrannies, and inequalities in the world. Far from allowing the self-consciousness of the concept of freedom be the means through which actual freedom is realized, a superficial, merely formal recognition of freedom is sustained precisely to reproduce unfreedom in actuality. Furthermore, through its mass media and indoctrinating educational system, it prevents its population from even accessing the appropriate lexicon through which to communicate such unfreedom. The unfreedoms experienced can never be an inherent feature of the system; ultimate responsibility is always externalized to some pariah “other.” The unfreedoms of the American people are thus blamed on China, Russia, Iran, etc., and not on the U.S. capitalist system that produced them. In doing so, a dual effect is produced: 1) blame for the real unfreedom is exported to a convenient “other” who challenges U.S. imperial power, and 2) in externalizing the responsibility for your conditions of unfreedom, the limitations to your power appear merely external, i.e., you continue to operate as if you are still free, but “blocked off” from realizing such freedoms by the boogeyman “other.” Paradoxically, this predicament was eloquently expressed by a Western philosopher who always manages to make support for the imperialist West seem “progressive,” Slavoj Žižek, who noted that “we ‘feel free’ because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.” Instead of thinking about freedom’s relationship with historical development as conceptual, we should think of it in terms of actuality. The same Hegel which suggests that we think of historical development as the universalizing of the concept of freedom, also equips us with a concrete conception of universality which readily provides us with the tools to affect this turn. In his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Hegel writes that “Man knows what he is, and only when he does so is he actually what he is. Without this, knowing reason is nothing, nor is freedom.” We can be as self-conscious of our freedom as we want, but if there isn’t actual freedom in our lives, that self-consciousness of freedom is empty and hollow. It is merely freedom in form, without content. Therefore, Hegel writes that “Freedom can, however, be also abstract freedom without necessity, which false freedom is self-will, and for that reason it is self-opposed, unconsciously limited, an imaginary freedom which is free in form alone.” This is the empty, indeterminate freedom we have in the West. As the French philosopher Michel Clouscard articulated, it is a freedom where “everything is allowed but nothing is possible.” Freedom is always determinate; it is precisely the recognition of necessity, and the ability to positively act upon such a recognition. This recognition of necessity, in the contemporary social conjuncture, is fundamentally a recognition of the laws of social development shaping our social trajectory. If we are not aware of the real systemic forces that produce the changes we observe in our world, we neither have the recognition of necessity nor the ability to affect our trajectory. This is what the ideological apparatuses of the West, the media, the schools, and the entertainment industry, provide the current social order, namely, the ability to prevent people from recognizing necessity. Even in times of deep social crisis – such as the crisis of legitimacy prevalent in the U.S. – the institutions of knowledge production provide ready-made alternative explanations for the reality at hand. As mentioned earlier, there is always an “other” upon which blame could be placed. This, therefore, systematically produces a recognition of false necessity, and hence, an unfreedom experienced as freedom. If we understand history as the history of the actuality of freedom, it is evident that we are far from its “end.” However, the collapse of the Western capitalist order that once fooled Hegel into seeing in its abstract proclamation of freedom the “end of history” (a mistake much more unforgiveable when it occurs almost two centuries after with Fukuyama), is a positive step in humanity’s trajectory towards real freedom. The recognition of our recognition of a false necessity, therefore, stands as an important mediational moment for our recognition of real necessity. Multipolarity is opening the world to what Marx called the “realm of freedom” by recognizing the laws of capitalist social development, and actively intervening to undermine them. This is, fundamentally, what is at stake when countries like China, Russia, Iran, etc. place social and common good over and above the accumulation of capital. That supremacy of capital which warrants labeling the system capital-ISM is being actively undermined by the multipolar world. While this change, as Hegel said, “imports dissolution, [it] involves at the same time the rise of a new life.” The new world being born, as economist Oscar Rojas has described it, is premised on international relations between “associated free producers,” i.e., sovereign countries engaging in win-win geopolitical relations, and is leading humanity into a “communitarian mode of production,” where the aims of socially carried out production are not the accumulation of capital in private hands, but social utility and benefit. Hegel was right, then, about the sun of world-history setting in the West. But its setting has long passed. Today humanity is in an astronomical dawn. Once again, the sun is rising in the East. While it is not fully out, its light has become visible. A new day is 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. This article was published originally in The China Academy. Archives October 2024 10/5/2024 Fidel’s Warnings and the Lessons of the Bolivarian and Chavista Revolution in the Face of Neo-fascism By: Alberni PoulotRead NowIn one of his emblematic “Aló Presidente” programs, Comandante Chávez told this story: “…I was listening to him for more than six hours, almost without interrupting him, a question, a commentary. A wise man. Do you know what Fidel told me? Well, I am going to tell you this because it is a criticism, but he is right, and I feel obliged to make it public. He told me with much respect: “Chávez, would you allow me to tell you two or three things crudely? I told him: “You are authorized to tell me whatever you want”. And he told me: “Two things initially ‘ …: ’Look, a conclusion I have drawn… ‘you said in your speech a phrase, a figure, that ten years ago there were six hundred thousand university students in Venezuela, today there are two million four hundred thousand… ’No Revolution that I know of, not even the Cuban one, achieved so much for its people in the social field, especially in such a short time as the Bolivarian Revolution”. Do you know what the second one is? This is what he told me: “I have concluded that you do not want to take political advantage of these social advances”. The phrase sounds harsh, “you do not want to”. One might think that we cannot. That is, to transfer with the same intensity the social benefit, all that we have achieved, to political capital. So, the conclusion is hard: that we do not want to, you see? And it also has a lot to do with the fact that some people do not know how to do it. We have to learn, that people perceive all that the Revolution has been transferring to the people, and comparing with the past. And more importantly, what would happen if the counterrevolution returns to government in Venezuela? The two conclusions highlighted above explain to a great extent the Bolivarian success in the face of the ferocious neo-fascist onslaught of US imperialism, the Venezuelan counterrevolution, the regional ultra-right and the European allies, more satellites than independent entities of the US imperial governance. It is good, and it will never be enough that we know all the strategy of attack and conquest of the enemy, their purposes, their tactics, maneuvers, their forces and means, the resources of all kinds they use to break the combative morale of their opponents and most importantly, their war objectives, the reasons for their arrogance, the motivations of their arrogance, the justifications and tools to convince, drag, induce, manipulate and force many, among the confused, uninformed, resentful, selfish and ambitious to swell their ranks and support with enthusiasm or cowardice the fascist policy and the executioner. However, as important as knowing the enemy and his tactics of aggression are, is to know how to put forward a plan, a strategy, tactics and actions to counter, stop and defeat him. Plan against Plan, as Martí would say. Not having paid due attention to Fidel’s warnings (due to inexperience, unwanted mistakes, betrayals, the premature and irreparable death of Chávez and the strong opportunistic and disloyal onslaught of world imperialism and the Venezuelan counterrevolution), caused, among other causes, the political defeat of the revolutionary Government in the 2015 parliamentary elections. If we reason it coldly, it was Fidel’s two fundamental criticisms that prevailed as causes of that defeat: the people did not have all the necessary political awareness to face, defeat and reverse in the short term (during the election process) the enemy onslaught and their own mistakes. Not all the social achievements had been effectively transferred to the popular political capital, and the worst happened, the counterrevolution reached the Legislative Power, at the hands of the manipulated, confused, resentful, uninformed and de-ideologized popular vote. In an article entitled: “Venezuela: Christmas Reflections”, by journalist Álvaro Samuel, written on December 22, 2015, the columnist certified in a combative manner some paths to follow, with self-critical courage, revolutionary humility and faith in victory. He expounded, “Let us not think of airy government policies, very beautiful on paper, but difficult to bring to reality: let us look for the most suitable model of government for the historical moment we live in, not the most utopian no matter how perfect it may seem.” – “Let us remember that the Venezuelan people are mostly consumerist… by habit, by the modern servitude they carry in their heads and with their help or without them we must reach a fairer system of life for the human being and for the Planet…”. “Enough of so much forgiveness to the Right, to each conspiracy, there was a pardon, and to each pardon there was another conspiracy that was pardoned again. We will not be forgiven by the Right if they get their hands on all the powers of the Venezuelan State”. It is necessary to win consciences with ideas and not with apartments, automobiles, computers, cell phones, tablets. Consciences gained with ideas can withstand a drop in the price of crude oil; those gained with material benefits can fall down, like a house of cards, at the slightest touch”. From that point on, a chain of lessons and rectifications followed to avoid the same mistakes again, and even worse, the loss of political power and with it, the loss of popular power. Almost 9 years after those events, the Government of Nicolás Maduro Moros, together with the Civic-Military Union, have built an amazing and convincing sequence of political, legal, ethical, civic, patriotic, ideological, social and, this year, economic victories, which stand out as necessary, economic, which stand as necessary lessons and contributions of this revolutionary process to the theory and practice of the construction of radical, transforming, legitimate and alternative processes to the models of savage capitalism, in its imperialist, neo-liberal and neo-fascist phases. Fascism emerged first as an ideology, imposed itself as a conditioned reflex on the great masses, specifically in Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, and then expanded, in the form of genocidal war, to the world. Today, imperialist neo-fascism operates with a similar methodology and its main theater of war is Venezuela. Marx and Engels had already identified that the ideas of the dominant class are the dominant ideas in each epoch; or in other words, the class that exercises the dominant material power in society is, at the same time, its dominant spiritual power. The class that has at its disposal the means for material production has, at the same time, the means for spiritual production, which means that the ideas of those who lack the necessary means to produce spiritually are subjected to it, at the same time, on average. Before the Bolivarian process, there were 21 community media, 255 private media and 11 public media in Venezuela, that is to say, a total of 287 media, of which 96.1% were not in the hands of the State. Chávez, in 1999, did not have the benefit of any of those media for his electoral campaign, he even used manual megaphones to speak to his followers; Maduro contested against Capriles, the candidate of Yankee imperialism, of the International Right and of the Venezuelan counterrevolution, with less than 20% of the media used in the electoral elections of 2013, after the death of Commander Hugo Chávez Frías. Therefore, if there is a lesson learned, it is that the system and the communicational apparatus had to be reformed and put at the service of the truth, of timely, immediate, transparent, enlightening, educational, persuasive, mobilizing and generating awareness, commitment, unity and popular consensus. Today, it is capable of effectively confronting all the maneuvers and aggressions of the Hate Industry and global cultural colonization. The Government created the Bolivarian Communication and Information System (SIBCI), which today has 7 national channels, plus Telesur, which is international, and 36 community television stations with signals authorized by the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL). The most important is Venezolana de Televisión (VTV) or Channel 8, which over the years has been increasing its audience, mainly because it used to broadcast the famous program that Hugo Chávez himself hosted as “anchor”, Aló Presidente. Today, there are more than 800 media outlets. The main leaders of the Bolivarian Revolution are very active in social communication, through traditional media and through socio-digital media. President Maduro stands out with his program “Con Maduro+”, Vice President Diosdado Cabello and his television program “Con el mazo dando” and the President of the National Assembly and the program “Conexión con Jorge Rodríguez”. Meaning, they capitalize the popular mobilization through their multiple interventions in press conferences, interviews, participation in television, radio and digital programs and in popular mobilizations. The Government has continued exercising the legislative and legal initiative to defend the Constitution of the Republic, the rights of the people emanated from it and to confront and end (in process) with the impunity and impudence of criminals, violent, haters, corrupt, smugglers, speculators and all the political and vicious scum to continue sustaining the Moral Power of the Nation. From this certainty, today there is a Law against fascism and neo-fascism. Another of the actions that have made it possible for the Bolivarian and Chavista Revolution to arrive strong and invincible to face neo-fascism, is to have put the neighborhood communities, their social organizations, the leftist parties and movements of the country (Gran Polo Patriotico), the trade unions, the men and women of the Bolivarian and Chavista Revolution on a fighting footing, unions, the men and women of the people grateful to the revolutionary work, through the factual conviction, with concrete and irrefutable evidence of the advantages and benefits of Bolivarian socialism and the nefariousness of neoliberalism, fascism and counterrevolution. What has been seen, experienced, suffered and regretted by the people in the guarimbas of 2002, when the coup d’état against Chávez took place, in 2014, 2015 and 2017 against President Nicolás Maduro, and now, on July 29 and 30, 2024, has convinced an immense majority of them, of what would be the destiny, if, as Fidel asked and, today this question is recurrent in the Chavista leaders, this imperialist and fascist ultra-right would take political power. The Government has given itself the task of taking extreme measures of internal order, security and peace, in favor of the people and against delinquency, paramilitarism and the violent and fascist counterrevolution in the streets, activated, as the so-called “comanditos” or through sabotage, such as those perpetrated against the National Electric System and other State institutions, by citizens, Chavistas or not, but who think differently or do not allow themselves to be led by them. The Great Patriotic Pole, headed by the PSUV, has been better articulated, restructured, organized, corrected failures of cohesion and agreements, inefficiencies and bureaucracy, which hindered them. The Venezuelan government has deployed an intelligent diplomatic and regional political strategy, which has allowed it to strengthen strategic alliances, such as ALBA-TCP, with CARICOM, its request and possible incorporation to the BRICS+ bloc, the support of Russia and China, the reinforcement of its integrationist prestige as host country of the peace negotiations in Colombia and the accurate handling of the conflicts with Guyana, over the “Essequibo” dispute and in the face of the dislikes of Presidents Lula and Petro regarding the results of the elections and the non-recognition of Nicolás Maduro as legitimately elected president on July 28. Recently ratified by the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice, in less time than the time established by the Constitution, which is up to 30 days after the initiation of the contentious process. Other lessons, which have become factors of the electoral triumph, and key to the understanding of the triumph over neo-fascism, were summarized by the remarkable Franco-Spanish journalist, writer and political scientist Ignacio Ramonet. In short, the Chavista government “defeated hyperinflation, the highest in the world and the greatest scourge for any economy. Today, inflation in Venezuela is lower than that of the US and the European Union. It relaunched economic growth in a spectacular way. In 2023, Venezuela obtained the highest growth rate in Latin America and will reach it again this year (+8%). It achieved full employment; between the public and private sectors and the formal and informal economies, full employment was achieved for the first time in decades, with a significant increase in salaries and income”. It also “achieved, for the first time in more than a century, food sovereignty. Ninety-six percent of Venezuelans’ food is produced in Venezuela. An immense victory for the peasantry. Oil production was relaunched. It is already reaching again one million barrels per day. It defeated the illegal and criminal blockade, the main cause of the great suffering of the population. It has relaunched social aid policies. Venezuela once again has resources and a large part of these are invested in large social programs and solidarity missions”. Fidel’s warnings and Chávez’s receptivity were revolutionarily assumed by the Government of Nicolás Maduro and his brave people. What it is all about is that ideas do not suffer defeats, because the defeats of ideas are paid for with setbacks in the path of revolutions. Let us do what our Bolivarian and Chavista brothers and sisters teach us, with this we will have defeated neo-fascism and power will be perpetuated in the hands of the people. AuthorAlberni Poulot This article was originally produced by Resumen. Archives October 2024 10/4/2024 The political beginnings of AMLO, the Mexican politician who did not give up By: Pablo MeriguetRead NowSeptember 30, 2024, marked the end of the six-year presidency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO, Tepetián, Tabascao, 1953). His government was characterized by controversial (for the right wing) constitutional reforms, increased capacities of state institutions, and a clear attempt to redistribute wealth. It is no coincidence that these governmental qualities are those of the first president in decades who does not belong to either the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) -which continuously governed Mexico for 71 consecutive years- or the National Action Party (PAN), both center-right and right-wing parties respectively, which became staunch internal opponents of the progressive government. Beginnings in the PRI and the creation of the PRD Surely the president was in no way surprised by the kind of opposition he faced from these parties if we take into account that AMLO began his political career in the PRI during the seventies, although he ended up breaking with that party after the political crisis that would place Carlos Salinas de Gortari in the presidency in 1988. This controversy with the PRI leadership would cause AMLO to break with the party and found the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), a political organization that sought to be the epicenter of the center and center-left political movements in the country. AMLO became president of the PRD in the State of Tabasco and initiated a dispute of several years against the PRI, which he repeatedly accused of electoral fraud. He led the march called “Exodus for Democracy” which arrived in the Mexican capital and there, on January 11, 1992, he made a speech before tens of thousands of people. AMLO gradually ceased to be merely the state leader of Tabasco to become a national political figure. From regional politician to national politician In 1994, he ran against PRI candidate Roberto Madrazo Pintado for the governorship of Tabasco and was defeated. AMLO denounced electoral fraud and excessive campaign spending by the PRI candidate and once again called on his supporters to take to the streets and hold another march called “Caravan for Democracy”. In it he called to disavow the results of the electoral fraud, to build an interim government, and to assume a sort of civil resistance against the repeated frauds of the PRI. In addition, the “Caravana” began to oppose the PRI’s harshest neoliberal measures, such as the privatization of the national oil company, PEMEX. To this end, they devised a strategy of blocking the entrances to the oil company’s facilities and thus also demanded compensation for 40,000 peasants and fishermen affected by the oil company. AMLO was injured during the demonstrations. His performance as a political and popular leader soon took him to the top of the PRD and there he turned the party into the second most-voted party in Mexico; they obtained 125 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Furthermore, in 1997, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano, a strong man of the PRD, became Head of the Government of Mexico City with 48% of votes in favor. It was the first important victory of the PRD in its history and few doubted that it had much to do with AMLO’s administration of the party. Soon, more electoral victories began to follow: in 1998, state victories in the states of Tlaxcala and Zacatecas; in 1999, state victories in Baja California and Nayarit. Head of Government of the capital city AMLO soon understood that he had to abandon his state pretensions in Tabasco and focus on a new objective: Mexico City. In 2000, he registered his candidacy for Mexico City’s Chief of Government despite fierce opposition from the PRI and PAN, who alleged that AMLO had not lived enough years in the capital to be a candidate. In reality, the accusations hid a desire to prevent the PRD president from acquiring greater political notoriety at any cost. However, despite the opposition, thanks to a broad alliance of center and center-left parties, AMLO won the election with 37.7% of the votes. His government was characterized by constant communication with the media, which he summoned every day at 6:00 a.m. to explain the work he was carrying out (a communication strategy he would never abandon). His public works projects made him very popular in the capital: the enormous highway called “Anillo Periférico del Valle de México”; the first line of the Metrobus; an ambitious program of pensions for the elderly; assistance to single mothers, the disabled, the unemployed, peasants, etc.; medical consultations to poor people; delivery of school supplies to students; construction of the Public Hospital of Specialties; among other projects. In addition, the homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants dropped during his administration: in 2001 it was 9.01% while in 2005 it was 7.77%. Economically, the GDP of the Federal District grew from 1.17 trillion pesos in 2001 to 1.6 trillion pesos in 2005; in addition, during his administration, the lowest unemployment rate in the history of the city up to that time was recorded. AMLO’s opponents criticized his investment in social programs, accusing him of being a populist and of building his image at the expense of the treasury. However, the Chief of Government bluntly said that whenever the right wing sees investment for the poorest, they label the opponents as populists, no matter who they point the finger at. Be that as it may, AMLO became one of the most popular politicians in the country. According to some polls, he even had the support of 85% of the people of the capital, and one contest even called him “the second-best mayor in the world”. AMLO’s opposition promptly tried to close the way to a very possible presidential candidacy. Thus, it initiated a process that sought to remove him from certain political rights for allegedly having disobeyed a court order, i.e., to remove him from office for contempt of court. The dispute between Vicente Fox’s national government and AMLO’s Mexico City government escalated to become the main controversy in the country. Many saw this as an anticipation of the future electoral contest. On April 7, the withdrawal of AMLO’s judicial immunity was approved, and he immediately called for a “civil resistance” and declared his willingness to go to prison if necessary. First presidential election and fraud After several pseudo-legal tricks by the opposition, AMLO was able to participate in the 2006 presidential elections against Felipe Calderón (PAN) and other secondary candidates. Calderon and his team initiated a media campaign based on the generation of fear against AMLO. One of the campaign slogans was “López Obrador, a danger for Mexico” while comparing him to Hugo Chávez and repeatedly saying that AMLO was a “risk for democracy”. Despite the huge electoral campaign against AMLO, many polls indicated that he was likely to be the next president of Mexico. However, after the July 2, 2006, elections, the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) announced that Felipe Calderón had won the elections. Suspicions arose throughout the country. AMLO and his supporters claimed that again an electoral fraud had taken place and requested a full recount of the votes. The request was denied, and a partial recount of the votes was performed. After several calculations, the electoral authorities reported that Calderón defeated López Obrador by a mere 230,000 votes. AMLO’s supporters insisted that there was fraud because as more ballot boxes were opened, AMLO gained more votes and Calderón lost dozens of votes, which is why they thought that if all the tally sheets were opened, the result would be different. Although Calderón was declared the winner, AMLO and his followers insisted that they had been robbed of victory. They set up permanent encampments along Paseo de la Reforma, one of Mexico City’s most important avenues, which caused traffic chaos in the capital. Finally, on November 20, 2006, they decided to declare AMLO as the legitimate president without the authorization of the electoral authorities. A symbolic cabinet was formed and AMLO went around the country to explain how the presidency had supposedly been stolen from him and who was behind the fraud. In a public statement, AMLO said: The constitutional order was fractured since the judges refused to make the election transparent to submit to a privileged minority that has taken over the institutions and holds them hostage for its benefit. This attack on constitutional legality and democratic life makes it necessary to resume the exercise of popular sovereignty and abolish once and for all the regime of corruption and privileges that prevails in the country. Therefore, even if my adversaries do not like it, to hell with their institutions! AMLO was undoubtedly defeated, but not for long. The Mexican leader had understood that to triumph he had to do so against the institutions he sought to govern. He would not cease in his eagerness to reach the presidential chair and undertake the necessary reforms to transform Mexico. AuthorPablo Meriguet This article was republished from Monthly Review. Archives October 2024 10/4/2024 In first speech since release, Assange says imprisonment set ‘dangerous precedent’ By: Julia ConleyRead NowIn his first public statement since being released from prison in June, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday urged European lawmakers to take action to protect journalists from being prosecuted for their reporting work, warning that his yearslong case is directly tied to self-censorship and the chilling of press freedom. Assange spoke to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (PACE) at the Council of Europe, which includes members from across the continent, in Strasbourg, France, and warned that current legal protections for journalists and whistleblowers “were not effective in any remotely reasonable time,” as evidenced by the 14 years he spent in prison or otherwise in confinement for his work. “I want to be totally clear,” said Assange. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration I pleaded guilty to journalism. I pleaded guilty to seeking information from a source. Watch Assange’s testimony below: Assange was released from Belmarsh Prison in London in June after being incarcerated there for five years. His release was secured when he agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security materials in a deal with the U.S. government. He had spent years fighting U.S. efforts to extradite him, threatening him with a sentence of up to 170 years in a federal prison, as punishment for state secrets WikiLeaks published. The media organization reported on a series of leaks provided by former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning regarding the Army’s killing of unarmed civilians in Iraq, as well as publishing diplomatic cables. “I was formally convicted by a foreign power for asking for receiving and publishing truthful information about that power, while I was in Europe,” said Assange, who is Australian, on Tuesday. The fundamental issue is simple: Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs. Assange told PACE members that he had believed that Article 10 of European Convention of Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, would protect him from prosecution. “Similarly, looking at the U.S. First Amendment to its Constitution… No publisher had ever been prosecuted for publishing classified information from the United States,” said Assange. I expected some kind of harassment legal process. I was pre-prepared to fight for that. He continued: My naiveté was in believing in the law. When push comes to shove, laws are just pieces of paper and they can be reinterpreted for political expediency. They are the rules made by the ruling class more broadly. And if those rules don’t suit what it wants to do, it reinterprets them or hopefully changes them… In the case of the United States, we angered one of the constituent powers of the United States. The intelligence sector… It was powerful enough to push for a reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He said he ultimately “chose freedom over unrealizable justice,” as the U.S. was intent on imprisoning him for the rest of his life unless he entered the guilty plea. Assange added that his case set a “dangerous precedent,” and that since his arrest he has observed “more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth, and more self-censorship.” “It is hard not to draw a line from the U.S. government crossing the Rubicon by internationally criminalizing journalism to the chilled climate for freedom of expression now,” said Assange. His comments echoed the findings of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which published its annual press freedom index in May. The group found that “in the Americas, the inability of journalists to cover subjects related to organized crime, corruption, or the environment for fear of reprisals poses a major problem.” The U.S. fell 10 places in the annual ranking, with citing “open antagonism from political officials” such as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, “including calls to jail journalists.” RSF also cited the government’s pursuit of Assange’s extradition. In Europe, said Assange on Tuesday, the criminalization of news-gathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere. AuthorJulia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams. This article was republished from Monthly Review. Archives October 2024 Israel’s assassination of Hasan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hizballah, in an apocalyptic bombing attack on Beirut’s southern suburb on Friday is likely, at least in the short term, to cause enormous shock, despair and demoralization among supporters of the resistance to Zionism in Lebanon and across the region. That is exactly what it is intended to do. Confirmed by Hizballah on Saturday, Nasrallah’s killing comes after a series of tactical successes in the early stages of Israel’s unfolding full-scale attack on Lebanon, an open-ended assault that may well equal in barbarity Tel Aviv’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. These are terrible and difficult thoughts to absorb after almost a year of genocide. First there were the pager and walkie-talkie attacks, followed by a series of assassinations of Hizballah’s senior leaders, and now the head of the organization itself. As Nasrallah himself admitted in his final speech, the organization suffered a severe blow with the pager attacks. Even worse was to come. Clearly there were serious breaches in security. Nasrallah’s stature as a tactical and strategic thinker, as the most prominent and trusted leader of the Axis of Resistance, and as a personality capable of inspiring and reassuring supporters even in the worst of times, cannot be overstated. The euphoria in Israel, Washington and some Arab capitals, will be exceeded only by the grief of Nasrallah’s supporters, who are far more numerous. And there is no doubt that the loss is real and great from the perspective of a resistance that faces not only Israel’s formidable arsenal, but all the resources of the United States and the collective West. Israel’s ability to carry out this series of attacks in quick succession will shake the confidence of many in Hizballah’s legendary prowess and operational security. The attacks will go some way to restoring the prestige Tel Aviv has lost among its Western and Arab backers after a year of military failure in Gaza, and its failure to prevent the Hamas military offensive that wiped out the Gaza division of Israel’s army on 7 October 2023. And although Hizballah has been hammering Israeli military assets and settlements in the north of historic Palestine with rockets, many in the region are asking why the resistance group’s response to Israel’s escalating aggression has not been harder and harsher – even as Israel intensifies its bombardment of civilians across Lebanon and within its capital. Another question on many lips is why Iran, which vowed retaliation after Israel’s murder of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, has acted with such restraint. There is a growing perception that its lack of response only encouraged Israel’s ever more brazen violence. “Shock and awe” is not victory Amid the rapidly changing situation and the torrent of emotions after a year of livestreamed genocide in Gaza, now being extended by Israel to Lebanon, it is hard to maintain a long view. But doing so is essential for sound analysis. It is worth remembering this: In almost any asymmetrical war, when the strongest side – the invader or colonizer – goes on the offensive, it often appears to achieve quick and stunning success. Indeed “shock and awe” is the name of a Western, specifically American, military doctrine, developed in the 1990s and explicitly touted when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Also called “rapid dominance,” its aim is to demoralize and paralyze the adversary with the use of overwhelming and spectacular displays of violence. The goal according to the doctrine’s authors, is to so “overload an adversary’s perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels.” We’ve seen this time and again in recent decades and we’re witnessing it now. Just weeks after the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States attacked Afghanistan, quickly toppling the Taliban government under the pretext that it had sheltered Osama bin Laden. American confidence following this swift apparent success undoubtedly spurred Washington to go on to its next project: the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. With the government of Saddam Hussein quickly overthrown and American tanks in control of Baghdad, President George W. Bush gave his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech on 1 May of that year – words that came to haunt him as the United States became bogged down in a war of attrition against resistance in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rapid victories, or so they appeared, sparked real fears at the time that the American forces would roll onwards towards Damascus and Tehran, or perhaps other “rogue states” on America’s hit list. We know now, from the so-called Afghanistan Papers, that the warmongers in Washington recognized all along that they had lost the war, but lied to the American public for almost two decades that they were winning. And when the American withdrawal from Afghanistan came in August 2021, the humiliating departure from Kabul airport was widely compared to the chaotic scenes of the defeated Americans evacuating in helicopters from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon, Vietnam. With respect to Israel too, this pattern has been evident. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 – an assault it dubbed “Operation Peace for Galilee” – its forces quickly swept north to Beirut, besieging and occupying an Arab capital for the first time in the Zionist settler state’s history. Israel murdered tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization. But success, from Tel Aviv’s perspective, quickly turned to failure. During a long occupation, resistance to Israel grew, especially from Hizballah, which did not even exist at the time of the Israeli invasion. Hizballah and other resistance groups bled Israeli occupation forces for two decades in a grueling war of attrition, until Israel withdrew from occupied southern Lebanon in defeat in May 2000. Even in the context of the American-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza, Israel’s constant professions that it has placed this or that part of Gaza under its total control, quickly crumble. The fact is that the resistance continues to fight in every part of Gaza. So far every Israeli-American “day after” plan, in which a defeated Hamas would be replaced by an Arab-backed Palestinian collaborator force, has collapsed. Distracting from an exhausted Israel’s ongoing failure in Gaza, is perhaps one of the factors spurring Israel to seek spectacular “success” in Lebanon. Turning point This sobering moment is a turning point in the long regional war for liberation from racist, Western-backed settler-colonial Zionism. But after a century of Zionism’s depredations and horrors, neither the people of Lebanon nor Palestine have surrendered, and there’s no reason to believe they will now. On the contrary, after the initial shock, the determination of the resistance will only increase, and its circle will expand, as it has in every phase of the liberation struggle. Nor does the assassination of Nasrallah, with American bombs and American warplanes, and perhaps other assistance from Washington, change the trajectory of the downward decline of US global power – the power on which Israel relies for its survival. Let’s recall too that the Zionists have always used assassination as a primary tactic. However, their war is not against individual leaders, but against entire peoples whose determination cannot be so easily snuffed out. Nasrallah himself assumed the leadership of Hizballah after Israel murdered his predecessor Abbas al-Musawi in 1992. Nasrallah grew the organization to unprecedented strength. That strength is not based on the will of one individual, but on a base of support deeply committed to the cause and willing – as Nasrallah himself never failed to point out – to make enormous sacrifices on the road to liberation. If the Israeli army has admitted Hamas cannot be destroyed because “Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party,” then what about Hizballah? What is most sobering is that the war to liberate Palestine and the region from Zionism will be no less brutal on the people of the region than the wars to liberate Algeria, Vietnam, South Africa and so many other places targeted by the Euro-American empire. After all, the occupiers and colonizers are the same countries, and the genocidal hatred their ruling classes bear towards the people whose land and rights they seek to usurp has never dimmed. Like others before him, Nasrallah gave his life on the road to liberate Palestine, and that struggle did not end today. AuthorAli Abunimah is the executive director of The Electronic Intifada. This article was originally published by The Electronic Intifada. Archives October 2024 10/4/2024 Anura Dissanayake wins: A closer look at Sri Lanka’s first Communist president By: The New India Express StaffRead NowOriginally published: The New Indian Express on September 22, 2024 by The New India Express Staff (more by The New Indian Express) | (Posted Sep 23, 2024) Sri Lanka has its first Communist president in 56-year-old Anura Kumar Dissanayake—a historic verdict after a second round of counting, another first in the island’s presidential election history. Dissanayake trumped his nearest rival Sajith Premadasa and the serving president Ranil Wickremesinghe after winning more than 5.63 million votes. Considering he led by 1 million votes with a 10% difference on total, the Sri Lankan Election Commision decided to declare him the winner. It marked a spectacular turnaround as Dissanayake had won a mere 3% of the vote in the last presidential election in 2019. He is set to take oath on Monday according to PTI. The Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader’s campaign was built on sweeping reforms, tackling corruption and ensuring economic relief. In short, Dissanayake offered a political revolution through the ballot. Dissanayake hails from Thambuttegama, in the North Central District of Anuradhapura. In his own words, “an aspirational youth who wanted to change the world,” the man who will be President has consistently claimed that only a massive political transition can help Sri Lanka dig itself out from the current morass. A core value in this is to empower the island’s majority—the working class, the rural folks—who have no say in political decision making. The son of “working class parents” as he describes himself, Dissanayake attended two public schools in his hometown, and was the first student from Thambuttegama to enter university. His involvement with student politics saw him join the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in 1987. Soon he was fully absorbed in JVP politics. A bright student, Dissanayake entered the University of Peradeniya but had to leave as threats mounted. In 1992, he got himself transferred to the University of Kelaniya and graduated in 1995 with a Bachelor of Science degree. Dissanayake has been steadfast in his criticism of cronyism, nepotism, concentration of power and corruption. In parliament and outside, Dissanayake has been a strong anti-corruption voice demanding accountability. His promise to overhaul the system, end family rule, introduce financial reforms and improve governance structures resonated with the protesting masses, who wanted to end the Rajapaksa brand of politics. Dissanayake’s oft-repeated key public pledges include the recovery of stolen assets and punishing those responsible for the island’s unprecedented economic crisis. As our contributor Dilrukshi Handunetti wrote, the rise of Dissanayake will spell a complete overhaul—one that will effectively end the Sri Lankan elite’s hold on politics and possibly grand corruption. India and Dissanayake There have been worries expressed in some quarters that the rise of a Communist president will see Sri Lanka drawing closer to China. But that might be a misplaced fear as India has shown itself to be one neighbour which has rushed to Sri Lanka’s aid without indulging in any overt arm twisting. “Dissanayake’s recent statement that he will cancel Adani’s projects had put the Indian high commission in Colombo in a tizzy. But given the geopolitical realities, he will indeed have to work with India,” an expert said. The expert cited Dissanayake emphasizing his desire during the presidential campaign to continue having a good relationship with India as proof. AuthorThe New India Express Staff This article was republished from Monthly Review. Archives September 2024 Originally published: Counterfire on September 30, 2024 by Jamal Elaheebocus (more by Counterfire) | (Posted Oct 03, 2024) Amid a deeply uninspiring presidential election campaign in the United States, there is increasing unrest amongst the working class. Several high-profile strikes are shutting down business and forcing employers to negotiate on pay, healthcare insurance and working conditions. With Harris and Trump both offering very little to ease the cost of living, healthcare costs and the housing crisis, workers are taking action into their own hands. Longshoremen braced to shut down U.S. economy 36 ports across the east and Gulf coasts of the U.S., including 10 of the busiest ports in North America, are facing the prospect of total shutdown as workers stand ready to strike. 45,000 members of the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) will walk off the job on Tuesday if a new agreement is not reached with the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), which is accused of making “insulting offers” relating to pay for workers. The strike is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $5 billion dollars per day and just a one-day strike will lead to a backlog that will take 4-6 days to clear. The union is demanding pay rises, healthcare improvements and a guarantee not to automate terminals at the ports. USMX previously broke their contract with the ILA by implementing automation at several ports, where an auto-gate system was put in to replace workers processing trucks into ports. ILA international president Harold J Daggett said, My ILA members are not going to accept these insulting offers that are a joke considering the work my ILA longshore workers perform, and the billion-dollar profits the companies make off the backs of their labor Boeing workers in it for the long haul Tens of thousands of Boeing manufacturing workers, members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAW), have been on strike for over 2 weeks in what is set to be a long fight against bosses. 96% voted for strike action, after 94.6% of members voted to reject the company’s offer of a 25% pay rise over 4 years. A last-minute offer was “thrown” at the union without any discussion, resulting in the IAW refusing to put it to a vote. Workers have been manning 24-hour picket lines across different plants, including Oregon and California. Reports suggest morale and determination amongst the 33,000 members is high and they are willing to walk out for “as long as it takes.” UAW workers ready to take action against “out of control” Stellantis Stellantis, one of the biggest carmakers in the U.S., is “out of control” according to the United Auto Workers union, as members vote on potential strike action. UAW has filed unfair labour practice charges against the company, which produces Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep cars, over broken commitments and refusing to release information about product commitments. Stellantis recently announced it will sack 2,500 workers at the Warren truck plant in Michigan. It also has plans to move production of the Dodge Durango out of the U.S. and is stalling on an agreed plan to reopen the Belvidere plant in Illinois, after it sacked 1,300 workers earlier this year. UAW president Shawn Fain said: Either we allow an out-of-control CEO and his billionaire backers who have enjoyed years of record profits to close plant after plant and are continuing to destroy our country or we stand up, fight back and we rally the American working class to take on corporate greed. The union says it is ready to take action if necessary to force Stellantis to stick to the 2023 agreement. The pharmacy that doesn’t provide affordable healthcare 7,000 workers at CVS pharmacies have voted overwhelmingly to authorise an ‘unfair Labour practice’ strike. This follows disputes over poor pay, understaffing and a failure by the company to provide affordable healthcare. CVS has reported more than $11 billion in profits and CEO Karen Lynch received $21.6 million in compensation in 2023. Yet, 64% of workers at CVS report not having health insurance, with 77% saying the reason being it is too expensive. Despite the enormous profits, the company refused union proposals to cut health insurance costs, improve staffing and provide time for staff to complete safety training. Staff are reporting increased thefts because of understaffing and UFCW has filed unfair labour practice charges against CVS, alleging surveillance of workers and intimidation. Workers will not be on strike until the union declares one, with the next bargaining session set for 16th October. Trader Joe’s workers fight union busting Workers at a Trader Joe’s store in New York are fighting back against union busting by their employers and may force the company to recognise and bargain with the union. The company, which is one of the largest grocery store chains in the U.S., is accused of threatening behaviour against employees while they organised a union recognition vote. The top labour watchdog in the U.S. is now seeking an order which will force Trader Joe’s to recognise and negotiate with Trade Joe’s United. Workers lost a 76-76 tied vote to unionise the store in 2023 but this may be overturned if it is found that illegal union busting took place. Other stores, for instance in Chicago, are also filing for union recognition ballots as workers fight back against cuts to benefits and safety problems. These are significant developments given the relative weakness of the labour movement in the U.S. in recent history. They are made all the more important in the context of what is going on amongst the ruling class. Harris and Trump are fighting a close election, with Harris gaining a slight lead recently. Neither are addressing the most pressing issues for ordinary Americans at the moment. Whilst they wrangle over who is more ruthless on immigration, Americans remain most concerned about inflation and the cost of living. With neither candidate offering anything significant, it will be up to American workers to take matters into their own hands and force the hand of employers and the government into providing wages and working conditions that improve living standards. AuthorJamal Elaheebocus This article was republished from Monthly Review. Archives October 2024 |
Details
Archives
January 2025
Categories
All
|