Honor The 92nd Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Communist International (March, 1919)- Honor The 90th Anniversary Of The Historic Third World Congress Of The CI (1921)
Markin comment:
Some anniversaries, like those marking the publication of a book, play or poem, are worthy of remembrance every five, ten, or twenty-five years. Other more world historic events like the remembrance of the Paris Commune of 1871, the Bolshevik Russian Revolution of 1917, and, as here, the founding of the Communist International (also known as the Third International, Comintern, and CI) in 1919 are worthy of yearly attention. Why is that so in the case of the long departed (1943, by Stalin fiat) and, at the end unlamented, Comintern? That is what this year’s remembrance, through CI documentation and other commentary, will attempt to impart on those leftist militants who are serious about studying the lessons of our revolutionary, our communist revolutionary past.
No question that the old injunction of Marx and Engels as early as the Communist Manifesto that the workers of the world needed to unite would have been hollow, and reduced to hortatory holiday speechifying (there was enough of that, as it was) without an organization expression. And they, Marx and Engels, fitfully made their efforts with the all-encompassing pan-working class First International. Later the less all encompassing but still party of the whole class-oriented socialist Second International made important, if limited, contributions to fulfilling that slogan before the advent of world imperialism left its outlook wanting, very wanting.
The Third International thus was created, as mentioned in one of the commentaries in this series, to pick up the fallen banner of international socialism after the betrayals of the Second International. More importantly, it was the first international organization that took upon itself in its early, heroic revolutionary days, at least, the strategic question of how to make, and win, a revolution in the age of world imperialism. The Trotsky-led effort of creating a Fourth International in the 1930s, somewhat stillborn as it turned out to be, nevertheless based itself, correctly, on those early days of the Comintern. So in some of the specific details of the posts in this year’s series, highlighting the 90th anniversary of the Third World Congress this is “just” history, but right underneath, and not far underneath at that, are rich lessons for us to ponder today.
*********
Third Congress of the Communist International
The Communist International and the Red International of Trade Unions
The Struggle Against the Amsterdam (scab) Trade-Union International
Source: Theses Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congress of the Third International, translated by Alix Holt and Barbara Holland. Ink Links 1980;
Transcribed: by Andy Blunden.
12 July 1921
I
The bourgeoisie keeps the working class enslaved not only by means of naked force, but also by subtle deception. In the hands of the bourgeoisie, the school, the church, parliament, art, literature, the daily press – all become powerful means of duping the working masses and spreading the ideas of the bourgeoisie into the proletarian milieu.
One of the ideas which the ruling classes have succeeded in inculcating into the working masses is trade-union neutrality – the idea that trade unions are non-political organisations and should have no party affiliations.
Over recent decades and, in particular, since the end of the imperialist war, the trade unions in Europe and America have become the largest of the proletarian organisations, in some countries uniting the entire working class. The bourgeoisie is well aware that the future of the capitalist system in the next few years depends on the extent to which the trade unions free themselves from bourgeois influences. Hence the frantic efforts of the international bourgeoisie and its social-democratic hangers-on to maintain, at all costs, the hold of bourgeois social democratic ideology over the trade unions.
As the bourgeoisie cannot openly call on the workers’ trade unions to support the bourgeois parties, it urges the unions not to support any party, the revolutionary Communist Party included. The sole aim of the bourgeoisie, however, is to prevent the trade unions from supporting the Communist Party.
The idea that trade unions should be neutral and apolitical has a long history. For decades the trade unions of Great Britain, Germany, America and other countries have believed in this idea. The priest-ridden Christian trade unions, the leaders of the bourgeois Hirsch Duncker trade unions, the respectable and peace-loving British trade unions, the members of the free trade unions of Germany and many syndicalists – all have come to accept it. Legien, Gompers, Jouhaux, etc. have been preaching neutrality for years.
In reality the trade unions have never been and could never have been neutral, even had they tried. Not only is trade-union neutrality harmful to the working class, but it cannot possibly be maintained. In the struggle between capital and labour, no mass workers’ organisation can remain neutral. The trade unions cannot remain uncommitted in their relations with the bourgeois parties and the parties of the proletariat. The leaders of the bourgeoisie are perfectly aware of this. But, just as it is essential to the bourgeoisie that the masses believe in life after death, so is it essential that they also believe that trade unions can be apolitical organisations and neutral in their relations with the workers’ Communist Party. In order to maintain its rule and squeeze surplus value from the workers, the bourgeoisie needs not only the priest, the policeman, the general and the informer, but also the trade-union bureaucrat and the kind of ‘workers” leader that teaches trade-unionists the virtues of neutrality and non-participation in political struggle.
Even before the imperialist war broke out, the more politically educated workers in Europe and America had begun to see through the idea of neutrality. The inadequacy of this teaching became even more obvious as the class contradictions deepened. When the imperialist slaughter began, the old trade-union leaders were forced to drop their masks of neutrality and openly take sides, each with their own national bourgeoisie.
During the imperialist war the social democrats and syndicalists who had for years preached that trade unions were apolitical placed their organisations at the service of the murderous policy of the bourgeois parties; those who had yesterday preached trade-union ‘neutrality’ now became the undisguised agents of certain political parties, but parties of the bourgeoisie, not parties of the working class.
Now that the imperialist war has ended, these same social-democratic and syndicalist trade-union leaders are trying once more to hide behind the mask of trade-union neutrality. Now that the war emergency is over, these agents of the bourgeoisie are adapting themselves to the new situation; they are trying to divert the workers from the path of revolution onto a path that profits the bourgeoisie alone.
Economics and politics are inseparably linked. This connection is particularly close in epochs such as the present. All important questions of political life should interest not only the workers’ party, but also the proletarian trade unions, and, similarly, all important economic questions should interest both trade union and workers’ party. When the French imperialist government calls up certain age-groups in order to occupy the Ruhr basin and crush Germany, can the French proletarian and trade-union movement say that this is a purely political question which does not concern the trade unions? Can a revolutionary French trade-unionist remain neutral on such a question? Or, to take another example: if a purely economic movement develops in Britain such as the present coal-miners’ strike, can the Communist Party say that this is just a trade-union question that does not concern it? At a time when millions of unemployed are faced with the struggle against poverty and need, when the question of requisitioning the homes of the bourgeoisie to relieve the housing shortage has to be raised, when the broad masses of workers are forced by circumstances to consider the question of arming the proletariat, when, first in one country and then in another, the workers organise the seizure of factories – at such a time, to say that the trade unions must not interfere in the political struggle and must remain neutral in relation to political parties means in practice to serve the bourgeoisie.
Despite the wide variety of names adopted by the political parties in Europe and in America, they can, on the whole, be divided into three groups: 1) parties of the bourgeoisie 2) parties of the petty bourgeoisie (mainly the social-democratic parties) and 3) parties of the proletariat (the Communists). Those trade unions which proclaim themselves neutral in relation to the three above-mentioned groups of parties in practice support the parties of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie.
II
The Amsterdam Trade-Union International is the organisation in which the Second International and the Two-and-a-Half International have met and joined hands. The bourgeoisie everywhere looks to this organisation with hope and trust. The neutrality of the trade unions is the fundamental principle of the IFTU. It is no accident that the bourgeoisie and its hangers-on – the social democrats and the right-wing syndicalists – are trying to rally the broad working masses in Western Europe and America under the slogan of trade-union neutrality. The Second International, which was more obviously political and openly went over to the side of the bourgeoisie, has completely collapsed, while the IFTU, which is attempting to hide its true colours once more behind the cover of neutrality, is having a certain success. Under the flag of neutrality, the IFTU carries out the dirtiest and most difficult missions of the bourgeoisie. The miners’ strike in Britain, for example, was crushed by the infamous J.H. Thomas, who is both chairman of the Second International and one of the best-known leaders of the IFTU. The IFTU is a party to the lowering of workers’ wages and to the organised robbery of the German workers as payment for the sins of the German imperialist bourgeoisie.
The workers’ leaders – Leipart, Grassman, Albert Thomas, Jouhaux, J.H. Thomas, Wissell, Bauer, and Robert Schmidt – have agreed on a division of labour. Some of them, who were previously leaders of the trade unions, have now entered bourgeois governments, serving as ministers, commissars, etc., while others, of the same flesh and blood, head the IFTU and preach neutrality in the political struggle to their trade-union members.
The IFTU is at the present time the main supporter of international capital. The struggle against capitalism cannot be waged successfully unless the need to fight this conception of the trade unions as apolitical and neutral is grasped. Before the most effective methods of struggle against the IFTU can be worked out, it is essential first and foremost to establish a clear and exact definition of the relations between the Party and the trade unions in each country.
III
The Communist Party is the vanguard of the proletariat. Its members have fully understood how the proletariat is to be liberated from capitalist oppression and have consciously accepted the Communist programme.
Trade unions are mass organisations of the proletariat. They are increasingly developed into organisations which unite all the workers of a given branch of industry; they include in their ranks not only dedicated Communists, but also workers who have little interest in politics and workers who are politically backward and who only gradually, through their own experience, come to understand what Communism means. In many respects the role of the trade union varies according to the stage the revolution has reached. But at every stage the trade unions are organisations which rally broader layers of the masses than does the Party. Their relation to the Party is to some extent like that of the provinces to the centre. In the period before the seizure of power, the truly revolutionary trade unions organise the workers, primarily on an economic basis, to fight for gains which can be won under capitalism. However, the main object of all their activity must be the organisation of the proletarian struggle to overthrow capitalism by proletarian revolution. At a time of revolution the genuinely revolutionary trade unions work closely with the Party; they organise the masses to attack capitalist strongholds and are responsible for laying the foundations of socialist production. After power has been won and consolidated, economic organisation becomes the central focus of trade-union work. The unions devote almost all their forces to the task of organising the economy on a socialist basis and are effectively transformed into a practical school of Communism. At all three stages of the struggle the trade unions must support the proletarian vanguard – the Communist Party – which leads the struggle of the proletariat. To achieve this end, the Communists and their sympathisers must organise cells within the trade unions; these cells are completely subordinate to the Communist Party as a whole.
The tactic formulated by the Second Congress of the Communist International of setting up Communist cells in each trade union has over the past year proved itself to be correct. Significant results have been achieved in Germany, Britain, France and Italy and in a number of other countries. The fact that considerable numbers of the less experienced workers have recently been leaving the free unions in Germany, out of disappointment at not receiving any direct advantages, should not alter the principled position taken by the Communist International on the participation of Communists in the trade-union movement. Communists must explain to the proletariat that their problems can be answered not by leaving the old trade unions for new ones, or by staying outside the unions, but by revolutionising the trade unions, ridding them of reformist influence and the treacherous reformist leaders, and transforming them into a genuine stronghold of the revolutionary proletariat.
IV
The principal task of all Communists over the next period, is to wage a firm and vigorous struggle to win the majority of the workers organised in the trade unions. The Communist must not be discouraged by the present reactionary mood of the labour unions, but must try to overcome all resistance and by actively participating in their day-to-day struggle, win the unions to Communism. The true measure of the strength of a Communist Party is the influence it has on the mass of trade-unionists. The Party must learn how to influence the unions without being tempted to put itself forward as their guardian. Only the Communist cells of the union are subject to Party control; the union as such is independent of any control. The Communists have to rely on the persistent, selfless and intelligent work on the part of the Communist trade-union cells in order to make the trade unions as a whole willing and eager to follow their advice.
In France the trade unions are at present going through a period of healthy ferment. The working class is gradually beginning to recover strength after the crisis in its ranks, and is learning to recognise the treachery of the social-reformists and syndicalists for what it is.
Some of the revolutionary syndicalists in France are still prejudiced against the idea of political struggle and a proletarian political party. They still subscribe to the principle of neutrality as expressed in the well-known Amiens Charter of 1906. This incorrect and vulnerable position held by a wing of the revolutionary syndicalists is potentially dangerous for the movement. If this wing were to gain the majority in the unions, it would not know how to act and would be helpless against the agents of capital, the Jouhauxs, the Dumoulins, etc.
The revolutionary syndicalists will lack a firm line until the Communist Party itself develops a consistent policy. The French Communist Party must seek to co-operate in a friendly fashion with the most politically advanced of the revolutionary syndicalists. It is, however, essential that the Party rely primarily on its own members, forming Communist cells wherever it has two or three members. The Party must initiate an immediate agitational campaign against the concept of neutrality. It must explain in a friendly but firm way the incorrect aspects of revolutionary syndicalism. This is the only approach that can revolutionise the French trade-union movement and bring about the close co-operation of the Party and the movement.
In Italy the situation has certain specific aspects. The rank-and-file members of the trade unions are revolutionary, but the leadership of the Confederazione del Lavoro is in the hands of out-and-out reformists and centrists whose sympathies are with the IFTU. The first task of the Italian Communists is therefore to organise a firm struggle within the trade unions around day-to-day issues to expose systematically and patiently the treachery and indecision of the leaders, thereby wresting the trade unions from their control.
The Italian Communists should adopt the same attitude towards the revolutionary syndicalists as the French Communists.
In Spain the trade-union movement is very revolutionary in outlook, but has no clearly defined goal. The Communist Party is young and relatively weak. The Communists must do everything possible to secure a firm footing in the trade unions, giving active support and advice, conducting a vigorous campaign of agitation within the unions and establishing firm links between their party and the unions as a first step towards co-ordinating the struggle.
Important developments are taking place within the British trade-union movement. The unions are rapidly adopting a revolutionary orientation. The mass movement is growing, and the old trade-union leaders are being thrust aside. The Party must do its utmost to establish itself firmly in the largest unions (the miners’ unions etc.). Party members must be active in their unions and must work consistently and hard to extend Communist influence. Every effort must be made to forge closer contacts with the masses.
The same revolutionary process is occurring in America, though more slowly. Communists must on no account leave the ranks of the reactionary Federation of Labour [composed in the main of skilled workers]. On the contrary, they should seek to gain a foothold in the old trade unions with the aim of revolutionising them. It is vital that they work with the IWW members most sympathetic to the Party; this does not, however, preclude arguing against the IWW’s political positions.
In Japan abroad trade-union movement is developing spontaneously, but so far no clear leadership has emerged. Japanese Communists must support this movement and exert a Marxist influence upon it.
In Czechoslovakia our Party has the support of the majority of the working class, but the trade-union movement is still largely in the hands of the social-patriots, and is furthermore split along ethnic lines. This is the result of poor organisation and indecisive policies on our part. The Party must make a great effort to improve the situation and win the leadership of the trade-union movement. The formation of Communist cells in the unions and of a central trade-union body for Communists of all nationalities is absolutely essential. Every effort must also be made to unite the various politically divided unions.
In Austria and Belgium the social-patriots have skilfully managed to achieve a firm influence on the trade unions. In these two countries the trade-union movement is the main arena of struggle, and therefore the Communists should direct all their attention to this area of work.
In Norway the Party has the support of the majority of workers and must now strengthen its position in the trade unions and rid the leadership of its centrist elements.
In Sweden the Party has to contend not only with reformism, but also with petty-bourgeois currents in the socialist movement.
In Germany the Party is on the right road to winning over the trade unions gradually. On no account should concessions be made to those who advocate withdrawal from the trade unions. This would play into the hands of the social-patriots. All attempts to exclude Communists from the unions must be stubbornly resisted, and every effort must be made to win the majority of the organised workers.
V
These considerations determine the relations to be established between the Communist International on the one hand and the Red Trade-Union International on the other.
It is the task of the Communist International to direct not only the political struggle of the proletariat in the narrow sense of the word, but the general struggle for liberation, whatever forms it may take. The Communist International must be more than the arithmetical total of the Central Committees of the Communist Parties of the various countries. The Communist International must inspire and unite the work and struggle of all proletarian organisations, both the purely political and the trade-union, co-operative, Soviet and cultural organisations, etc.
The RILU, unlike the scab Amsterdam International, can in no circumstances stand above politics or adopt an attitude of neutrality. Any organisation that wanted to be neutral in relation to the II, the “Two-and-a-Half” and III Internationals would inevitably become a pawn in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The programme of action of the International Council of the Red Trade Unions which is outlined below, and which the Third World Congress of the Communist International is to present to the first Congress of the Red Trade Unions, will be defended in practice by the Communist Parties and the Communist International alone. For this reason, if for no other, the Red trade unions that wish to revolutionise the trade-union movement in every country and honestly and firmly carry out the movement’s new tasks will have to work in close contact with the Communist Party, and the International Council of Red Trade Unions will have to co-ordinate all its work with that of the Communist International.
The respect for neutrality, independence, apoliticism and non-partisanship that some honest revolutionary syndicalists in France, Spain, Italy and certain other countries harbour is nothing other than a concession to bourgeois ideology. The Red trade unions will be incapable of defeating the scab Amsterdam International or of overthrowing capitalism unless they repudiate once and for all the bourgeois ideas of independence and neutrality.
In order to conserve strength and concentrate striking power, the ideal solution would be the formation of a single proletarian International, uniting in its ranks both political parties and other forms of working-class organisation. Undoubtedly this is the organisation of the future. However, in the present transitional period, given the diverse types of trade union that actually exist, the essential need is for an independent international association of Red trade unions which supports the general outline of the platform of the Communist International, but sets less strict conditions for membership than the Communist International can allow.
The Third Congress of the Communist International pledges wholehearted support to the International Council of Red Trade Unions which is to be organised along these lines. To ensure closer contact between the Communist International and the RILU, the Third Congress of the Communist International proposes that it should be permanently represented by three members on the International Council of Red Trade Unions and vice versa.
The programme of action which the Communist International would like to see accepted by the Constituent World Congress of the Red Trade Unions is along the following lines:
Programme of Action
1 The acute world economic crisis, the catastrophic fall of wholesale prices, the overproduction of goods coupled with their actual scarcity, the aggressive anti-working-class policy pursued by the bourgeoisie, which aims at lowering wages and throwing the workers back decades – all this has led to discontent among the masses on the one hand and to the bankruptcy of the old trade unions and their methods of struggle on the other. The revolutionary, class-conscious trade unions the world over are confronted with new tasks. In this period of capitalist disintegration new forms of economic struggle have to be adopted and the trade unions have to pursue an aggressive economic policy in order to counter the capitalist attack and go over to the offensive.
2 The main tactic of the trade unions has to be the direct action of the revolutionary masses and their organisations against the capitalist system. The gains the workers make are in direct proportion to the degree of direct action taken and of revolutionary pressure exerted by the masses. By direct action is meant all forms of direct pressure on the employers and the state – boycotts, strikes, street demonstrations, the seizure of factories, armed insurrection and other revolutionary activities which unite the working class in the struggle for socialism. The aim of the revolutionary class trade unions is therefore to make direct action an instrument in the education and military training of the working masses for the social revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
3 The most recent years of struggle have shown especially clearly the weakness of the trade-union organisations. The fact that workers in the same enterprise belong to several different unions reduces their ability to struggle. An unremitting fight therefore has to be fought to restructure the unions so that each union represents a whole branch of industry instead of a single trade. “Only one union in a factory” – this is the organisational slogan. The fusion of unions should be carried out in a revolutionary way – the question should be discussed directly by the members of the unions at the factories and subsequently by district and regional conferences and national congresses.
4 Each factory must become a stronghold of the revolution. The traditional forms of contact between rank-and-file members of the unions (through dues collectors, representatives, delegates) must be superseded by the formation of factory committees. All workers, whatever their political convictions, should participate in the election of the factory committees. RILU supporters should strive to involve all the workers of the factory in the elections of their representative body. Any attempt to elect exclusively like-minded comrades to the factory committees, thus excluding the broad masses who remain outside the Party, should be sharply condemned. This would be a Party cell rather than a factory committee. The revolutionary workers must influence the general meeting and the factory committee through the Party cells, the committees of action and the work of their rank-and-file members.
5 The first question which needs to be put before the workers and the factory committees is the issue of maintenance money that employers should pay workers made redundant. In no circumstance should factory owners be allowed to throw workers out onto the streets without bearing any of the consequences. They ought to pay full redundancy pay. The unemployed and, to an even greater extent, the employed workers should be organised around this question. They should be shown that the problem of unemployment cannot be solved as long as capitalist relations exist and that the best method of beating unemployment is to fight for social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
6 At the present time the closure of factories and the reduction of the working day are two of the most important weapons used by the bourgeoisie to force the workers to accept lower wages, longer hours and the ending of factory agreements. The lock-out is increasingly becoming the form of ‘direct action’ used by the organised employers against the organised working masses. The unions must fight the closure of factories and demand that the workers have the right to investigate the reasons behind the closure. Special control commissions to deal with raw materials, fuel and orders must be established to carry out on-the-spot checks of the raw materials in stock, the materials essential to production and the bank balance of the factory or institution.
Specially elected control committees must undertake a thorough investigation of financial relations between the concern in question and other concerns – this raises in a practical way the need to open the books.
7 Factory occupations and work-ins are also forms of struggle against the mass closure of factories and wage cuts. In view of the prevailing lack of consumer goods, it is particularly important that production be maintained and unions should not permit the deliberate closure of factories. Other methods of putting pressure on capital can and must be used, in accordance with local conditions, the industrial and political situation, and the intensity of the social struggle. The administration of factories occupied by workers should be placed in the hands of factory committees and union representatives specially picked for the purpose.
8 The economic struggle should be fought around the slogan of raising wages and working conditions far above pre-war levels. Attempts to reintroduce pre-war working conditions must be resisted in a determined and revolutionary manner. The working class must be compensated for the privations of war-time by an increase in wages and an improvement in labour conditions. Capitalist arguments about foreign competition should always be disregarded: the revolutionary trade unions must approach the question of wages and labour conditions from the standpoint of the protection and the welfare of the labour force and not from the standpoint of competition between the exploiters of different nations.
9 If capitalist policy, as a result of the economic crisis, is leading to wage cuts, the revolutionary trade unions should make sure that their forces are not divided by wages being lowered first in one factory then in another. The workers in the socially useful branches of the economy (miners, railway workers, electricity and gas workers) must struggle from the start so that the resistance to the capitalist attack affects the key centres of the country’s economic life. All types of resistance, from guerrilla actions to general national strikes of individual basic industries, can be used.
10 The trade unions must consider in practical terms the question of preparing and organising industrial strike action in particular industries on an international scale. The temporary standstill on an international scale of transport or coal-mining is a powerful weapon against the reactionary intentions of the bourgeoisie. The trade unions must follow world events closely in order to choose the most appropriate moment for economic struggle. They must not for a moment forget that international action of any kind is only possible with the formation of international trade unions that are genuinely revolutionary and have nothing in common with the scab Amsterdam International.
11 The revolutionary movement must strongly criticise the absolute faith in the value of collective agreements preached by opportunists everywhere. The collective agreement is nothing more than an armistice. The owners always violate these agreements at the earliest opportunity. This religious attitude towards collective agreements is evidence that bourgeois ideology is firmly rooted in the minds of the leaders of the working class. Revolutionary trade unions must not reject collective agreements, but they must understand that their value is limited, and must be prepared to break the agreements when this benefits the working class.
12 The struggle of the workers’ organisations against the individual employer or groups of employers should, while adapting itself to national and local conditions, also draw on all the experience acquired in previous struggles for working-class emancipation. Every important strike, for example, needs to be thoroughly prepared. Furthermore, from the outset the workers must form special groups to fight the strike-breakers and combat the provocative action of the various kinds of right-wing organisation which are encouraged by the bourgeois governments. The Fascists in Italy, the German technical emergency relief, the civilian organisations in France and Britain whose membership is composed of former officers and N.C.O.s – all these organisations have as their object the destruction and suppression of all working-class activity, not only by providing scab labour, but by smashing the working-class organisations and getting rid of their leaders. In such situations the organisation of special strike militias and special self-defence groups is a matter of life and death.
13 These defence organisations should not only resist the factory owners and the strike-breaking organisations – they should take the initiative in stopping the dispatch of goods to and from the factory where the strike is in progress. The transport workers’ union should play a particularly prominent role in such activity: it is its responsibility to hold up goods in transit, which can only be done, however, with the full support of all the workers in the area.
14 In the coming period the entire economic struggle of the working class must be conducted around the slogan of workers’ control over production. The workers should fight for the immediate introduction of workers’ control and not wait for the government and the ruling classes to think up some alternative. An uncompromising struggle has to be waged against all attempts by the ruling classes and the reformists to create intermediary labour associations and control commissions. Only when strict control over production is introduced can results be achieved. The revolutionary trade unions must resolutely fight against the way the leaders of the traditional unions, aided and abetted by the ruling class, use the idea of ‘nationalisation’ to blackmail and swindle the workers.
These gentlemen talk about peaceful socialisation only to divert the workers from revolutionary activity and social revolution.
15 Ideas of profit-sharing are put forward in order to play on the petty-bourgeois aspirations of the workers, diverting their attention from their long-term goals. Profit-sharing means that workers receive an insignificant part of the surplus value they produce, and the idea should therefore be subjected to harsh and rigorous criticism. “Not profit-sharing, but an end to capitalist profit” should be the slogan of the revolutionary unions.
16 In order to reduce or break the fighting power of the working class, the bourgeois states have resorted, under the pretence of protecting vital industries, to the temporary militarisation of industrial factories and whole branches of industry. Compulsory arbitration and conciliation commissions have been introduced, allegedly to prevent economic crises, but in actual fact to defend capital. In the interests of capital, direct taxation has been introduced, which places the burden of the war expenditure entirely on the shoulders of the workers and turns the employer into a tax-collector. The trade unions must put up a fierce fight against these state measures that serve only the interests of the capitalist class.
17 When they struggle for better labour conditions and living standards for the masses and the introduction of workers’ control, the Red unions should remember that these problems cannot be lastingly settled within the framework of capitalist relations. As the revolutionary trade unions win concessions from the ruling classes, step by step, forcing them to pass social legislation, they must make it clear to the working masses that only the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat can solve the social question. They must use every action, every local strike, every conflict, however minor, to argue their point. They must draw the lessons from the experience of struggle, raising the consciousness of the rank and file and preparing the workers for the time when it will be necessary and possible to achieve the social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
18 Every economic struggle is a political struggle, i.e., a struggle that concerns the class as a whole. However great working-class participation, the struggle can only be revolutionary and bring the proletariat maximum benefit if the revolutionary trade unions work in a close and unified fashion with the Communist Party of the country in question. The theory and practice of dividing the working-class struggle into two independent halves is extremely harmful, particularly in the present revolutionary situation. Every action requires the greatest possible concentration of forces, which can only be achieved if the working class, and all its Communist and revolutionary elements, give their utmost to the revolutionary struggle. If the Communist Parties and the revolutionary class-conscious trade unions work separately, their action is doomed to failure and defeat. It is for this reason that unity of action and close contact between the Communist Parties and the trade unions are prerequisites for success in the struggle against capitalism.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Major Media Promote War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman- A Guest Commentary
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Major Media Promote War on Libya
Major Media Promote War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:
"We would be against any military intervention against the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace. (Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case" is Bolarivarianism.
"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any military (attack or) invasion of Libya."
Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified reports.
Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.
Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No
For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.
A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful of popular interests.
The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies, however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.
Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all, what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.
Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating facts to be hardline.
As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme. No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in sight.
The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:
His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."
This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."
Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless used to wage war.
Moreover, discredited reporter Judith Miller wrote daily propaganda, functioning as a Pentagon press agent, not a legitimate journalist. Commenting on her earlier, Alex Cockburn said:
"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."
Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They stay in full battle mode against new targets.
Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes, a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change if Washington attacks.
The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February 21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities," saying:
His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.
On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "The Reluctant American," saying:
"The moral and strategic case for US leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"
Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease, and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans! Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!
Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.
On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:
"The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.
Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay." "No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents, but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America legally went to war.
In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out. "Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean," asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words perhaps ahead of proceeding.
Pentagon officials want an international action mandate, either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites it the way it precedes all US wars.
Notable was Al Jazeera's March 1 report headlining: "Battles rage in Libya," saying:
Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya." Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi remains defiant.
Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions. Affected nations are never the same.
Breaching Libyan Sovereignty
Britain and Germany already launched air operations to evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.
In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal," adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security forces for America's "war on terror."
Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added: "We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including weapons, intervention and war.
Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored. So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same things.
Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources, exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for the kill.
Final Comments
According to Russia Today (RT) television:
Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing. Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are entirely bogus.
Writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian special maintains reliable Libyan contacts, essential for accurate accounts on the ground.
On March 2, he said the following:
-- "Qaddafi still has control over much of the country."
-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing) these reports....to the public."
-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."
-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy," jobs, better wages, and other social issues.
-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been peaceful for days."
-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely) made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact, he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."
-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate with the places not under his control."
-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists, "blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."
It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness against another target before advancing to the next one.
While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:
During December and January protests, Tunisian security forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing) with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.
"People detained by the security forces were also systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to (corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera, largely suppress this.
Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured. US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.
On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters. An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators, wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.
In its January 11 report titled, "Crackdown in Bahrain: human rights at the crossroads," AI cited serious human rights abuses, including suppressing free expression, closing critical web sites, and banning opposition publications, besides arrests, killings, beatings and other abuses.
US major media reports suppress client regime crimes. Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting. Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention. As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder, exploitation and profits.
Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn. Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What better time than now to stop it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Major Media Promote War on Libya
Major Media Promote War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:
"We would be against any military intervention against the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace. (Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case" is Bolarivarianism.
"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any military (attack or) invasion of Libya."
Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified reports.
Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.
Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No
For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.
A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful of popular interests.
The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies, however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.
Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all, what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.
Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating facts to be hardline.
As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme. No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in sight.
The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:
His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."
This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."
Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless used to wage war.
Moreover, discredited reporter Judith Miller wrote daily propaganda, functioning as a Pentagon press agent, not a legitimate journalist. Commenting on her earlier, Alex Cockburn said:
"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."
Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They stay in full battle mode against new targets.
Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes, a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change if Washington attacks.
The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February 21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities," saying:
His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.
On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "The Reluctant American," saying:
"The moral and strategic case for US leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"
Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease, and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans! Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!
Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.
On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:
"The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.
Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay." "No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents, but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America legally went to war.
In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out. "Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean," asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words perhaps ahead of proceeding.
Pentagon officials want an international action mandate, either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites it the way it precedes all US wars.
Notable was Al Jazeera's March 1 report headlining: "Battles rage in Libya," saying:
Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya." Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi remains defiant.
Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions. Affected nations are never the same.
Breaching Libyan Sovereignty
Britain and Germany already launched air operations to evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.
In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal," adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security forces for America's "war on terror."
Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added: "We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including weapons, intervention and war.
Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored. So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same things.
Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources, exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for the kill.
Final Comments
According to Russia Today (RT) television:
Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing. Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are entirely bogus.
Writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian special maintains reliable Libyan contacts, essential for accurate accounts on the ground.
On March 2, he said the following:
-- "Qaddafi still has control over much of the country."
-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing) these reports....to the public."
-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."
-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy," jobs, better wages, and other social issues.
-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been peaceful for days."
-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely) made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact, he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."
-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate with the places not under his control."
-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists, "blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."
It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness against another target before advancing to the next one.
While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:
During December and January protests, Tunisian security forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing) with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.
"People detained by the security forces were also systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to (corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera, largely suppress this.
Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured. US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.
On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters. An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators, wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.
In its January 11 report titled, "Crackdown in Bahrain: human rights at the crossroads," AI cited serious human rights abuses, including suppressing free expression, closing critical web sites, and banning opposition publications, besides arrests, killings, beatings and other abuses.
US major media reports suppress client regime crimes. Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting. Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention. As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder, exploitation and profits.
Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn. Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What better time than now to stop it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
From The Rag Blog- Senate Bill 5 squeaks by in Columbus:Corporate union busters draw first blood in Ohio
Senate Bill 5 squeaks by in Columbus:Corporate union busters draw first blood in Ohio
By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman /The Rag Blog / March 3, 2011
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The national corporate campaign to destroy America’s public sector unions has drawn first blood in Ohio.
But a counterattack centered on one or more statewide initiatives or constitutional amendments has become highly likely.
While thousands of protesters chanted, spoke and sang inside and outside the statehouse for the past two weeks, the Ohio Senate voted 17-16 on Senate Bill 5, a bill that will slash collective bargaining for state workers by banning strikes and giving local officials the right to settle disputes. The bill, among other things, also eliminates all paid sick days for teachers.
The vote came amid shouts of “shame on you” and widespread booing from the diverse crowd of teachers, police, firefighters, construction workers, state employees, and more.
The bill decimates a legal framework in place since 1983. The vote was surprisingly close as six Republicans joined 10 Democrats in opposition. The 17 yes voters were all Republicans.
In order to vote the bill out of committee, Republican Senate president Tom Niehaus had to remove two key Republican senators who opposed the bill from crucial committees. Both Senators Scott Oelslager of Canton and Bill Seitz of Cincinnati were yanked from their posts. The removal of Seitz broke a committee stalemate and allowed the bill to come to the floor with a 7-5 vote.
Ultraconservative Senator Timothy Grendell of rural Chesterland, Ohio denounced the bill as"unconstitutional" pointing out that it prohibits union members from talking with elected public officials during negotiations and labels such activity as an unfair labor practice. Seitz echoed this theme: "It's an unfair labor practice if they exercise their First Amendment right to call up their councilman."
The bill now goes to the Ohio House, where it is fast-tracked and anticipated to pass by mid-March. In the House, the passage is being orchestrated by House Speaker Bill Batchelder. The Free Press has reported in the past of Batchelder's ties to the secretive Council for National Policy.
Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates describes CNP members as not only traditional conservatives, but also nativists, xenophobes, white racial supremacists, homophobes, sexists, militarists, authoritarians, reactionaries and "in some cases outright neo-fascists."
The Democrats do not hold enough seats in either house to deny the GOP a quorum, as is being done in Wisconsin and Indiana.
Ohio’s multimillonaire Governor John Kasich, who got rich selling junk assets to public pensions in Ohio as a managing partner for Lehman Brothers , will sign the bill as soon as he gets it. Kasich is a former Fox news commentator who was elected last November with a large last-minute contribution from Rupert Murdoch.
Kasich has blamed budget problems on state workers. But a rich person’s repeal of Ohio’s estate tax has cost the state a long-standing multimillion-dollar revenue stream. Like Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Kasich also has rejected a big federal grant ($400 million) to upgrade the state’s passenger rail system, which would have created at least a thousand direct jobs and thousands more indirectly, along with a jump in state tax revenue.
Kasich meanwhile has given his chief of staff a substantial pay hike over that of his predecessor. He has hired at least four commissioners to sit on a “job creation” panel with annual salaries of roughly $150,000 each. The commission has been structured to operate without formal accountability to the legislature or taxpayers of the state. Kasich has already succeeded in privatizing the state's department of development.
Kasich tried to ban the media and the public from his inauguration. He has warned opponents that they had better “get on the bus or get run over by the bus.”
Unlike Wisconsin, Ohio has no recall law. The only apparent route to overturning this union-busting legislation may be with a statewide initiative or a constitutional amendment. As the statehouse filled with union protestors, talk spread of how and when that might be done.
Polls are showing overwhelming support for public workers, in part due to the blatant attack on Ohio's police and firefighters who are now barred from negotiating on safety issues. The bill bans binding arbitration used in the past to settle negotiations, and instead allows management to pick the settlement it wants.
Ohioans may also consider a constitutional amendment to guarantee hand-counted paper ballots. Electronic voting is dominated here by the successor to the Ohio-based Diebold corporation and the ES&S corporation, and other Republican-controlled voting machine companies. The privatization of Ohio's voting and voter registration rolls corresponded with a 5.4% shift to the Republican Party not predicted by the exit polls in the 2010 election. Exit polls showed Kasich losing the election.
Overall the architectural map of the Ohio election system appears to give private voting companies contracted to the Secretary of State's office -- currently headed by John Husted, a Republican -- the ability to electronically select state office winners in a matter of a few minutes on election night.
Husted has already introduced legislation to restrict voting rights through demands for photo ID and other measures aimed at students, the elderly, poor, and other Democratic-leaning citizens. Without universal voter registration and hand-counted paper ballots, the Ohio Democratic party has little chance of winning statewide office for the foreseeable future, or of turning back legislative union busting.
Key to the national corporate strategy now playing itself out in Ohio is the destruction of the Democratic Party’s traditional base. It is also about trashing teachers, firefighters, police, and other citizens who choose to work for the general good rather than individual profit. As Nina Turner, a Senate Democrat told The New York Times, “This bill seeks to vilify our public employees and turn what used to be the virtue of public service into a crime.”
It’s widely believed Kasich will next assault Ohio’s pubic school system, whose funding mechanisms have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by state courts. Kasich is a cheerleader for private charter schools. The GOP is expected to push a voucher program that would use taxpayer money to subsidize private schools for the rich.
David Brennan, owner of White Hat Management, a chain of private charter schools, has consistently been the leading donor to the Ohio Republican candidates. Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray filed a legal complaint against Brennan alleging that "White Hat's management agreements with the schools are invalid because the public charter schools handed over nearly all funding -- 96 percent -- to White Hat and were given essentially no accountability or transparency as to how the funds were spent."
Kasich and the GOP have already moved to gut environmental regulations and turn the state’s park system over to corporate extractors. He is also expected to attack legislation mandating advances in renewable energy while pushing for a new nuclear plant to be built in southern Ohio by corporations poised to cash in on massive federal subsidies being proposed by President Obama.
While the mood of demonstrators yesterday at the statehouse was angry and defiant, there are no illusions about the stakes in this battle. Governor Kasich and his wholly owned Republican legislature are born of unlimited Citizens United corporate cash and rigged electronic voting machines.
It’s thus no surprise that the first serious blood drawn in this latest corporate campaigns to finally wipe labor unions off the American map has come in the Buckeye State.
The question now: can the unions effectively fight back, in Ohio and nationwide?
[Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman have co-authored four books on election protection at www.freepress.org , where Bob’s Fitrakis Files books appear. Harvey Wasserman's History of the United States is at harveywasserman.com.]
By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman /The Rag Blog / March 3, 2011
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The national corporate campaign to destroy America’s public sector unions has drawn first blood in Ohio.
But a counterattack centered on one or more statewide initiatives or constitutional amendments has become highly likely.
While thousands of protesters chanted, spoke and sang inside and outside the statehouse for the past two weeks, the Ohio Senate voted 17-16 on Senate Bill 5, a bill that will slash collective bargaining for state workers by banning strikes and giving local officials the right to settle disputes. The bill, among other things, also eliminates all paid sick days for teachers.
The vote came amid shouts of “shame on you” and widespread booing from the diverse crowd of teachers, police, firefighters, construction workers, state employees, and more.
The bill decimates a legal framework in place since 1983. The vote was surprisingly close as six Republicans joined 10 Democrats in opposition. The 17 yes voters were all Republicans.
In order to vote the bill out of committee, Republican Senate president Tom Niehaus had to remove two key Republican senators who opposed the bill from crucial committees. Both Senators Scott Oelslager of Canton and Bill Seitz of Cincinnati were yanked from their posts. The removal of Seitz broke a committee stalemate and allowed the bill to come to the floor with a 7-5 vote.
Ultraconservative Senator Timothy Grendell of rural Chesterland, Ohio denounced the bill as"unconstitutional" pointing out that it prohibits union members from talking with elected public officials during negotiations and labels such activity as an unfair labor practice. Seitz echoed this theme: "It's an unfair labor practice if they exercise their First Amendment right to call up their councilman."
The bill now goes to the Ohio House, where it is fast-tracked and anticipated to pass by mid-March. In the House, the passage is being orchestrated by House Speaker Bill Batchelder. The Free Press has reported in the past of Batchelder's ties to the secretive Council for National Policy.
Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates describes CNP members as not only traditional conservatives, but also nativists, xenophobes, white racial supremacists, homophobes, sexists, militarists, authoritarians, reactionaries and "in some cases outright neo-fascists."
The Democrats do not hold enough seats in either house to deny the GOP a quorum, as is being done in Wisconsin and Indiana.
Ohio’s multimillonaire Governor John Kasich, who got rich selling junk assets to public pensions in Ohio as a managing partner for Lehman Brothers , will sign the bill as soon as he gets it. Kasich is a former Fox news commentator who was elected last November with a large last-minute contribution from Rupert Murdoch.
Kasich has blamed budget problems on state workers. But a rich person’s repeal of Ohio’s estate tax has cost the state a long-standing multimillion-dollar revenue stream. Like Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Kasich also has rejected a big federal grant ($400 million) to upgrade the state’s passenger rail system, which would have created at least a thousand direct jobs and thousands more indirectly, along with a jump in state tax revenue.
Kasich meanwhile has given his chief of staff a substantial pay hike over that of his predecessor. He has hired at least four commissioners to sit on a “job creation” panel with annual salaries of roughly $150,000 each. The commission has been structured to operate without formal accountability to the legislature or taxpayers of the state. Kasich has already succeeded in privatizing the state's department of development.
Kasich tried to ban the media and the public from his inauguration. He has warned opponents that they had better “get on the bus or get run over by the bus.”
Unlike Wisconsin, Ohio has no recall law. The only apparent route to overturning this union-busting legislation may be with a statewide initiative or a constitutional amendment. As the statehouse filled with union protestors, talk spread of how and when that might be done.
Polls are showing overwhelming support for public workers, in part due to the blatant attack on Ohio's police and firefighters who are now barred from negotiating on safety issues. The bill bans binding arbitration used in the past to settle negotiations, and instead allows management to pick the settlement it wants.
Ohioans may also consider a constitutional amendment to guarantee hand-counted paper ballots. Electronic voting is dominated here by the successor to the Ohio-based Diebold corporation and the ES&S corporation, and other Republican-controlled voting machine companies. The privatization of Ohio's voting and voter registration rolls corresponded with a 5.4% shift to the Republican Party not predicted by the exit polls in the 2010 election. Exit polls showed Kasich losing the election.
Overall the architectural map of the Ohio election system appears to give private voting companies contracted to the Secretary of State's office -- currently headed by John Husted, a Republican -- the ability to electronically select state office winners in a matter of a few minutes on election night.
Husted has already introduced legislation to restrict voting rights through demands for photo ID and other measures aimed at students, the elderly, poor, and other Democratic-leaning citizens. Without universal voter registration and hand-counted paper ballots, the Ohio Democratic party has little chance of winning statewide office for the foreseeable future, or of turning back legislative union busting.
Key to the national corporate strategy now playing itself out in Ohio is the destruction of the Democratic Party’s traditional base. It is also about trashing teachers, firefighters, police, and other citizens who choose to work for the general good rather than individual profit. As Nina Turner, a Senate Democrat told The New York Times, “This bill seeks to vilify our public employees and turn what used to be the virtue of public service into a crime.”
It’s widely believed Kasich will next assault Ohio’s pubic school system, whose funding mechanisms have been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by state courts. Kasich is a cheerleader for private charter schools. The GOP is expected to push a voucher program that would use taxpayer money to subsidize private schools for the rich.
David Brennan, owner of White Hat Management, a chain of private charter schools, has consistently been the leading donor to the Ohio Republican candidates. Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray filed a legal complaint against Brennan alleging that "White Hat's management agreements with the schools are invalid because the public charter schools handed over nearly all funding -- 96 percent -- to White Hat and were given essentially no accountability or transparency as to how the funds were spent."
Kasich and the GOP have already moved to gut environmental regulations and turn the state’s park system over to corporate extractors. He is also expected to attack legislation mandating advances in renewable energy while pushing for a new nuclear plant to be built in southern Ohio by corporations poised to cash in on massive federal subsidies being proposed by President Obama.
While the mood of demonstrators yesterday at the statehouse was angry and defiant, there are no illusions about the stakes in this battle. Governor Kasich and his wholly owned Republican legislature are born of unlimited Citizens United corporate cash and rigged electronic voting machines.
It’s thus no surprise that the first serious blood drawn in this latest corporate campaigns to finally wipe labor unions off the American map has come in the Buckeye State.
The question now: can the unions effectively fight back, in Ohio and nationwide?
[Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman have co-authored four books on election protection at www.freepress.org , where Bob’s Fitrakis Files books appear. Harvey Wasserman's History of the United States is at harveywasserman.com.]
From The Renegade Eye Blog- From The In Defense Of Marxism- Venezuela and Libya: it is not an April 11 coup, it is a February 27 Caracazo -Hands Off Libya!
Venezuela and Libya: it is not an April 11 coup, it is a February 27 Caracazo
Written by Jorge MartÃn
Friday, 04 March 2011
There has been a lot of discussion in Latin America about the events unfolding in Libya. This article explains the position of the IMT, which is one of support for the uprising of the Libyan people, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention. We also critically examine the position adopted by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Zawiyah. Photo: bandolero69The governments of Venezuela and Cuba have correctly stood up in international institutions to oppose any imperialist intervention in Libya. They have criticised the hypocrisy of those countries who raise a hue and cry over human rights violations in Libya while at the same time having participated in murderous imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supported the brutal repression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
The Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, Jorge Valero, explained it this way:
“Who pays for the more than one million dead in Iraq? Who pays for the permanent massacre against the Palestinian people? Why is it that those responsible for these crimes of war, genocide and against humanity – who are known to all and publicly recognise their deed – are not taken to the International Court of Justice? What does the Security Council do faced with these horrible massacres that take place?”
Quite correctly, the Venezuelan representatives denounced the real aims of the intervention of imperialism in the region:
“Those who promote the use of military force against Libya, do not seek to defend human rights, but to establish a protectorate in order to violate them, as is always the case, in a country which is one of the most important sources of oil and energy in the Middle East”.
The people of Iraq are a testimony to this fact. Washington made up an excuse (so-called “weapons of mass destruction”) in order to attack Iraq so that they could reassert their power and regain direct control over crucial oil resources. The aim of the invasion was not to “establish democracy” and certainly there is very little democracy in Iraq now under the Maliki government. Thousands of Iraqis marched last month demanding electricity, water, jobs and bread and they were met with the brutal repression of government forces, leading to deaths, injuries, arrests and kidnappings. And yet no one is suggesting taking the government of Iraq to the International courts!
The United Nations is in fact a farce. It is a body that merely reflects the domination of US imperialism. When the US are able to get resolutions passed in order to justify their actions, they use the UN as a fig leaf. When, for whatever reason, they are not able to get their aims endorsed by the UN, they ignore the UN and carry them out regardless. And, finally, when resolutions are passed against their imperialist aims (for instance against the blockade on Cuba or condemning Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people), they simply ignore them, and they are never enforced. In the recent case of the resolution on Israeli settlements on Palestinian Territory, the US used its veto to block resolution. So much for justice and human rights.
In the last few days there has been a lot of noise and some concrete actions on the part of imperialist nations regarding Libya. The US has now moved two amphibious warships, the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, carrying helicopters and fighter jets, into the Mediterranean. Under the cover of so-called “humanitarian intervention”, imperialist powers (including the US, UK, France and Italy) amongst others, are discussing what action they can take to secure their own interests. European countries are mainly worried about the possible arrival of a mass of refugees on their shores. Another worry is control over oil resources and above all the impact of the revolutionary tide sweeping the Arab world on oil prices and the knock on effect this could have on the capitalist economy as a whole.
The most discussed option is a “no-fly zone”, which has been advocated amongst others by both Republican senator John McCain and Democratic senator John Kerry. For his own reasons, British Prime Minister David Cameron, has also made belligerent noises, attempting to puff up a role in world politics for Britain that it can no longer really play.
However, the truth is that even a limited intervention in the form of a no fly-zone would be risky and complicated to implement. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that “there’s a lot of, frankly, loose talk about some of these military options.” He warned of the implications of such an action: “Let’s just call a spade a spade: a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya, to destroy the air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone... It also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier. So it is a big operation in a big country.”
The US military is already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he stressed: “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” he said. “And what other allies are prepared to work with us in some of these things?”
However, the main worry imperialist planners have regarding intervention in Libya is the backlash this would generate throughout the region. The masses are sick and tired of imperialism and the revolutionary wave which is sweeping the Arab world is directly aimed at US-sponsored regimes. Gates showed that the US ruling class is aware of this when he said: “We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the US military in another country in the Middle East.”
These considerations, of course, do not rule out imperialist intervention in Libya or anywhere else, if their vital interests come under threat. However, they do underline the fact that the US has been caught unawares by the present revolutionary wave and has been unable to intervene decisively to steer the course of events in their favour.
In the face of imperialism’s manoeuvres, and also the inconsistent manner in which they deal with the matter of “human rights” and “crimes against humanity”, Venezuela and Cuba are correct in exposing the hypocrisy of imperialism and agitating against any foreign powers intervening in Libya.
However, the case that is being made by both countries, and most prominently by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, is undermined by the fact that they are perceived as being supportive of Gaddafi, instead of supporting the masses of the Libyan people who have risen up against his regime.
It is true that Venezuelan ambassador to the UN said in his speech that Venezuela “greets the Arab peoples who are in a process of peaceful and justice seeking rebellion, and looking for a better future through peaceful roads”. But at the same time Fidel Castro has argued that the problems faced by Libya are different to those faced by Tunisia and Egypt. He has added that while “there is no doubt that the faces of those protesting in Benghazi expressed real indignation”, there has been a “colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media, which led to great confusion on the part of the world’s public opinion”.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has also said that he “refuses to condemn Gaddafi” who has been “a long-time friend of Venezuela” because apparently there is not enough information on the situation. He has used the example of April 11, 2002, when the world’s media accused Chavez of having ordered the army to fire on unarmed demonstrators in order to justify the coup against him. As we all know, it was later on proven that it had all been a set up, with hired snipers firing on opposition and revolutionary demonstrators alike.
However, in the case of Libya, the situation is completely different. In Venezuela what we had was a reactionary movement against a democratically elected government attempting to implement progressive reforms and standing up against imperialism. In Libya we have a popular uprising against an oppressive regime which had made all sorts of deals with imperialism.
To a certain extent, it can be understood why there is confusion in Venezuela about the real nature of what is really happening in Libya. The Venezuelan people no longer trust the capitalist media, completely discredited by the role they played in the coup in 2002. Furthermore, the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition is attempting to jump on the bandwagon of the Arab revolution, saying that “the next dictator to fall will be Hugo Chavez”.
It is a matter of public record that the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition receives funding, training and support of all kinds from Washington. On a number of occasions they have organized their forces on the streets to make it look as if Chavez were a tyrant facing popular opposition (in the run up to the April 11, 2002, coup, during the oil lock out in December 2002, during the guarimba in 2004, the student protests in defence of RCTV, etc). They will not hesitate in doing it again. However, what we are seeing in the Arab world is precisely the opposite: a series of revolutionary uprisings against US backed dictatorial regimes.
It is true that the Libyan regime of Gaddafi came to power at the head of a movement with large popular support against the rotten monarchy of Kind Idris in 1969. In the 1970s, influenced by the previous wave of the Arab revolution, and under the impact of the 1974 worldwide recession, the regime moved further to the left, expelling imperialism and making deep inroads against capitalist property. Basing itself on the oil wealth of the country and the small size of its population, it was able to implement many progressive reforms and substantially increase the standard of the living of the overwhelming majority of Libyans.
However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the regime started making openings to imperialism. Already in 1993 laws guaranteeing foreign investment were passed. And it was after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 that Gaddafi decided to settle affairs with imperialism signing a number of deals for decommissioning its weapons of mass destruction, paying reparations to the victims of terrorist bombings, etc. The regime became a loyal partner of imperialism in the so-called “war on terror” and collaborated with the European Union in order to strengthen “fortress Europe” against the entry of sub-Saharan illegal immigrants.
This was accompanied by requesting entry into the WTO, creating Special Trade Zones, privatizing large parts of the economy, allowing back oil multinationals into the oil industry and eliminating subsidies on basic foodstuffs. The aim was to privatise 100% of the economy, according to Libyan officials. It was precisely the implementation of these policies that led to increased unemployment (between 20 and 30%), poverty and inequality, that played a key role in the current uprising.
In his latest article about the situation, Fidel Castro stresses the fact that, “it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent,” adding that Libya “opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment” and that, “many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies.” And as a result “Aznar was full of praise for Gaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain, they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased.” (Cuba Debate)
Illustration: CROIn his recent interviews with the BBC and ABC news Gaddafi himself explained how he felt “betrayed” by the Western powers. After having supported them and followed their policies for a number of years now they are abandoning him. Even the rhetoric he uses demonstrates that. When accusing the rebels of being manipulated by Al Qaeda, he is using the same scare-mongering tactics that Ben Ali and above all Mubarak used earlier on, and in reality is asking the West for support against the common enemy. The real character of Gaddafi’s regime can be deduced from his position regarding the revolutionary uprising in Tunisia, where he came out firmly on the side of Western ally Ben Ali and criticized the Tunisian workers and youth for having overthrown him!
As for the truth of what is really happening in Libya, one does not need to listen to the Western media. Saif al Islam, Gaddafi’s son and right hand man, himself admitted to the use of the army against unarmed demonstrators in his speech on February 20:
“Of course there were many deaths, which angered many people in Benghazi, but why were there people killed? The army was under stress, it is not used to crowd control so they shot, but I called them. The army said that some protesters were drunk, others were on hallucinogens or drugs. The army has to defend its weapons. And the people were angry. So there were deaths, but in the end Libyans were killed.”
Gaddafi himself has admitted that “a few hundred were killed”, but put it down to Al Qaeda distributing drugs to the youth!!
The story reported by TeleSUR’s correspondent in Libya, Reed Lindsay (twitter.com/reedtelesur), confirms the reports coming from other sources: there were popular, peaceful and unarmed demonstrations and the army opened fire (see for instance this report: Telesur). In a report he sent from Brega on March 2 (Telesur), he described how there were soldiers that had joined the rebellion but also “citizens of all kinds, I have spoken to doctors, engineers, workers from the oil company, here they are all in rebellion, part of the uprising and armed” adding that “this rebellion started peacefully, two weeks ago, but now the people are armed to struggle until they achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi.” He also rejected the notion that there is a civil war in Libya: “We are not talking about a civil war here… this started as peaceful demonstrators being attacked by security forces using heavy gunfire.”(Union Radio)
As part of his reporting, Reed Lindsay, has also confirmed all the reports that show how the Libyan people who have risen up against Gaddafi are staunchly against foreign intervention. “They say that if the US troops arrive here, they will fight them in the same way they are fighting against the government of Gaddafi.”
The other important point that Lindsay has made in his reports is regarding the attitude of the people, both in Benghazi and Brega, towards Latin American governments, and particularly those of the ALBA countries. In Brega many people are asking “why the Venezuelan president and other Latin American presidents who are in favour of social justice and revolutionary change are supporting a dictator who is using the Army against his own people” he said (Union Radio). “They are asking the ALBA countries to break with Gaddafi and support the revolutionary struggle of the Libyan people” he reported from Benghazi. According to him, the people in Ajdabiya talk of a “common struggle with the peoples of Latin America” (Twitter. We are quoting from Reed Lindsay, because he cannot be accused of being an agent of imperialism or of distorting the news in order to justify an intervention by imperialism.
Even the other TeleSUR correspondent, Jordan RodrÃguez, who is basically just reporting what Gaddafi and other officials are saying, without any comment, had problems when he attempted to report about clashes in neighbourhoods in Tripoli. His team was detained by police officers for four hours, beaten up, threatened with guns pointed at them and their footage was taken away (Telesur). This was the second time they had been arrested and it happened even though they were travelling in a Venezuelan diplomatic car.
Libyan rebels with a captured anti-aircraft gun. Photo: Al Jazeera EnglishThere is a very important point made in these reports. The Venezuelan revolution and particularly president Chavez are immensely popular in the Arab world, particularly after his very vocal opposition to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The masses in these countries see Hugo Chavez as the leader of an oil country who stands up to imperialism and uses the oil money in order to improve the living conditions of the people. This is in stark contrast to the rulers of their own countries, who are puppets of US imperialism, do not open their mouths against Israel’s aggressions and use the wealth of the country for their own personal enrichment. This is precisely one of the reasons behind the revolutionary uprising of the Arab masses. In an opinion poll conducted in 2009 in several Arab countries, the most popular leader was Hugo Chavez with 36% of support, well ahead of any others (pdf).
The only base of support on which the Venezuelan revolution can count are the masses of workers and youth in the Middle East and North Africa, and throughout the world, who feel sympathy and solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution because they would like a similar revolution to take place in their own countries. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution should come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab world, because it is part of the world revolution of which Latin America was for some years the advanced guard. This includes giving support to the Libyan people rising up against Gaddafi, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention.
In his attempts to prevent foreign military intervention in Libya, Hugo Chavez has proposed an international mediation commission to go to Libya. Latest reports in the media indicate that while Gaddafi is said to have accepted this, his son Saif al-Islam has firmly rejected the proposal. "We have to say thank you, but we are able and capable enough to solve our issues by our own people". Venezuelans, he added, "are our friends, we respect them, we like them, but they are far away. They have no idea about Libya. Libya is in the Middle East and North Africa. Venezuela is in Central America." For Saif’s information, Venezuela is not in Central America, but now doubt his mind is concentrated on other matters.
On their part, the Libyan rebels have also rejected the mediation, saying they have not heard about it, but that it is too late for negotiations anyway, and that too many people have been killed by Gaddafi. If one understands the real essence of the situation in Libya, one of a government brutally putting down peaceful demonstrations of his own people, which then becomes a popular armed uprising with sections of the army and the police going over to the people, then one can understand why this proposal is wrong. It is as if in the last days of the Cuban revolution, when the revolutionary army was about to overthrow Batista, someone had said, “wait a second, let’s have international mediation so that there can be an understanding between Batista and the M26J movement.”
The only position a revolutionary can take in a situation like this is one of support for the revolutionary uprising of the Libyan people. If Hugo Chavez does not come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary masses of the Arab world then he would be making a serious mistake, one for which the Venezuelan revolution can pay dearly. Hugo Chavez is looking at the Libyan situation through Venezuelan lenses, making the wrong comparisons. The Libyan rebels cannot be compared to the Venezuelan opposition and the position that regime of Gaddafi finds itself in cannot in any way be compared to that facing Chavez.
We must be clear: what we are seeing in Libya and the rest of the Arab world is not an April 11, 2002 coup justified with media manipulation, but rather a February 27, 1989, a Caracazo-like uprising, in which the governments are using the Army against unarmed demonstrators. While opposing imperialist intervention, we must be clear what side we are on: that of the Libyan people against the Gaddafi regime.
Written by Jorge MartÃn
Friday, 04 March 2011
There has been a lot of discussion in Latin America about the events unfolding in Libya. This article explains the position of the IMT, which is one of support for the uprising of the Libyan people, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention. We also critically examine the position adopted by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Zawiyah. Photo: bandolero69The governments of Venezuela and Cuba have correctly stood up in international institutions to oppose any imperialist intervention in Libya. They have criticised the hypocrisy of those countries who raise a hue and cry over human rights violations in Libya while at the same time having participated in murderous imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supported the brutal repression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
The Venezuelan ambassador to the UN, Jorge Valero, explained it this way:
“Who pays for the more than one million dead in Iraq? Who pays for the permanent massacre against the Palestinian people? Why is it that those responsible for these crimes of war, genocide and against humanity – who are known to all and publicly recognise their deed – are not taken to the International Court of Justice? What does the Security Council do faced with these horrible massacres that take place?”
Quite correctly, the Venezuelan representatives denounced the real aims of the intervention of imperialism in the region:
“Those who promote the use of military force against Libya, do not seek to defend human rights, but to establish a protectorate in order to violate them, as is always the case, in a country which is one of the most important sources of oil and energy in the Middle East”.
The people of Iraq are a testimony to this fact. Washington made up an excuse (so-called “weapons of mass destruction”) in order to attack Iraq so that they could reassert their power and regain direct control over crucial oil resources. The aim of the invasion was not to “establish democracy” and certainly there is very little democracy in Iraq now under the Maliki government. Thousands of Iraqis marched last month demanding electricity, water, jobs and bread and they were met with the brutal repression of government forces, leading to deaths, injuries, arrests and kidnappings. And yet no one is suggesting taking the government of Iraq to the International courts!
The United Nations is in fact a farce. It is a body that merely reflects the domination of US imperialism. When the US are able to get resolutions passed in order to justify their actions, they use the UN as a fig leaf. When, for whatever reason, they are not able to get their aims endorsed by the UN, they ignore the UN and carry them out regardless. And, finally, when resolutions are passed against their imperialist aims (for instance against the blockade on Cuba or condemning Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people), they simply ignore them, and they are never enforced. In the recent case of the resolution on Israeli settlements on Palestinian Territory, the US used its veto to block resolution. So much for justice and human rights.
In the last few days there has been a lot of noise and some concrete actions on the part of imperialist nations regarding Libya. The US has now moved two amphibious warships, the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, carrying helicopters and fighter jets, into the Mediterranean. Under the cover of so-called “humanitarian intervention”, imperialist powers (including the US, UK, France and Italy) amongst others, are discussing what action they can take to secure their own interests. European countries are mainly worried about the possible arrival of a mass of refugees on their shores. Another worry is control over oil resources and above all the impact of the revolutionary tide sweeping the Arab world on oil prices and the knock on effect this could have on the capitalist economy as a whole.
The most discussed option is a “no-fly zone”, which has been advocated amongst others by both Republican senator John McCain and Democratic senator John Kerry. For his own reasons, British Prime Minister David Cameron, has also made belligerent noises, attempting to puff up a role in world politics for Britain that it can no longer really play.
However, the truth is that even a limited intervention in the form of a no fly-zone would be risky and complicated to implement. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that “there’s a lot of, frankly, loose talk about some of these military options.” He warned of the implications of such an action: “Let’s just call a spade a spade: a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya, to destroy the air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone... It also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier. So it is a big operation in a big country.”
The US military is already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he stressed: “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” he said. “And what other allies are prepared to work with us in some of these things?”
However, the main worry imperialist planners have regarding intervention in Libya is the backlash this would generate throughout the region. The masses are sick and tired of imperialism and the revolutionary wave which is sweeping the Arab world is directly aimed at US-sponsored regimes. Gates showed that the US ruling class is aware of this when he said: “We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the US military in another country in the Middle East.”
These considerations, of course, do not rule out imperialist intervention in Libya or anywhere else, if their vital interests come under threat. However, they do underline the fact that the US has been caught unawares by the present revolutionary wave and has been unable to intervene decisively to steer the course of events in their favour.
In the face of imperialism’s manoeuvres, and also the inconsistent manner in which they deal with the matter of “human rights” and “crimes against humanity”, Venezuela and Cuba are correct in exposing the hypocrisy of imperialism and agitating against any foreign powers intervening in Libya.
However, the case that is being made by both countries, and most prominently by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, is undermined by the fact that they are perceived as being supportive of Gaddafi, instead of supporting the masses of the Libyan people who have risen up against his regime.
It is true that Venezuelan ambassador to the UN said in his speech that Venezuela “greets the Arab peoples who are in a process of peaceful and justice seeking rebellion, and looking for a better future through peaceful roads”. But at the same time Fidel Castro has argued that the problems faced by Libya are different to those faced by Tunisia and Egypt. He has added that while “there is no doubt that the faces of those protesting in Benghazi expressed real indignation”, there has been a “colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media, which led to great confusion on the part of the world’s public opinion”.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has also said that he “refuses to condemn Gaddafi” who has been “a long-time friend of Venezuela” because apparently there is not enough information on the situation. He has used the example of April 11, 2002, when the world’s media accused Chavez of having ordered the army to fire on unarmed demonstrators in order to justify the coup against him. As we all know, it was later on proven that it had all been a set up, with hired snipers firing on opposition and revolutionary demonstrators alike.
However, in the case of Libya, the situation is completely different. In Venezuela what we had was a reactionary movement against a democratically elected government attempting to implement progressive reforms and standing up against imperialism. In Libya we have a popular uprising against an oppressive regime which had made all sorts of deals with imperialism.
To a certain extent, it can be understood why there is confusion in Venezuela about the real nature of what is really happening in Libya. The Venezuelan people no longer trust the capitalist media, completely discredited by the role they played in the coup in 2002. Furthermore, the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition is attempting to jump on the bandwagon of the Arab revolution, saying that “the next dictator to fall will be Hugo Chavez”.
It is a matter of public record that the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition receives funding, training and support of all kinds from Washington. On a number of occasions they have organized their forces on the streets to make it look as if Chavez were a tyrant facing popular opposition (in the run up to the April 11, 2002, coup, during the oil lock out in December 2002, during the guarimba in 2004, the student protests in defence of RCTV, etc). They will not hesitate in doing it again. However, what we are seeing in the Arab world is precisely the opposite: a series of revolutionary uprisings against US backed dictatorial regimes.
It is true that the Libyan regime of Gaddafi came to power at the head of a movement with large popular support against the rotten monarchy of Kind Idris in 1969. In the 1970s, influenced by the previous wave of the Arab revolution, and under the impact of the 1974 worldwide recession, the regime moved further to the left, expelling imperialism and making deep inroads against capitalist property. Basing itself on the oil wealth of the country and the small size of its population, it was able to implement many progressive reforms and substantially increase the standard of the living of the overwhelming majority of Libyans.
However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the regime started making openings to imperialism. Already in 1993 laws guaranteeing foreign investment were passed. And it was after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 that Gaddafi decided to settle affairs with imperialism signing a number of deals for decommissioning its weapons of mass destruction, paying reparations to the victims of terrorist bombings, etc. The regime became a loyal partner of imperialism in the so-called “war on terror” and collaborated with the European Union in order to strengthen “fortress Europe” against the entry of sub-Saharan illegal immigrants.
This was accompanied by requesting entry into the WTO, creating Special Trade Zones, privatizing large parts of the economy, allowing back oil multinationals into the oil industry and eliminating subsidies on basic foodstuffs. The aim was to privatise 100% of the economy, according to Libyan officials. It was precisely the implementation of these policies that led to increased unemployment (between 20 and 30%), poverty and inequality, that played a key role in the current uprising.
In his latest article about the situation, Fidel Castro stresses the fact that, “it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent,” adding that Libya “opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment” and that, “many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies.” And as a result “Aznar was full of praise for Gaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain, they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased.” (Cuba Debate)
Illustration: CROIn his recent interviews with the BBC and ABC news Gaddafi himself explained how he felt “betrayed” by the Western powers. After having supported them and followed their policies for a number of years now they are abandoning him. Even the rhetoric he uses demonstrates that. When accusing the rebels of being manipulated by Al Qaeda, he is using the same scare-mongering tactics that Ben Ali and above all Mubarak used earlier on, and in reality is asking the West for support against the common enemy. The real character of Gaddafi’s regime can be deduced from his position regarding the revolutionary uprising in Tunisia, where he came out firmly on the side of Western ally Ben Ali and criticized the Tunisian workers and youth for having overthrown him!
As for the truth of what is really happening in Libya, one does not need to listen to the Western media. Saif al Islam, Gaddafi’s son and right hand man, himself admitted to the use of the army against unarmed demonstrators in his speech on February 20:
“Of course there were many deaths, which angered many people in Benghazi, but why were there people killed? The army was under stress, it is not used to crowd control so they shot, but I called them. The army said that some protesters were drunk, others were on hallucinogens or drugs. The army has to defend its weapons. And the people were angry. So there were deaths, but in the end Libyans were killed.”
Gaddafi himself has admitted that “a few hundred were killed”, but put it down to Al Qaeda distributing drugs to the youth!!
The story reported by TeleSUR’s correspondent in Libya, Reed Lindsay (twitter.com/reedtelesur), confirms the reports coming from other sources: there were popular, peaceful and unarmed demonstrations and the army opened fire (see for instance this report: Telesur). In a report he sent from Brega on March 2 (Telesur), he described how there were soldiers that had joined the rebellion but also “citizens of all kinds, I have spoken to doctors, engineers, workers from the oil company, here they are all in rebellion, part of the uprising and armed” adding that “this rebellion started peacefully, two weeks ago, but now the people are armed to struggle until they achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi.” He also rejected the notion that there is a civil war in Libya: “We are not talking about a civil war here… this started as peaceful demonstrators being attacked by security forces using heavy gunfire.”(Union Radio)
As part of his reporting, Reed Lindsay, has also confirmed all the reports that show how the Libyan people who have risen up against Gaddafi are staunchly against foreign intervention. “They say that if the US troops arrive here, they will fight them in the same way they are fighting against the government of Gaddafi.”
The other important point that Lindsay has made in his reports is regarding the attitude of the people, both in Benghazi and Brega, towards Latin American governments, and particularly those of the ALBA countries. In Brega many people are asking “why the Venezuelan president and other Latin American presidents who are in favour of social justice and revolutionary change are supporting a dictator who is using the Army against his own people” he said (Union Radio). “They are asking the ALBA countries to break with Gaddafi and support the revolutionary struggle of the Libyan people” he reported from Benghazi. According to him, the people in Ajdabiya talk of a “common struggle with the peoples of Latin America” (Twitter. We are quoting from Reed Lindsay, because he cannot be accused of being an agent of imperialism or of distorting the news in order to justify an intervention by imperialism.
Even the other TeleSUR correspondent, Jordan RodrÃguez, who is basically just reporting what Gaddafi and other officials are saying, without any comment, had problems when he attempted to report about clashes in neighbourhoods in Tripoli. His team was detained by police officers for four hours, beaten up, threatened with guns pointed at them and their footage was taken away (Telesur). This was the second time they had been arrested and it happened even though they were travelling in a Venezuelan diplomatic car.
Libyan rebels with a captured anti-aircraft gun. Photo: Al Jazeera EnglishThere is a very important point made in these reports. The Venezuelan revolution and particularly president Chavez are immensely popular in the Arab world, particularly after his very vocal opposition to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The masses in these countries see Hugo Chavez as the leader of an oil country who stands up to imperialism and uses the oil money in order to improve the living conditions of the people. This is in stark contrast to the rulers of their own countries, who are puppets of US imperialism, do not open their mouths against Israel’s aggressions and use the wealth of the country for their own personal enrichment. This is precisely one of the reasons behind the revolutionary uprising of the Arab masses. In an opinion poll conducted in 2009 in several Arab countries, the most popular leader was Hugo Chavez with 36% of support, well ahead of any others (pdf).
The only base of support on which the Venezuelan revolution can count are the masses of workers and youth in the Middle East and North Africa, and throughout the world, who feel sympathy and solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution because they would like a similar revolution to take place in their own countries. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution should come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab world, because it is part of the world revolution of which Latin America was for some years the advanced guard. This includes giving support to the Libyan people rising up against Gaddafi, while at the same time opposing any imperialist intervention.
In his attempts to prevent foreign military intervention in Libya, Hugo Chavez has proposed an international mediation commission to go to Libya. Latest reports in the media indicate that while Gaddafi is said to have accepted this, his son Saif al-Islam has firmly rejected the proposal. "We have to say thank you, but we are able and capable enough to solve our issues by our own people". Venezuelans, he added, "are our friends, we respect them, we like them, but they are far away. They have no idea about Libya. Libya is in the Middle East and North Africa. Venezuela is in Central America." For Saif’s information, Venezuela is not in Central America, but now doubt his mind is concentrated on other matters.
On their part, the Libyan rebels have also rejected the mediation, saying they have not heard about it, but that it is too late for negotiations anyway, and that too many people have been killed by Gaddafi. If one understands the real essence of the situation in Libya, one of a government brutally putting down peaceful demonstrations of his own people, which then becomes a popular armed uprising with sections of the army and the police going over to the people, then one can understand why this proposal is wrong. It is as if in the last days of the Cuban revolution, when the revolutionary army was about to overthrow Batista, someone had said, “wait a second, let’s have international mediation so that there can be an understanding between Batista and the M26J movement.”
The only position a revolutionary can take in a situation like this is one of support for the revolutionary uprising of the Libyan people. If Hugo Chavez does not come out clearly in favour of the revolutionary masses of the Arab world then he would be making a serious mistake, one for which the Venezuelan revolution can pay dearly. Hugo Chavez is looking at the Libyan situation through Venezuelan lenses, making the wrong comparisons. The Libyan rebels cannot be compared to the Venezuelan opposition and the position that regime of Gaddafi finds itself in cannot in any way be compared to that facing Chavez.
We must be clear: what we are seeing in Libya and the rest of the Arab world is not an April 11, 2002 coup justified with media manipulation, but rather a February 27, 1989, a Caracazo-like uprising, in which the governments are using the Army against unarmed demonstrators. While opposing imperialist intervention, we must be clear what side we are on: that of the Libyan people against the Gaddafi regime.
From The HistoMat Blog- A Black Radical’s Notebook-Detroit's James Boggs
A Black Radical’s Notebook
A new book makes Detroit ‘revolutionist’ James Boggs’ long career accessible to current activists remaking the Motor City.
By Paul Abowd
'Grace and Jimmy have said their experiences in struggle taught them that the struggle to create revolutionary change cannot just be for things—for material conditions. People and communities have to be transformed.'SHARE THIS ARTICLE | Pages from a Black Radical’s Notebook: A James Boggs Reader is the first volume to compile the writings of tireless Detroit revolutionist James Boggs. The book’s contents comprise half a century of Boggs’ writing and document his evolution as a rank-and-file autoworker, a leader in the civil rights and black power movements, and a visionary thinker about how Detroit’s post-industrial crisis might spark revolution.
Boggs, author of the 1963 book The American Revolution: Pages from a Negro Worker’s Notebook, was married to his collaborator—feminist, activist and author Grace Lee Boggs—for 40 years before his death in 1993. As the matriarch of Detroit’s activist community, she continues their work today at age 95.
In February, I discussed James Boggs’ legacy with University of Michigan Professor Stephen Ward, who edited the compilation.
What were Jimmy Boggs’ early experiences in Detroit?
Jimmy came to Detroit in the summer of 1937 during the Depression, looking for work in the auto industry. He couldn’t find a job, but he came back in 1940 and started at the Chrysler Jefferson plant. He became involved in United Auto Workers (UAW) and radical politics, as well as civil rights politics — which were all intertwined for him.
By the early ’50s he became part of a radical group when Grace Lee and C.L.R. James came to Detroit. Later, Jimmy and Grace left the Trotskyist movement and became an independent Marxist organization. They started a newspaper called Correspondence, which they took from the Committees of Correspondence during the American Revolution. They saw it as an expression of the ideas, sentiments and aspirations of the working class. They saw African Americans and women as an important part of a new American revolution. They were driven by the belief that rank-and-file workers, not the labor movement, could create their own movement and lead their own revolution.
If you’ll permit a slight digression, the spontaneity that we’ve seen in the Egyptian revolution is something that C.L.R. and others in the group were talking about. In ‘57, C.L.R. was excited about the Hungarian revolution. Jimmy had a different take. Based on his experience in labor movement, he’d seen it go from radical possibilities in the ’40s to what he called an interest group by the mid-50s, after the AFL and CIO had merged. By ‘57, Jimmy has seen the labor movement change in the post-war society. He got excited when the workers did anything to revolt, but for him, what was happening in Hungary was not as exciting as what was happening in the third world. Nineteen fifty-seven was also the year of the Ghanaian revolution—the first African nation to gain independence. This was an early expression of their diverging political focus.
Can you say more about how Jimmy’s focus evolved in the post-war period?
During the late ’40s Jimmy was part of the Discrimination Action Committee, which was led by Detroit’s NAACP but with heavy involvement by black workers. They were fighting discrimination in restaurants and in the plants, and it spread to bowling alleys and other spaces. Jimmy was part of radical politics, and he was part of the Fair Practices Committee in his local, but he was beginning to see the labor movement’s limitations.
One of the themes running through the book, and through Jimmy’s work, is that that revolutionary ideas can become reactionary. The need for constant evolution and re-evaluation is vital.
That’s right. Grace calls it the importance of dialectical thinking. In the early ’40s, Jimmy’s politics were rooted in labor movement, but a decade later he’s part of labor but looking for revolutionary possibilities elsewhere. In the ’60s he’s starting to see automation—the changes in production process and factory life. Jimmy saw an increasing use of advanced technology in plants undercutting the need for mass employment, which had been the basis of union movement in ’30s. Labor was unable to respond to this change. Labor’s fight was for a rightful place in the American economy, but that couldn’t be realized because of changes in production.
By the early ’60s, Jimmy began to see the African-American struggle for democratic rights as having the potential to forge revolutionary change. In his ‘63 book The American Revolution, he argues that Black struggle is replacing working-class struggle as a potential revolutionary force. He was rejecting a particular strand of Marxism.
How did Jimmy interact with black worker movements that appeared to form an intersection of black power and rank-and-file organizing?
People from the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement had formed a UHURU [a black radical student group] at Wayne State university in ‘63. Jimmy had been in the plant for 20 years by then, and was something of a mentor to General Baker and others. By ‘68 Baker and others had formed DRUM and in ‘69 the League of Revolutionary Black Workers was becoming stronger in the plants.
At the same time, overall employment was declining and you have white workers leaving the city and the plants. The experience in the plants was different than Jimmy’s was. There was a divergence in their personal and political experiences, their historical understandings, and their political projects—but they all remained part of the black power movement in Detroit and nationally.
What was the next moment of evolution for Jimmy and Grace during the “post-industrial” era?
The black power movement was dissipating by the mid-’70s when Jimmy and Grace formed the National Organization for American Revolution. It was a cadre organization trying to develop committed revolutionaries. But for the first time in their careers they were trying to create a revolution without a substantial social movement taking place. They were in the post-industrial crisis and had had a decade of black leadership in Detroit with Coleman Young. This is also the decade of crack, and AIDS for that matter. By the late ’80s there’s a really extreme experience with youth violence and gun violence in the city. Of course, de-industrialization is a major element of this context.
Jimmy and Grace began to focus on local, community-based efforts. They created a range of organizations: We the People Reclaim Our Streets (WEPROS); they worked with a group called Save Our Sons and Daughters (SOSAD), founded by Clementine Barfield and mothers whose children had been victims of youth violence. A lot of pieces from the SOSAD newsletter form the last section of the Boggs Reader. … Jimmy was actively involved in this type of work until his death in ‘93.
How did Jimmy and Grace approach the reality of growing material inequality and austerity in the ’70s and ’80s in relation to their growing focus on revolutionary work through community building?
Grace and Jimmy have said their experiences in struggle in the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s taught them that the struggle to create revolutionary change cannot just be for things—for material conditions. People and communities have to be transformed. Jimmy and Grace were central in the efforts at creating black power in the city in the ’60s. But that experience confirmed for them that just achieving political power was not enough. It was important and necessary, but not enough.
Their ‘74 book Revolution and Evolution in the Twentieth Century says that Americans will have to make the first revolution in history that’s not for material goods. We’d have to give up some things. The revolutionary struggle couldn’t be just about bread, for more things, but for new human relationships and new ways for societies to be organized to build healthy and vibrant communities.
In ‘92, just before he passed, Jimmy wrote something like “my ideology is constantly changing, with one constant: it has to advance humanity.” That’s a summary statement about his thinking on revolution.
What is also important to understand in Jimmy and Grace’s long activist career is his distinction between a revolutionary and a revolutionist. A revolutionary may have some ideas about how society should be changed and run. But a revolutionist makes a commitment to put those ideas into being. It helps us understand how they moved through decades of different movements with a commitment to revolutionary change and a commitment to continuing struggle.
Pages from a Black Radical’s Notebook is available for purchase here.
Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
A new book makes Detroit ‘revolutionist’ James Boggs’ long career accessible to current activists remaking the Motor City.
By Paul Abowd
'Grace and Jimmy have said their experiences in struggle taught them that the struggle to create revolutionary change cannot just be for things—for material conditions. People and communities have to be transformed.'SHARE THIS ARTICLE | Pages from a Black Radical’s Notebook: A James Boggs Reader is the first volume to compile the writings of tireless Detroit revolutionist James Boggs. The book’s contents comprise half a century of Boggs’ writing and document his evolution as a rank-and-file autoworker, a leader in the civil rights and black power movements, and a visionary thinker about how Detroit’s post-industrial crisis might spark revolution.
Boggs, author of the 1963 book The American Revolution: Pages from a Negro Worker’s Notebook, was married to his collaborator—feminist, activist and author Grace Lee Boggs—for 40 years before his death in 1993. As the matriarch of Detroit’s activist community, she continues their work today at age 95.
In February, I discussed James Boggs’ legacy with University of Michigan Professor Stephen Ward, who edited the compilation.
What were Jimmy Boggs’ early experiences in Detroit?
Jimmy came to Detroit in the summer of 1937 during the Depression, looking for work in the auto industry. He couldn’t find a job, but he came back in 1940 and started at the Chrysler Jefferson plant. He became involved in United Auto Workers (UAW) and radical politics, as well as civil rights politics — which were all intertwined for him.
By the early ’50s he became part of a radical group when Grace Lee and C.L.R. James came to Detroit. Later, Jimmy and Grace left the Trotskyist movement and became an independent Marxist organization. They started a newspaper called Correspondence, which they took from the Committees of Correspondence during the American Revolution. They saw it as an expression of the ideas, sentiments and aspirations of the working class. They saw African Americans and women as an important part of a new American revolution. They were driven by the belief that rank-and-file workers, not the labor movement, could create their own movement and lead their own revolution.
If you’ll permit a slight digression, the spontaneity that we’ve seen in the Egyptian revolution is something that C.L.R. and others in the group were talking about. In ‘57, C.L.R. was excited about the Hungarian revolution. Jimmy had a different take. Based on his experience in labor movement, he’d seen it go from radical possibilities in the ’40s to what he called an interest group by the mid-50s, after the AFL and CIO had merged. By ‘57, Jimmy has seen the labor movement change in the post-war society. He got excited when the workers did anything to revolt, but for him, what was happening in Hungary was not as exciting as what was happening in the third world. Nineteen fifty-seven was also the year of the Ghanaian revolution—the first African nation to gain independence. This was an early expression of their diverging political focus.
Can you say more about how Jimmy’s focus evolved in the post-war period?
During the late ’40s Jimmy was part of the Discrimination Action Committee, which was led by Detroit’s NAACP but with heavy involvement by black workers. They were fighting discrimination in restaurants and in the plants, and it spread to bowling alleys and other spaces. Jimmy was part of radical politics, and he was part of the Fair Practices Committee in his local, but he was beginning to see the labor movement’s limitations.
One of the themes running through the book, and through Jimmy’s work, is that that revolutionary ideas can become reactionary. The need for constant evolution and re-evaluation is vital.
That’s right. Grace calls it the importance of dialectical thinking. In the early ’40s, Jimmy’s politics were rooted in labor movement, but a decade later he’s part of labor but looking for revolutionary possibilities elsewhere. In the ’60s he’s starting to see automation—the changes in production process and factory life. Jimmy saw an increasing use of advanced technology in plants undercutting the need for mass employment, which had been the basis of union movement in ’30s. Labor was unable to respond to this change. Labor’s fight was for a rightful place in the American economy, but that couldn’t be realized because of changes in production.
By the early ’60s, Jimmy began to see the African-American struggle for democratic rights as having the potential to forge revolutionary change. In his ‘63 book The American Revolution, he argues that Black struggle is replacing working-class struggle as a potential revolutionary force. He was rejecting a particular strand of Marxism.
How did Jimmy interact with black worker movements that appeared to form an intersection of black power and rank-and-file organizing?
People from the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement had formed a UHURU [a black radical student group] at Wayne State university in ‘63. Jimmy had been in the plant for 20 years by then, and was something of a mentor to General Baker and others. By ‘68 Baker and others had formed DRUM and in ‘69 the League of Revolutionary Black Workers was becoming stronger in the plants.
At the same time, overall employment was declining and you have white workers leaving the city and the plants. The experience in the plants was different than Jimmy’s was. There was a divergence in their personal and political experiences, their historical understandings, and their political projects—but they all remained part of the black power movement in Detroit and nationally.
What was the next moment of evolution for Jimmy and Grace during the “post-industrial” era?
The black power movement was dissipating by the mid-’70s when Jimmy and Grace formed the National Organization for American Revolution. It was a cadre organization trying to develop committed revolutionaries. But for the first time in their careers they were trying to create a revolution without a substantial social movement taking place. They were in the post-industrial crisis and had had a decade of black leadership in Detroit with Coleman Young. This is also the decade of crack, and AIDS for that matter. By the late ’80s there’s a really extreme experience with youth violence and gun violence in the city. Of course, de-industrialization is a major element of this context.
Jimmy and Grace began to focus on local, community-based efforts. They created a range of organizations: We the People Reclaim Our Streets (WEPROS); they worked with a group called Save Our Sons and Daughters (SOSAD), founded by Clementine Barfield and mothers whose children had been victims of youth violence. A lot of pieces from the SOSAD newsletter form the last section of the Boggs Reader. … Jimmy was actively involved in this type of work until his death in ‘93.
How did Jimmy and Grace approach the reality of growing material inequality and austerity in the ’70s and ’80s in relation to their growing focus on revolutionary work through community building?
Grace and Jimmy have said their experiences in struggle in the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s taught them that the struggle to create revolutionary change cannot just be for things—for material conditions. People and communities have to be transformed. Jimmy and Grace were central in the efforts at creating black power in the city in the ’60s. But that experience confirmed for them that just achieving political power was not enough. It was important and necessary, but not enough.
Their ‘74 book Revolution and Evolution in the Twentieth Century says that Americans will have to make the first revolution in history that’s not for material goods. We’d have to give up some things. The revolutionary struggle couldn’t be just about bread, for more things, but for new human relationships and new ways for societies to be organized to build healthy and vibrant communities.
In ‘92, just before he passed, Jimmy wrote something like “my ideology is constantly changing, with one constant: it has to advance humanity.” That’s a summary statement about his thinking on revolution.
What is also important to understand in Jimmy and Grace’s long activist career is his distinction between a revolutionary and a revolutionist. A revolutionary may have some ideas about how society should be changed and run. But a revolutionist makes a commitment to put those ideas into being. It helps us understand how they moved through decades of different movements with a commitment to revolutionary change and a commitment to continuing struggle.
Pages from a Black Radical’s Notebook is available for purchase here.
Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
From The SteveLendmanBlog-America's War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Sunday, March 06, 2011
America's War on Libya
America's War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Since WW II alone, America waged direct and proxy wars against Korea, Southeast Asia, Central and South American countries, African ones, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and now Egypt and Libya. One down, one to go, besides dozens of attempted and successful coups, as well as numerous other interventions to control world markets, resources and people. Imperial America doesn't sleep. It plots, deciding where next to strike.
Despite popular passion for democratic change, uprisings in Egypt and Libya were externally orchestrated, funded and armed by Washington to replace one despot with another. Democracy won't be tolerated. It's never been at home.
America's media go along, especially when Washington goes to war or plans one. In the lead: The New York Times, the nation's equivalent of an official information and propaganda ministry, posing as independent journalism.
It's February 28 editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies" made baseless accusations, then called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes. Indeed it should - against America and Western co-conspirators, not Libya, for instigating regional aggression, a reality The Times ignored, besides previously against Afghanistan, Iraq, and other US targets.
On March 4, writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Qaddafi Brutalizes Foes, Armed or Defenseless," saying:
Gaddafi attacked "unarmed protesters....His militia's actions seemed likely to stir renewed debate over international intervention to limit his use of military power against his own citizens, possibly by imposing a no-flight zone." If established, it's an act of war ahead of aggressive air attacks against a defenseless country, America's latest imperial target.
Kirkpatrick's article read more like bad fiction than real journalism, borrowing a page from now disgraced former Times writer Judith Miller, who functioned as a Pentagon press agent, promoting America's planned Iraq conquest and occupation. Now it's Libya, struggling to defend itself against naked aggression, covert so far but not for long, claiming "humanitarian intervention."
US warships are now positioned in the Mediterranean close by. About 1,200 Marines went to Greece for "Operation Libya." "Rebels" are being sent military and other supplies. Armed intervention is coming, colonial subjugation planned. Libya's "humanitarian crisis" was made in the USA. The pattern by now is familiar, used against many past targets.
On March 4, hinting about what's already begun, Obama said:
"So what I want to make sure of is that the United States has full capacity to act potentially rapidly if the situation deteriorated in such a way that you had a humanitarian crisis on our hands, or a situation in which civilians were - defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped and in great danger."
He already called on Gaddafi to step down. Among his options, he included a no-fly zone, saying:
"I don't want us hamstrung. I want us to be making our decision based on what's going to be best for the Libyan people in consultation with the international community."
In Geneva, Hillary Clinton called intervention "an option we are actively considering," referring to a no-fly zone and other measures. Stiff economic sanctions were also imposed, effective 8:00PM EST February 25."
The die is cast. Colonizing Libya is planned to exploit its vast energy reserves, other resources, and people, doing what's best for Washington, not Libyans, what's always top priority.
Major Media Suppressed Independent Voices
On August 13, 2011, Fidel Castro will be 85. An elder statesman, he remains active, thoughtful and incisive, now writing commentaries on world issues. On March 3, the Havana Times headlined, "Fidel Castro Forecasts War on Libya," publishing his full article in English.
Until America intervened, Libya "occupie(d) the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa," including the continent's highest life expectancy. Authorities gave special attention to healthcare and education. Poverty is low. "The cultural level of the population is without a doubt the highest. The population wasn't lacking food and essential social services." Employment was plentiful, including for "hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other countries (to) carry out ambitious plans for production and social development."
America plans naked aggression to halt them. "The colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media," distorts reality on the ground, including by Al Jazeera. Its daily commentaries feature misinformation and distortions based on unverified reports, including about alleged bombings that Russian satellite imagery proved untrue. Nonetheless, Gaddafi is falsely called an aggressor, not victim, his regional despot status notwithstanding.
Telesur Journalists Targeted
Reporting from Libya, Pan American broadcaster Telesur's Jordan Rodriguez said members of his team were threatened, assaulted, and arrested for trying to report events accurately, including about pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli's Green Square.
Prior to Mubarak's ouster, Egypt's military junta detained and interrogated its Cairo team, preventing them from reporting the same way. Other independent journalists were also accosted. Dozens of incidents were reported.
Telesur's Rodrigo Hernandez said he and his colleagues were bullied face down on the pavement, left there for hours, then "forced into an armored police vehicle, with armed personnel inside, and blindfolded," en route to a military barracks for questioning.
They were also threatened with imprisonment, deportation, or "something much worse" if they kept reporting and were detained again. Similar tactics are ongoing in Libya to prevent accurate reports coming out. Imperial Washington wants none of its plans exposed.
Accurate Independent Journalism
Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist, war correspondent, human rights investigator, photographer, lecturer, and longtime observer of African country events. On March 1, his article titled, "Petroleum & Empire in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway" provided detailed Libyan information. Access it through the following link:
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/petroleum-empire-maps-for-north-africa/
Key points he stressed included:
-- In 2004, America's sanctions were dropped "in exchange for Gaddafi's (limited) collaboration, (paving) the way for a new era of US-Libyan bilateral trade." America's main interest is Libya's vast oil, gas and other mineral reserves. The Oil and Gas Journal estimates 46.4 billion barrels of oil and around 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, producing 95% of Libya's 2010 export earnings. Its petrodollars "were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into (companies) like the Carlyle Group, one of America's most seedy arms dealers."
-- the CIA "long wanted" Gaddafi removed and replaced." In 1986, Reagan-ordered air strikes tried to kill him. His infant daughter was murdered instead. "The CIA (downed) Pan Am 103," not Gaddafi who had nothing to do with it.
-- Libya's "opposition" includes "unspecified, unnamed, unidenfied 'rebels' of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protesters...." They seemingly "appeared out of thin air." Who they are isn't explained. NFSL, in fact, was established in 1981 by Sudan's Colonel Jaafer Nimieri, a US puppet dictator from 1971 - 1985.
-- For decades, CIA front groups have been operating in Libya, "backing armed insurgents and interventions" portrayed as "pro-democracy" movements.
-- Western media is reporting misinformation about events on the ground, including alleged bombings, massacres, and possible nerve gas used. None of it is credible. Libya, in fact, is being attacked. It's responding in self-defense.
-- Vicious propaganda is being used to enlist support for imperial intervention. "US troops have already moved ashore....joining the 'opposition....The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya." British and American Special Forces are operating out of Benghazi and Tobruck. Other covert US forces have been on the ground for weeks. Nothing humanitarian is planned.
-- More than oil and gas is wanted. So are valued mineral deposits. "Libya has a huge land mass with massive untapped mineral potential (including uranium)," besides known energy resources.
-- Accusing Gaddafi of genocide is malicious and untrue, like other major media fabrications. Their "disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds." No verifiable evidence exists, but there's plenty proving US genocides in Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in other targeted countries, causing many millions of deaths for decades. Western media air brushed them out, including The New York Times, America's lead propaganda instrument.
In "Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective," Gerald Perreira wrote:
"The conflict in Libya is not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. (It's) fundamentally a battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the realization of Qaddafi's vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist Libyan Arab forces who reject (his) vision of Libya as part of a United Africa."
"For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and 'Westoxicated' analysts who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on....Libya's system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside the Western imagination."
As a result, all Western government and media reports lack credibility. They're malicious imperial agitprop, including from top officials, BBC and Al Jazeera, each with its own agenda, all serving Western interests, harmful to Libyans.
A Final Comment
Ongoing events in Libya are familiar. Like many of his past counterparts, Gaddafi's been targeted for removal. For weeks or much longer, covert CIA and Special Forces operatives recruited, funded and armed so-called "opposition forces." They, not Gaddafi, instigated violence, heading for civil war. He responded in self-defense. Doing less would be irresponsible.
Western media portray instigators as victims, saying Gaddafi's waging war on his people. America and Western nations are called white knights, offering "humanitarian intervention" when, if fact, imperial colonization is planned. The longer violence continues, the more false media reports will exaggerate it, enlisting support for another nation to be destroyed to save it.
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Pakistanis, and many other oppressed people understand, victimized by imperial aggression, occupation, exploitation, immiseration, and regular drone attacks murdering innocent men, women and children called militants.
The latest in Afghanistan were nine young children, aged seven to 12, gathering wood in the mountains near their village. They were murdered in cold blood, what's escalating in Libya, being softened up in preparation for colonization and greater harshness.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
America's War on Libya
America's War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
Since WW II alone, America waged direct and proxy wars against Korea, Southeast Asia, Central and South American countries, African ones, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and now Egypt and Libya. One down, one to go, besides dozens of attempted and successful coups, as well as numerous other interventions to control world markets, resources and people. Imperial America doesn't sleep. It plots, deciding where next to strike.
Despite popular passion for democratic change, uprisings in Egypt and Libya were externally orchestrated, funded and armed by Washington to replace one despot with another. Democracy won't be tolerated. It's never been at home.
America's media go along, especially when Washington goes to war or plans one. In the lead: The New York Times, the nation's equivalent of an official information and propaganda ministry, posing as independent journalism.
It's February 28 editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies" made baseless accusations, then called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes. Indeed it should - against America and Western co-conspirators, not Libya, for instigating regional aggression, a reality The Times ignored, besides previously against Afghanistan, Iraq, and other US targets.
On March 4, writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Qaddafi Brutalizes Foes, Armed or Defenseless," saying:
Gaddafi attacked "unarmed protesters....His militia's actions seemed likely to stir renewed debate over international intervention to limit his use of military power against his own citizens, possibly by imposing a no-flight zone." If established, it's an act of war ahead of aggressive air attacks against a defenseless country, America's latest imperial target.
Kirkpatrick's article read more like bad fiction than real journalism, borrowing a page from now disgraced former Times writer Judith Miller, who functioned as a Pentagon press agent, promoting America's planned Iraq conquest and occupation. Now it's Libya, struggling to defend itself against naked aggression, covert so far but not for long, claiming "humanitarian intervention."
US warships are now positioned in the Mediterranean close by. About 1,200 Marines went to Greece for "Operation Libya." "Rebels" are being sent military and other supplies. Armed intervention is coming, colonial subjugation planned. Libya's "humanitarian crisis" was made in the USA. The pattern by now is familiar, used against many past targets.
On March 4, hinting about what's already begun, Obama said:
"So what I want to make sure of is that the United States has full capacity to act potentially rapidly if the situation deteriorated in such a way that you had a humanitarian crisis on our hands, or a situation in which civilians were - defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped and in great danger."
He already called on Gaddafi to step down. Among his options, he included a no-fly zone, saying:
"I don't want us hamstrung. I want us to be making our decision based on what's going to be best for the Libyan people in consultation with the international community."
In Geneva, Hillary Clinton called intervention "an option we are actively considering," referring to a no-fly zone and other measures. Stiff economic sanctions were also imposed, effective 8:00PM EST February 25."
The die is cast. Colonizing Libya is planned to exploit its vast energy reserves, other resources, and people, doing what's best for Washington, not Libyans, what's always top priority.
Major Media Suppressed Independent Voices
On August 13, 2011, Fidel Castro will be 85. An elder statesman, he remains active, thoughtful and incisive, now writing commentaries on world issues. On March 3, the Havana Times headlined, "Fidel Castro Forecasts War on Libya," publishing his full article in English.
Until America intervened, Libya "occupie(d) the first spot on the Human Development Index for Africa," including the continent's highest life expectancy. Authorities gave special attention to healthcare and education. Poverty is low. "The cultural level of the population is without a doubt the highest. The population wasn't lacking food and essential social services." Employment was plentiful, including for "hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other countries (to) carry out ambitious plans for production and social development."
America plans naked aggression to halt them. "The colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media," distorts reality on the ground, including by Al Jazeera. Its daily commentaries feature misinformation and distortions based on unverified reports, including about alleged bombings that Russian satellite imagery proved untrue. Nonetheless, Gaddafi is falsely called an aggressor, not victim, his regional despot status notwithstanding.
Telesur Journalists Targeted
Reporting from Libya, Pan American broadcaster Telesur's Jordan Rodriguez said members of his team were threatened, assaulted, and arrested for trying to report events accurately, including about pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli's Green Square.
Prior to Mubarak's ouster, Egypt's military junta detained and interrogated its Cairo team, preventing them from reporting the same way. Other independent journalists were also accosted. Dozens of incidents were reported.
Telesur's Rodrigo Hernandez said he and his colleagues were bullied face down on the pavement, left there for hours, then "forced into an armored police vehicle, with armed personnel inside, and blindfolded," en route to a military barracks for questioning.
They were also threatened with imprisonment, deportation, or "something much worse" if they kept reporting and were detained again. Similar tactics are ongoing in Libya to prevent accurate reports coming out. Imperial Washington wants none of its plans exposed.
Accurate Independent Journalism
Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist, war correspondent, human rights investigator, photographer, lecturer, and longtime observer of African country events. On March 1, his article titled, "Petroleum & Empire in North Africa: Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway" provided detailed Libyan information. Access it through the following link:
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/petroleum-empire-maps-for-north-africa/
Key points he stressed included:
-- In 2004, America's sanctions were dropped "in exchange for Gaddafi's (limited) collaboration, (paving) the way for a new era of US-Libyan bilateral trade." America's main interest is Libya's vast oil, gas and other mineral reserves. The Oil and Gas Journal estimates 46.4 billion barrels of oil and around 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, producing 95% of Libya's 2010 export earnings. Its petrodollars "were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into (companies) like the Carlyle Group, one of America's most seedy arms dealers."
-- the CIA "long wanted" Gaddafi removed and replaced." In 1986, Reagan-ordered air strikes tried to kill him. His infant daughter was murdered instead. "The CIA (downed) Pan Am 103," not Gaddafi who had nothing to do with it.
-- Libya's "opposition" includes "unspecified, unnamed, unidenfied 'rebels' of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent 'pro-democracy' protesters...." They seemingly "appeared out of thin air." Who they are isn't explained. NFSL, in fact, was established in 1981 by Sudan's Colonel Jaafer Nimieri, a US puppet dictator from 1971 - 1985.
-- For decades, CIA front groups have been operating in Libya, "backing armed insurgents and interventions" portrayed as "pro-democracy" movements.
-- Western media is reporting misinformation about events on the ground, including alleged bombings, massacres, and possible nerve gas used. None of it is credible. Libya, in fact, is being attacked. It's responding in self-defense.
-- Vicious propaganda is being used to enlist support for imperial intervention. "US troops have already moved ashore....joining the 'opposition....The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya." British and American Special Forces are operating out of Benghazi and Tobruck. Other covert US forces have been on the ground for weeks. Nothing humanitarian is planned.
-- More than oil and gas is wanted. So are valued mineral deposits. "Libya has a huge land mass with massive untapped mineral potential (including uranium)," besides known energy resources.
-- Accusing Gaddafi of genocide is malicious and untrue, like other major media fabrications. Their "disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds." No verifiable evidence exists, but there's plenty proving US genocides in Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in other targeted countries, causing many millions of deaths for decades. Western media air brushed them out, including The New York Times, America's lead propaganda instrument.
In "Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective," Gerald Perreira wrote:
"The conflict in Libya is not a revolution, but a counter-revolution. (It's) fundamentally a battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the realization of Qaddafi's vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist Libyan Arab forces who reject (his) vision of Libya as part of a United Africa."
"For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and 'Westoxicated' analysts who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on....Libya's system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside the Western imagination."
As a result, all Western government and media reports lack credibility. They're malicious imperial agitprop, including from top officials, BBC and Al Jazeera, each with its own agenda, all serving Western interests, harmful to Libyans.
A Final Comment
Ongoing events in Libya are familiar. Like many of his past counterparts, Gaddafi's been targeted for removal. For weeks or much longer, covert CIA and Special Forces operatives recruited, funded and armed so-called "opposition forces." They, not Gaddafi, instigated violence, heading for civil war. He responded in self-defense. Doing less would be irresponsible.
Western media portray instigators as victims, saying Gaddafi's waging war on his people. America and Western nations are called white knights, offering "humanitarian intervention" when, if fact, imperial colonization is planned. The longer violence continues, the more false media reports will exaggerate it, enlisting support for another nation to be destroyed to save it.
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Pakistanis, and many other oppressed people understand, victimized by imperial aggression, occupation, exploitation, immiseration, and regular drone attacks murdering innocent men, women and children called militants.
The latest in Afghanistan were nine young children, aged seven to 12, gathering wood in the mountains near their village. They were murdered in cold blood, what's escalating in Libya, being softened up in preparation for colonization and greater harshness.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)