 Truth is cheap. Not in the sense that it is worthless. But quite literally, it just is there. All that an understanding of truth requires is our ability to comprehend the world; to see how things are connected to each other, how they exist in various processes, and how they always carry within them opposing tendencies, upon whose interaction, movement is produced. Our spontaneous interaction with the world is always-already embedded in a view that sees how things are constantly changing and affecting everything else around them. It is in the schools where we learn how to disconnect things from their time and place. And this action of abstract thought, although helpful to obtain certain forms of detailed knowledge of particulars, corrupts our spontaneous awareness of the dynamic integration of reality. This is not to say that truth is simple. After all, once we are developed enough to ask the question, the bias towards disconnection and staticity would’ve already been inserted in our minds by the dominant institutions. A process of “brain washing” our “brain washing” is necessary. But nonetheless, truth is always readily available. To acquire truth there is no need to massage reality. The way the world is, is sufficient. Truth does not require makeup crews. It is. Lies, however, have a high cost of maintenance. To lie is to fabricate. To lie is to distort. It requires effort. The lie, unlike the truth, is not just there. The presence of the lie presupposes its absence. The lie is there because it wasn’t. The lie is there because the way the world was, was insufficient for the men and institutions who lie. Lies are costly. They require the wholesale creation of new worlds, based disingenuously on the world. To lie is, as Michael Parenti would say, to invent reality. The liar, which includes men and their historically determined institutions, is the demiurgos of a new universe. From the matter of the world, they provide form to a new one. But this is costly. The lie is haunted by the ever-present reality of change. Change presents the real possibility for fissures to arise in the invented world. The lie clings hopelessly on to the purity of the first moment, the moment when it fooled fools into entering its invented world. The liar must operate, out of necessity, with a purity fetish. They must resist the desecration of the sanctity of their invented world by the developments in the real world. Truth is in the attunement of our understanding of the world and the real changes in it. Lies long for Parmenidean permanence. In a real world where nothing is permanent and fixed, lies, the invented world, is constantly in an existential struggle against reality. Reality wears it out; it increases, in time, the costliness of the invented world’s survival. The lovers of purity are, consciously or not, lovers of lies. Lies are not only based on purity, that is, the pure moment when the invented world obtains followers, its own beings-in-the-world. Purity itself is a lie. They are partners in a crime against the real world, against truth. The final crack will be dealt by those who were thrown into the invented world. Their own followers will be their headsmen. It is popular to say that a “lie has no legs.” It would be more correct to say that a lie’s legs are as capable as the pocketbooks that secure the prosthetics. Billions are needed, for instance, to sustain the Zionist entity’s Hasbara program. Only a phone, a universal object in the modern world, is needed to record the truth. With millions of phones that have recorded and shared the genocide, truth has pierced, for many, the invented worlds of imperialist lies. The costly resources forwarded to sustain lies-based new worlds are no guarantee of the long-term survival of these worlds. The prosthetic, expensive though it might be, could break with constant stress. That is what the truth, the world, provides lies, the invented worlds. It provides it with a constant stress, a haunting ever-presence that looms over the invented world. At nodal points it cracks it, and like Shiva, becomes a destroyer of worlds. José Martí held that a lie can run for a hundred years, but the truth can catch up to it in a minute. In that hundred years of running, the lie felt the truth breathing down its neck, like a shadow which becomes a striking shade when the moment is right. Today the invented world of the imperialists is seeing the stress fractures of the evermore-visible truth. No amount of money will fix the prosthetic legs of their lies, of their invented worlds. The question, today, is not whether it will crack, but when. AuthorCarlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy professor. He is the director of the Midwestern Marx Institute and the Secretary of Education of the American Communist Party. He has authored many books, including The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism(2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview(2022), and the forthcoming On Losurdo’s Western Marxism (2024) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2025). He has written for dozens of scholarly and popular publications around the world and runs various live-broadcast shows for the Midwestern Marx Institute YouTube. You can subscribe to his Philosophy in Crisis Substack HERE. Archives November 2024
0 Comments
 On October 29-30, 2024, the General Assembly of the United Nations debated the Cuban resolution, “The need to end the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” The October 29 session began with addresses to the General Assembly by seven political and regional groups of nations: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), consisting of ten countries; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 57 nations on four continents; the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, 18 member States; the African Group, 55 member States; the Community of Latin American States (CELAC), 33 member states; the Caribbean Community (Caricom), 15 member states; the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), 120 member states; and the G77 and China, 134 member States. In addition, thirty-one nations took the podium to address the question. All spoke clearly in support of the resolution, and many condemned the arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on a spurious list of nations that supposedly sponsor terrorism. On October 30, 187 countries voted in favor of the resolution, with two opposed (United States and Israel). The small central-eastern European country of Moldavia abstained.  Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla addressed the General Assembly in presentation of the resolution. He began with a powerful example of the impact of the U.S. blockade on Cuban society. For five days, from Friday, October 18 to Wednesday, October 23, Cuban families were deprived, except for a few hours, of electricity, with anxiety that food would spoil, and it would not be possible or very expensive to replace it, and many lacked running water. Hospitals operated under emergency conditions, and schools and universities suspended classes. Political, economic, and cultural activities were closed, and only vital institutions remained open. The economy came to a halt. Rodríguez declared that the Cuban economy in recent years has experienced difficulties without precedent, in spite of the fact that the government works tirelessly to find solutions. There are various causes of this situation, he noted, but the most outstanding factor is the deliberate intention of the United States to suffocate and sabotage our national economy, placing significant obstacles to impede our growth and development. The U.S. government knows very well, Rodríguez maintained, that the blockade violates the UN Charter and international norms, and that it has a direct and indirect effect on the Cuban system of health and the general wellbeing of the people. The U.S. policy deliberately intends to impoverish the people and provoke shortages, as the centerpiece of a multidimensional unconventional war against Cuba, with the intention of provoking the collapse of the Cuban Revolutionary Government. Even though the blockade has not provoked political instability in Cuba, it functions as a message of warning to the entire world that there is a price to be paid for rebellion. The Minister noted that the strengthening and intensification of the blockade was initiated by the Trump Administration in the period 2017 to 2019, and the new measures have been maintained by the Biden Administration. These measures have included pressures and threats directed against companies and banks in third countries that have commercial and financial relations with Cuba. A dimension of this is the inclusion of Cuba on a spurious list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism, which, in spite of its absurdity, enables the government of the United States to threaten and penalize companies and banks in third countries. It thus functions as a key element of economic coercion in the unconventional war against Cuba. In addition, the recent measures have included the blocking of an expedited visa for European citizens to travel to the United States, if they have previously made a trip to Cuba, thus damaging Cuban tourism, the nation’s principal source of international currency. The surprising fact, Rodríguez declared, is that Cuba, during six decades of the blockade, was able to construct a social project that attended to the fundamental needs of the people with respect to nutrition, housing, education, health, and transportation; and that Cuba persists with the support of the people and with political stability in the current stage of the intensified blockade. As result, Cuba enjoys great prestige in the world today.  The U.S. reply in the General Assembly debate The rules of the General Assembly grant the right to the United Sates to reply to the resolution, and a solitary representative of the U.S. diplomatic corps assumed the responsibility. Cuban diplomats frequently express sympathy for their professional diplomatic colleagues of the U.S. diplomatic corps in this situation, because they are placed in a situation where they must defend the indefensible before the clear condemnation of the representatives of the world. In this case, the U.S. representative began with his best pitch: he declared that the sanctions are part of U.S. global efforts "to promote democracy and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba." In an editorial on October 30 in Granma, Carmen Maturell Senon and Claudia Thalía Suárez Fernández point out that the UN Charter and international norms do not grant the United States the legal authority to judge the political practices of other nations. Moreover, as is commonly argued in Cuba, the United States does not have the moral authority to judge the political practices of other nations from a democratic perspective, taking into account numerous undemocratic situations and practices, frequently cited, provided by critical currents within the United States. Although such Cuban counterarguments against the U.S. charge of undemocratic practices in Cuba are valid, I have never been entirely satisfied with such a response. The accusation that Cuba has an authoritarian government that violates human rights is widely believed, at least in part, among the people of the United States. And there is an international norm in favor of democracy and against totalitarian or authoritarian governments. The accusation of authoritarian practices by Cuba has credibility, because there is lack of understanding of the actual functioning of the Cuban political process of people’s democracy, which has structures different from representative democracy. The Cuban political system does not provide freedom of choice of competing political parties, as in representative democracies; rather, it provides alternative mechanisms for the voice and political participation of the people, in the form of people’s assemblies with true political power and mass organizations of workers, farmers, students, women, and neighborhoods, which are constitutionally integrated into the Cuban political process. Cuba developed this alternative approach to democracy during the 1960s and 1970s, in the aftermath of the delegitimation of the political parties and the system of representative democracy in Cuba during the 1940s and 1950s. Therefore, I maintain that, in debates about the U.S. blockade, we who defend Cuba should explain how Cuba’s system of people’s democracy works, so that the imperialist claim that it is promoting democracy in Cuba can be dismissed, on the grounds that Cuba has democracy of a different form, rooted in its history of having struggled for democracy in the context of a neocolonial situation. The Cuban democratic process is designed to grant power to the people and to block the usurping of power by an elite that represents its interests and those of a foreign power. People’s Democracy in Cuba: A vanguard political-economic system Aside from his myopic approach to democracy, the U.S. representative was guilty of a couple of misrepresentations. First, he mentioned 1,000 supposed political prisoners that were detained illegally in Cuba, stemming from the events of July 21, 2021. In fact, as Maturell and Suárez point out, 177 citizens were detained during the events of July 11 for serious offenses, with 790 detained with lesser charges. They were accused of vandalism, attacks on persons, and destruction of public property. In legal processes characterized by respect for due process, proof of violence was provided by statements of witnesses and victims as well as expert witnesses who examined videos published in different media, which allowed the identification of the accused in such criminal acts as public disorder, instigation to commit crimes, damage to property, robberies with force and violence, attacks of persons, sabotage, and sedition. The great majority of the persons accused are no longer detained, having been acquitted of the charges, paid their fines, or completed their sentences. (Description of the events of July 11 can be found in Chapter Five, People’s Democracy in Cuba). In addition, the US representative asserted that U.S. regulations with respect to Cuba permit the exportation of food and medicine to Cuba. In fact, the conditions stipulated for such commerce are onerous and costly, and the authorization is bureaucratically complex, such that it is not a workable option in practice. Cuban entities have attempted to use it, and they have found that it appears to function as a mechanism to justify the U.S. claim that food and medicine are being sold to Cuba. In the recently held Forum of Cuban Civil Society against the Blockade, the shortages of medical equipment and supplies and medicines in the Cuban health system were described by Cuban doctors, including Dr. Jorge Juan Marinello, president of the Cuban Society of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine; Dr. Albia Pozo Alonso, director of the Cuban Journal of Pediatrics; Olga Agramonte Llanes, president of the Cuban Society of Hematology; and Eugenio Selman-Houssein, director of the William Soler Cardiological Center. Moreover, the U.S. representative did not say a single word with respect to the inclusion of Cuba on the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism. It is widely recognized throughout the world that this is an entirely baseless accusation against Cuba. Yet the inclusion of Cuba on the spurious list is a central mechanism of the intensification of the blockade since 2019, because it provides a legal mechanism for the blocking of commercial and financial transactions with Cuba by companies and banks in third countries. The arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on the list was rejected by many of the delegations that took to the podium to express their country’s call for the end of the blockade. § Further Considerations To state the obvious, the U.S. blockade of Cuba violates the sovereign right of Cuba to determine its own political-economic system, in accordance with its national characteristics and history. And it violates the sovereign right of third countries to regulate the economic relations of their corporations and citizens. As such, it violates the UN Charter and international norms. Moreover, it violates the economic rights of U.S. citizens and residents. This is well understood in the world. Cuba has become a symbol in what some leaders and intellectuals of the Global South have called World War III, a multidimensional unconventional war between Western imperialist nations, led by the United States, and nations of the Global South and East that are leading an anti-imperialist process of construction of an alternative world order based in mutually beneficial commerce and cooperation. At the current time, the power elites and the people of the United States are not ideologically prepared to discern that their best interests in the long term would be served by cooperation with the emerging process of alternative construction. Regardless of the obstacles placed in their path, the nations of the Global South and East will continue on the road of developing in practice a world order characterized by cooperation and respect for the sovereignty of all nations. Their persistence will increase the probability that either the American power elite or the American people will awaken to enlightened consciousness, through which it would be discerned that the rise of China and the Global South and the persistence of Cuba are not threats to the United States. Rather, these world dynamics provide the USA with the opportunity to adjust course in foreign policy and find an anti-imperialist road, which would provide the key to the fulfillment of the American promise of democracy, inherent in the nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelveys blog. Archives November 2024
From the big Western cartelized media, traditionally hostile to the Cuban Revolution, coverage of the situation has been largely irresponsible, with clear ideological biases contrary to the Cuban socialist project, which prevents us from extracting from these analyses elements for an objective understanding of the fundamental causes that have led the island to the current situation. Especially when we insist on seeing it outside the socioeconomic panorama in which the country is developing. Looking at Cuba in a regional context helps to understand, first of all, that the island’s energy crisis is not an extraordinary scenario, but is unfortunately quite common in the region. Building and sustaining a modern and reliable energy system is an extraordinary challenge for developing economies. The dynamics of contemporary societies impose an increasingly higher energy demand on the generation capacities of countries, as an infinite number of electrical devices are being incorporated adding more demand on the power systems. At the same time, the increase in the average global temperature, droughts and other climatic disorders impose additional stress on the grids, which often end up dangerously overloaded. In Mexico, for example, in May of this year, high temperatures and the resulting increase in demand led to blackouts in 16 of the country’s 32 states. In Costa Rica, the drought drastically reduced the country’s generation capacity, which depends on hydroelectric generation for 70% of demand, forcing the rationing of electricity consumption. A similar situation has hit Colombia, whose reservoirs remain 16 points below the historical average. In Ecuador, drought and generation obsolescence have now led to outages of up to 14 hours a day. Venezuela has also been facing blackouts in several states of the country, as a result of US sanctions, internal sabotage and the deterioration of the energy infrastructure. On the nearby island of Puerto Rico, a U.S. colony, blackouts are a frequent reality, with situations such as the one on June 13, where a disconnection left more than 300,000 customers without service. Undoubtedly, Cuba has one of the worst generation scenarios in the region at present. The island faces the same climatic situations and deterioration of infrastructures that are common to the countries in the area, but with the significant aggravating factor that for more than sixty years the nation has had to deal with a strangulating economic, commercial and financial blockade, intensified by Donald Trump in the pandemic which the government of Joe Biden has left the most aggressive provisions untouched, including the permanence of the island in the infamous list of Countries Sponsors of Terrorism, which hinders any attempt to access financing that would help to overcome the crisis. To get an idea of the dimension of the material cost, the human cost is more difficult to gauge, just take a look at the recent report prepared by Cuba for the vote by the UN General Assembly on October 30 of resolution 78/7 entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. Between March 1, 2023 and February 29, 2024 alone, the damages and material losses caused by the blockade amounts to more than five billion dollars, some 189 million dollars more than the figure presented in the previous report. In the absence of the blockade, Cuba’s GDP, at current prices, could have grown by around 8 percent in 2023. In more than six decades, the accumulated damage amounts to 1 trillion 499 billion 710 million dollars. Specifically in the energy and mining sector, the report presented by the island details that the accumulated damages in the period amount to no less than 388 million 239 thousand 830 dollars. Since 2019, the U.S. government began the persecution of ships and shipping companies that transport fuel to the island. In that year alone, 53 vessels and 27 companies were sanctioned. Companies such as the Italian Termomeccanica, acquired by the American Trillium and the firm Accelleron, refused to supply the country with parts and pieces indispensable for the maintenance of thermoelectric power plants. As a result of this, together with the lack of financial resources, the maintenance cycles have been lengthened, often failing to comply with them. Currently, 13 of the 15 generation units are out of the maintenance cycle. Therefore, to understand the electric power crisis in Cuba, implies, in fairness, to measure how much the U.S. blockade is affecting the entire economic, productive and social fabric of the island. Without exonerating political responsibilities that may exist internally, no serious analysis can ignore the siege against the island as the first factor of the current crisis. The narrative of the mainstream corporate press, complicit with the West, seeks to present as proof of the failure of socialism what is, above all, the responsibility of imperialism. This is not the first time that those of us born on this island find ourselves in a complex situation. It is worth recalling, perhaps, an anecdote that expresses one of the profound meanings of the Cuban revolutionary process since its beginnings in the 19th century. In a moment of desperation in 1871, during the Ten Years’ War, when there was a shortage of war supplies, food, medicines and the pressure was increasing on the troops operating in
AuthorJosé Ernesto Novaes Guerrero, is a Cuban writer and journalist. Member of the Hermanos Saíz Association (AHS) , the National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba (UNEAC) and the Coordinator of the Cuban chapter of the Network in Defense of HumanityREDH. This article was produced by Resumen. Archives November 2024  The XVI BRICS Summit, held under the theme of “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” met in Kazan, Russian Federation, from October 22 to October 24, 2024. Delegations from thirty-five countries and six international organizations participated in the Summit. BRICS was established as an intergovernmental economic-commercial association in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2010. On January 1, 2024, BRICS officially expanded its membership to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Iran. The Sixteenth Summit in Russia was the first summit of the expanded BRICS, often referred to as BRICS Plus or BRICS+. There were three important developments in the Kazan Summit. First, an evident deepening of the commitment of BRICS to construct an alternative, multilateral and more just world order. Secondly, the creation of an alternative method of payment among the BRICS nations, which avoids the need to use the U.S. dollar. And thirdly, the inclusion of thirteen nations in the newly created category of BRICS Partners.  § The deepening of the construction of an alternative, multilateral world order From the beginning, BRICS contained an inherent orientation toward the creation of an alternative, more just, multilateral world. But also from the beginning, the evolution of BRICS as a project of ascent by its member nations was a possibility, which would imply the continuity of the political-economic structures of the world economy, which function to sustain and intensify global inequalities in power and wealth. Ascent would imply only that there would be a partial redistribution of power and wealth in the world-system, with stronger emerging nations receiving more of the spoils. And it would imply a failure to address the unsustainable contradictions of the world-system. However, during its evolution, BRICS has evolved with an increasing commitment to the creation of an alternative world order. This was especially evident in the Xiamen Declaration issued by the 2017 Summit in China, which affirms that since the founding of BRICS in 2006, the member nations have: fostered the BRICS spirit featuring mutual respect and understanding, equality, solidarity, openness, inclusiveness and mutually beneficial cooperation. . . . We have shown respect for the development paths of our respective choices, and rendered understanding and support to each other's interests. We have upheld equality and solidarity. We have furthered our cooperation with emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs). We have worked together for mutually beneficial outcomes and common development. The Declaration commits to the promotion of a more just and equal world. We will enhance communication and coordination in improving global economic governance to foster a more just and equitable international economic order. We will work towards enhancement of the voice and representation of BRICS countries and EMDCs in global economic governance and promote an open, inclusive and balanced economic globalization, thus contributing towards development of EMDCs and providing strong impetus to redressing North-South development imbalances and promoting global growth. The evolution toward commitment to the construction of an alternative world order was evident in the 2024 Summit in Russia. The Kazan Declaration reaffirms the commitment of BRICS to mutual respect, sovereign equality, inclusiveness, and collaboration. It declares, “we note the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order. Multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to unlock their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation.” The Declaration further declares the importance of the principles of the UN Charter as the “indispensable cornerstone” for ensuring cooperation based on mutual respect, justice, and equality. This commitment to the construction of an alternative world order was echoed by the discourse of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was host and moderator of the activities and sessions. At the BRICS Plus Outreach plenary session of October 24, Putin noted that the plenary session will discuss pressing issues in the world today, including sustainable development, poverty, climate change, technology, terrorism, and international crime. He declared that “it is crucial for BRICS members to discuss all these issues with countries from the Global South and East that share our approach. All our countries share similar aspirations, values and a vision of a new democratic world order that reflects cultural and civilisational diversity. We are confident that such a system should be guided by the universal principles of respect for the legitimate interests and sovereign choice of nations, respect for international law and a spirit of mutually beneficial, honest co-operation.” Putin observed that the construction of a more just international system is not easy, because its development is hampered by forces of domination, who seek to impose what they call a “rule-based order,” which is in reality an attempt to contain the independent development of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These forces resort to illegal unilateral sanctions and the manipulation of currency markets; and they interfere in the domestic affairs of nations, ostensibly promoting democracy. Their methods are “twisted” and “perverse.” He further declared: I would like to reiterate that Russia, like all BRICS countries, is open to cooperation with all countries of the Global South and East to promote inclusive and sustainable development and ultimately build a better world. It will be a world where every nation’s stance and interests are taken into account, their right to sovereign development and their identity are respected, and the absolute value of all cultures, traditions and religions is recognised. At an international press conference following the event, Putin noted that the participation in the Summit of delegations from thirty-five countries indicates the growing interest in cooperation with us from states that are indeed pursuing truly independent and sovereign policies. Each of these countries has its own path of development, distinct models of economic growth, and a rich history and culture. It is obviously this civilisational diversity and unique combination of national traditions that underlie the strength and enormous potential for cooperation not only within BRICS but also within the broader circle of like-minded countries that share the group's goals and principles. In a similar vein, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared at the Summit that “BRICS countries should conform to the general trend of the rise of the Global South, seek common ground while reserving differences, and work with one heart and one mind to further consolidate shared values, and safeguard common interests. . .. BRICS countries must work together to build BRICS into a primary channel for strengthening solidarity and cooperation among Global South nations and a vanguard for advancing global governance reform.” [Reported on the Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China].  The creation of an alternative form of payment The Kazan Declaration endorses the use of newly developed cross-border instruments to facilitate the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. The Declaration assigns the foreign ministers and central bank directors the task of further consideration of the use of local currencies and payment instruments and platforms, reporting back to BRICS by the next presidency. Putin reiterated at the Expanded Meeting of the Summit that “creating incentives for using national currencies in trade and investment remains high on our agenda.” He noted, in response to a question at the press conference following the Summit, that the BRICS nations are using their respective national currencies in trading with each other. Each of the BRICS nations have developed their own systems for international payments using national currencies. The Venezuelan outlet Misión Verdad reported that a presentation of a system of payments in development was made at the BRICS Business Council of October 17-18, 2024. While each country has a centralized banking system that facilitates the control of transactions in each State, the BRICS Pay platform would establish an interconnection of the networks of national payments, which would permit the participating national banks to establish direct ties with foreign banks and other financial institutions. The new structure of payments would enable rapid and inexpensive international commercial transactions, without depending on foreign platforms. It would permit the use of national currencies, avoiding the use of the dollar or the Euro. Misión Verdad further reports that the creation of a new mechanism of international payments has been developing since the BRICS presidency of South Africa in 2017. It has been mentioned from time to time the possibility of creating a new currency, something like the creation of the Euro in the European Union. So far, however, BRICS has been oriented in practice to the development of secure and rapid payments involving the use of national currencies. It seems to me that this route is more consistent with the BRICS stress on the sovereignty of each nation, because the nations involved do not lose control of their national monetary policy. In the case of the European Union, some of the weaker economies were significantly damaged by their inability to control monetary policy under the Euro regime. It perhaps is a historic lesson from the experience of the dollar and the Euro that a common currency among nations benefits the stronger economies in the union. BRICS, however, is forging a union based in the sovereignty and equality of all, and it thus far is oriented to developing new methods of payments using national currencies.  The establishment of BRICS “partner countries” as a new category With recognition of the considerable interest in BRICS by the countries of the Global South, the Kazan Declaration endorsed the category of BRICS Partner Country, which was named as a modality in the BRICS Summit in South Africa. In the press conference following the Summit, Putin reported that the list of countries for the first phase of expansion has been agreed upon. All these countries have filed requests, and BRICS will send out invitations and proposals to future partner countries, formally requesting them to join the work of BRICS. Upon receiving favorable responses, the countries on the list will be announced. Serguei Monin reported from Kazan in Brasil de Fato on October 24 that the BRICS countries have agreed to include thirteen nations in the category of partner states: Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda. These are by and large nations with a progressive and/or anti-imperialist orientation. Venezuela was excluded from the list as a result of a veto by Brazil. There has been much speculation in Latin American media concerning the reason for the veto by the government of Lula, who has played a central role in the process of Latin American union and integration. I do not find credible many of these various speculations, which suggests confusion on the question. As best as I can discern, Brazil has a short-term interest in excluding Latin American partners from BRICS, especially the larger nations, because most of the infrastructural investments in the region by the BRICS Development Bank currently go to Brazil. Any government committed to the BRICS approach would overrule such short-term considerations in favor of the long-term interest in common development, which implies the inclusion of more Latin American countries in BRICS. But at the present time, Brazilian sectors less committed to the development of an alternative world order are part of the Workers’ Party coalition in power in Brazil, and Lula is compelled to make concessions to these sectors within the ruling coalition. The question of Venezuela is not settled. At least Russia and China favor the inclusion of Venezuela, which possesses a foreign policy fully consistent with BRICS values. And Venezuela has much to offer the BRICS group, including oil reserves. If Venezuela remains excluded during the current phase of expansion, the Bolivarian nation nonetheless would be able to take advantage of strategic partnerships with BRICS member countries, as presently is occurring with respect to China and Russia. Deepening bilateral relations with BRICS member nations would strengthen Venezuela’s petition, paving the way for Venezuela’s inclusion in the Group. Putin declared that Russia disagrees with Brazil with respect to Venezuela. He expressed the hope that Brazil and Venezuela would work out their differences, and he noted that Lula had asked him to pass a message to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In a bilateral meeting with Maduro during the Summit, Putin expressed his appreciation for Venezuela’s commitment to its sovereignty and for the contributions of the Venezuelan government to the construction of a multilateral world order.  A note on the participation of Cuba The Cuban delegation at the Summit was headed by Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel decided not to attend the Summit, because of the electrical blackout and the damage inflicted by Hurricane Oscar. He remained in Cuba to direct the civil defense response. In his address to the Summit, Rodríguez referred to these events in Cuba, pointing out that the consequences would have been more grave, if it were not for “the selflessness of fifty-two thousand electrical workers, engineers and managers; the conscious participation and popular mobilization in support of recovery; the understanding and complete tranquility of the citizenry; and the effective conduct of the Government.” (Indeed so). The Minister of Foreign Relations declared that “BRICS has emerged as a fundamental actor of increasing relevance, authority and leadership on the global geopolitical stage and a real hope for the countries of the South on their complex path towards achieving a more just, democratic, equitable and sustainable international order.” He noted Cuba’s emphatic rejection of any attempt to impose a so-called “rules-based” international order, which violates international law and the norms and principles of international relations. Cuba especially appreciates the road of the BRICS Group toward the structural reform of an international system that is obsolete, unjust, speculative, and exclusive. Meanwhile, he noted, the BRICS Bank of Development plays an increasingly decisive role as an alternative source of financing for the nations of the Global South, with more just conditions; BRICS is contributing to the construction of a new and inclusive international financial architecture, thereby reducing dependency on the U.S. dollar. The Cuban Foreign Minister asked the representatives of the BRICS member states to support Cuba’s formal solicitude to become a “Partner Country.” He pointed out that Cuba has maintained historic ties with the BRICS member nations; and Cuba is able to make contributions to the group in such areas as the pharmaceutical biomedical industry, health, education, and science and innovation.  Final Considerations BRICS is the culmination of a historic tendency that has been expressing itself since the Bandung Conference of newly independent states of Asia and Africa in 1955. It is a tendency that is logically consistent with the interests of the Global Majority and with the dialectical march of human history. It therefore can only be stopped by the destructive unleashing of global war by the imperialist powers, or by the self-destruction of the movement itself through politically immature exaggerated rhetoric, which inflames the passions and eclipses reasoned and well-conceived strategies. Russia, China, and Cuba model the politically mature reasoned approach that is necessary to preserve the forward march of the construction of an alternative world order, more just and sustainable, necessary for the peace and prosperity of humanity in future epochs. The consolidation of an alternative world order would be a defeat for the power elites that rule the USA and the other Western powers. But it would not be a defeat for the peoples of the West. Quite the contrary. For the peoples of the West, the construction of a new world order by the Global South and East would be good news, because the leaders of the processes of change of the South and East call upon the peoples of the West to participate in and cooperate with the emerging world order. They are not playing a zero-sum game; they believe in a sustainable common future based on a win-win philosophy. It has been so since Bandung and the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, through which the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa and the neocolonized nations of Latin American and Caribbean have put forth a proposal for North-South cooperation to complement South-South cooperation. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelvey blog. Archives November 2024 11/3/2024 The West Only Has Pretend Heroes Like Spider-Man And SpongeBob By: Caitlin JohnstoneRead Now As the US-backed atrocities in the middle east get uglier and uglier, I keep thinking about something that was said by an Iranian cleric named Shahab Moradi after the US assassinated Iran’s immensely popular general Qassem Soleimani in 2020. Moradi complained that Iran can’t even really retaliate for the assassination because the US doesn’t have any real heroes of its own like Soleimani, saying, “Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob?” I’ve never seen a more incisive and withering critique of western culture, and I probably never will. It’s such an accurate statement and paints such a clear picture of what this civilization is really like that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could possibly top it. There are no real heroes with popular support in the western empire, because everything that’s truly heroic gets stomped down here, and everything that gets amplified to popularity is either vapid distraction or directly facilitates the interests of the evil empire. Our own generals are busy butchering civilians for oil and geostrategic control. Our military personnel are imperial stormtroopers. Our police are the security guards of capitalism. Our most prominent journalists are all propagandists. Our most prominent celebrities are famous because of their ability to pretend to be fictional characters doing fake things in Hollywood movies. Our most prominent artists are famous because of their ability to churn out formulaic pop songs about empty-headed bullshit. Our most widely recognized symbols are corporate logos. Our most highly regarded professionals are those who can sell westerners the most future landfill manufactured by wage slaves in the global south. Our most well-known government leaders are those who’ve sold their souls to oligarchs and imperialists and can lie to the public most convincingly. The only westerners doing truly heroic things here get thrown in prison, or murdered, or pushed into obscurity, because the only truly heroic thing anyone can do in today’s world is to take a stand against the western empire. Those who bravely resist the US war machine or make themselves inconvenient for western empire managers don’t get to become popular heroes. You don’t see the westerners who work to stop weapons shipments to Gaza being celebrated for their efforts on CNN and the BBC. You don’t see antiwar activists getting Hollywood movies made about their work — at least not until the wars they were protesting lie safely in the distant past. You don’t see journalists who work to expose the most egregious crimes of the empire being elevated to fame and fortune. The only figures who get elevated to fame and fortune in this fake plastic dystopia are those who either actively serve the interests of the empire or who passively distract people from its abuses. Donald Trump. Elon Musk. The Kardashians. Taylor Swift. Spider-Man and SpongeBob. Those are the only heroes we’re allowed to have here in any major way. You can have real heroes if you want, but if you tell the average westerner their names the first word out of their mouth will be, “Who?” Every once in a great while someone will sneak past the many security checkpoints into fame and begin opposing the empire, but they are always quickly demonized and marginalized by the imperial perception managers. And for every Roger Waters or Susan Sarandon, there are a thousand imposter heroes making themselves extremely convenient for the rulers of the western empire. This is the civilization we live in. A mind-controlled wasteland where everything is fake and stupid. The only path toward fulfillment and inner peace in such a dystopia is to dedicate yourself to tearing it down, brick by plastic brick. AuthorCaitlin Johnstone Archives November 2024 11/3/2024 Beyond Protest Votes: Can Jill Stein and the Green Party Push America Toward Revolutionary Change? By: Jonathan BrownRead Now As the 2024 presidential election campaign heats up, one thing is for certain: there is a widespread lack of enthusiasm for either of the major party candidates. This is hardly surprising. The 2024 election is occurring during a moment of unprecedented crisis for the U.S. political establishment. There is widespread distrust in public institutions, a deeply unpopular incumbent president who is carrying out a genocide in Gaza, a failing economy, and a world on the brink of nuclear war. One of the two major presidential candidates is a former “top cop” who was anointed to the Democratic Party presidential nomination through a backroom deal that bypassed the will of the voters. The other major party candidate is a corrupt real estate mogul and reality TV con man with multiple felony convictions. Both candidates have received hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy oligarchs; both have promised that, if elected, they will continue the status quo of endless war and corporate tyranny. Is it any wonder, then, that many disillusioned voters are looking to third party candidates as an alternative to the two mainstream parties? Perhaps the most prominent third party campaign on the ballot this year is Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. The Green Party is a self-described “eco-socialist” party that “opposes capitalism” and runs on a campaign platform of “people, planet, peace.” In numerous speeches and interviews, Stein has railed against the evils of the two-party system, denounced the “war machine,” and called for a populist message of getting Big Money out of politics. Such positions make Stein’s campaign an increasingly popular choice among disgruntled voters, but perhaps the issue that most stands out is her steadfast opposition to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. With many potential Democratic voters outraged over the Biden/Harris administration’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes, Stein seems poised to make inroads among voters who otherwise would be in the Harris camp. In fact, recent polling has suggested that Stein leads Harris among Muslim voters in key swing states, much to the dismay of parisian Democrats. But is Jill Stein and the Green Party a viable alternative to the two-party system? Or is she merely “controlled opposition” – a spoiler running a vanity campaign for protest votes that does not really challenge the power of monopoly-capitalism? This is a critical question for Marxist-Leninsts to ask ourselves this election. Can the Green Party be a viable path to achieving revolutionary change in America? Or are the Greens merely a pressure group oriented towards the Democratic Party? Perhaps one way we can answer these questions is by examining how the Democratic Party has reacted to Jill Stein’s candidacy, and how, in turn, Stein herself has responded to the Democrats. It can be observed that the Democratic Party has a long record of hostility against the Green Party in general, and Jill Stein in particular. The Democrats blame Ralph Nader for costing Al Gore the 2000 election, and Stein for the 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton. Of course, the Democrats do not wish to compete against the Greens in a fair and open election. Instead, they believe they are entitled to win votes, simply because they are not Trump. So instead of viewing the challenge of a third party campaign as an opportunity to self-reflect and improve their policies, the Democrats have instead opted to rely on dirty tricks to stifle Green Party’s chances at winning, leading to the Democratic Party operatives and their puppets in the corporate media to launch a barrage of attacks on the Stein campaign. One tactic has been to employ the fraudulent “democratic-socialist” congresswoman and establishment shill, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to smear Jill Stein as running a “predatory” campaign to steal votes from the Democrats. Another strategy has been to simply kick the Green Party off the ballot. Despite claiming that “democracy is on the ballot” in 2024, the so-called “Democratic” Party has no qualms about employing an array of anti-democratic maneuvers to remove the Green Party candidate from the ballots in key swing states. But perhaps the most odious strategy the Democratic Party has employed thus far is its use of red-baiting techniques straight out of the Cold War to smear Jill Stein as an agent of Russia and a lackey of Vladimir Putin. It was not that long ago that Democrats mocked Cold War rhetoric as outdated. In 2012, for example, then-President Obama lambasted Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s fear-mongering over Russia by declaring, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years.” But things changed drastically in 2014, when the U.S. government orchestrated a coup in the Ukraine to install a puppet regime that would facilitate the expansion of NATO onto Russia’s borders. Since that time, the Democratic Party has leaned heavily into an aggressive militarism against Russia, both to destabilize Russia’s growing geopolitical influence and to facilitate Western control over Russia’s considerable natural gas reserves. The long-term goal, as President Joe Biden has acknowledged, is to use Ukraine as a proxy to carry out a regime-change war against Putin, leading to the disintegration of the Russian Federation into a multitude of smaller states. Around the same time that the U.S. Empire was plotting to destabilize Russia, it began covertly arming Islamic extremist groups in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad aimed at securing control over Syria’s oil pipelines. Assad resisted the US attempt at overthrowing his government and was supported by Russia in an effort to prevent the U.S. military from doing to Syria what it had previously done to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of this set the stage for the Democratic Party to position itself as a neoconservative war party that is committed to permanent military expansion abroad and an aggressive campaign of Cold War McCarthyite hysteria at home. The lynchpin of this campaign is the use of false allegations of malign Russian influence to silence any political opposition. After losing the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton promoted a conspiratorial campaign known as “Russiagate” to scapegoat Russia for her electoral defeat, peddling the falsehood that Trump was installed to power via Russian interference in the election. This is ironic, given that it was actually Bill Clinton who meddled in Russia’s 1996 election to help Boris Yeltsin defeat the Communist Party candidate. Hillary Clinton’s red-baiting campaign had the dual effect of both sewing doubt in the legitimacy of the electoral process, while also becoming a convenient tool for the Democrats to use for smearing all opposition parties as Russian agents. This McCarthyite campaign of red-baiting has been successfully employed not only against Donald Trump, but also left-wing opposition to the Democrats. During the 2020 Democratic Party primary campaign, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was targeted by a Russiagate smear campaign. In response, Sanders fell in line behind the Democrats’ McCarthyite narrative, engaging in some red-baiting of his own by accusing Trump of being “good friends” with Vladimir Putin. Sanders continued his pattern of hostility towards Russia in 2022, when he called for sanctions and voted to send billions of dollars in armaments to Ukraine. After 2016, Jill Stein became a primary target of Russiagate allegations. Stein’s frequent appearances on the Russian news station RT were subjected to scrutiny. A 2015 gala dinner in Moscow became a particular point of controversy, where Stein was photographed sitting across from Vlladimir Putin. She was also photographed meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York. Then, a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that “Russian troll farms” were using social media to encourage minority groups to vote for the Green Party in the 2016 election. “Is Stein a fellow traveler or a useful idiot?” asked an NBC News editorial, in typical McCarthyite language. The red-baiting amped up even further during Stein’s 2024 election campaign. When Stein made an appearance on the popular radio talk show The Breakfast Club in September, she was grilled by the Democratic Party-aligned hosts with renewed allegations of Russian collusion. Then, former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan demanded Stein denounce Putin as a war criminal in a highly contentious interview. Hasan repeatedly badgered Stein, talking over her and demanding that she declare Putin a “war criminal.” Unfortunately, Stein’s performance in the interview came across as weak, muddled, and defensive. She refused to outright answer Hasan’s questions, and failed to push back against his flawed line of reasoning. She argued that Putin was a war criminal “in so many words” and that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was a “criminal and murderous war.” However, she implied that her reluctance to label Putin an outright “war criminal” was not rooted in any sort of solidarity with Russia, but rather a mere desire to give the U.S. a stronger negotiating position against Putin. Humiliated by the interview, Stein released an official statement to clarify her position on Russia. In this statement, Stein unequivocally condemned both Putin and Assad as “war criminals responsible for immense suffering and devastation.” She equated Russia’s support for Assad with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and bizarrely accused Russia of being an “imperialist power.” She went on to rattle off a long list of U.S. and Israeli leaders – including Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – that she defined as “war criminals.” It is important to note, however, that Stein’s statement did not condemn Vlladamir Zelensky – the corrupt NATO puppet in Ukraine – as a war criminal. Nor did she condemn the CIA for attempting to overthrow the Syrian government which prompted Russia to intervene in the first place. Stein’s statement is nothing more than a full-blown capitulation to the U.S. war machine. She is attempting to play both sides, employing a variation of the old Trotskyite slogan “neither Washington nor Moscow.” The problem with Stein’s “both sides are bad” approach should be obvious to any committed anti-imperialist. By condemning Putin and Assad as “war criminals,” Stein equates the countries that are resisting imperialism with countries that are engaging in imperialism. In other words, she is drawing a false equivalency between the victim and the aggressor. In doing so, she reveals the true colors of her campaign and of the Green Party itself. Far from being a revolutionary party – a legitimate alternative to the Two-Party System – the Green Party positions itself as “Democratic Party lite.” They claim to oppose the war machine while they reinforce the same Western imperialist narratives against Russia and Syria that the Democrats do. In doing so, Stein reveals that her commitment to anti-imperialism is rather thin. Although Stein has spoken positively about multipolarity, when Stein is pressured, she capitulates and falls into line behind the forces of U.S. imperialism. When push comes to shove, she condemns the countries that are building the new multipolar world that she claims to support. How can Stein claim to be against U.S. imperialism while opposing the countries that are on the front lines of the fight against imperialism? This inconsistency places Stein’s claim of being a viable alternative to the two-party duopoly in serious doubt. What the American working-class needs is not a protest vote for a wishy-washy candidate who wants to offer a kinder, gentler face of U.S. Empire. Instead, what we need is a strong and courageous party that will be the vanguard of the working-class – that will fight against U.S. imperialism and will stand in solidarity with the new emerging multipolar world, declaring openly its support for Russia’s self-defensive actions against NATO aggression, and for Syria’s self-defense against an attempted CIA-backed coup. If Stein and the Green Party cannot offer this minimal level of anti-imperialist commitment, then the true colors of the Green Party have been revealed. While Stein and the Greens should be applauded for their opposition to the two-party system, and anti-democratic measures to limit their ballot access must be condemned – we must accept that the Greens are not a viable alternative to the system. Supporting the Greens, then, is not a revolutionary strategy for achieving social change. The American Communist Party is the only force in U.S. politics that can mount a consistent challenge to U.S. imperialism and stand in solidarity with the rising multipolar world. AuthorJonathan Brown teaches high school social studies in Athens, Georgia, where he inspires students with his deep passion for exploring society and history. He also teaches sociology as an adjunct professor at Athens Technical College. Jonathan holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia and a master’s degree from California State University, Northridge, where he studied culture and politics from a Marxist perspective. Outside the classroom, Jonathan plays guitar in a punk rock band and is an active member of the Jewish anti-Zionist community. He is a committed member of the American Communist Party. Archives October 2024 |
Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed