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
0 Comments
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 In leading foreign policy magazines across the United States, the rise of China is treated as a threat which the U.S. must effectively challenge. Since at least President Barack Obama’s 2011 “pivot to Asia,” American foreign policy has been crafted towards “containing” China, and “de-linking” it from the global economy. As has been historically the case for all empires, its treatment of its up-and-coming competition has required various tactics of dehumanization. In the eyes of their population, they need the competitor to appear as a barbaric “other,” a being fully foreign to everything their people hold sacred. This is how hybrid wars against the “otherized” country are legitimated in the native population; fear of one’s way of life being threatened drives people who have no real, material interest in supporting these policies into supporting them. The “pivot to Asia” has been conjoined with a healthy dose of Sinophobia. Even the propaganda spewed about China itself presupposes orientalist tropes about the “backwards” Eastern peoples more predisposed to despotism than the “enlightened” Westerners. Without this ideological basis, the media’s job of convincing Americans that China is ran by an autocratic “dictator,” who somehow calls all the shots in a country of 1.4 billion people, would be significantly harder. It is a predisposed dehumanization of the Chinese that premises the acceptance of baseless claims about a “Uyghur genocide,” for which those who have plundered the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East for a century have never provided evidence for. But is there any basis in this otherization? Is the “Chinese dream” and way of life really that different from the ideals that regular American people hold as common sense? All evidence points to the contrary. In many ways, the reality Chinese people experience with their socialist democracy lives up to the American ideals far better than the reality Americans experience in the U.S. itself. The most influential American thinkers and leaders in American history, those whose insights have crystallized into the common sense of many Americans, have all been distrustful of those who consider it their main purpose to simply accumulate capital at the expense of society. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, held that there was a fundamental distinction between the aristocratic and democratic man: the former is rooted in big business elitism, the latter in the people’s will. Jefferson considered that if the aristocratic man came into power, the American experiment in democracy would be threatened. Hindsight has shown how right he was! Abraham Lincoln, for instance, held that “labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” For Lincoln, the substance of the American project was “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as he eloquently stated in his Gettysburg Address. He would be disappointed to see how today we have government of, by, and for big corporations, investment firms, and banks. In the 20th century, no American thinkers are as influential as the polymath, John Dewey, and the brilliant Civil Rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr. While every year American politicians pay lip service to Dr. King, and while Dewey’s literal nickname was “America’s philosopher of democracy,” what is often left out of the conversation was how both were vehemently critical of how America was failing to live up to its democratic ideals, and how, if it wanted to make these ideals real, it required some form of socialism. Dr. King argued that “if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life, nor liberty, nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.” China’s efforts in lifting 800 million out of poverty and eliminating absolute poverty would align with Dr. King’s understanding of what is required for authentic American democracy far greater than the condition most American working people live in, more than 60% of which are a lost paycheck away from homelessness and most of which are drowning in debt-slavery. Likewise, for Dewey we must stop thinking about democracy as something “institutional and external;’” instead, we should treat democracy as a “way of life,” one governed by the “belief in the common man.” For Dewey, genuine democracy is a consistent practice. It has less to do with showing up to a poll every two to four years and more to do with the ability of common people to steadily exert their collective power over the affairs of everyday life. Dewey would conclude that the ideals of the founders would be realized “only as control of the means of production and distribution is taken out of the hands of individuals who exercise powers created socially for narrow individual interests.” It is in China, where capital is forced to serve the people and not the other way around, where this vision is most plentifully realized. Dewey would wholeheartedly agree with Chinese president Xi Jinping, who asserted that “democracy is not an ornament to be used for decoration; it is to be used to solve the problems that the people want to solve.” As Xi Jinping has noted, If the people are awakened only at the time of voting and go into dormancy afterward; if the people only listen to smashing slogans during election campaigns but have no say afterward; if the people are only favored during canvassing but are left out after the election, such a democracy is not a true democracy. One could see words like these coming out of the mouths of a John Dewey or a Martin Luther King Jr. The ideas governing China’s socialist whole-process people’s democracy should look anything but foreign to Americans – it is what our leading democratic theorists hoped the US system would develop into. If Americans are faithful to the democratic creed of the Declaration of Independence, and to the leading theorists of our country, who have developed these into notions of socialist democracy with American characteristics, then we should be praising China for how incredibly comprehensive their socialist democracy is. Instead of accepting the lies U.S. politicians and media spew, all of which are aimed are “otherizing” and “demonizing” China, the American people must realize that it is China where the American ideals are best embodied. Professor Zhang Weiwei is, without a doubt, correct to point out that Lincoln’s dictum “of, by, and for the people,” is much more substantially realized in China. Instead of accepting the easily disprovable lies of U.S. officials, who in condemning China are themselves standing in an anti-American position, the American people should fight to realize Lincoln’s vision. When our government is actually of, by, and for the people, the conditions will be present for us seeing China’s rise not as a threat we must contain, but an effort we can applaud. Ultimately, if Americans are faithful to their democratic creed, they will realize that we must learn from China and work together to build a peaceful, cooperative, and ecological shared future for mankind. 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 September 2024 9/18/2024 Front Row at Putin's Speech: Here Are What Will Shatter Your Perceptions By: Zhang WeiweiRead NowThe St. Petersburg International Economic Forum began in 1997. Since 2006, the Russian president has attended and spoken at the forum every year. In 2024, more than 21,000 people from 139 countries and regions participated in the forum, signing over 980 agreements with a total value of 520 billion yuan. Professor Zhang Weiwei was deeply inspired by President Putin's keynote speech. At the start of this June, invited by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, I attended the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia, a large-scale economic forum of utmost importance in Russia. The focus of the forum was on “The Formation of New Centers of Growth as The Cornerstone of a Multipolar World.” More than 12,000 members of various professions from more than 100 countries attended the forum. Russian President Putin made a keynote speech, of which some opinions are very impressive. First of all his brief on the global trend, where he expressed that all countries in the world are enhancing sovereignty in three aspects: national sovereignty, cultural value sovereignty, and economic sovereignty. I find this inspiring. Secondly, he made a judgment on the world economic situation, stating that China has already emerged as the top economy globally. Although he did not explicitly mention the second-ranked economy, it is widely understood to be the United States. This is what I often express on Chinese television programs., China’s economy, measured by purchasing power parity, surpassed that of the US as early as 2014, a decade ago. Putin then discussed how, according to purchasing power parity, India is poised to become the third-largest economy. He also emphasized the high birth rate, relatively low level of urbanization, and rapid economic growth in the South Asia region where India is situated. Thirdly, regarding the Russian economy, he stated that Russia’s objective is to become the fourth-largest economy in the world. He then spontaneously mentioned that the World Bank had recently revised its statistics, indicating that Russia had surpassed Japan to claim the fourth spot in terms of economic scale, based on purchasing power parity. The audience erupted into enthusiastic applause at this announcement, prompting Putin to advise everyone to maintain a modest demeanor. He emphasized, “We have now overtaken Japan and Germany, albeit by a slight margin, which we aim to sustain and expand. It is imperative for us to ensure high-speed, high-quality growth in the long term, considering that other nations, such as Indonesia, are rapidly advancing with their growing population and swift economic progress.” Putin referenced data released by the World Bank at the end of May this year: as of the end of 2023, the global economic rankings by purchasing power parity are as follows: China in first place with 35 trillion dollars, the United States in second with 27.4 trillion dollars, India in third with 14.6 trillion dollars, Russia in fourth with 6.45 trillion dollars, and Japan in fifth with 6.3 trillion dollars. Based on these figures, China’s economy is approximately equivalent to 5.5 times that of Japan and 128% of the United States’. The shift towards utilizing purchasing power parity as a measurement is significant for Russia, as it is perceived as a more realistic indicator. Historically, Russia had been using nominal GDP calculated by official exchange rates, resulting in a significant underestimation of its economic size and portraying a position of weakness to the West. This miscalculation led to five expansions of NATO towards the east and continuous humiliation of Russia. Presently, Russian leaders predominantly rely on purchasing power parity standards to evaluate their economic standing. Then Putin continued on the status of Russia’s economic development and structural adjustment, with which he pointed out Russia’s GDP growth rate was 3.6% last year, above the world average. He especially mentioned how this growth comes mainly from non-resource areas. The Russian economy was, by the time of the Soviet Union’s collapse and under the influence of neo-liberalism ideology, driven afar from reality, and relied on selling resources for a long time. After Putin took presidency the situation changed. According to himself, in 2023, non-resource industries like manufacturing, architecture, logistics, information, agriculture, and electricity have grown by over 45.5%. Some claim that Russia is only getting a higher growth rate for its war-time economy, yet from our own eyes we have seen these years Russia rebuilt. A large batch of Chinese enterprises are actively investing in Russia as well. Although Russia is bearing over 15000 various Western sanctions, the Russian market is still prospering, essentials are well-supplied, and many goods from China, including cars, phones, and appliances are seen all around. Putin also talked about how Russia’s exporting commerce has grown immensely, and the share of “poisonous currencies” from unfriendly nations has decreased by half. Over 40% of exchanges use Russian rubles. The concept of “poisonous currency” was first raised among Russian scholars to describe Western currencies like US dollars, now it is also widely used among Russian leaders like Putin himself. This shows Russia’s unique understanding of Western currencies like dollars, and worth our thinking as well. During the speech, Putin also stressed that global development has shifted its center from Europe to Asia, “we should get closer to these centers of development”. Russia’s “Turning East” is not a temporary move, but a progress that is happening around the world. After his speech, the esteemed Russian political scholar Sergey Karaganov posed an intriguing question to Putin. He mentioned that Peter the Great had intentionally constructed St. Petersburg as a gateway to Europe, securing his place in history. Karaganov asked why Putin couldn’t make a similar decision to establish a grand city in the Far East. In response, Putin stated that Russia could explore the possibility of creating a third metropolis in Russia, emphasizing that such endeavors should not rely solely on administrative directives but rather on the cultivation of appealing conditions. Putin explained that the development of St. Petersburg was driven by the economic hub being located in Europe at that time. With the global economic center now shifted to Asia, he emphasized the importance of Russia turning its focus towards Asia and vigorously advancing economic growth in the Far East. During his visit to China, Putin made a special trip to Harbin. The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, also visited the Far East region of Russia, including Irkutsk. I see these visits as significant signals indicating the acceleration of cooperation between Russia and China in developing the Far East. During his visit to Irkutsk, Wang Yi remarked that China is actively advancing its modernization process in Chinese model while Russia is expediting the development of the Far East, presenting both countries with a historic opportunity for collaboration. Local partnerships play a crucial role in the China-Russia relationship. I personally believe that joint cooperation in the development of the Far East region will bring substantial benefits to both nations. From China’s perspective, this collaboration will enhance the long-term energy and resource security needed for China’s economic growth. From Russia’s standpoint, it will contribute to reshaping the spatial layout of the Russian economy, creating a new hub for economic growth. AuthorZhang Weiwei This article was produced by The China Academy. Archives September 2024 Perhaps the critics were right. The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States. Founded in 1982 by a cadre of social democrats, the group has since swelled to roughly 100,000 official members. Virtually all of that growth occurred after Senator Bernie Sanders launched his first presidential run, which mainstreamed socialism in America. What was once a marginal bunch now regularly makes headlines and even has members in Congress. Yet the Democratic Socialists of America is hardly uncontroversial on the American Left. A longstanding critique is that it’s too reformist and cozy with a Democratic Party it should be trying to destroy. Rather than mobilizing to build independent institutions, leftist critics believe the organization siphons socialist energy into the duopoly’s lesser evil. That is arguably counterrevolutionary as it may further lock us into a capitalist political system which only serves the elite. Naturally, members forcefully resist this characterization of their organization. But recent events seem to have vindicated the critics. On August 6th, the Democratic Socialist of America’s official Twitter account posted the following: “[Vice President Kamala] Harris choosing [Minnesota governor Tim] Walz as a running mate has shown the world that DSA and our allies on the left are a force that cannot be ignored. Through collective action… DSA members… organized… to support Palestinian liberation… and… pressured the Democratic establishment into… backing down from a potential VP with direct ties to the IDF and who would have ferociously supported the ongoing genocide in Palestine.” The DSA seemingly believes Walz is a solid choice and that Democrats caved to leftist activists in choosing him. A closer look at Walz, however, reveals that he is no progressive. He is, at best, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Although much of his worse escapades have been so brazen that Walz is really a wolf in wolf’s clothing. For example, he regularly speaks before the Minnesota Israel lobby. The Jewish Community Relations Council has applauded the governor’s “pro-Israel record.” Days after October 7th, Walz addressed the Council “in solidarity with Israel against the terrorism of Hamas.” In the speech, Walz made it clear that he stands “firmly with the state of Israel and the righteousness of the cause.” That cause, recall, is apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians. But that’s not all. When Palestinian constituents who lost family members in the Gaza genocide wanted to meet with Walz, he refused. The Minnesota governor originally agreed to the meeting under the belief that these Palestinians would merely share their stories. When they informed Walz of their intention to discuss divestment and other material policy, he ordered his staff to cancel. At a conference of the radically Zionist American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Walz called Israel “our truest and closest ally.” He touted the apartheid state’s supposed “commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties.” As a federal congressman, Walz voted to condemn a United Nations resolution declaring Israel’s West Bank settlements illegal. This placed Walz to the right of longstanding State Department policy, overturned by Donald Trump, that considered the incursions illegitimate. It’s clear where Walz’s sympathies lie — with the Zionists and against the innocent men, women, and children they’re slaughtering. So it appears the Democratic Socialists of America were wrong. The Democrats didn’t respond to their calls for a free Palestine. Instead, they installed another stooge who will gleefully abet the ongoing holocaust in Gaza. Democrats aren’t listening to socialist organizers. Pretending they are sells false hope, and enables liberal politicians to take leftist votes and run. Throughout their careers, Harris and Walz have made it abundantly clear where they stand. Neither has any real commitment to working people at home or abroad. Their lack of such commitment is precisely what allows them to thrive in the fundamentally irredeemable Democratic Party. Despite the DSA’s official line, many members understand this. Within the organization exists a robust movement for a “dirty break” from the Democrats. One member described the strategy as follows. In the short term, the DSA should keep “run[ning] candidates on the Democratic… ballot line.” But the crux of the dirty break is that, concurrently, the DSA should begin building an independent working-class party. Upon assembling a sufficient infrastructure and voter base, the DSA should abandon the Democrats and run candidates under its banner. One thing the DSA could do to facilitate a dirty break is further broaden its big tent. Currently, the DSA’s constitution essentially bans members of “democratic-centralist organizations” from joining. This excludes many Leninists, who are some of the biggest advocates for an independent working-class party. Prominent Marxist Leninists like academic Carlos Garrido, for example, are currently trying to build such an organization. As DSA members have yet to make much progress toward a dirty break, they could use their vigor. While not all DSA members support a dirty break, the vision is there. That alone may help many DSAers avoid the Democratic ruse of courting progressives for their votes before summarily abandoning them. Historically, stumbling into this trap seems to be the DSA’s modus operandi. But it won’t lead anywhere good. The organization should instead empower its dirty breakers. Channel the immense energy the DSA undeniably possesses into independent institutions which challenge — not serve — imperialist hegemony. And if the DSA doesn’t do that, other groups should emerge to supplant it. AuthorYouhanna Haddad is a North American Marxist of the Arab diaspora. Through his writing, he seeks to combat the Western liberal dogmas that uphold racial capitalism. You can contact him at [email protected]. Archives September 2024 Within traditional Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, socialism and communism refer to different stages of a new mode of production. However, the usage of these terms as a form of political identification have always had different connotations historically. Often times, Right-Wingers love to repeat the fairytale - that 'communism,' promising 'utopia,' was a completely benign term that everyone was naive about. It was associated with rainbows and sunshine... Until it was 'put into practice' and 999 trillion people were massacred and starved. According to this mythology, naive 'idealists' did not realize how 'scary' communism was, until Communists actually seized power. But the truth is that communism HAS ALWAYS been a 'bad word.' COMMUNISM - THE SPECTRE HAUNTING EUROPE During the early 19th century, communism was associated with riotous working class revolutionaries throughout Europe. Masses of people, ordinary people on the street, believed there was something fundamentally wrong and rotten about the state of Europe. Meanwhile, 'Socialism' referred to enlightened reformers and experimental utopians, who posed no threat to the ruling capitalist class order. In fact, many members of the ruling class, in a philanthropic way, were actually drawn to 'socialism.' Both socialists and communists understood there was something wrong with the emerging capitalist society. But "socialists" treated this problem as something that could be solved without any real trouble. At this time, older, more traditional relations were breaking down. Peasants, forced off of their land, were being herded into cities to become proletarians. The old feudal order and everything upon which it rested fundamentally broke down. All it's vestiges took the form of a sick and twisted hypocrisy, disguising the naked brutality of the new capitalist order - founded upon the degradation, humiliation, and rapacious exploitation of man by man. Vast swaths of people were crammed into slums and factories, treated worse than animals. Children were not spared. Women were driven into prostitution on a mass scale. Diseased, overcrowded, overworked, and depleted of any spiritual morale - such was the fate of Western Europe's peasant majority. Enlightened 'Socialists' sought to provide relief from this brutality. But there was something a little bit twisted about this. They regarded the evils and ills of the system as mere 'quirks' to be remedied, thus treating a fundamental existential loss of humanity as a mere utilitarian question - treating the very evils of capitalism under the utilitarian and crude logic of capitalism itself. Today, this is reminiscent of the way Silicon Valley provides "solutions" and "hacks" to the outrageous problems of capitalism. No food? Have some soylent. No housing? Try pod sharing. The more "metaphysical" (Marx would say "human") questions - of justice, existence, morality, dignity, honor, meaning - were brushed under the rug by the "Socialists." There was something craven about the "socialists." They were conciliatory to the established powers. They did not have the courage to speak the truth. During this period, communists were those who recognized something fundamentally rotten, false, hypocritical, and bankrupt about the emerging and "restored" (after Metternich) Europe. They rejected the hypocrisy of the reactionaries. They rejected the "remedies" of the "Socialists." They insisted upon a FUNDAMENTAL position of existential truth and authenticity. However inconvenient, scandalous, and "terrifying" it was to high society. In the words of Fredrich Engels in his preface to the Communist Manifesto: "Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist." The French revolution revealed the great extent of the ancien regime's corruption. But it did not recognize the root cause of society's growing division. There began to emerge a great Elephant in the room. The people began to acquire the awareness - they were being deprived of their economic rights on a mass scale. In a manner so open, so notorious, and so brazen that not even the most exploitative of Feudal lords, ever faced with the prospect of peasant rebellion, could have conceived of doing against their serfs. Communists, from the beginning, represented an inconvenient truth. That something was killed with the rise of capitalism - the common, social substance of mankind. And yet it continued to haunt Europe, as a fundamental and unavoidable question looming over it. And all the great powers of Europe were terrified of the mere whisper of this - because they too knew it on an unconscious level. People could no longer ignore the obvious truth: Something was lost that MUST be restored. And it could not be restored by returning to the past, for its loss was an indictment on the entire history of private property itself. Thus, there was a "spectre" of Communism. The ghosts of voiceless and forgotten martyrs of not only of capitalism but all European history (which Micheal Hudson documents as the domination of creditor classes). A ghost that reminded Europe of a fundamental irrationality and problem it couldn't escape from. Communists were not politicians, policy makers, philanthropists, "problem solvers." They were those who insisted upon a fundamental and total "metaphysical" (as 'positivists' would call it) truth. They were also not anarchists. They insisted upon a LOST history, a LOST future, and a LOST civilization. By rejecting private property, they were rejecting the institution that disguised and obstructed a fundamental confrontation with a common historical situation and reality. One that, in a sense, already existed, but subject to continual erasure, forgetting, and being swept under the rug. All the wealth of society was increasingly and in a way unprecedented being produced in common, yet appropriated privately to a likewise unprecedented degree. Communists didn't propose a "utopia." They insisted upon a sober, authentic, and brutally honest confrontation with the present reality - of robbery, exploitation, injustice, and the destruction of humanity itself. Communists were not "proposing" a new system or alternative. They were, to the terror of Europe's crowned heads and capitalists - declaring the existence of an entirely different cosmology, a forgotten and repressed universal whole of existence. This cosmology was "different" - yet paradoxically so familiar. Because it's existence, weighing on the guilty conscience of all European society, was repressed. Everyone knew that the brutality and savagery of capitalism was contrary to the very place mankind, the highest of God's creation, had within universal existence. The inconvenient and unspeakable truth- that humanity itself had fallen in a fundamental way, that all older conventions were obsolete, that the true history of Europe, in its entirety, was too much for the established powers of Europe to bare. "Socialists" may have proposed a completely new "system." But they did not question the fundamental cosmology, the total horizon of symbolic meaning itself - within the established capitalist order. They did not recognize that from the perspective of universal existence itself, the prevailing order was condemned. They could only ever take a one-sided perspective, based on philanthropy, 'problem solving,' or even 'engineering.' They did not reckon with the whole of history and human existence itself - what Engels described as the demand for "total social change." THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC REALPOLITIK And after decades, Europe eventually did witness the rise of a powerful 'socialist' or Social Democratic movement. The phrase 'communism' was discarded for 'social democracy,' as a form of political realpolitik. Communism was treated as a later stage of consciousness for what was a growing yet persecuted movement. Because society was not ready - either legally or ideologically - for the total change implied by that word, it was regarded as more realistic to place less emphasis on it. The social democrats, because of their realpolitik, managed to create large and successful mass movements. But over time, they forgot their original mission. They became corrupted by the legalism, the convenience, and the institutionalization of the worker's cause. They ceased to be leaders of a totally new society. They, rather, became 'part' of society. COMMUNISM - LENIN'S REVOLUTIONARY DYNASTY It was Lenin who reintroduced the word Communism back into the political history of mankind. Not because Lenin was an anarchist who rejected realpolitik, and not because he was an ideological fanatic. It was because, after reading Hegel in solitude, he had the courage to accept the decisive significance of the Communist outlook in new and crucial situation. In the beginning, the communists goals were ambiguous and ill-defined. All they had was their authenticity, their willingness to accept the full and total implications of history, regardless of how terrifying the consequences. But Lenin, in his genius, succeeded in situating the whole development of Social-Democracy up until the decisive point as communism itself in the form of political struggle. Lenin restored the greater cosmological and "metaphysical" significance of politics. Rather than a "respectable" branch of bourgeois society, politics was the staging ground, the battlefield, and the fundamental dimension of "metaphysical" struggle. (By "metaphysical" one refers to the positivist pejorative - for of course, what is really meant is dialectical in the fullest sense) Politics was absolute struggle to the death. Politics for Lenin meant the same thing that it did for Gilgamesh or for Cyrus the Great. The whole of universal existence was imperiled in it. It is not a 'part' of society. It is the total existence of a society at war with itself. It is the active form of society's most fundamental contradiction, the class struggle. The goal of Communists was the revolutionary seizure of state power, under a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communists were MILITANTS fighting a WAR - as Clausewitz said, war is an extension of politics and vice versa. War for the seizure of state power from the capitalist class, from the bloodsuckers and exploiters of humanity. Lenin set all world imperialism ablaze. No Empire could survive the judgement of the stars. Lenin's flame was the seed of a new, revolutionary dynasty, whose dominion would be greater and more exalted than all the obsolete powers of old Europe. The dynastic succession was not based on individual blood. But on the revolutionary essence of history itself. The dynasty of Marxism-Leninism, and its five heads - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. Lenin restored the cosmological significance of Communist struggle - the struggle for existence, meaning, humanity, etc. was now embedded in a nexus of global geopolitics that became the battleground for world history itself. Before and after Lenin's revolution, a new imperialist ruling class began to usurp all the formal and constitutional rights of the people. It was destroying their SOVEREIGNTY. Imperialism and fascism violated the very social contract that the bourgeois class had disguised its dictatorship in the name of. They trampled on the liberties of their own people - while violating the right of self determination of other nations. They suffocated and destroyed all outlets for the people's sovereignty. And so on the basis of violating legitimate, historically constituted social contract of the people - they defined the terms of a new war. The war did not begin with 'communist idealists' proposing a new system from scratch. It began with Communists defending the integrity of the people's common history itself. Communism is not about forcing a new system on the people. It is about leading and educating the masses as they discover how the society, government, etc. familiar and legitimate to them is collapsing according to contradictions the Communists alone understand. Leninism is not a rejection of realism. It IS realism - the highest insight into the contradictions driving world history itself. It differed from social democracy precisely in that it refused to shy away from the naked Clausewitzean realism of class struggle, which was a WAR. The clausewitzean realism of the state, which is an instrument of violent dictatorship by the exploited class over the exploiters. Leninism was never a regress into infantilism and a rejection of professionalism or mature, legal activity. Leninism is, in addition to being a revolutionary outlook, also a wisdom: Not simply an active rejection of the entire social order, but a RECOGNITION that it is being broken down according to its own contradictions. COMMUNISM TODAY Now, in the 21st century, after the rise of many great Communist states, what meaning does Communism have? The new significance of Communism is that it has become a fully integral historical outlook. The LOST history and civilization it insists upon is REAL and TANGIBLE (the Soviet Union). The specter is real - the ghost of Soviet Communism and Lenin's revolution. Communism today re-litigates the so-called American-led "New World Order" at the fundamental level. It rejects the history written by the "victors" of the cold war. It insists upon the fact that the world is running away from the truth- the forgotten truth of world Communist struggle. Communists reject the entire American-led world order, and it's falsification of history. The Soviet Union did not need to "collapse." The Berlin wall did not need to "fall." In fact, there was no irreversible "collapse." Only an intermittent period of confusion and disarray. A period that is now on the cusp of ending. The "collapse" was the consequence of contradictions in the world Communist movement (the Sino Soviet dispute, the cultural revolution) not the supremacy or superiority of the capitalist bloc. The enduring strength of victorious China, which now drives almost all world economic growth, is proof of this fact. To be a Communist today, is to insist upon the integrity not only of all world-history, but of the history of Communism in particular. For this contains the key to everything about the nature of the current global order. Communists are not "Democratic Socialists" who compromise with the tall-tales and spooky-stories about "totalitarianism" spun by the prostitutes of the American plutocracy. We defend Stalin. We defend Mao. We defend dictatorship. We defend Cheka. We defend Soviet Justice (late 1930's). We defend Tanks in Budapest and Prague. We defend Cultural Revolution. We defend 'authoritarian' China. We are not "socialists." We are COMMUNISTS. We are not mere "socialists" who neglect the dimension of WAR and all its ugly realities in class struggle. War is ugly. Such is its nature. The question is - what war is worth fighting for? Communists rebuke the liberal and 'conservative' hypocrites who lament the brutality of 'Communist terror.' They happily facilitate, and at best, passively tolerate, several wars of unprecedented scale and brutality, responsible for the murder of countless millions and the devastation of entire nations, for the financial gain of the capitalist class. WAR will be fought either way. Which war are you fighting for? Communists ARE "tankies." We are here to herald the collapse of the entire global system with tanks, not flowers. Communists see the rational integrity of all world history since and even before Lenin's revolution. In all its cunning, its brilliance. We see the rational necessity of everything that has happened up until this point. Our mission is to remind mankind that this struggle, this war never ended. Only - one side stopped fighting. Not because of the invincibility of America's ruling class. But because they lost their morale, their spiritual conviction, their belief. Many declare Communism to be "dead." But when has that ever stopped communists? Recall the opening lines of the Manifesto: This fateful struggle began with a ghost haunting Europe. Now this ghost haunts the world. The restoration of the Communist cause on a planetary scale is inescapable and unavoidable. Resist it in vain. Continue to spin your fairy tales and mythologies in vain. Continue to lie and slander the heroic and sacred history. Your words will echo less into the future of world history than a dog barking at its own shit. You cannot stop the confrontation that is to come. You cannot stop history itself. AuthorHaz Al-Din This article was produced by Haz Al-Din on X. Archives September 2024 It probably isn’t good practice to write an entire article responding to a nonviral tweet. But here goes. On August 31st, the Twitter user Jjule85 Azzuro posted the following meme decrying the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act. The meme contains factual inaccuracies. For one, Barack Obama signed the H.R. 4310 in 2013 — not 2012. Nor, unsurprisingly, does the quote “purposely lie to the American people” appear anywhere in the legislation. Googling that phrase just yields myriad links to the meme itself. Mainstream fact-checks had a field day. Politifact and the Associated Press rated the meme false and just generally insisted there was nothing to see here. But the signing of H.R. 4310 was significant. It eased restrictions on the ability of state programming like Voice of America and Radio Free to reach Americans. These programs are Cold War relics whose sole founding purpose was destabilizing leftist governments the world over. Even Foreign Policy magazine conceded that this amounted to “repeal[ing] a propaganda ban.” So the meme holds a lot of truth. But its general thrust is wrong. The meme implies that H.R. 4310 is what melted American public discourse into its current puddle of shameless lies. Of course, the federal government had no issue purposely lying before 2013. The whole charade surrounding weapons of mass destruction happened a decade earlier. Blaming everything on H.R. 4310 is akin to liberals and progressives pinning America’s economic demise on the Reagan era. Sure, Ronald Reagan was terrible. His track record included slashing taxes on the rich and corporations, and making social security subject to income taxation. But Reagan was not even the first fiercely capitalist president. Calvin Coolidge and others preceded him. It wasn’t one president, bill, or even congressional session that corrupted America. Since 1776, we’ve seen a slow but steady erosion of the revolutionary spirit that birthed this nation. The task ahead is to reclaim the former glory of one of the most radical democratic experiments of its time. America is broken. But we can fix it with socialism — the ultimate distillation of populist politics. Radical Tradition The American revolution was imperfect but hardly contemptible. It’s easy to look at the framers as plutocrats. Many gleefully participated in this country’s original sin of slavery. James Madison, the Constitution’s primary writer, even said government should “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Yet that doesn’t change the fact that the revolution embodied certain radical principles. For one, it was undeniably anti-colonial. Revolutionaries rejected the British empire, which ruled them across an ocean with insufficient accountability. This rejection was grounded in democratic principles. It emphasized self-governance, and recognized rule from afar as inevitably leading to indifference toward the concerns of ordinary people. The crown only wanted the colonies to facilitate the growth of British capital. So the American revolution was a precondition for any protection of working-class interests. It therefore did more than just cultivate fairer political processes. The revolution also led to more fairness on the economic front. England kept America backward. Under their rule, the colonies remained largely feudal despite capitalist development being well underway elsewhere. Capitalism is a wretched system that inexorably concentrates wealth and power, and runs on exploitation of the masses. But, as Karl Marx best explained, it is a big and necessary improvement over feudalism. England prevented that transition from happening. The revolution made sure it did. This might be surprising given the class character of the framers. At least 42 of the 55 delegates to the constitutional convention were literal capitalists, ranging from merchants to plantation owners. They were uniformly white and wealthy. Some, like George Washington and Robert Morris, ranked among the richest people in the new nation. But those who wrote America’s founding documents are just one part of its revolutionary story. As historians Marie and Ray Raphael explain, the revolution was “a sweeping, widespread, town-by-town popular uprising.” Its leftist critics often miss that “this was really a bottom-up revolt.” Over 90% of Massachusettsans, for example, backed the revolution. Defiance came mostly from the landed gentry whose fates, through patronage and business, were tied to the crown. The framers were not the progenitors of the revolution, but late adopters. Immense populist momentum is why they eventually embraced the cause. Progressives throughout American history understood this, and championed the promise of the founding. Frederick Douglass and his abolitionist peers spoke of fully realizing the revolution’s emancipatory vision in their fight against slavery. Radical feminists in the mid-19th century saw themselves as continuing the work of the Continental Congress. Even the universally beloved Martin Luther King Jr. lavishly praised the revolution, and felt indebted to its ideals. Leftists abroad saw things similarly. Vladimir Lenin commended the “American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery.” Ho Chi Minh modeled Vietnam’s declaration of independence off of the American one. And Mao Zedong celebrated the revolution as a successful revolt against “British exploitation and oppression.” But the Chinese statesman and political theorist regretfully acknowledged that America had since fallen from its former glory. In his view, the country’s revolutionary ideals unraveled as “the people” increasingly lost power to “monopoly capitalists.” Fall From Grace Mao was right. Today’s America is ruled by finance capital and multinational corporations. Naturally, most Americans recognize that their political system is rigged. Trust in everything from Congress to mainstream media is at record lows. Henchmen of capital continue to insist that everything will be fine if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps. But even conservative pundits like Charlie Kirk admit that Wall Street greed is keeping hard-working Americans from owning homes. Investment giants like BlackRock and Vanguard are buying single-family units en masse, leading to alarming price hikes. This is especially worrying as home ownership is the top driver of individual wealth. How did we get here? The American Dream has become a nightmare. And foundational values like freedom and democracy seem like bigger and bigger jokes by the day. Our current reality is the natural result of capitalist control over America’s governing institutions, and most of its news media. This arrangement protects the interests of big business at the expense of workers, whose political power is almost nonexistent. Even studies from the highest echelons of academia confirm that contemporary America essentially functions like an oligarchy. The influence of the United States capitalist class is so overwhelming that it dictates not just domestic but foreign policy. Wars for oil, trade routes, and just to sell more weapons are commonplace. It’s easy to assume everyday Americans are indifferent to these gangster crimes. But that is wrong. Americans aren’t apathetic. They’re exhausted and jaded, feeling disempowered by a political system that never listens. When Sahelians launched a series of progressive coups, the State Department sent Islamist shock troops to destabilize those gains. No one in Middle America ever consented to this. And they almost certainly would not have had anyone asked. But no one did. That is the problem. Similarly, the United States continues to aid and abet Israel’s Gaza genocide. The offensive is historically unpopular, and most Americans want a ceasefire. Public opinion be damned, United States support for this atrocity continues apace. The regime’s cadre of workers, who staff the papers of record, rush to manufacture consent. Israel has “a right to defend itself,” they claim. Presumably that right extends to Palestinian babies yet to see their first year. The noble among us might seek an education to hopefully rise through the ranks and influence society positively. But there are more than a few problems with this. For one, the United States is home to the most expensive higher education in the world. Needless to say, tuition and board costs are often prohibitive. Even when they aren’t, universities — especially elite ones — are propaganda mills. They engrain cynicism and strip students of their highest ideals. Coursework promotes accepting — not challenging — the status quo. Talk of revolution is all but forbidden. And that makes sense. The people don’t run universities. Elites do. And they seek to legitimize and validate the brutal world they’ve built. This explains why humanities and social science courses so often instill in students an almost instinctual fear of communism. In the academy, the ideology’s many achievements never see the light of day. That wasn’t always the case. As recently as the late 1950s, the Communist Party was a considerable force in American politics. It boasted over 75,000 members at its peak in a country with well under half the current population. The party’s labor leaders organized literally millions of workers, and mobilized Americans of all stripes to protest lynching and segregation. Communists even won seats on the New York City Council. As Michael Goldfield explains, the Communist Party was “the preeminent left group in the country… with no significant rivals.” Even those well to their right proposed things that would be all but inconceivable in today’s political climate. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt — a Democrat with an extremely checkered record — proposed an economic bill of rights in 1944. It would’ve guaranteed essentials like food, clothing, healthcare, housing, and even employment to all Americans. Fifty years earlier, a popular backlash to the unprecedented economic inequality of the Gilded Age swept the nation. This culminated in the rise of the Populist Party, which championed progressive taxation and a shorter workweek. American proletarians loved this platform and, in 1896, the Populists came shockingly close to capturing the presidency. Their candidate William Jennings Bryan won an impressive 22 of 45 states and claimed nearly 47% of the popular vote. That would be unthinkable nowadays. Bernie Sanders never came terribly close to escaping the Democratic primary — let alone becoming president. Despite Sanders being more moderate than his leftist supporters would like to believe, establishment Democrats did everything to thwart him. And they succeeded. Moreover, unlike Bryan, Sanders’s underwhelming performance in 2020 suggests he may have never had a truly mass movement behind him. It seems more likely that his unexpectedly strong 2016 run largely rode a wave of anti-Clinton and perhaps misogynist sentiment. When Sanders had to run against a white man with name recognition and similar politics to Hillary Clinton, he faltered. After this loss, Berniecrats pinned their hopes on Sanders’s proteges: The Squad. But the most prominent of them, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now appears thoroughly co-opted by the regime. And Zionist organs of the Democratic Party unseated Cori Bush — among the Squad’s most radical members — after just two terms. They did the same to Jamaal Bowman, another Black Squad member who dared to accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza. Next congressional session, excluding the co-opted Ocasio-Cortez, The Squad will be down to — at most — seven members. Surely some of them will be next on the chopping block. This is despite the fact that members of The Squad are often quick to spread imperialist lies — specifically against China. In other words, what remains of American progressivism is weak both in ideology and manpower. Unlike in years past, hope for a better United States is scant. Outside the halls of power, the outlook is not much rosier. America is in the midst of a historic unaffordability crisis. Unionization rates are lower than ever, and wealth inequality is at all-time highs. The crisis is deep and deepening. Piecemeal reforms will not pull us out of this hole. Radical solutions are needed but hard to find. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is one potential antidote to this malaise. It is the largest socialist organization in the United States — perhaps ever — with nearly 100,000 dues-paying members. And it is undoubtedly home to many energetic, principled leftists hungry for a better world. But the organization ultimately engenders little optimism. It is notoriously cozy with the Democratic Party to the point of celebrating faux progressive and ardent Zionist Tim Walz. Many DSAers seek a clean break from the Democrats, and want to establish their own leftist party. But they’ve made little progress to that end. While organizing a working-class force to challenge the duopoly is hard, members of the American Communist Party are doing it. Led by prominent online leftists like Jackson Hinkle, the party has 13 chapters in the United States and Canada. It has not begun fielding candidates. But members do important community service including food drives and neighborhood cleanups. It’s commendable work. And the party’s trajectory is promising given that it only began in July. But whether the American Communist Party will become a veritable political force is unknown. Leftist projects have gained early momentum before, only to stagnate or even outright disappear shortly thereafter. The DSA is itself one example. While membership swelled during each of Sanders’s presidential runs, the organization’s rolls haven’t grown in years — much to leaders’ dismay. That leftist groups are either stagnant or in their early building phases needn’t be a reason to despair. It’s a reason to get organized. Find a decent institution you support and dedicate your time to it. Sitting on the couch instead might seem tempting. As does justifying that laziness, as many leftists — like J. Sakai and Bradley Blankenship — do, by insisting America is irredeemable But it isn’t, and its revolutionary tradition shows that. Yet that radical promise won’t fulfill itself. Building a better America will take work. Everything counts, and it’ll all be worth it if — no, when — we win. What Went Wrong? When did the United States swing toward reaction? Some insist the American project was doomed from its very inception — the moment white skin touched the East Coast. J. Sakai — a shadowy figure, self-proclaimed “revolutionary intellectual,” and former activist — argues as much in his cult classic Settlers. The book is an extensive and, at times, impressive retelling of history. Its main contention is that America’s settler-colonial past casts a neverending shadow, forever condemning it to a rightist political order. “Once a settler colony, always one,” says Sakai. And settlers, Sakai claims, are not just those radical Europeans centuries ago who conquered the land through genocide and enslavement. Rather, all whites — and even some minorities — in America today are settlers too. That assertion forms the foundation for Sakai’s contention that, in the United States, there simply is no white working class. It’s a bold claim, and one that flagrantly violates basic ironclad rules of materialist analysis. Simply, those who sell their labor to survive are workers. And that describes the vast majority of America’s adult population. This is good and bad news. It’s bad because it means millions of Americans bear the brunt of capitalist exploitation. But it’s good news because of the fundamental Marxist idea that, where there’s a proletariat, there’s hope. The United States isn’t stuck in a grinding malaise because most of its people are settlers. In fairness, settler colonialism is a useful framework to understand how Native Americans lost their land and sovereignty. However, using it to assign intergenerational blame and deny a Starbucks barista’s proletarian status is not just inaccurate but outright counterproductive. Settlers posits that the American majority lacks any revolutionary potential. Yet that cannot account for the country’s progressive tradition, which mostly occurred when it was far whiter than today. This leaves Sakai with no choice but to minimize that tradition, which he does constantly. His minimization takes many forms, including attributing to famous labor leaders views opposite to those they actually held. It’s easy to accuse Sakai of intentional fraud. Maybe this was just an especially bad case of confirmation bias, or even something more innocent. Regardless, if your theory relies heavily on mistruths and selective emphasis, it’s probably not the right one. The current political order isn’t corrupt because of the caucasian majority’s supposedly inevitable tendency toward reaction. America isn’t captured by an inseparable brotherhood of white nationalists. It’s captured by financial and business interests. Gangster capitalists have regrettably always enjoyed high status in the United States. But only in the late 19th century did their influence begin to completely eclipse that of labor. For roughly a century following the revolution, America expanded westward. Most of what became the western United States was Mexican territory until the 1840s. With its burgeoning industrial economy, America had the productive capacity to conquer any indigenous or state actor between them and the Pacific. Incrementally, the United States annexed more land as the government encouraged further settlement to expand the American economy. Expansion served as a pressure-release mechanism for class conflict. While extremely dangerous and often not individually profitable, “going to the frontier” was an invaluable tool for the capitalist class. Urban laborers toiled in horrific conditions. But the theoretical option to establish a homestead for cheap and get rich perpetuated the lie that capitalism is fair. When the frontier finally closed, the owning class faced a predicament. Absent new lands to be incorporated, building national wealth required developing industry and exploiting domestic natural resources. Crucially, for this approach to generate massive profits, investing in both capital and workers themselves was a must. Only then could America’s productive forces add maximum value to raw materials during the manufacturing process. Economic nationalism was the only path to stability and prosperity. The United States had the resources to make such a transition. But if so, the power of capital would inevitably decline relative to labor. And the elites couldn’t have that. So, rather than invest in domestic productive forces, they reopened the frontier. This explains why the United States continued its imperial ventures after conquering the West. In 1898, it fought and won the Spanish-American War — gaining control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Add to that the conquest of Hawaii five years earlier, and the character of the United States had utterly transformed. In 1850, America was not even a contender for global hegemony. The British empire was still firmly dominant on the world stage — the captain of capitalism, if you will. By 1900, however, the United States had unambiguously established itself as an emerging imperialist power. Then came World War I, which the Brits entered still the global superpower. By the end of it, there was a new paradigm. The Brits had borrowed so much money to win the war that they became deeply indebted to J.P. Morgan & Co. Britain’s accumulation of non-sovereign debt was the grease that allowed preeminence to slip through its fingers. Other European powers were in a similar position, owing vast sums to American financiers. Unlike the strategic inter-imperialist alliances of the past, the United States refused to forgive the huge loans it provided the Allies. Contrast this with the French monarchy’s decisive aid to American revolutionaries against the British, for which they demanded no repayment on nearly $700,000,000 in direct military backing. It was a deliberate strategy. United States elites outwitted their counterparts across the Atlantic. They sowed the seeds of European imperial decline, giving them the entire colonized world to rape and pillage. In the aftermath of World War I, American elites — through historic dirty dealings — solved the frontier predicament. By re-expanding the field of conquest, they were able to continue generating profits without resorting to economic nationalism. This undoubtedly stunted the United States’ development — especially from a working-class perspective, which is the one that matters most. Economic nationalism is a more effective strategy for delivering widespread prosperity. We see this in contemporary China. For the last 40 years, its Communist Party has steered industry and utilized natural resources to raise living standards broadly. Private industry is at the mercy of careful state planning, which has empowered Chinese workers in unprecedented ways. The results have been downright remarkable. Even capitalist media can’t deny them. Over 850 million Chinese have escaped poverty since 1980. China has now had the world’s largest economy for nearly a decade. But that development model was only possible because of Mao Zedong, who kneecapped the capitalist class. As the late Marxist luminary Domenico Losurdo explained, not all of the productive forces in Mao’s China were publicly owned. A “significant private economy” remained. Yet it followed state planning because Chairman Mao believed strongly in, above all, expropriating the political capital of the bourgeoisie. And he governed successfully to that end. This set the stage for the incredible progress we see today. By the time Deng Xiaoping took power in 1978, the capitalists were already sufficiently weak. This enabled public control of the economy and the modern arrangements known collectively as Socialism with Chinese characteristics. China, in other words, had a head start thanks to its timeless chairman. America was not so lucky. Despite its revolutionary founding, British colonialism entrenched a system of elite domination that proved difficult to shake. The United States thus developed in the colonial legacy of the world’s preeminent capitalist power — capitalism’s progenitor, in fact. Building socialism in that context is no small feat, and akin to swimming against the tide. Consequently, for all of American history, elites have directed the economy, constantly taking steps to further consolidate their power. That certainly makes liberation harder — but not impossible. Many states have shed their colonial pasts and embraced a leftist social order that empowers ordinary people. China itself is one example. In the 1800s, imperialism ravaged the Middle Kingdom. British forces occupied and annexed Hong Kong. They invaded mainland China and didn’t just steal its most valuable resources but hooked the population on opioids. British colonialism created generations of addicts and instigated broad and unprecedented social instability. Yet China overcame. America can too. Embrace the founding’s radical tradition. No socialist movement has ever seized power on a platform of national shame. Fight for a politics of the 99%. Believe in the possibility of a better tomorrow. America is redeemable if we try. AuthorYouhanna Haddad is a North American Marxist of the Arab diaspora. Through his writing, he seeks to combat the Western liberal dogmas that uphold racial capitalism. You can contact him at [email protected]. Archives September 2024 |
Details
Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|