The Commie Corner

NarcoNews...

2009-06-18T00:20:00.005-05:00

I've had a hyperlink to NarcoNews to the right of this blog for a long time... but I'm beginning to question their ability to report the news in light of their lead editor Al Giordano's seemingly pro-Obama administration and anti-East sentiment as he and NacroNews alike ignore the slaughter of the indigenous Peruvians earlier this month. Here's my criticism I sent to him with regards to this post:

"I have to admit, I'm beginning to distrust Al Giordano's analysis of the events happening not only on the American continent but the rest of the world.

Of all the reporters on this website, of whom I enjoy reading, Al Giordano appears to be the least informative and most opinionated. At a time when the indigenous in Peru are being attacked and slaughtered by Alan Garcia -- Al Giordano has the time to write up a peice to take advantage of the New York Times inability to report the news (as if anyone here doubts this fairly obvious observation) on a country that is completely out of the scope of what is typically posted on this news source.

Three paragraphs and a couple of photos is all you could muster up for Peru but Iran deserves two articles on the front page? I come to this website to learn about the going ons of my fellow Americans and instead I am barraged with an editoral peice that I would expect to find in newspaper of a New York Time's competitor. Shame on NarcoNews and Al Giordano for this self-boasting when they fail to report on the plight of the indigenous of Peru. Helicopters raining death from above and all you can talk about is smiling police officers? I don't know, I don't know.

And back to BBC I go to decipher the lies and propaganda as I try to peice together what's going on in Peru..."

Although, I doubt that this will be posted in the comments section of NarcoNews because Al Giordano is the one who approves them. Here's a better source for knowledge on the recent slaughter in Peru since NarcoNews only seems to care about smiling Iranian police officers...

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6191

2009-04-03T17:31:00.001-05:00

But let the Lydians be pardoned; and lay on them this command, that they may not revolt or be dangerous to you; then, I say, and forbid them to possess weapons of war, and command them to wear tunics under their cloaks and buskins on their feet, and to teach their sons lyre-playing and song and dance and huckstering. Then, O King, you will soon see them turned to women instead of men; and thus you need not fear lest they revolt.

Zimbabwe

2008-08-26T11:16:00.002-05:00

I just cannot understand what I am seeing here.

In an odd change in pace, the roles between the anti-imperialists and pro-imperialists have switched. Typically, 122 people dieing is mentioned once or twice by the Western media, especially if those 122 people were Muslims or leftists, but when those 122 people are pro-West it's a downright travesty and someone needs to be punished. It is so frustrating to look at how unbalanced this world is, when the lives of the right is so much more important than the lives of the left. Do we even have a chance in a world ruled by NATO and the UN?

Robert Mugabe has been president of Zimbabwe since the 1980s when he overthrew the oppressive white-minority dictatorship left over from British colonialism. To the people in Zimbabwe and around Africa, he's a symbol of independence and a hero to many. To the people in the West and anyone allied with them, he's a dictator who needs to be overthrown and replaced with a more Western friendly leader.

In the 1990s, many of the youths and veterans of the war of independence began to demand that the white-owned land should be redistributed to the Zimbabweans. Their demands were violent and they clashed with Mugabe, who was their leader during the independence. At the time, the land was slowly being redistributed via the "willing buyer, willing seller" program in which the UK helped pay the white landowners for their land at a price they were willing to accept, while Zimbabwe covers the rest. In 1999, the entire situation changed, Tony Blaire's government claimed that they were a "new government" and they no longer had colonial interests in Zimbabwe and therefore they were discontinuing the "willing buyer, willing seller" program.

As a result, land was being redistributed even slower than it had been throughout the 1990s. With tensions mounting, Mugabe drafted a new constitution which allowed for the government to seize land without compensation or permission. However the new constitution was defeated 55% to 45% in a referendum due to the opposition, the MDC, ability to mobilize their voters in urban areas.

Days later, the war veterans who were earlier fighting against Mugabe began to occupy the large corporate farms, taking the land by force. It was at this point that the Western funded and supported candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, began his campaign to unseat Mugabe as president. In the 2002 elections, Mugabe defeated Tsvangirai which was deemed free and fair by African observers. The West, however, was holding to their guns that he was still a dictator. After the election, he began to put into action the land redistribution, which had been a major issue during the 2002 elections. By 2005, the Zimbabwe parliament passed an amendment to the constitution allowing for the nationalization of white-owned corporate farmland.

In response to the threat of the nationalization of white-owned corporate farms, the United States passed the "Zimbabwe Democracy Act" in 2001, which despite the name had nothing to do with democracy. What it the act did do was make it impossible for Zimbabwe to obtain any loans from the IMF or World Bank in addition to heavy sanctions placed on the country. The West likes to claim these sanctions only hurt Mugabe, however in reality they made it impossible for small farmers to obtain fuel, seeds and fertilizer. United States former democrat, Cynthia McKinney had this to say with regards to the Zimbabwe Demockracy Act as it was being passed:

On the day the House of Representatives passed the bill (Tuesday, 4 December 2001), a fuming Cynthia McKinney, one of the few African-American politicians in Congress at the time to speak against the bill, stood on the floor of the House, and told the assembled gentlemen and women:

“Mr Speaker,” she said, “at the International Relations Committee meeting on 28 November 2001, which considered the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act 2001, I asked a question of my colleagues who were vociferously supporting this misdirected piece of legislation: ‘Can anyone explain how the people in question who now have the land in question in Zimbabwe got title to the land?’

“My query was met with a deafening silence. Those who knew did not want to admit the truth and those who didn’t know should have known – that the land was stolen from the indigenous peoples through the British South Africa Company and any ‘titles’ to it were illegal and invalid.

“Whatever the reason for their silence, the answer to this question is the unspoken but real reason for why the United States Congress is now concentrating its time and resources on squeezing an economically-devastated African state under the hypocritical guise of providing a ‘transition to democracy’. Zimbabwe is Africa’s second-longest stable democracy. It is multi-party. It had elections last year [2000] where the opposition, Movement for Democratic Change, won over 50 seats in the parliament. It has an opposition press which vigorously criticizes the government and governing party. It has an independent judiciary which issues decisions contrary to the wishes of the governing party. Zimbabwe is not without troubles, but neither is the United States. I have not heard anyone proposing a United States Democracy Act following last year’s [2000] presidential electoral debacle. And if a foreign country were to pass legislation calling for a United States democracy Act which provided funding for United States opposition parties under the figleaf of ‘voter education’, this body [Congress] and this country would not stand for it.

“There are many de jure and de facto one-party states in the world which are the recipients of support of the United States government. They are not the subject of congressional legislative sanctions.

“To any honest observer, Zimbabwe’s sin is that it has taken the position to right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue – to return its land to its people. The Zimbabwean government has said that a situation where 2% of the population owns 85% of the best land is untenable. Those who presently own more than one farm will no longer be able to do so.

“When we get right down to it, this legislation is nothing more than a formal declaration of United States complicity in a programme to maintain white-skin privilege. We can call it an “incentives” bill, but that does not change its essential ‘sanctions’ nature.

“It is racist and against the interests of the masses of Zimbabweans. In the long run, the Zimbabwe Democracy Act will work against the United States having a mutually beneficial relationship with Africa.”

The inflation caused by a lack of foreign currency in the country, due to the sanctions, has reached the millions of percentage to the point where it just becomes irrelevant. The EU followed suit with additional sanctions ranging from banning Mugabe ranging from visiting Europe to disallowing the sale of the paper used to print their currency, making it even more difficult for the Zimbabwe economy to stay afloat because they were rapidly printing currency in order to keep up with the inflation so the people could still buy food.

The plan was to create an environment where everyone would blame Mugabe for the failed economy leading to a regime change to the man the West wants in power: Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai supports the sanctions and the West has declared that they'd only remove the sanctions if he was in power. Tsvangirai also supports returning the nationalized farmland to the white minority.

During the 2008 elections, Western media launched a devastating propaganda campaign against Mugabe blaming everything on him and him alone. His policies effected the Zimbabwe economy, but the West played a large role in destroying the Zimbabwe economy, which up until 2000 was one of the best in Africa ever since Mugabe came to power.

The 2008 election was marred by violence in rural areas. The war veterans, fearful of losing the land they just obtained, began to attack Tsvangirai's party, the MDC and their supporters. As a result 122 MDC supporters died along with an undisclosed amount of Mugabe supporters. These murders were not state condoned and after the election, their bases were destroyed and many of them, arrested. However this didn't stop the West from, once again, placing all the blame on Mugabe who's government is bankrupt and country is in chaos.

In the first round of election, Tsvangirai was leading Mugabe, but he didn't obtain 50% of the vote, which according to the constitution is needed in order to become president. As a result, a run-off election was held. Tsvangirai played the event off as if he had won "outright" and traveled around Africa on a victory trip. At first he didn't want to return to Zimbabwe because he thought Mugabe was going to assassinate him. Tsvangirai returned and he wasn't assassinated.

Between the elections, Tsvangirai and the MDC insisted on breaking Zimbabwe laws to cause disorder and make an attempt to appear "oppressed." Days before the election, Tsvangirai withdrew from the run-off claiming the violence was too much and he was "protecting" his supporters. So he ran to the Dutch embassy and hid there. According to the Zimbabwe constitution, a candidate cannot withdraw from a run-off election and so Tsvangirai was still on the ballot come election day.

Those who supported Tsvangirai and those who didn't deemed him a coward after his supporters took the brunt of the violence while he hid in South Africa and foreign embassies, all for nothing. As a result, Mugabe won the election easily and is now, according to the constitution, the president in an election most deemed unfair. Although after everything that had gone down in the past eight years, a fair election was already jeopardized.

Post-election, Mugabe offered his hand out in a power-sharing deal with Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai was offered the position of Prime Minister as well as cabinet positions for his party. However, Tsvangirai had more ambitious goals in mind. He insisted that Mugabe relinquish all power to him and just accept the role as a ceremonial president, otherwise known as a normal citizen with a title.

In consequence, a power-sharing deal, mediated by South African President Thabo Mbeki, was only signed by Mugabe and still lacks Tsvangirai's signature. Tsvangirai's only leverage is that he has the West on his side and the only way the West will agree to lift the sanctions would be for Tsvangirai to have absolute power, as if his party's majority in Parliament wasn't enough. Until then, the people of Zimbabwe remain starving, unemployed and lacking any vision of a future.

The West and the MDC has yet to make one compromise since the first election and has maintained their stubbornness in the face of a human catastrophe, it is the Cuban embargo all over again...

Illegal Immigrant Laws

2008-08-25T18:28:00.006-05:00

Why don't we just make it a severe crime to pay any illegal worker significantly less than legal workers and only a misdemeanor for paying them equivalent wages? The 13th Amendment already makes slavery illegal, we can extend this to wage-slavery where one is only given enough to survive. On top of the ending of the exploitation of foreign workers, this would also allow for a level playing field for both American and Mexican workers competing for the same jobs. The person most fit for a job would then obtain it... and to be honest, it's hard for someone to work better if they don't even speak our language, so Americans would still have an advantage.

This would likely increase the immigration to the United States, but there are only so many jobs here and if both groups are payed the same, there's no advantage to hiring illegal immigrants. If both are equally employable, then immigrants will only continue to come if there are jobs to be filled. Without a large workforce, this country is nothing and if we Americans cannot fill every needed job... then why not a Mexican?

We should also make an illegal immigrant's income taxable without background checks.

2008-08-25T11:00:00.003-05:00

I don't normally talk about sports, however this Taekwondo Bronze Medal Olympic match was, to say the least, humorous. The Cuban fighter, Matos, was winning before he was disqualified for taking more than one minute during his timeout. The referee claimed he was "too injured" to fight, so Matos kicked the ref in the face with his broken toe to show the ref he could still go on. Of course, that didn't solve the problem and might get the Cuban and his coach banned from Taekwondo entirely.

Darfur: The Justice and Equality Movement

2008-02-03T16:51:00.001-06:00

2000: The Black Book

In 2000, "The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in the Sudan" was written by unknown authors and was spread around Sudan the same year. Later, it became known that the group to largely be associated with the writing of the book was the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

The book details the inequality in Sudan between the Northern Sudan where the majority of the people are of Arab decent and the rest of Sudan which is mostly of African descent. The authors showed statistical evidence for disproportional distribution of the nations wealth to the Northern regions and that the vast majority of the people running the government being from the North.[1]

During a time when dissent wasn't very welcomed, the Black Book was released to the public in an upfront way. Instead of secretly passing the book on, JEM openly handed out the book at Mosques in the North. In addition, they managed to place the book on the desk of Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, and other high ranking government officials.

According to Gérard Prunier:

"it said nothing to the average Northern Sudanese that they did not know already. What created a shock were not the contents of the book but simply the fact that an unspoken taboo had been broken and that somebody […] had dared to put into print what everybody knew but did not want to talk about."
--Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide By Gérard Prunier (2005) pg 77

JEM created a national phenomenon and threatened the status quo. The most threatening reality was that the authors of the Black Book supported a Northern Arab and leader of the National Islamic Front, Hassan al-Turabi. In a nation where 75% of the people are Muslim, a link between the African Muslims with progressive Northern Arabic Muslims could spell ruin for the status quo. Hassan al-Turabi has maintained that he has no association to JEM, nor has JEM claimed that Hassan al-Turabi was part of their movement.

1989-1999: Omar al-Bashir and Hassan al-Turabi

In 1989, Omar al-Bashir seized power in a coup removing Sadiq al-Mahdi, Hassan al-Turabi's brother-in-law. Hassan al-Turabi was imprisoned along with his brother-in-law in 1989 but was released in 1990 when he agreed to work with the new regime.[2]

Hassan al-Turabi gained influence in Sudan and became the Speaker of Parliament. He was largely responsible for the institution of Sharia law in Sudan. Unlike previous Islamic leaders in Sudan, al-Turabi's interpretation of Islam was more progressive than his conservative counterparts. He supports womens' rights, democracy, mending of the Sunni and Shia divide and not forcing Sharia law on non-Muslims. On women, he said:

"The Prophet himself used to visit women, not men, for counseling and advice. They could lead prayer. Even in his battles, they are there! In the election between Othman and Ali to determine who will be the successor to the Prophet, they voted!"
--Interview with Hasan al-Turabi by Lawrence Wright, in Wright, The Looming Tower, (2006), p.165

However it wasn't long until Hassan al-Turabi would be arrested again by Omar al-Bashir. In 1999, al-Turabi was arrested for signing the "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army (SPLA) in the South which stated that they and the National Islamic Front would have a joint "peaceful resistance" against Omar al-Bashir's dictatorship. He wouldn't be released again until 2005.

2003: The Genocide Begins

Four years after Hassan al-Turabi signed the "Memorandom of Understanding," the US began an negotiation between the rebels in the South (SPLA) and the Sudanese government. However the West (Darfur) was upset that they were not included in the talk. As a result, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the JEM began their rebellion. In March of 2003, SLM's press release revealed their objectives:

"Although the SLM/A has originated from Darfur as a matter of necessity in response to the brutal genocidal policies of the NIF Government in that region, we want to affirm and underline that the SLM/A is a national movement that aims along with other like-minded political groups to address and solve the fundamental problems of all of Sudan. The objective of SLM/A is to create a united democratic Sudan on a new basis of equality, complete restructuring and devolution of power, even development, cultural and political pluralism and moral and material prosperity for all Sudanese."[3]

The rebellion in Darfur led to harsh government oppression by the Janjaweed, the government's Arab militia. The Janjaweed are responsible for the mass murder of many Darfur villages and other various human rights abuses. The group seeks their own personal interests in addition to being controlled by the Omar al-Bashir's government. In addition to the genocide, the Sudanese government is stealing the land where massacres took place. Under the control of Omar al-Bashir, the Janjaweed conducted a scorched earth policy and are targeting Darfur citizens to discourage people from joining the rebellion.

Unlike the Sudanese government, JEM is willing to cooperate with the international community. On January 20th, 2008, JEM posted on their website:

"1- [Bringing] the perpetrators of war crimes, forced displacement and the genocidaires to justice is imperative; this also provides a real test for the international community and for its commitment to protecting oppressed civilians from authoritarian rulers who misuse the so-called 'sovereignty' to continue butchering and displacement of innocent civilians.

2- JEM emphasizes its readiness to cooperate with the ICC and is willing to help all those concerned in uncovering the truth and to allow justice to take its course"[4]

Omar al-Bashir on the other hand doesn't want to work with the International Criminal Court (ICC) for fear of revealing their harsh oppression of the poor inside Darfur.

2008: Our Eyes are Still Closed

The United States has been the only country to recognize the genocide in Darfur, however they refuse to put an end to the Sudanese governments mass murder. The EU is set to deploy troops to Sudan, however recent developments in Chad threaten the much needed aid.

"Chad's Foreign Ministers Ahmat Allami has accused Sudan of instigating the rebel advance in order to stop the deployment of the EU force:

"Sudan does not want this force because it would shine a light on all the genocide that is taking place in Darfur orchestrated from Chadian territory," he told the BBC."[5]

As a result, troops from France are being deployed in Chad while Darfur remains ignored. In addition, Omar al-Bashir supports the Chad rebels because it distracts international attention away from his death squads in Darfur.

2008: JEM Strikes Back

On May 10th, 2008, the JEM rebels successfully attacked Sudan's capital Khartoum for the first time and brought the fight away from Darfur and moved the battle to Omar al-Bashir's doorstep. The rebels held the largest city in Sudan, Omdurman on the opposite side of the Nile as Sudan's capital. After JEM withdrew from the city, JEM commander Suleiman Sandal warned that they would attack Khartoum at least one more time unless the conflict in Darfur was settled.

Omar al-Bashir used the attack to round up dissidents in the city, including Hassan al-Turabi who was later released. Human rights group warn of torture and indiscriminate arresting/killing of all Darfuris in the capital. Sudan claims Chad is behind the attack, however their evidence was gained through interrogation was obtained through torture. Sudanese authorities claim that this assault on the capital would set the so-called "peace process" back however the peace process was making no progress to begin with. An army spokesman threatened: "It will lead to more suffering, more displacement, more hunger in the whole Darfur region" out of desperation, all of which are recognized war crimes.

While the people in Darfur were being slaughtered, the people of Khartoum have enjoyed the status of the most peaceful city in Africa, however recent attacks reveal the vurnerability of not only the city, but Omar al-Bashir's government.

Why Look the Other Way?

The West and Arabic nations have largely ignored the genocide in Darfur. The West doesn't want to get involved because the only side supporting democracy and an end to the genocide is an Islamic leader, Hassan al-Turabi and a leftist movement embodied by JEM and SLM. The Arabic nations, particularly the Islamic ones, haven't gotten involved in the conflict even though thousands of African Muslims are being systematically murdered by northern Arabic Muslims.

The only way out of this conflict will be the overthrowing of Omar al-Bashir and to support the taboo of revolution would be the last resort of the West and picking sides isn't something many Islamic nations are willing to do. The situation is a lose-lose for both sides of the status quo and so they ignore it and hope it will go away.

BBC's 180 on Bolivia

2007-12-16T15:21:00.002-06:00

Ever since the unfortunate death of Lola Almudevar, BBC's reporters in Bolivia have become just as bias as the BBC reporters in Venezuela. With headlines like:

Bolivia head praises reform plan

Why wouldn't Morales praise the reforms he has been pushing for months? BBC appears to be drawing the lines for their next propaganda campaign by making sure everyone knows Morales is against these declarations for autonomy. Not very long ago, BBC and all of the other Western News agencies launched a campaign in support of the Venezuelan students to stop Chavez's attempt to change his constitution. Now they're doing the same to Morales and Bolivia.

The wealthy European-Bolivians are getting more international media coverage than they deserve just like the bourgeois students in Venezuela. Their numbers are small and their argument, greedy. Eastern Bolivia has no grounds for declaring autonomy from the countries government just because their party no longer has control over the executive and legislative branches due to a movement supported by the poor and oppressed.

If this was any other country, lets go ahead and use Mexico as an example, then these people would be considered terrorists. In Chiapas, the indigenous population declared autonomy, with help from the Zapatistas, from Mexico's corrupt government in an attempt to pull themselves out of poverty. Within days, many people in Chiapas were murdered by their own government and government supporting groups. The media was largely anti-Zapatistas and if it was not for independent journalists and political activists, then we would never have known what was actually going on in Chiapas. Where was the mainstream media then?

In addition, the declaration of autonomy in Chiapas was due to the North American Free Trade Agreement being implemented. This is very similar to Bolivia because the declaration for autonomy in Bolivia was also due to legislative reforms. However there's one major difference -- the indigenous population isn't the minority in Bolivia.

Will Bolivia's splits widen in 2008?

Is another article containing this quote:

"So reason for Bolivia to rejoice? Far from it. "

Is leading the reader to believe that the reforms are only good on paper. Stopping these reforms isn't going to make the problems go away, so by implying that these reforms have made the country worse off is downright irresponsible for any real reporter. A journalist shouldn't be putting their opinions into news articles, they can save their opinionated articles for their blogs.

The indigenous people in Bolivia have been trying to change the government for many years now and if they reform doesn't pass, then even more conflict is bound to arise. It was Morales who stopped the last Bolivian riots by promising to peacefully make change -- which he has miraculously kept his word thus far. And if the wealthy eastern Bolivians stop him, I expect those riots to start right where they left off.

BBC cannot be trusted to report on South America with regards to any leader who is remotely leftist anymore. For those looking to read something that isn't littered in lies, I suggest NarcoNews:
http://www.narconews.com/en.html

Al Jazeera is similar to BBC, but I haven't seen anything in the past few weeks that would lead me to believe they're hopelessly bias against the left:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English

This just goes to show that government media is just as bad as private media; independent media seems to be the last hope for truth.

Jena 6

2007-09-23T22:09:00.000-05:00

The South is at it again with their modern day racism.

There had been several reports of racism and brawls between white and black students in Jena, Louisiana in the past year. In 2006, a black student at a local high school sat under the so-called "White Tree" where the preppy white kids generally spent their time. The next day, three nooses were hung from the tree. The three students responsible were recommended for expulsion by the principle, however the Board of Education and superintendent overturned the recommendation. Instead the only punishment they received was a brief in school suspension.

After numerous brawls between different groups of teenagers, the six black teenagers in Jena were singled out and charged with attempted murder after jumping one white teenager who was said to have mocked one of the black teenagers prior to the fight.

The injuries of the white teenager were mild at best seeing as he was out of the hospital and attended a high school event that very same day. Irregardless, the all white jury convicted the Jena 6 with some of them facing more than 20 years in prison.

Mychal Bell, a 16 year old who is part of the Jena 6, had his charges dropped after being convicted because he was tried as an adult. However, he is still in jail because the courts denied him a bond. Bell and the Jena 6 were tried by an all white jury with no chance of having a black juror because all 50 of the people who showed up for jury duty were white.

A few of the others had their charges reduced to aggravated assault as opposed to attempted murder, although the reduction is still in itself racist. Aggravated assault requires the use of a deadly weapon, however none of the Jena 6 possessed such a weapon so the courts claimed that the shoes they were wearing were a "deadly weapon" and five of them are still facing jail time.

Clearly this is a case of institutionalized racism. Thousands of people have been protesting in Jena this past week; including Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Mos Def.

If you want to read more about the incident, Wikipedia does a good job of examining the whole situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

Netanyahu: Intelligent or Stupid?

2007-09-23T00:48:00.000-05:00

Netanyahu, an opposition leader in Israel, leaked information about Israel's attacks on Syria when the government's official line was to be silent. However he did something unique -- he supported the bombings and Olmert while at the same time revealing proof of Israel's illegal actions. It is unclear if he was sincere with his support or if he merely "supported" Olmert so he wouldn't be severely punished.

I'm curious to find out if Netanyahu leaked this information because he thought Israel's actions were inherently wrong or if he was too dim-witted to realize the ramifications of Israel's attack on a nation they aren't at war with.

Whatever the case may be, Netanyahu is ballsy.

Why you gotta break balls?

2007-09-11T22:06:00.000-05:00

Oscar Wyatt, a self-made billionaire, faces up to 72 years in prison for allegedly buying more oil than allowed from Iraq during the UN sanctions imposed after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq were ruthless and hurt the Iraqi people far more than Saddam Hussein. In fact, it never hurt Saddam and instead turned out to be a direct attack on the already overburdened Iraqi people.

So why does the government have to break Wyatt's balls? Clearly it's because he's the only rich man the Bush Administration feels comfortable taking down. Forget the war-mongers at Halliburton, lets get a dude who brought a little more cash into a country being strangled by the bullies at the UN. In addition, Wyatt has been a vocal opponent of the Bush administration and has criticized both Iraq wars putting him on the government's hit list.

Wyatt may be no revolutionary hero, but there are so many other bourgeois who deserved to be incarcerated more than he does.

Hungary Puts Its Foot Down!

2007-08-24T02:12:00.000-05:00

In a sad and pathetic attempt to cuddle up to Washington, Hungary has granted asylum for 29 Cubans who were hiding out in Guantanamo Bay after attempting to go to Florida. Naturally, Hungarian government officials denied the claim that they were cuppling Washington's balls and said they allowed the asylum for humanitarian reasons.

As we are all well aware, Hungary is the beacon of human rights protection. In fact, that last statement was completely false. Human Rights Watch states that:

Most of the objectives in the Hungarian government's medium term plan for Roma rights were unmet at the end of 2000, resulting in continued discrimination in employment, housing, and education and police abuse of Hungarian Roma. In July 2000, a group of Roma families from Zamoly traveled to Strasbourg seeking political asylum in France. The Roma also lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights seeking compensation for human rights abuses suffered in Hungary, including persecution and discrimination. The complaint charged that families' homes had been destroyed illegally by the Zamoly municipal government. The families were evicted from temporary accomodation in the local cultural center after six months, and although new homes were built for them in 2000, the Roma said they did not occupy them because they feared racially motivated attacks. In August, Roma representatives from Ozd traveled to Strasbourg to consult with the Zamoly Roma. The Ozd Roma said that fifteen families from that region wanted to emigrate as well due to persecution suffered in Hungary. On August 9, 2000, the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) sent a letter to Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban protesting a spate of discriminatory Roma evictions in Ozd. The ERRC also expressed concern that new legislation, in effect since May 2000, permitting a notary public to order evictions expands the power of local officials to remove Roma from their homes. Although judicial review of a notary's eviction order is possible, injunctive relief is not provided by the new law, leaving families homeless while they challenge evictions.

Clearly Hungary has human rights issues of their own and yet they continue to take the high ground. Cuba may have its human rights problems here and there, but Hungary has no right to pretend that their country has more freedoms than Cuba.

Hey Hungary,

Fuck You.

Mythology: Individualism vrs Collectivism

2007-07-31T22:01:00.001-05:00

Introduction to Mythology:
Mythology (including religious stories) is important for all new nations to embrace. Whether or not the myths are fact or fiction, the stories themselves bring together large groups of people who have never met each other.

As an example of the importance of mythology, I will examine the Roman Empire. The very establishment of Rome is cluttered with mythology. The mythology begins in the Trojan War where Aeneas, a Trojan, was told by a sibyl that his descendants would found Rome. According to mythology, Aeneas' descendants, Romulus and Remus founded Rome three-hundred years later.

In addition to the nation founding myths, the Romans continued to add more mythological heros to their mythology. As Rome began to envelop Northern Africa, a new hero arose -- Hannibal. Hannibal hailed from Carthage and was a military genius who on numerous occasions soundly defeated the Romans. His achievements were celebrated not only on the Carthaginian side, but the Roman side as well. Even during Hannibal's life time Romans idealized him in the form of statues. By including mythological heros from nations that would soon be added to the Roman empire allows the Romans and the Natives to share a common belief/myth.

The Romans weren't the only people in history to use mythology to bring together large groups of people. The United States created its own mythology as well. In the US, the Wild West was our mythological time period. People like: Wild Bill, Calamity Jane and my all time favorite, Billy the Kid have all become legends and symbols of America. However today many of these figures are unknown to the vast majority of Americans.

Joseph Campbell:
Joseph Campbell was the foremost scholar in mythology right up until his death in 1987. Campbell's most famous work was The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949); in the book, Campbell spent the majority of the time discussing the journey of the hero which can be easily visualize on this website, starting from the top and moving counterclockwise. The book itself inspired George Lucas who took Campbell's idea of the hero and applied it to his masterpiece, Star Wars.

Individualism:
In the epilogue of The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949) by Joseph Campbell, he discussed the purpose of myths.

"In his life form the individual is necessarily only a fraction and distortion of the total image of man. He is limited either as male or as female; at any given period of his life he is again limited as child, youth, mature adult, or ancient; furthermore, in his life-role he is necessarily specialized as craftsman, tradesman, servant, or thief, priest, leader, wife, nun, or harlot; he cannot be all. Hence, the totality – the fullness of man – is not in the separate member, but in the body of the society as a whole; the individual can be only an organ. From his group he has derived his techniques of life, the language in which he thinks, the ideas on which he thrives; through the past of that society descended the genes that built his body. If he presumes to cut himself off, either in deed or in thought and feeling, he only breaks connection with the sources of his existence." Pages: 382-383

Campbell argues that the idea of an individual is only a very small part of a much larger community. One person cannot survive without the rest of the community to support him or her. Adopting an individualist attitude of "I don't need anyone" is nearly the same as denying yourself your own existence.

The basis of mythology is, as I said earlier, to bring together a community and the individualist lifestyle adopted by many people today can only end in disaster. Without a common belief, humanity will continue to kill, maim and starve each other because they have no emotional stock in the lives of anyone except themselves.

Clearly I am not implying there needs to be one religion to rule them all; but humans need to find a person or group of people whose actions can be turned into legend and teach everyone a basis of principles that will curb worldwide suffering.

Jesus, for example, did just that. He was able to bring together people of all different faiths, nationalities and races to share a belief in peace and an egalitarian society. Unfortunately, his message was corrupted by reactionary church leaders ~~and can no longer satisfy the needs of humanity and a new figure must arise and replace the old.~~

Collectivism:
Mythology and collectivism both intend to bring together a community to work towards a common goal as opposed to everyone working against each for their own self-centered profit.

The Soviet Union clearly showed that collectivization without a mythology (ie. common belief) cannot happen. In the 1930s, collectivization met more resistance than expected and it wasn't until after World War II did the Soviet Union's mythology begin to show itself. The "Great Patriotic War" made heros out of every soldier who fought against Nazi Germany and gave the Soviets something to be proud of. The emergence of these heros, however, came 40 years after the establishment of the new country and there was too much turmoil to curb. The individualists and traditionalists had overrun the government and sent the Soviet Union in a downward spiral to a more individualist lifestyle.

Collectivization in Cuba had a far different situation. The story of how Fidel Castro started a revolution with merely a dozen of his comrades and won against Batista's police state was ripe for legendary status. Che Guevara would be the figure head of this mythology and is celebrated by millions, perhaps a billion, of people worldwide as a hero of the people.

In addition to these two highly celebrated heros of the Cuban Revolution, there was the David and Goliath struggle between Cuba and the United States. The Bay of Pigs showed the dedication and might of the small island when they repelled the US trained and equipped Cuban exiles. The David and Goliath struggle can be seen even more clear during the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Cuban people stood up against US interventionist policies by daring to level the playing field by equipping the nation with a defensive nuclear weapon.

Cuba remains as one of the only collectivist survivors of the Cold War and for good reason. They were able to maintain the ideals that brought them to revolution because they didn't need to conceded to opposition interested in their own personal gain. As much as the media will try to portray the Cuban people as hating their government, this just isn't the case. The Cuban people have showed their allegiance to the revolution, its mythology and collectivization by not rising up en mass against the government and its policies.

Conclusion:
Individualism is unnatural and opposed to the progression of humankind. Working against eachother will accomplish nothing but war and starvation whereas collectivism would allow for the greater advancement of the human race.

...

2007-03-07T17:10:00.000-06:00

Anti-US Bloc

2006-09-25T21:04:00.001-05:00

Well.. a lot of news lately seems to be pointing towards a third world alliance against US aggression. I'll quote some news:

Quote:

Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson said on Tuesday that the foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India would meet at the earliest to review the peace process in pursuance of the Havana Joint Statement.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu...4129172737.htm

Quote:

Furthermore, Musharraf was worried that if Pakistan did not accede to Washington's demands, the US would take up an Indian offer to provide bases.

The Pakistan president foresaw India using the opportunity to either launch a limited offensive in the disputed Kashmir region, or more probably New Delhi would work with the US and the UN to turn the present disputed ceasefire line dividing Kashmir into a permanent border.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...FFBC1E561C.htm

This is particularly interesting, actually. At the International "I hate America" meeting in Havana, the two enemies restore peace talks. Days later, Pakistan announces that the US forced them to help in the "war on terror." Keep in mind, Pakistan does have nukes. I'm not saying Pakistan will take sides with Chavez's bloc - however the proximity of the NAM meeting and release of this information makes me bring two and two together.

Quote:

Iran said it was prepared to negotiate a suspension of its most sensitive nuclear work if it received fair guarantees in talks with major powers.

But the United States and many experts reacted skeptically to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Ahmadinejad said talks with the European Union on Iran's nuclear program were on the right track and he hoped no-one would try to sabotage them, an apparent reference to Washington.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...431885995.html

Alienating Washington and at the same time making it seem as though the US was warmongering. If the deal goes through, the US will look very bad.

Quote:

North Korea will probably test a nuclear weapon, with an even chance of doing so this year, as Kim Jong-il's regime tries to assert its defiance in the face of increasing international pressure, said Richard Armitage, former US deputy secretary of state.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15003877/

An ignored threat, but a threat nonetheless to America.

Quote:

QUITO, Ecuador -- A tough-talking leftist economist and presidential front-runner who rattles foreign investors said Monday he is proud to call Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez his friend.

Rafael Correa also said he would not extend the U.S. military's use of the Pacific coast Manta air base as an operational site for drug surveillance flights when the treaty runs out in 2009.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...Candidate.html

Yet another anti-America leftist running for office in Latin America.

Quote:

ESTELI, Nicaragua (Reuters) - The United States hoped it had seen the last of Daniel Ortega, a Cold War foe who led Nicaragua's Sandinista revolution, when he was voted out of power in 1990 after a brutal war against U.S.-backed rebels.

But he refused to fade away and is back again, crisscrossing Nicaragua's rice-growing lowlands, dense jungles and tropical hills as its presidential election front-runner.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2463176

Another anti-US Latin American potential leader.

Quote:

Japan is warning that a move by Russia to freeze a huge oil and gas project could hurt ties between the two countries. Japanese companies have a stake in the project, which Japan sees as an important source of fuel for the future.

The Russian government on Monday rescinded environmental approvals for a $20 billion oil and gas project in the Russian Far East, delivering a potentially significant blow to Japan's energy policy.

http://www.voanews.com/english/CR-JA...Y-19sept06.cfm

Not so much a anti-American occurrence, however Japan is a close ally of America.

Quote:

MOSCOW: The United States will pursue a hostile policy towards Russia regardless of who comes to power in the White House, a Russian Parliament report has warned.

Russian-U.S. relations will deteriorate significantly over the next few years, as Washington will try to promote a Government change in Russia, weaken Russia's energy, power and undermine its positions in the former Soviet Union, said a report prepared by analysts of the State Duma, the lower House of the Russian Parliament.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/23/stor...2306841600.htm

This one is self-explanatory.

Of course, there's Chavez, Castro and Morales. These enemies appear to be growing, and the smallest of action could set off a time bomb. Even the holding of the Venezuelan diplomat in NYC for 90 minutes has caused a large scandal. One false move and the US could send the world into war. This is obviously their plan, but they want to keep Europe on their side - so they will wait until they can "justify" it. I bet they were hoping for Iran or Syria to come to Hezbollah's aid in July, but that plan fell through.

Ever wonder why so few troops are in Iraq and why they're poorly equipped? Washington is trying to save troops and money for their bigger plan.

Hastening the Demise of Capitalism

2006-09-14T23:54:00.000-05:00

Outside of the realm of guerrilla attacks on imperialist headquarters, I forsee only one relatively peaceful solution to quickening the suicide of the capitalist system. That method being: open borders.

I like to bring up Das Kapital because I find it to be a good guide as far as revolutionary progress is concerned. Like Marx said, capitalism will collapse when profit is sought after to the point where wages are no longer able to sustain life and the economy. Imperialism (with welfare capitalism) has greatly slowed down this process. The process is still rolling, as we've seen with 401(k) plans and outsourcing - it doesn't seem to be approaching an end, however.

In order to destroy capitalism in the West - mass immigration is the only real way to quicken the demise of capitalism. This would result in rapid wage decreases and a greatly increase the workforce. "Supply and Demand" will lead to greater competition for work and wages will gradually decrease over time as people become desperate. High unemployment and low wages will lead to genuine suffering in the West and eventually revolutionary fervor. In the end, communism will reign supreme much earlier than expected.

However, this doesn't seem plausible due to rabid racism coming from the working class in the West. The only way opening the borders will ever happen is if the big corporations were blind enough to want a greater workforce. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the capitalists are this ignorant.

So, how, then would one quicken the rise of communism?

On the Verge of Revolution?

2006-08-15T20:23:00.000-05:00

Unlike the Americans, Mexicans aren't going to stand by while an election is stolen so obviously. Supporters of Obrador are turning to violence in Mexico City:

Quote:

Police in Mexico have erected steel barriers around the Congress building in the capital after fighting broke out with political demonstrators.

Protesters had gathered to challenge the result of the presidential election but this was the first time since protests began that violence erupted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4796689.stm

Mexico's problem isn't only the fraudulent election, but more and more communities are leaning more and more towards the way of the Zapatistas:

Quote:

OAXACA CITY, August 10, 2006: The government of Oaxaca has advised the public that it will arrest all the leaders of the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) to “guarantee the safety” of the state, the Secretary of Public Security Lino Celaya Luria said yesterday.

http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article2007.html

The APPO is a civilian organized government which has rejected the "official" Oaxaca government. The conflict began over a teacher's union strike for a budget increse for their schools. What's Mexico's government's response?

Quote:

José Jiménez Colmenares, a mechanic by profession married to teacher, was shot in the street while participating in a march organized by the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO, by its Spanish initials) on August 10. Two others were wounded. At the front of the march the empty wheel chair belonging to German Mendoza Nube –the Union of Poor Campesinos founder and APPO leader who was arrested on August 9– was pushed, with his photo on the back of the chair.

http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article2009.html

Abducting someone out of their wheel chair...? This isn't even the beginning of the human rights abuses committed by the fascist Mexican government.

Lets not forget the rebellion in Atenco a few months ago and the Zapatista rebellion years ago. It's only a matter of time until Mexico turns into a all-out revolution.

Capitalism Gimps Human Development

2006-08-03T16:01:00.000-05:00

Undoubtedly many of today's jobs can be simply replaced by a machine. However, doing so would greatly reduce the consumer's buying power and therefore cause a disruption in the economy. Without these jobs, companies will be able to make their products cheaply, however they will eventually have nobody to sell them too. Therefore, under capitalism there will be very little development of machines capable of reducing human labor to an extent where it's barely needed. People must work 8+ hours in order to have enough money to not only survive, but keep the consumer economy running.

Yet, communism would allow for machines, as each and every person will receive everything they need irregardless of how much time they actually work. Overall labor time will be greatly reduced and therefore people will be free to enjoy their short time on earth.

To be clear, I'm not saying some people will work one hour and others will work eight hours. What I am saying is that there's a finite amount of work that needs to be done and that the population will share this work instead of everyone working 8 hours, even if their labor is not needed.

The Columbian Fascist

2006-06-24T23:14:00.000-05:00

FARC offered peace talks, but called for terms. Uribe has stressed that he will not yield to rebel terms and will likely keep the conflict in motion. Uribe, like all fascists before him, is using a national conflict to inflict damage on his country and people in a covert fashion. What I am speaking of is the Free Trade agreement with the USA, incase you didn't catch on.

If you want to read more about the peace offer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5112418.stm

Uribe is USELESS

2006-06-20T16:00:00.000-05:00

One of the main reasons for his re-"election" is that he would continue is hard fought war against drugs. Well, he's failing. Columbia has seen an 8% increase in cocaine this year, according to the UN. Good job Uribe, keep up the good work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5099288.stm

Human Nature: Communism vrs. Capitalism

2006-06-12T12:14:00.000-05:00

"In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside or treading down all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive."
-Evolution and Ethics (1893) by Thomas Huxley

Survival is the only proven and commonly accepted part of human nature. Each species intends to reproduce and prolong their own survival. Social Darwinists and Capitalists suggest that humans "naturally" compete against each other for their own personal gain. However this in itself goes against our human nature, species never work against each other so only a minority of it's population survives and the rest die. Even if there are a few cases of this happening, they're likely to be outliers.

In a world without enough food, medicine and other instruments used for survival; capitalism would be the ideal economic system since it would be humans at their natural stage. However, humans have evolved to a point of intelligence in which humans can develop enough food and medication for all peoples. Even under capitalism, enough food is produced to feed all inhabitants of the world a healthy vegetarian diet (1).

Naturally, the need for competition and hoarding of the food is illogical. Capitalism itself has become obsolete and to be working against human nature. At this point in our development, the new economic system of communism is the only presented solution to the unnatural hoarding of wealth.

To further prove my point, we can look at how animals evolve to survive certain pandemic. The most disastrous disease plaguing the earth today is starvation. 33,000 children die each day and parts of the world population have "evolved" and created a means to fight what used to be a worldwide problem. When other species find means to survive, they share their DNA via reproduction. The US and other Western countries are refusing to allow their "vaccine" to reach the third world countries. Species naturally aid the others with methods of survival and with the superior human intelligence, we're capable of taking human survival to greater levels.

Greed is the most common defense of capitalism. The idea of it being human nature, however, is preposterous. Nearly all instances of greed can be related to the survival instinct outside the world of capitalism. Capitalist greed is by far the most unnatural human trait someone could have. This greed results in maintaining large amounts of wealth they could never possibly use and largely hinders the survival of the human race. As capitalism continues, more and more of the wealth will concentrate itself into the hands of a few and eventually leave the rest of the world to die.

The Alpha Male Lion, for example, is always the first of the hunting party to eat, whether or not he was the one who got the kill. This occurs naturally and the females allow for this to happen. They could quite simply overpower him since he's vastly outnumbered. However, they choose to sit back and wait until he's finished. The male lion, being the largest and strongest, is in need of more food in order to stay strong. His strength could very well mean the survival of the prides. So for the good of the whole pride, the male lion eats first. Survival is reason, not selfish greed.

In the end, individual survival which is capitalism is contradictory to human nature. Working against each other stops many chances for human survival and therefore the only possibly solution would be communism.

Democratic Nature of Cuba

2006-05-29T18:11:00.000-05:00

A common misconception of the Island in Cuba is that it is undemocratic. In this post, I will examine democracy in Cuba. I'll begin by quoting the Cuban Constitution.

Electoral Process of 1992 Cuban Constitution:

ARTICLE 131. All citizens, with the legal capacity to do so, have the right to take part in the leadership of the state, directly or through their elected representatives to the bodies of People’s Power, and to participate, for this purpose and as prescribed by law, in the periodic elections and people’s referendums through free, equal and secret vote. Every voter has only one vote.

ARTICLE 132. All Cubans over 16 years of age, men and women alike, have the right to vote except those who:

a) are mentally disabled and have been declared so by court;
b) have committed a crime and because of this have lost the right to vote.

ARTICLE 133. All Cuban citizens, men and women alike, who have full political rights can be elected.

If the election is for deputies to the National Assembly of People’s Power they must be more than 18 years old.

ARTICLE 134. Members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and other military institutions of the nation have the right to elect and be elected, just like any other citizen.

ARTICLE 135. The law determines the number of delegates that make up each of the Provincial and Municipal Assemblies, in proportion to the number of people who live in each of the regions into which, for electoral purposes, the country is divided.

The delegates to the Provincial and Municipal Assemblies are elected by the voters through free, direct and secret vote. Moreover, the law regulates the procedure for their election.

ARTICLE 136. In order for deputies or delegates to be considered elected they must get more than half the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts.

If this does not happen, or in cases of vacant posts, the law regulates the procedure to be followed.
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

Democratic Process:

"The Cuban National Assembly deals with legislative and constitutional matters, has 609 members who serve for five years. Up to 50 per cent are chosen from previously elected provincial and municipal delegates (elected locally for 2½ year terms) and the rest are chosen by national candidate commissions (from which PCC is excluded) in a process which takes many months and involves consultations with the major organizations representing millions of people, such as the trade unions, the women's federation, the small farmers unions, the student and teacher federations, and professional, health care and other associations."
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/70/crumpacker.html

This excerpt shows a process that doesn't favor the Communist Party in Cuba and uncontrolled by Castro himself. A one man dictatorship in Cuba is quite impossible with so many people in the National Assembly. The only possible dictatorship would be a Proletarian one.

"There is no campaigning in Cuba, the candidates do not promote themselves and money is not a factor their election or decision making. Their biographies, including photos, education, work experience and other matters are posted conspicuously throughout their permanent, unchanging residential districts for months before the elections and details are supplied on request by the election commissions. They usually serve only one term, and most of them have previously been elected by constituents who know them personally or by reputation as to truly represent the common interest. They are not career politicians, they must have frequent meetings with constituents (called "accountability sessions") and they are subject to recall at all times. Where expert information is necessary, it is supplied by special commission or workers' parliaments rather than lobbyists, and proposed legislation (such as the recent imposition of an income tax on some) is voted on, up or down, in order of presentation. The peoples' representatives make the decisions, and once made, they move on to new decisions. In the elections held January 2003 over 93 per cent of eligible Cubans voted valid ballots, electing a National Assembly which truly represents their common interest, without the intervention of electoral parties."
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/70/crumpacker.html

Cuba's "campaigning" process is far ore democratic than any capitalist nation, including the United States and Great Britain. Money influences Capitalist politics to a huge degree and degrades the democratic process to a point of blatant wealth dictatorship.

The usual one-term politician is quite democratic. Career politicians in the House of Representatives have a re-election rate in the upper 90 percent. Such high re-election rates deem rather undemocratic unless Americans firmly believe that their government is doing a good job. I'll let you decide if this is true...

93% voter turn out is incredibly high and shows a great interest in politics amongst the Cuban populous that is not matched in the so-called beacons of democracy. Lower class Americans don't vote because voting doesn't change their situation; but by these numbers the Cuban people believe that their vote actually matters.

Utter Bias Displayed in Uribe Election

2006-05-29T16:23:00.000-05:00

Before I begin, when I say "right" I mean capitalists and by "left" I'm referring to Communists, Anarchists and/or Socialists

BBC recently reported the "landslide" victory for Uribe and a White House spokeswoman said: "The president reaffirmed his strong support for Colombia in its continued battle against narco-terrorism, in moving forward on our free-trade agreement and in helping our democratic friends in the region."

Why was Uribe elected?

Uribe amended the Columbian Constitution in order to run another term for president. His goal is to eradicate the Marxist rebel group, FARC. He also plans on putting forth Free Trade agreements with the US and is working side-by-side with the US on the war on drugs.

However, extending term limits isn't democratic. Well, at least according to the US. When Chavez planned on amending the Venezuelan Constitution to allow himself to run again the next election, he met opposition from the White House. Condoleeza Rice claimed he was trying to "influence others away from democracy" and wanted to create a United Front against him.

This obvious display of bias is rampant in Washington politics and supports only the right. Leftists like Chavez, Castro and Morales are consistently under fire from US propaganda and hypocracy that it's undeniable unless you practice "doublethink."

How was Uribe elected? Was he...?

BBC neglected to tell the world the voter turn out in the recent election in Columbia. They painted FARC as the enemy by blaming all 200,000 deaths on the rebels and supported the capitalists interests. From the looks of it, Columbia is one of the few right wing beacons and BBC wouldn't want to create any doubt about it's so-called legitimacy.

A low 28% of Columbians bothered to show up to the voting booths for the 2006 presidential election. Even so, the right considers this victory a mandate to put an end to the Marxist rebels. However such low turn out would lead one to question the legitimacy of the administration. At least the White House seemed to think so. The US State Department claimed the election to show a "broad lack of confidence in the impartiality and transparency" in the electoral process and asked reform.

Columbia's resemblance to a police state is beginning to show. FARC promised not to cause violence during the election, however Uribe didn't trust their word and deployed 220,000 police and soldiers to protect, or in reality, intimidate the voters. FARC kept their promise. Places like Cuba whom the world wrongly labels a dictatorship has elections and the "guards" are small school children and the military is never spotted in the streets.

Leftist Documentaries

2006-04-15T20:41:00.000-05:00

Been watching a few documentaries lately and come across a few I'd like to share:

1) A Place Called Chiapas (1998) - About the Zapatista revolution and their struggle for peace and independence from Mexico's bad government after their signing of NAFTA.

2) Fidel: The Untold Story (2002) - A very informative documentary regarding the Cuban revolution and Fidel Castro's life.

3) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003) - I talked about this earlier, but thought I'd re-mention it incase it went unnoticed. The documentary is about Chavez and the attempt by the bourgeois to conduct a coup and how Chavez came back to power.

**NEW**

4) China: A Century of Revolution (2000) - A surprisingly unbias account of Communist China. I only watched the first two discs because I'm uninterested in the Capitalist China were see today. The impression I got from this documentary was that Mao was a heroic revolutionary and a completely inept statesman.

5) Brother Minister: Malcolm X (1994) - A good documentary on Malcolm X and his assassination. It also put forth the argument that Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were going to create an alliance; King in the South, Malcolm in the North.

6) The Take (2004) - Incredible documentary about Argentine workers siezing control of a factory shut down by it's bosses. It shows their struggle and success. These workers are setting a model which will consume the world.

7) Free Voice of Labor: The Jewish Anarchists (1980) - This explores the Anarchist movement mainly around the "Free Voice of Labor" Yiddish newspaper and interviews a large amount of Anarchists who were attacked in the Palmer Raids and were alive during the heyday of Anarchy in the USA. Pretty good documentary and I recommended this to those who are interested in Anarchist history.

Is Lenin crazy?

2006-04-10T15:36:00.000-05:00

For some reason, while I'm reading through Lenin's writings - I feel as though I'm getting dumber. Using the flawed Dialectical Materialism, he was able to come to scientific conclusions just from looking merely at this sentence:
"John is a man."
In his Philosophical Notebook.

He also claimed that Bakhurin, who was part of the SU "communist" party, wasn't a Marxist because Bakhurin said this:
“Comrades, many of you may find that the current controversy suggests something like this: two men come in and invite each other to define the tumbler on the lectern. One says:‘It is a glass cylinder, and a curse on anyone who says different.’ The other one says:‘A tumbler is a drinking vessel, and a curse on anyone who says different’”

Because Bakhurin isn't using dialectics, Lenin comes to the conclusion that he isn't a Marxist.

Although Marx used Dialectical Materialism, it was inherited by his teacher, Hegel. Hegel was not a Communist and the whole dialectical method is a very traditional and conservative approach to philosophy. Not to mention it's uses being a complete failure in all countries that adopt Lenin's teachings and therefore his support for dialectics.

If you want to know more about the dialectics and it's uselessness, check out the essays by Rosa Lichtenstein here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

Conflicts between Leninism and Marxism

2006-03-24T20:46:00.000-06:00

Here's a more indepth look at the conflicts, instead of merely the one argument I posted earlier.

1) Conflicts in Theory

In Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder by Lenin, he stated:
"I repeat: the experience of the victorious dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia has clearly shown even to those who are incapable of thinking or have had no occasion to give thought to the matter that absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline of the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie."

This is basically saying that the Proletariat is to be obedient to the Party. Their obedience leads to working and producing for the Party, or Revolution. Working for anyone but themselves, according to Marx, is alienation of the worker.

In The Alienation of Labor, by Marx he claims:
"When the product of labor does not belong to the laborer, when a strange, foreign power confronts and dominates him, this can only be possible if it belongs to a human being other than the laborer."

Since Leninism calls for the virtual domination of the proletariat in order for the revolution to succeed, then the Proletariat is being Alienated, according to Marx. Which is what Communism is fighting so hard against.

Although, to be fair to Lenin, this wasn't published until 1932, after Lenin's death. I haven't read all of Marx and I am unsure if this was mentioned numerous times or not. Nevertheless, his mistakes could possibly be forgiven and rectified by future rulers of his newly created country. Except, this isn't what occurred. Stalin, and his supporters, still called for the obedience of the workers as well.

2) Logic

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is when complete power is put into the working class. In the SU, the Vanguard Party had complete power over the government. The Proletariat was allowed to vote and needed to give consent to the Party as to which members could rule them, they weren't allowed to chose the members themselves. The Party nominated candidates and if they were denied by the Proletariat than they would nominate another, and so on.

With that established, the Party itself was not Proletarian as they do not produce anything. They're 100% dependent on the Proletariat for their livelihood, as were the Bourgeois. So, not only are the Proletarians unable to chose their leaders, the leaders they have are not even part of their class. This cannot possibly be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and therefore it is un-Marxist.

3) Quotas

In some cases of the SU, the worker was given quotas to which they were too accomplish in their working activities. This contradicts Marxism to the fullest.

In The Alienation of Labor, by Marx he states:
[I]"His labor is not voluntary, but constrained, forced labor. Therefore, it does not meet a need, but rather it is a means to meet some need alien to it."

The worker is no longer working for him(or her)self and therefore the economic system ceases to be Marxist and is more accurately, Corporatism.

4) Dividing the Proletariat

Scoreboards were put up in factories to show which worker was the most productive and which was not. It creates two groups of workers, the fast and slow. Like other social constructs (such as Racism) it's aimed to divide the Proletariat into separate groups as to avoid any uprising. The quicker worker is happy with the present system because he/she is is recognized for their accomplishments and place themselves above the slower worker, which in turn eliminates equality. While the slower worker is doomed to humiliation every time the scoreboard is updated and they find themselves on the bottom of the list.

This list probably wont end, as there is so much information I have yet to read. Anyone able to add to this list, which deals with Leninism and it's conflicts with Marxism, please do. I will be adding to it as I learn more about the subject as well.

Are Leninists and Maoist really Communists by definition?

2006-03-09T18:31:00.000-06:00

Classes are generally defined with their regards to their means of production. The main classes today being:

1) Bourgeois: A person who owns a means of production and hires others to do the work for him/her and produces nothing themselves.
2) Proletariat: A person who produces goods for someone else and receives, in return, wages.
3) Peasant: Someone who owns land and grows their produce through their own work.

There can be several subcategories, but these three classes will suffice for my argument today.

Both Leninists and Maoists believe in a strong Vanguard Party which is run by men (and some women) whom do not belong to the Proletariat class nor the Peasantry. They may have been a Proletariat earlier in their life, but while working for the Party they do not produce any goods.

The Vanguard party claims to be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," yet not one of them belongs to the Proletarian class. How, then, is it possible for them to dictate in the name of the Proletariat? They're closer to being the Bourgeois than they are to being the Proletariat since they manage over the Proletariat and do not produce anything themselves.

Since the Leninists who belong to a Party cease to be Proletarians, they no longer have the right to rule under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Nor do the Maoists party members who are neither Peasants or Proletarians belong ruling their respective government.

It comes down to this:
Everyone should govern under Communism, otherwise it ceases to be.

Inequality

2006-02-04T20:38:00.000-06:00

This site has very interesting facts regarding the inequalities of Americans. Check it out

http://www.inequality.org/facts.cfm

Money...

2006-02-04T13:08:00.000-06:00

Desperate times... result in desperate actions. Seventy-three people are left dead after a stampede in Manilla at a stadium. A game show hosted by ABC-CBS gives away 1 million pesos to people who come to the game show if they win. It attracts numerous people of the poorest part of the country in hopes of ending their poverty. People rushed the gates hopping to get in and win money, but ended up trampling many people to death.

All this is very sad... money, property, capitalism are evil things and need to be done away with.

Full Story

Worker-run Factories Spread

2005-12-29T01:56:00.000-06:00

In a previous post, I gave a link which described how some Venezuelan factories were completely run by workers. Workers in Argentina are now doing the same:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4562114.stm

NYC Workers Take Charge

2005-12-21T16:16:00.000-06:00

The Transport Workers' Union held a protest, starting yesterday, which results in the shutting down of the cities subway system. They claim to be mistreated by their management and want change. NYC, however, has a law stating public employees cannot strike. For this, the union is being fined $1 million dollars for every day that they are not working.

This display of courage by these workers show that they do in fact have the power to shut down huge cities, such as New York. Hopefully this will become an example to other workers that they do not need to obey their oppressor; they have the power for change and should exercise that right.

Thank you members of the Transport Workers' Union for your brave acts for workers all around the United States and the world.

Read more here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4548818.stm

I know I'm late, but...

2005-12-19T12:05:00.000-06:00

I've been busy recently and unable to update the blog.

Recently, Hugo Chavez has obtained nearly 100% support from his parliment in elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm

In Bolivia, a radical leftis, Evo Morales, has rose to power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4539454.stm

Next? Well, Mexico's election is coming up soon and another leftist, Obrador, has a chance at winning there. You can read more about him in a previous post I made.

Sorry for being so breif, but the links should tell you most of what you should know. See ya!

Land of the Unfree

2005-11-29T13:10:00.000-06:00

A little essay I've been writing for a while, more to come later on...
-----

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Our first amendment states that we Americans have freedom of speech among others, but looking at our history, we do not have as much freedom as we may think. From Slavery to McCarthyism to the Civil Rights Movement, people have been denied the rights drawn out in the constitution.

Ironically, many of the founding fathers in America owned slaves. Taken from their homes, they were denied the freedom of religion and forced to become Christians. They weren't allowed to learn how to read or write and therefore couldn't possibly have any freedom of press. To top it off, they couldn't say what they wanted because they were not given the right to speak freely. For many years, a whole people were persecuted and all of this was allowed by the government.

After the south was forced to release their slaves via the military tactic referred to as the Emancipation Proclamation, the blacks were still denied the rights described in the constitution. Even when black men were officially allowed to vote, bigots created laws such as the Grandfather Clause which made voting impossible for the freedman. When the blacks gained the right to vote, their lives were threatened by the KKK or other like-minded bigots. As all of this went on, the government stood idle while the white man made a mockery of the First Amendment.

Workers became fed up with the low pay and long hours during the early part of the 20th century. However, their cry for help from the government wasn't answered with open arms, but death. In 1914, National Guardsmen opened fire on a group of protesting coal miners known as the Ludlow Massacre, the miners returned fire. The strikers set up tents privately owned by their union. When the union organizer attempted to make a truce with the National Guard, he was beat with the butt of a gun and then shot three times as he lay on the ground. Later that night, the militia set fire to the camp burning to death two women and eleven children. Thirteen people had died during the gun fight. While exercising their right to peacefully assemble, they were killed. Unfortunately, this wasn't the only incident involving strikers. On many occasions people who merely wanted a living wage were fired, killed or assaulted for protesting. The government not only allowed this too happen, but did the dirty work as well.

Women were not allowed to vote until the 19th amendment and ratification of 36 states occurred in the summer of 1920. In 1869, the National Woman Suffrage Association was formed. The organization obtained a hearing with the congress from 1869 until 1919. Over a 50 year period, politicians stood by denying women one of the most important expressions of speech in the US.

Shortly after the Bolsheviks gained power in Russia, events occurred leading to the first Red Scare in America. In 1919, several bombs were mailed to much of the rich elite and politicians - none of the bombs in the mail killed anyone, but several were injured. The major blast occurred on September 16th, 1920. At J.P Morgan Company a large bomb exploded killing 40 people and injuring 300. The identity of the bombers wasn't discovered, however this created a lot of patriotism amongst Americans and this patriotism resulted in a lashing out against Communists, radicals and foreigners. Although it is believed that the Anarchists were behind the bombings. In the explosion that took place at Mitchell Palmer's home, the bomb's timer went too early and ended up killing the bomber. After searching the neighborhood, authorities found Anarchist pamphlets and the hair of a person whom they believed to belonged to a Anarchist. Mitchell Palmer, Wilson's Attorney General, claimed that the Communists were the main source of all problems in America at the time, even though there were only 70,000 professed Communists in the country. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the new General Intelligence Division of the Justice Department, didn't want lawyers present during the interrogation of immigrants and got rid of the law that granted immigrants the right to an attorney. Palmer raided leftist organizations without warrants and arrested 249 foreigners to deport them back to the Soviet Union. Overall, 16,000 Communists were arrested and the government didn't find any conclusive evidence of any revolution, even so they were held without a trial for long periods of time. In Waterbury, Connecticut, Joseph Yenowsky got into an argument with a man and brought up the fact that Lenin was a smart man. For this act, he was sentenced to six months in jail. In Chicago, Illinois, George Goddard refused to stand up for the US National Anthem. As Goddard tried to leave after a confrontation, he was shot by a sailor of the US Navy three times leaving him wounded. The congress had refused to give, Victor Berger, a fairly elected socialist from Wisconsin a seat. Freedom of Speech apparently only applies to those who don't have any power to change the system, whether it be through reform or mass education of the people.

Hours after news arrived of Pearl Harbor, 1,212 first generation Japanese Immigrants were arrested without any warrants. In 1942 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an order calling for the incarceration of Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants. 112,000 to 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans were put into internment camps during World War II in the United States of America. Whole families were taken from their homes, businesses and farms and sent to cramped military styled barracks, many of which were in the desert or swamp lands. They were rarely given more than 48 hours to sell all of their possessions resulting in what is estimated of several billion dollars lost. The rights of these Americans were put on hold because their families were of Japanese ancestry. Until late 1946, these innocent people were kept in their camps. When the US government was forced to recognize their wrong-doings, they gave reparations for locking innocent people up in camps. However the reparations do not undermine the fact that the government strip human beings of their simple rights because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

McCarthyism being the second Red Scare abused governmental powers once again. The Alien Registration Act passed in 1940 made it illegal to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability to overthrow the government. In other words, any ideology that wasn't Capitalist was now illegal. HUAC (House of Un-American Activities Committee) set it's sights on Hollywood actors who had leftist political views. After interviewing 41 people in Hollywood, HUAC had a list of 19 people whom were accused of having leftist views. Ten of which refused to answer any questions from HUAC as they believed the first amendment is still in existence. Unfortunately they were wrong, the US had done away with the first amendment long ago. They ended up spending six to twelve months in jail. McCarthy's committee interviewed many people about their political past and some of those who admitted to being apart of the Communist Party were fired from their jobs. Later Senator McCarthy banned 30,000 books from libraries on the grounds that they had to do with Communism.

The American Civil Rights Movement faced a large group of white people whom due to their upbringing hated all minorities. The hate led to the breaking of many basic rights that all humans should be allowed. Although the federal government was not directly the culprit, their negligence allowed this to happen. Emmett Till didn't even have the right to whistle at a white woman, for this gesture he was lynched. The murders were acquitted and faced no punishment for the atrocity they committed. In 1957, nine black students gained court approval to attend a white high school in Little Rock. While on their way to their first day of school, they were met by the National Guard whom were called upon to stop them from entering the school by Arkansas' governor. They were only allowed to attend when President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the National Guard to return to their barracks and deployed protection for the nine students. Once in school, the white students spit and harassed the nine new students. People who participated in Sit-Ins were often violently removed from the diner they were protesting in. Many of these peaceful protesters were denied their right to peacefully assemble ad thrown in jail for their acts. During a freedom ride in Anniston, Alabama - the bus was fire bombed. In Birmingham, Alabama, an undercover FBI agent reported, Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor encouraged the KKK to attack the upcoming freedom riders. Many freedom riders landed themselves in jail were stuffed into small cells and some were even forced to work in 100 degree heat. The courts gave an order making all protests illegal in Birmingham which put one of the most influential leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., in jail along with many other activists. When more then 1000 students left school in protest, Bull Connor unleashed dogs onto the school children and sprayed them with water. This act of aggression resulted in President Kennedy releasing the innocent protesters from jail after public outrage over the situation.

Assassinations of highly popular Socialist and Marxist-Leninist leaders occurred in America as well. Although blame for the assassination of Socialist embracing Martin Luther King Jr. and Marxist-Leninist Malcolm X cannot be place squarely on the US government, the assassins had done a huge favor for the Bourgeois elite in America. The only two men who could have possibly stood up against the government were conveniently assassinated by Racists and people who feared their power. Although evidence shows that the government didn't plan and execute these assassination, they created an environment in which rejects all the things these two men stranded for. Because of that - they didn't have the right of freedom of speech.

A Black Panther, George Jackson, was murdered by the police. He found himself in jail after he was charged with robbing a gas station of $71 and sentenced to one-to-life. While in prison, Jackson was charged with the death of a guard who earlier had killed three black activists and had been acquitted due to "justifiable homicide." George Jackson wrote two books: Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson (1970) and Blood In My Eye (1971) while he was unjustly held in prison. Which was based on political economy and radical ideas. When he was on his way to his trial, Jackson was shot down in the prison yard. They said he had a 9mm, however the witnesses said he didn't have a weapon. No record was ever made regarding the gun.

Fred Hampton was a Black Panther who instilled class-consciousness into the poor communities in Chicago. He brought together multiracial groups together who had simular ideals to one and other. He rose quickly into leadership among the Black Panther Party and was likely to the Party's Central Committee's Chief of Staff, had he not been murdered. His radical beliefs prompted the FBI to open up a long investigation on him. They tapped his mother's phone line and created a file with more then 4000 pages regarding him. The FBI released racist cartoons in the name of the BPP to alienate white activists.The FBI also sent anonymous letters to create a split between the Black Panthers and Blackstone Rangers with one of their insiders instigating a armed clash between the former allies. A unit of the FBI, SOA, was assigned to raid Hampton's apartment on charges of him having illegal weapons. The FBI insider had drugged everyone at the apartment, so by the time the SOA arrived everyone was knocked out. Mark Clark, who was guarding the door with a shotgun, was asleep and killed instantly when the raid began, death spasms caused him to fire one round, the only round fired by the Black Panthers at this raid. Hampton was wounded in the shoulder and when a African American officer, James Davis, arrived he noticed Hampton was still alive and then shot him two times at point black range. Afterwards the government lied and claimed self defense, only to be proven to be liars some time after the event. All police officers were cleared of any charges.

H. Bruce Franklin was a English professor and a Marxist. While working as a assistant professor at Stanford University, he help found a Maoist organization, Revolutionary Union. His membership didn't last long due to the RU suggesting black applicants for the Party instead chose the Black Panthers. He then joined the Venceremos, a multi-racial leftist organization. After leading a group of students to occupy the computer center and allegedly inciting violent protests against the bombing of Laos, he was fired from Stanford. At the time he had a tenure and couldn't be fired for having an unpopular belief, but they nonetheless fired him.

Viola Liuzzo was a white activist and in 1965, she was murdered by the KKK. One of the murders was a payed informant of COINTELPRO, and FBI program. Shortly after her murder, the COINTELPRO issued rumors about her sexual affairs with black civil rights workers as well as rumors of her being a part of the communist party. The KKK members were sentenced to 10 years in prison while the FBI informant was acquitted.

Robert Thaxton in 1999 was arrested and sentenced to 7 years in prison for throwing a rock at a police officer during a protest against the G-8 summit. The protest was on the day: "International Day of Action Against Global Capitalism." Thaxton was a Anarchist and out of all the people arrested around the world, he received the longest prison sentence. His sentence was excessively large due to his political beliefs and as a warning to others that a agree with him.

Jeff Luers set fire to three SUVs in 2000 as a protest against global warming. As another Anarchist, he received a twenty-two year sentence for his act. While the average sentence for rapists is 10 years. Crime that involves a person whom has political motivation is punished more than actual crimes against humans.

The FBI surrounded a farmhouse in Puerto Rico on September 23rd, 2005; Filiberto Ojeda Rios was murdered during a shoot out. Rios was a Puerto Rican rebel wanted for organizing a bank robbery in America and then throwing much of the money off a tall building. He wanted Puerto Rico to be freed from American Imperialism - however the US government wouldn't have that happen. They murdered Rios the first chance they had. Others inside the house claim that the FBI had fired the initial gun shots, which resulting in a stand off between the FBI and the people inside the farmhouse. Rios had told them that he would surrender to Jésus Dávila, but the FBI refused to allow him to do so.

Being told to 'stay busy'

2005-10-10T17:33:00.000-05:00

Does anyone else remember that when you entered Highschool, you were told the keep busy? Maybe this is the minority, at least that's all I can hope. These teachers, family members, coaches and principles go under the assumption that those who partake in the 'traditional' education process which involves: grades, football games, work and friends - all will cause you to do better in life.

Has anyone stopped in thought, why do they want us to keep busy? For those of you who kept busy, I can guess that you haven't. When one is always doing something, they don't have time to sit and think about the world, it's problems and possible remedies. Is this the reason we should 'keep busy'? In the books Brave New World and 1984, they both mention that lacking free time will allow people to not think about the big picture. I find this to be truth because not until I quit sports and stopped trying to be 'cool' my freshmen year, I've never thought about Communism or even Capitalism for that matter. My views didn't mature until the end of my Junior year, so a little free time doesn't seem like enough to accomplish what it is they do not want you to.

Weed isn't a harmful drug and doesn't make you violent - I've never heard of someone ODing on weed or beating a wife while high. Weed makes you think about things, possibly things that would never cross your mind while you aren't high. Why would the government work so hard and make punishments so drastic on a drug that isn't even as harmful as alcohol? They do not want us to think, they would rather we were in a mindless stupor.

Ever wonder why Europe has more Socialist policies than the US? Europeans on average work a lot less than Americans. Some countries even have a dedicated month in which everyone is off work. Thought is allowed during these times because people are not occupied with their work. Have they thought about the consequences of the evil Capitalist (Imperialist) system and gone about small changes to make it just a little bit better?

Take some time out of your day to just think about important events and how the world functions, then how it should function. Instead of getting into a meaningless conversation about who's dating who - just think.

Courts Rule Leftists Aren't People

2005-09-24T13:08:00.000-05:00

The Chilean Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pinochet two times. Pinochet was acquitted from the human rights charges on the grounds of him being 'too ill.' During his Fascist reign, Pinochet was responsible for the death of around 3000 leftists. Since he ousted (ie murdered) the peoples' leader Allende in the '70s and only killed leftists; Pinochet was set free.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4251642.stm

Ex-Mexican president, Luis Echeverria, allowed thousands of Leftist college students too be murdered in 1971. Evidence showed that he ordered a special army unit to attack the leftist protestor, resulting in the death of many young people. A Mexican judge refused too sign an arrest warrant for Echeverria because the charges did not amount to genocide. Since the incident happened over 30 years ago, Echeverria cannot be charged for mass murder and genocide was the only possible way to convict him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4270658.stm

On September 23rd, Filiberto Ojeda Rios was reported to have been shot after the FBI surrounded a household he was hiding in. Rios was a wanted by the US government for 'acts of terrorism' which consisted of the Boricua Popular Army robbing a bank in West Hartford, Connecticut; and then throwing much of the money out of the window of a tall building.

Rios wanted Puerto Rico too become free from US colonial rule. Unfortunately for him, his enemy was the largest Terrorist organization in the world, the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4278232.stm

Pinochet kills roughly 3000 Leftists, and isn't punished. Luis Echeverria is responsible for the death of thousands of Leftists students; he goes free. However, Rios steals $7 million and receives a virtual death sentence....

This is Capitalism at it's best.

The US Government does not care...

2005-09-02T17:46:00.000-05:00

With the recent events in New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina, our Government has come out of the closet and confessed they no longer cared. The government knowing that the Hurricane was going to hit New Orleans did not start to organize before the tragic event - but waited and caused many poor people to suffer. They told the people of New Orleans to "leave" except many of those people were poor and could not do anything but wait. The lesser known evil the US government committed was they reduced funding for the research of how to protect New Orleans from Hurricanes such at this one, read more here.

This is exactly why we need a government controlled 100% by the people - not the greedy bourgeois who only see dollar signs. The US should follow in the footsteps of Venezuela's people and liberate ourselves from the exploitation of the American citizen and the mass exploitation of peoples all around the world.

Hugo Chávez

2005-08-25T16:06:00.000-05:00

Hugo Chávez has done so much for the global socialist cause, I thought I would do a post on him...

In 1992, Hugo Chávez led a failed coup attempt in Venezuela. His goal was to overthrow the Capitalists and instill Socialism for the people. However, he was arrested and sent to jail. While in jail, Chávez had gained popularity amongst the people as a hero. He was later released on account of the amount of popularity is gained.

Hugo Chávez ran for president in late 1998 and won with 56.2% majority, the largest in forty years. Chávez ran on a bid to end corruption and poverty. Once in office, Chávez went too work. By late 1999, Chávez put forth a new constitution approved by a nationwide referendum. At this point, Chávez had thrown away the old Capitalist system to embark on the road to Socialism. After the new constitution was passed, there was new elections held in 2000. Chávez gained more support and won with 59.7% of the vote.

Chávez had created a participatory democracy in Venezuela to make the people more involved in politics as opposed to the representative democracy displayed in the Bourgeois countries. Although Chávez doesn't claim to be a Marxist, he is following what Marx said: "Democracy is the road to socialism."

Unhappy with Chávez's leadership, the Bourgeois marched towards the Presidential Palace on April 11th, 2002. Pro-Chávez people had gathered around the Presidential Palace before the Bourgeois mob arrived. Once the two groups came close, a sniper(s) had begun to shoot at the people. The bias Venezuelan media showed a clip of Pro-Chávez people shooting their handguns off of a bridge as to what seemed to be a group of Anti-Chávez protesters. However, when you look at the event at a different angle, you would see that there were no people under or near the bridge and that the gunmen were shooting upward towards the suspected sniper.

The Venezuelan military whom were anti-Chávez had told the president that if he did not resign, there would be great violence resulting in the bloodshed of many people. Not wanting anyone to die, Chávez agreed to resign, but under three conditions:

1. He'll be able to communicate with the people.
2. The people will not be hurt.
3. His staff will be free to go wherever they wanted.

The Commander-in-chief Lucas Rincón Romero agreed and announced to the nation on television that Chávez had resigned and that Pedro Carmona would take his place. Afterwards, the Commander didn't abide by the conditions and sent Chávez to a jail and some of his staff had been detained. While in jail, Chávez was visited by military lawyers so they could determine that the resignation had been done legally. After they interviewed Chávez, they came to the conclusion that he had not resigned. The information was relayed to the public and 200,000 people left their barrios and marched towards the Presidential Palace where a new government was ridding itself of Chávez's policies and constitution.

The guards who used to work for Chávez now guarded the entrance to the Presidential Palace in which Chávez had just been ousted from. Influenced the large protest, the guards devised a plan to retake the palace and replace the rightful leader in power. Once the illegal government was removed from the palace, true government scrambled to tell the Venezuelans the truth. At this point in time, no one knew where Chávez had been taken. Chávez had returned to the Presidential Palace on April 13th, 2002.

After all of this, Chávez did not lead any investigation as too who took part in this coup. As a sign of him not being a oppressive leader as we've seen in the Soviet Union and China. He sent a message to his people that they can oppose him, but if they do not have the backing of the people - they will fail.

Through land reform, many factories have been nationalized. In one of my earlier posts, one will see the success of Socialism in the workplace. Slowly, but surely, Chávez is making Venezuela Socialist. First he is taking the idle factories and giving them to the people to control through democracy in the workplace.

Recently Chávez has been training and arming civilian militias so they can protect themselves if another coup attempt occurs or a US invasion. I speculate that an ulterior motive is behind the arming of the civilians, I believe that Chávez is planning to take the huge step towards socialism soon and expects to meet large resistance from domestic and foreign enemies.

Chávez has used the countries natural oil to supply the poor with essentials in life such as health care. In a agreement with Cuba, Chávez has given Cuba a specified amount of oil in return for 30,000 Cuban medical personnel to treat the Venezuelan poor for free. This is opposed by the current Venezuelan doctors due too their greed, many doctors protested because they feared they would lose patients, even though they don't give the poor the light of day.

Chavez has made deals with the poorer Latin American nations so that they too can receive cheaper oil. Chávez seems to be making valuable allies amongst the Latin nations and hopefully him being in the region will influence more countries to follow in Venezuela's foot steps. Chávez has even offered the poorer Americans cheaper oil, however not specifying how this would work. Chávez is a man of the people and should be commended for his actions, not threatened to be assassinated or looked at as a dictator.

Farm land previously owned by the rich will be redistributed to the poor peasants of Venezuela. If the owners of the land have papers proving they had bought the land legally, they will be reimbursed. However if they cannot provide papers, they will be left without anything as they stole the land from the people. This redistribution may very well be a prelude to collectivization.

Europe had it wrong, but Latin America has it right.

You have to be kidding...

2005-08-22T23:59:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson, from 700 Club, has called for the Assassination of Hugo Chávez, the Socialist leader of Venezuela, on his Christian television show. I would hope that no one takes this shell of a man seriously... he has to be the most out of touch man in America. Being a religious man, I assume he would follow the word of God a little bit more, however this obviously isn't happening. Pathetic...

News Article

Leftist Music

2005-08-22T13:31:00.000-05:00

Been listening to a lot of left-wing music ranging from Rap to Rock and I thought I would share what I have... feel free to add to the list by leaving comments.

Rap:

Bin Laden - Immortal Technique
Rebirth of a Nation - Public Enemy
Can't Hold us Back - Public Enemy
Red Army Collab - Many different artists (download hi-fi version)

Rock:

Testify - Rage Against the Machine (RATM)
Guerilla Radio - RATM
Voice of the Voiceless - RATM
Killing in the name of - RATM
We got a Better Bomb - Audioslave
Holiday - Green Day
American Idiot - Green Day
I'm the One - Static-X
Party Political - Full Scale
BYOB - System of the Down

Other:

Mass Destruction - Faithless
Children of the Revolution - T-Rex
Imagine - John Lennon

Socialism at Work

2005-08-11T02:00:00.000-05:00

People constantly use the USSR, China and Eastern Bloc as examples of Socialism failing. However today in Venezuela there is an example of Socialism not only working, but more efficient than Capitalism. The following article explains:

http://lark.phoblacht.net/tg1008059g.html

The Revolution will not be Televised

2005-08-08T17:04:00.000-05:00

In 2002 there was an coup attempt on Hugo Chávez made by many of the richest people in Venezuela. However, the attempt failed shortly after the new government took power - even when the new government had the support of all 5 media stations in Venezuela. The Revolution will not be Televised is a documentary on what happened during the events that took place April 9 until April 12. The film crew was actually in Venezuela when this occurred. I highly suggest all of you watch this, you can get it using Bit-Torrent from this link:

http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=95

American Relief Fund and the USSR

2005-08-03T23:30:00.000-05:00

I'm currently reading Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America by Ted Morgan and I came across something that I found rather interesting.

During the time after the civil war in the USSR, there was a famine in which the Bolsheviks couldn't subside. The ARA (American Relief Administration) stepped in to help feed the people of Russia. Not to say they intent was only to help, they also hopped to cause a counter-revolution while they were there.

When it came to the transportation of the food donated from the US, Lenin and Trotsky both agreed that the Bolsheviks should provide free transportation because the US is doing what the SU could not, feeding the Russian people. On the other hand, Stalin wanted to make them pay for the transportation and called the ARA a front for espionage. The ARA was a front, but that doesn't mean the Russian people should starve.

Of the three main leaders of the time, only one of them was willing to allow millions of people starve due to chances espionage. Oddly enough, he was the one who gained control after the death of Lenin. This whole situation seemed as though Stalin feared the loss of power more than the loss of life.

ECD

2005-07-21T11:30:00.000-05:00

Electronic Civil Disobedience. There's an online protest going on right now, however I was a day late so we don't really have too much time to participate. The protest started on the 20th and ends on the 22nd.

The protest is against the MinuteMen and their anti-immigration sentiment. To read more about it and participate, visit the following web site.

http://www.thing.net/~rdom/ecd/swarm/swarm.php

Historical View of Lasting Governments

2005-07-20T13:57:00.000-05:00

Preface:
Nearly all of the Communist countries, if one could even call them so, were ruled by dictators whom never showed any intention to allow the people to vote in their leader via elections. Everyone of these countries have failed, are in the process of failing or still have a chance of going towards Democratic Socialism.

Due to this failure, a new type of socialist government must come into effect. Since we haven't witnessed a long lasting Democratic Socialist state, the only historical facts are that from Capitalist societies to prove this system to be more desirable. Of those are; The US, England and Rome. The three greatest powers the world has witnessed all followed a simular bases to set up their society.

Theory:
In order for a government to actually last more than a few decades, there is a series of steps that are required to be taken to ensure success. These steps include a dictatorial rule of unelected politicians who participated in the revolution that brought about this new form of government. This Party will instill the basis on which said country is going to be run. After they've accomplished their main goal (ie setting up Socialism), they will set out to set up a new government. The new government will be a Democracy in which politicians are no longer appointed by the party, but elected by the proletariat.

USA:
When one thinks of strong central government, the US doesn't tend to come into mind. Since the beginning, the Fore Fathers of the US made a seemingly small central government and a large state government. By doing so, the central government can never get direct blame for the suffering of it's own people and still have utter control over what really matters, the military.

In the early stages of the US government, the citizens of the US had very little political power. Much of the thirteen states picked to whom the electoral votes for the president without even holding a vote among the people. What they did instead was allow their legislature to decide to whom the electoral votes will be awarded too.

LEG: State Legislature picked to which candidate will receive the electoral votes
POP: Popular Vote picked to which candidate will receive the electoral votes

Popular Vote didn't become popular until around 1828 when only 25% of the electoral votes were controlled by the state governments as opposed to the people. Even then, one could argue the people still weren't in control.

The Freemason Society has been very influential to America. Throughout the history of the US, Freemasons have been in positions of power in the US. Twenty-three out of the forty-two US presidents belonged to the Freemason Society. Although some of their affiliation to the society is debatable, the numbers are still startling. Of those presidents, many were in office during the most important times of the US. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all took part in molding the society we live in today. Abraham Lincoln was in power during one of the most hectic times in American history. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during World War II and the Great Depression. Lyndon B. Johnson was president during the Vietnam war to combat a way on Communism. Ronald Reagan was president during the fall of Soviet Russia.

US Presidents Affiliated with the Freemason Society:

1. George Washington (1789-1797)
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) *
4. James Madison (1809-1817) *
5. James Monroe (1817-1825)
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
11. James K. Polk (1845-1849)
15. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
16. Abraham Lincoln 16 (1861-1865) *
17. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
18. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) *
20. James A. Garfield (1881)
25. William McKinley (1897-1901)
26. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
27. William H. Taft (1909-1913)
29. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
30. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) *
31. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) *
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
33. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
34. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) *
38. Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)
40. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) *
42. Bill Clinton (1993-2001) *

* Their affiliation with the Freemason is debatable.

The longest time a Freemason wasn't in office was five presidency beginning in 1881 when James A. Garfield died and ending in 1897 when William McKinley was elected.

These facts point out that the US wasn't exactly a country run by the people, at least not in the beginning. At the beginning, not every US citizen had much influence on whom will be elected president because their state legislature decided who received the electoral votes, and who did not. The Freemason Society had a hold on much of the power in America, and this power has continued throughout the history of America.

England:
By 410, Britain had become self-governing in parts of Britain. Many of Monarchs have followed since then, of which had absolute power. One could argue that Monarchy was a primitive form of Capitalism. By1215, the Baron's of King John forced him to signed the Magna Carta, which limited the rule of the monarch - taking away their absolute power.

The monarchy's rule had greatly lessoned with the signing of the Magna Carta. They essentially stepped away from a dictatorship and put the power into the hands of the Parliament. In the 17th century, the conflict between the Monarch and Parliament grew as the Magna Carta was revised in order to give more freedom to a greater number of people.

Britain made a relatively peaceful transition from a dictatorship to a phase in which the Barons gained more power and finally into open elections. Prior to handing over the power to the people, the government had made sure that everything had been set into place to ensure success.

Rome:
Rome was founded in 753BC by Romulus. By tradition, the kingship was elective and limited in power. The Roman monarchy worked differently than other monarchies in Europe by having their sister's son succeeding the present monarch.

However, the intentions of the first monarchs to have limited power didn't occur. As more kings were succeeded, the newer kings became power hungry. Once the kings became oppressive, they were overthrown in a popular revolt which was in favor of a republic.

The Roman kings had set up a society for a group of Republicans (In the sense of wanting a republic) to take power and allow the people to be more involved with politics, in other words - their future.

Conclusion:
The three greatest empires known to man have used simular tactics in which I described in the theory. Each used a Vanguard to created a civilized society in which were able to be handed over to the people and allow the society to still prosper, even more so than they did with the Vanguard.

All dictatorships have failed, or will fail in the future. In no case has a dictatorship ever been a desirable in any country, unless they are needed to set up a society and then discarded. The only way to avoid certain failure is to turn to Democracy a few decades after the Revolution. Otherwise, people who don't believe in the cause may get into power and destroy everything that was previously accomplished.

However, the temporary dictatorship is only needed in countries that have experienced the "fruits" of Capitalism because their country exploited millions of people for their own selfish benefit. People who have been exploited by Imperialism will find no use of the temporary dictatorship because they know precisely what the problem is, Capitalism. While in the wealthy countries people are tainted by Capitalism and may very well stray away from the Revolution due to their introduction to greed growing up. The temporary dictatorship is necessary for these countries to ensure they do not perform counter-revolutionary deeds.

People who live in countries where they've been severely exploited can be trusted to bring about Socialism. As shown in Venezuela, the people have taken their future into their own hands and now has control of the government. They are by no means Socialist at this point in time, but they will undoubtedly use democracy to become socialist when the time is right.

Sources:
http://www.bessel.org/presmas.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
http://presidentelect.org/index.html
http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/waymac/History%20A/A%20Term%201/1.%20Rome/Roman_time_line_2.htm
http://www.britannia.com/history/narintrohist.html

Zapitistas

2005-07-03T12:25:00.000-05:00

The Zapatistas have been around for many years. Their main purpose was to fight for the rights of the indigenous people of Mexico. However, now it seems as though they're reaching out to a larger group. Recently they released the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona which they describe who they are, and what they plan on achieving.

Full Text follows:

Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona
Originally published in Spanish by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation
**************************************
Translated by irlandesa @ http://irlandesa.blogspot.com/

Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

Mexico.

Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona

This is our simple word which seeks to touch the hearts of humble and simple people like ourselves, but people who are also, like ourselves, dignified and rebel. This is our simple word for recounting what our path has been and where we are now, in order to explain how we see the world and our country, in order to say what we are thinking of doing and how we are thinking of doing it, and in order to invite other persons to walk with us in something very great which is called Mexico and something greater which is called the world. This is our simple word in order to inform all honest and noble hearts what it is we want in Mexico and the world. This is our simple word, because it is our idea to call on those who are like us and to join together with them, everywhere they are living and struggling.

I - What We Are

We are the zapatistas of the EZLN, although we are also called “neo-zapatistas.” Now, we, the zapatistas of the EZLN, rose up in arms in January of 1994 because we saw how widespread had become the evil wrought by the powerful who only humiliated us, stole from us, imprisoned us and killed us, and no one was saying anything or doing anything. That is why we said “Ya Basta!,” that no longer were we going to allow them to make us inferior or to treat us worse than animals. And then we also said we wanted democracy, liberty and justice for all Mexicans although we were concentrated on the Indian peoples. Because it so happened that we, the EZLN, were almost all only indigenous from here in Chiapas, but we did not want to struggle just for own good, or just for the good of the indigenous of Chiapas, or just for the good of the Indian peoples of Mexico. We wanted to fight along with everyone who was humble and simple like ourselves and who was in great need and who suffered from exploitation and thievery by the rich and their bad governments here, in our Mexico, and in other countries in the world.

And then our small history was that we grew tired of exploitation by the powerful, and then we organized in order to defend ourselves and to fight for justice. In the beginning there were not many of us, just a few, going this way and that, talking with and listening to other people like us. We did that for many years, and we did it in secret, without making a stir. In other words, we joined forces in silence. We remained like that for about 10 years, and then we had grown, and then we were many thousands. We trained ourselves quite well in politics and weapons, and, suddenly, when the rich were throwing their New Year’s Eve parties, we fell upon their cities and just took them over. And we left a message to everyone that here we are, that they have to take notice of us. And then the rich took off and sent their great armies to do away with us, just like they always do when the exploited rebel - they order them all to be done away with. But we were not done away with at all, because we had prepared ourselves quite well prior to the war, and we made ourselves strong in our mountains. And there were the armies, looking for us and throwing their bombs and bullets at us, and then they were making plans to kill off all the indigenous at one time, because they did not know who was a zapatista and who was not. And we were running and fighting, fighting and running, just like our ancestors had done. Without giving up, without surrendering, without being defeated.

And then the people from the cities went out into the streets and began shouting for an end to the war. And then we stopped our war, and we listened to those brothers and sisters from the city who were telling us to try to reach an arrangement or an accord with the bad governments, so that the problem could be resolved without a massacre. And so we paid attention to them, because they were what we call “the people,” or the Mexican people. And so we set aside the fire and took up the word.

And it so happened that the governments said they would indeed be well-behaved, and they would engage in dialogue, and they would make accords, and they would fulfill them. And we said that was good, but we also thought it was good that we knew those people who went out into the streets in order to stop the war. Then, while we were engaging in dialogue with the bad governments, we were also talking with those persons, and we saw that most of them were humble and simple people like us, and both, they and we, understood quite well why we were fighting. And we called those people “civil society” because most of them did not belong to political parties, rather they were common, everyday people, like us, simple and humble people.

But it so happened that the bad governments did not want a good agreement, rather it was just their underhanded way of saying they were going to talk and to reach accords, while they were preparing their attacks in order to eliminate us once and for all. And so then they attacked us several times, but they did not defeat us, because we resisted quite well, and many people throughout the world mobilized. And then the bad governments thought that the problem was that many people saw what was happening with the EZLN, and they started their plan of acting as if nothing were going on. Meanwhile they were quick to surround us, they laid siege to us in hopes that, since our mountains are indeed remote, the people would then forget, since zapatista lands were so far away. And every so often the bad governments tested us and tried to deceive us or to attack us, like in February of 1995 when they threw a huge number of armies at us, but they did not defeat us. Because, as they said then, we were not alone, and many people helped us, and we resisted well.

And then the bad governments had to make accords with the EZLN, and those accords were called the “San Andrés Accords” because the municipality where those accords were signed was called “San Andrés.” And we were not all alone in those dialogues, speaking with people from the bad governments. We invited many people and organizations who were, or are, engaged in the struggle for the Indian peoples of Mexico, and everyone spoke their word, and everyone reached agreement as to how we were going to speak with the bad governments. And that is how that dialogue was, not just the zapatistas on one side and the governments on the other. Instead, the Indian peoples of Mexico, and those who supported them, were with the zapatistas. And then the bad governments said in those accords that they were indeed going to recognize the rights of the Indian peoples of Mexico, and they were going to respect their culture, and they were going to make everything law in the Constitution. But then, once they had signed, the bad governments acted as if they had forgotten about them, and many years passed, and the accords were not fulfilled at all. Quite the opposite, the government attacked the indigenous, in order to make them back out of the struggle, as they did on December 22, 1997, the date on which Zedillo ordered the killing of 45 men, women, old ones and children in the town in Chiapas called ACTEAL. This immense crime was not so easily forgotten, and it was a demonstration of how the bad governments color their hearts in order to attack and assassinate those who rebel against injustices. And, while all of that was going on, we zapatistas were putting our all into the fulfillment of the accords and resisting in the mountains of the Mexican southeast.

And then we began speaking with other Indian peoples of Mexico and their organizations, and we made an agreement with them that we were going to struggle together for the same thing, for the recognition of indigenous rights and culture. Now we were also being helped by many people from all over the world and by persons who were well respected and whose word was quite great because they were great intellectuals, artists and scientists from Mexico and from all over the world. And we also held international encuentros. In other words, we joined together to talk with persons from America and from Asia and from Europe and from Africa and from Oceania, and we learned of their struggles and their ways, and we said they were “intergalactic” encuentros, just to be silly and because we had also invited those from other planets, but it appeared as if they had not come, or perhaps they did come, but they did not make it clear.

But the bad governments did not keep their word anyway, and then we made a plan to talk with many Mexicans so they would help us. And then, first in 1997, we held a march to Mexico City which was called “of the 1,111” because a compañero or compañera was going to go from each zapatista town, but the bad government did not pay any attention. And then, in 1999, we held a consulta throughout the country, and there it was seen that the majority were indeed in agreement with the demands of the Indian peoples, but again the bad governments did not pay any attention. And then, lastly, in 2001, we held what was called the “march for indigenous dignity” which had much support from millions of Mexicans and people from other countries, and it went to where the deputies and senators were, the Congress of the Union, in order to demand the recognition of the Mexican indigenous.

But it happened that no, the politicians from the PRI, the PAN and the PRD reached an agreement among themselves, and they simply did not recognize indigenous rights and culture. That was in April of 2001, and the politicians demonstrated quite clearly there that they had no decency whatsoever, and they were swine who thought only about making their good money as the bad politicians they were. This must be remembered, because you will now be seeing that they are going to say they will indeed recognize indigenous rights, but it is a lie they are telling so we will vote for them. But they already had their chance, and they did not keep their word.

And then we saw quite clearly that there was no point to dialogue and negotiation with the bad governments of Mexico. That it was a waste of time for us to be talking with the politicians, because neither their hearts nor their words were honest. They were crooked, and they told lies that they would keep their word, but they did not. In other words, on that day, when the politicians from the PRI, PAN and PRD approved a law that was no good, they killed dialogue once and for all, and they clearly stated that it did not matter what they had agreed to and signed, because they did not keep their word. And then we did not make any contacts with the federal branches. Because we understood that dialogue and negotiation had failed as a result of those political parties. We saw that blood did not matter to them, nor did death, suffering, mobilizations, consultas, efforts, national and international statements, encuentros, accords, signatures, commitments. And so the political class not only closed, one more time, the door to the Indian peoples, they also delivered a mortal blow to the peaceful resolution - through dialogue and negotiation - of the war. It can also no longer be believed that the accords will be fulfilled by someone who comes along with something or other. They should see that there so that they can learn from experience what happened to us.

And then we saw all of that, and we wondered in our hearts what we were going to do.

And the first thing we saw was that our heart was not the same as before, when we began our struggle. It was larger, because now we had touched the hearts of many good people. And we also saw that our heart was more hurt, it was more wounded. And it was not wounded by the deceits of the bad governments, but because, when we touched the hearts of others, we also touched their sorrows. It was as if we were seeing ourselves in a mirror.

II. - Where We Are Now

Then, like the zapatistas we are, we thought that it was not enough to stop engaging in dialogue with the government, but it was necessary to continue on ahead in the struggle, in spite of those lazy parasites of politicians. The EZLN then decided to carry out, alone and on their side (“unilateral”, in other words, because just one side), the San Andrés Accords regarding indigenous rights and culture. For 4 years, since the middle of 2001 until the middle of 2005, we have devoted ourselves to this and to other things which we are going to tell you about.

Fine, we then began encouraging the autonomous rebel zapatista municipalities – which is how the peoples are organized in order to govern and to govern themselves – in order to make themselves stronger. This method of autonomous government was not simply invented by the EZLN, but rather it comes from several centuries of indigenous resistance and from the zapatistas’ own experience. It is the self-governance of the communities. In other words, no one from outside comes to govern, but the peoples themselves decide, among themselves, who governs and how, and, if they do not obey, they are removed. If the one who governs does not obey the people, they pursue them, they are removed from authority, and another comes in.

But then we saw that the Autonomous Municipalities were not level. There were some that were more advanced and which had more support from civil society, and others were more neglected. The organization was lacking to make them more on a par with each other. And we also saw that the EZLN, with its political-military component, was involving itself in decisions which belonged to the democratic authorities, “civilians” as they say. And here the problem is that the political-military component of the EZLN is not democratic, because it is an army. And we saw that the military being above, and the democratic below, was not good, because what is democratic should not be decided militarily, it should be the reverse: the democratic-political governing above, and the military obeying below. Or, perhaps, it would be better with nothing below, just completely level, without any military, and that is why the zapatistas are soldiers so that there will not be any soldiers. Fine, what we then did about this problem was to begin separating the political-military from the autonomous and democratic aspects of organization in the zapatista communities. And so, actions and decisions which had previously been made and taken by the EZLN were being passed, little by little, to the democratically elected authorities in the villages. It is easy to say, of course, but it was very difficult in practice, because many years have passed – first in the preparation for the war and then the war itself – and the political-military aspects have become customary. But, regardless, we did so because it is our way to do what we say, because, if not, why should we go around saying things if we do not then do them.

That was how the Good Government Juntas were born, in August of 2003, and, through them, self-learning and the exercise of “govern obeying” has continued.

From that time and until the middle of 2005, the EZLN leadership has no longer involved itself in giving orders in civil matters, but it has accompanied and helped the authorities who are democratically elected by the peoples. It has also kept watch that the peoples and national and international civil society are kept well informed concerning the aid that is received and how it is used. And now we are passing the work of safeguarding good government to the zapatista support bases, with temporary positions which are rotated, so that everyone learns and carries out this work. Because we believe that a people which does not watch over its leaders is condemned to be enslaved, and we fought to be free, not to change masters every six years.

The EZLN, during these 4 years, also handed over to the Good Government Juntas and the Autonomous Municipalities the aid and contacts which they had attained throughout Mexico and the world during these years of war and resistance. The EZLN had also, during that time, been building economic and political support which allowed the zapatista communities to make progress with fewer difficulties in the building of their autonomy and in improving their living conditions. It is not much, but it is far better than what they had prior to the beginning of the uprising in January of 1994. If you look at one of those studies the governments make, you will see that the only indigenous communities which have improved their living conditions – whether in health, education, food or housing – were those which are in zapatista territory, which is what we call where our villages are. And all of that has been possible because of the progress made by the zapatista villages and because of the very large support which has been received from good and noble persons, whom we call “civil societies,” and from their organizations throughout the world. As if all of these people have made “another world is possible” a reality, but through actions, not just words.

And the villages have made good progress. Now there are more compañeros and compañeras who are learning to govern. And – even though little by little – there are more women going into this work, but there is still a lack of respect for the compañeras, and they need to participate more in the work of the struggle. And, also through the Good Government Juntas, coordination has been improved between the Autonomous Municipalities and the resolution of problems with other organizations and with the official authorities. There has also been much improvement in the projects in the communities, and the distribution of projects and aid given by civil society from all over the world has become more level. Health and education have improved, although there is still a good deal lacking for it to be what it should be. The same is true for housing and food, and in some areas there has been much improvement with the problem of land, because the lands recovered from the finqueros are being distributed. But there are areas which continue to suffer from a lack of lands to cultivate. And there has been great improvement in the support from national and international civil society, because previously everyone went wherever they wanted, and now the Good Government Juntas are directing them to where the greatest need exists. And, similarly, everywhere there are more compañeros and compañeras who are learning to relate to persons from other parts of Mexico and of the world,. They are learning to respect and to demand respect. They are learning that there are many worlds, and that everyone has their place, their time and their way, and therefore there must be mutual respect between everyone.

We, the zapatistas of the EZLN, have devoted this time to our primary force, to the peoples who support us. And the situation has indeed improved some. No one can say that the zapatista organization and struggle has been without point, but rather, even if they were to do away with us completely, our struggle has indeed been of some use.

But it is not just the zapatista villages which have grown – the EZLN has also grown. Because what has happened during this time is that new generations have renewed our entire organization. They have added new strength. The comandantes and comandantas who were in their maturity at the beginning of the uprising in 1994 now have the wisdom they gained in the war and in the 12 years of dialogue with thousands of men and women from throughout the world. The members of the CCRI, the zapatista political-organizational leadership, is now counseling and directing the new ones who are entering our struggle, as well as those who are holding leadership positions. For some time now the “committees” (which is what we call them) have been preparing an entire new generation of comandantes and comandantas who, following a period of instruction and testing, are beginning to learn the work of organizational leadership and to discharge their duties. And it also so happens that our insurgents, insurgentas, militants, local and regional responsables, as well as support bases, who were youngsters at the beginning of the uprising, are now mature men and women, combat veterans and natural leaders in their units and communities. And those who were children in that January of ’94 are now young people who have grown up in the resistance, and they have been trained in the rebel dignity lifted up by their elders throughout these 12 years of war. These young people have a political, technical and cultural training that we who began the zapatista movement did not have. This youth is now, more and more, sustaining our troops as well as leadership positions in the organization. And, indeed, all of us have seen the deceits by the Mexican political class and the destruction which their actions have caused in our patria. And we have seen the great injustices and massacres that neoliberal globalization causes throughout the world. But we will speak to you of that later.

And so the EZLN has resisted 12 years of war, of military, political, ideological and economic attacks, of siege, of harassment, of persecution, and they have not vanquished us. We have not sold out nor surrendered, and we have made progress. More compañeros from many places have entered into the struggle so that, instead of making us weaker after so many years, we have become stronger. Of course there are problems which can be resolved by more separation of the political-military from the civil-democratic. But there are things, the most important ones, such as our demands for which we struggle, which have not been fully achieved.

To our way of thinking, and what we see in our heart, we have reached a point where we cannot go any further, and, in addition, it is possible that we could lose everything we have if we remain as we are and do nothing more in order to move forward. The hour has come to take a risk once again and to take a step which is dangerous but which is worthwhile. Because, perhaps united with other social sectors who suffer from the same wants as we do, it will be possible to achieve what we need and what we deserve. A new step forward in the indigenous struggle is only possible if the indigenous join together with workers, campesinos, students, teachers, employees…the workers of the city and the countryside.

III - How We See the World

Now we are going to explain to you how we, the zapatistas, see what is going on in the world. We see that capitalism is the strongest right now. Capitalism is a social system, a way in which a society goes about organizing things and people, and who has and who has not, and who gives orders and who obeys. In capitalism, there are some people who have money, or capital, and factories and stores and fields and many things, and there are others who have nothing but their strength and knowledge in order to work. In capitalism, those who have money and things give the orders, and those who only have their ability to work obey.

Then capitalism means that there a few who have great wealth, but they did not win a prize, or find a treasure, or inherited from a parent. They obtained that wealth, rather, by exploiting the work of the many. So capitalism is based on the exploitation of the workers, which means they exploit the workers and take out all the profits they can. This is done unjustly, because they do not pay the worker what his work is worth. Instead they give him a salary that barely allows him to eat a little and to rest for a bit, and the next day he goes back to work in exploitation, whether in the countryside or in the city.

And capitalism also makes its wealth from plunder, or theft, because they take what they want from others, land, for example, and natural resources. So capitalism is a system where the robbers are free and they are admired and used as examples.

And, in addition to exploiting and plundering, capitalism represses because it imprisons and kills those who rebel against injustice.

Capitalism is most interested in merchandise, because when it is bought or sold, profits are made. And then capitalism turns everything into merchandise, it makes merchandise of people, of nature, of culture, of history, of conscience. According to capitalism, everything must be able to be bought and sold. And it hides everything behind the merchandise, so we don’t see the exploitation that exists. And then the merchandise is bought and sold in a market. And the market, in addition to being used for buying and selling, is also used to hide the exploitation of the workers. In the market, for example, we see coffee in its little package or its pretty little jar, but we do not see the campesino who suffered in order to harvest the coffee, and we do not see the coyote who paid him so cheaply for his work, and we do not see the workers in the large company working their hearts out to package the coffee. Or we see an appliance for listening to music like cumbias, rancheras or corridos, or whatever, and we see that it is very good because it has a good sound, but we do not see the worker in the maquiladora who struggled for many hours, putting the cables and the parts of the appliance together, and they barely paid her a pittance of money, and she lives far away from work and spends a lot on the trip, and, in addition, she runs the risk of being kidnapped, raped and killed as happens in Ciudad Juárez in Mexico.

So we see merchandise in the market, but we do not see the exploitation with which it was made. And then capitalism needs many markets…or a very large market, a world market.

And so the capitalism of today is not the same as before, when the rich were content with exploiting the workers in their own countries, but now they are on a path which is called Neoliberal Globalization. This globalization means that they no longer control the workers in one or several countries, but the capitalists are trying to dominate everything all over the world. And the world, or Planet Earth, is also called the “globe”, and that is why they say “globalization,” or the entire world.

And neoliberalism is the idea that capitalism is free to dominate the entire world, and so tough, you have to resign yourself and conform and not make a fuss, in other words, not rebel. So neoliberalism is like the theory, the plan, of capitalist globalization. And neoliberalism has its economic, political, military and cultural plans. All of those plans have to do with dominating everyone, and they repress or separate anyone who doesn’t obey so that his rebellious ideas aren’t passed on to others.

Then, in neoliberal globalization, the great capitalists who live in the countries which are powerful, like the United States, want the entire world to be made into a big business where merchandise is produced like a great market. A world market for buying and selling the entire world and for hiding all the exploitation from the world. Then the global capitalists insert themselves everywhere, in all the countries, in order to do their big business, their great exploitation. Then they respect nothing, and they meddle wherever they wish. As if they were conquering other countries. That is why we zapatistas say that neoliberal globalization is a war of conquest of the entire world, a world war, a war being waged by capitalism for global domination. Sometimes that conquest is by armies who invade a country and conquer it by force. But sometimes it is with the economy, in other words, the big capitalists put their money into another country or they lend it money, but on the condition that they obey what they tell them to do. And they also insert their ideas, with the capitalist culture which is the culture of merchandise, of profits, of the market.

Then the one which wages the conquest, capitalism, does as it wants, it destroys and changes what it does not like and eliminates what gets in its way. For example, those who do not produce nor buy nor sell modern merchandise get in their way, or those who rebel against that order. And they despise those who are of no use to them. That is why the indigenous get in the way of neoliberal capitalism, and that is why they despise them and want to eliminate them. And neoliberal capitalism also gets rid of the laws which do not allow them to exploit and to have a lot of profit. They demand that everything can be bought and sold, and, since capitalism has all the money, it buys everything. Capitalism destroys the countries it conquers with neoliberal globalization, but it also wants to adapt everything, to make it over again, but in its own way, a way which benefits capitalism and which doesn’t allow anything to get in its way. Then neoliberal globalization, capitalism, destroys what exists in these countries, it destroys their culture, their language, their economic system, their political system, and it also destroys the ways in which those who live in that country relate to each other. So everything that makes a country a country is left destroyed.

Then neoliberal globalization wants to destroy the nations of the world so that only one Nation or country remains, the country of money, of capital. And capitalism wants everything to be as it wants, in its own way, and it doesn’t like what is different, and it persecutes it and attacks it, or puts it off in a corner and acts as if it doesn’t exist.

Then, in short, the capitalism of global neoliberalism is based on exploitation, plunder, contempt and repression of those who refuse. The same as before, but now globalized, worldwide.

But it is not so easy for neoliberal globalization, because the exploited of each country become discontented, and they will not say well, too bad, instead they rebel. And those who remain and who are in the way resist, and they don’t allow themselves to be eliminated. And that is why we see, all over the world, those who are being screwed over making resistances, not putting up with it, in other words, they rebel, and not just in one country but wherever they abound. And so, as there is a neoliberal globalization, there is a globalization of rebellion.

And it is not just the workers of the countryside and of the city who appear in this globalization of rebellion, but others also appear who are much persecuted and despised for the same reason, for not letting themselves be dominated, like women, young people, the indigenous, homosexuals, lesbians, transsexual persons, migrants and many other groups who exist all over the world but who we do not see until they shout ya basta of being despised, and they raise up, and then we see them, we hear them, and we learn from them.

And then we see that all those groups of people are fighting against neoliberalism, against the capitalist globalization plan, and they are struggling for humanity.

And we are astonished when we see the stupidity of the neoliberals who want to destroy all humanity with their wars and exploitations, but it also makes us quite happy to see resistances and rebellions appearing everywhere, such as ours, which is a bit small, but here we are. And we see this all over the world, and now our heart learns that we are not alone.

1V - How We See Our Country Which is Mexico

Now we will talk to you about how we see what is going on in our Mexico. What we see is our country being governed by neoliberals. So, as we already explained, our leaders are destroying our nation, our Mexican Patria. And the work of these bad leaders is not to look after the well-being of the people, instead they are only concerned with the well-being of the capitalists. For example, they make laws like the Free Trade Agreement, which end up leaving many Mexicans destitute, like campesinos and small producers, because they are “gobbled up” by the big agro-industrial companies. As well as workers and small businesspeople, because they cannot compete with the large transnationals who come in without anybody saying anything to them and even thanking them, and they set their low salaries and their high prices. So some of the economic foundations of our Mexico, which were the countryside and industry and national commerce, are being quite destroyed, and just a bit of rubble - which they are certainly going to sell off - remains.

And these are great disgraces for our Patria. Because food is no longer being produced in our countryside, just what the big capitalists sell, and the good lands are being stolen through trickery and with the help of the politicians. What is happening in the countryside is the same as Porfirismo, but, instead of hacendados, now there are a few foreign businesses which have well and truly screwed the campesino. And, where before there were credits and price protections, now there is just charity…and sometimes not even that.

As for the worker in the city, the factories close, and they are left without work, or they open what are called maquiladoras, which are foreign and which pay a pittance for many hours of work. And then the price of the goods the people need doesn’t matter, whether they are expensive or cheap, since there is no money. And if someone was working in a small or midsize business, now they are not, because it was closed, and it was bought by a big transnational. And if someone had a small business, it disappeared as well, or they went to work clandestinely for big businesses which exploit them terribly, and which even put boys and girls to work. And if the worker belonged to his union in order to demand his legal rights, then no, now the same union tells him he will have to put up with his salary being lowered or his hours or his benefits being taken away, because, if not, the business will close and move to another country. And then there is the “microchangarro,” which is the government’s economic program for putting all the city’s workers on street corners selling gum or telephone cards. In other words, absolute economic destruction in the cities as well.

And then what happens is that, with the people’s economy being totally screwed in the countryside as well as in the city, then many Mexican men and women have to leave their Patria, Mexican lands, and go to seek work in another country, the United States. And they do not treat them well there, instead they exploit them, persecute them and treat them with contempt and even kill them. Under neoliberalism which is being imposed by the bad governments, the economy has not improved. Quite the opposite, the countryside is in great need, and there is no work in the cities. What is happening is that Mexico is being turned into a place where people are working for the wealth of foreigners, mostly rich gringos, a place you are just born into for a little while, and in another little while you die. That is why we say that Mexico is dominated by the United States.

Now, it is not just that. Neoliberalism has also changed the Mexican political class, the politicians, because they made them into something like employees in a store, who have to do everything possible to sell everything and to sell it very cheap. You have already seen that they changed the laws in order to remove Article 27 from the Constitution so that ejidal and communal lands could be sold. That was Salinas de Gortari, and he and his gangs said that it was for the good of the countryside and the campesino, and that was how they would prosper and live better. Has it been like that? The Mexican countryside is worse than ever and the campesinos more screwed than under Porfirio Diaz. And they also say they are going to privatize – sell to foreigners – the companies held by the State to help the well-being of the people. Because the companies don’t work well and they need to be modernized, and it would be better to sell them. But, instead of improving, the social rights which were won in the revolution of 1910 now make one sad…and courageous. And they also said that the borders must be opened so all the foreign capital can enter, that way all the Mexican businesses will be fixed, and things will be made better. But now we see that there are not any national businesses, the foreigners gobbled them all up, and the things that are sold are worse than the those that were made in Mexico.

And now the Mexican politicians also want to sell PEMEX, the oil which belongs to all Mexicans, and the only difference is that some say everything should be sold and others that only a part of it should be sold. And they also want to privatize social security, and electricity and water and the forests and everything, until nothing of Mexico is left, and our country will be a wasteland or a place of entertainment for rich people from all over the world, and we Mexican men and women will be their servants, dependent on what they offer, bad housing, without roots, without culture, without even a Patria.

So the neoliberals want to kill Mexico, our Mexican Patria. And the political parties not only do not defend it, they are the first to put themselves at the service of foreigners, especially those from the United States, and they are the ones who are in charge of deceiving us, making us look the other way while everything is sold, and they are left with the money. All the political parties that exist right now, not just some of them. Think about whether anything has been done well, and you will see that no, nothing but theft and scams. And look how all the politicians always have their nice houses and their nice cars and luxuries. And they still want us to thank them and to vote for them again. And it is obvious, as they say, that they are without shame. And they are without it because they do not, in fact, have a Patria, they only have bank accounts.

And we also see that drug trafficking and crime has been increasing a lot. And sometimes we think that criminals are like they show them in the songs or movies, and maybe some are like that, but not the real chiefs. The real chiefs go around very well dressed, they study outside the country, they are elegant, they do not go around in hiding, they eat in good restaurants and they appear in the papers, very pretty and well dressed at their parties. They are, as they say, “good people”, and some are even officials, deputies, senators, secretaries of state, prosperous businessmen, police chiefs, generals.

Are we saying that politics serves no purpose? No, what we mean is that THAT politics serves no purpose. And it is useless because it does not take the people into account. It does not listen to them, it does not pay any attention to them, it just approaches them when there are elections. And they do not even want votes anymore, the polls are enough to say who wins. And then just promises about what this one is going to do and what the other one is going to do, then it’s bye, I’ll see you, but you don’t see them again, except when they appear in the news when they’ve just stolen a lot of money and nothing is going to be done to them because the law – which those same politicians made – protects them.

Because that’s another problem, the Constitution is all warped and changed now. It’s no longer the one that had the rights and liberties of working people. Now there are the rights and liberties of the neoliberals so they can have their huge profits. And the judges exist to serve those neoliberals, because they always rule in favor of them, and those who are not rich get injustice, jails and cemeteries.

Well, even with all this mess the neoliberals are making, there are Mexican men and women who are organizing and making a resistance struggle.

And so we found out that there are indigenous, that their lands are far away from us here in Chiapas, and they are making their autonomy and defending their culture and caring for their land, forests and water.

And there are workers in the countryside, campesinos, who are organizing and holding their marches and mobilizations in order to demand credits and aid for the countryside.

And there are workers in the city who do not let their rights be taken away or their jobs privatized. They protest and demonstrate so the little they have isn’t taken away from them and so they don’t take away from the country what is, in fact, its own, like electricity, oil, social security, education.

And there are students who don’t let education be privatized and who are fighting for it to be free and popular and scientific, so they don’t charge, so everyone can learn, and so they don’t teach stupid things in schools.

And there are women who do not let themselves be treated as an ornament or be humiliated and despised just for being women, but who are organizing and fighting for the respect they deserve as the women they are.

And there are young people who don’t accept their stultifying them with drugs or persecuting them for their way of being, but who make themselves aware with their music and their culture, their rebellion.

And there are homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and many ways who do not put up with being ridiculed, despised, mistreated and even killed for having another way which is different, with being treated like they are abnormal or criminals, but who make their own organizations in order to defend their right to be different.

And there are priests and nuns and those they call laypeople who are not with the rich and who are not resigned, but who are organizing to accompany the struggles of the people.

And there are those who are called social activists, who are men and women who have been fighting all their lives for exploited people, and they are the same ones who participated in the great strikes and workers’ actions, in the great citizens’ mobilizations, in the great campesino movements, and who suffer great repression, and who, even though some are old now, continue on without surrendering, and they go everywhere, looking for the struggle, seeking justice, and making leftist organizations, non-governmental organizations, human rights organizations, organizations in defense of political prisoners and for the disappeared, leftist publications, organizations of teachers or students, social struggle, and even political-military organizations, and they are just not quiet and they know a lot because they have seen a lot and lived and struggled.

And so we see in general that in our country, which is called Mexico, there are many people who do not put up with things, who do not surrender, who do not sell out. Who are dignified. And that makes us very pleased and happy, because with all those people it’s not going to be so easy for the neoliberals to win, and perhaps it will be possible to save our Patria from the great thefts and destruction they are doing. And we think that perhaps our “we” will include all those rebellions…

V - What We Want To Do

We are now going to tell you what we want to do in the world and in Mexico, because we cannot watch everything that is happening on our planet and just remain quiet, as if it were only we were where we are.

What we want in the world is to tell all of those who are resisting and fighting in their own ways and in their own countries, that you are not alone, that we, the zapatistas, even though we are very small, are supporting you, and we are going to look at how to help you in your struggles and to speak to you in order to learn, because what we have, in fact, learned is to learn.

And we want to tell the Latin American peoples that we are proud to be a part of you, even if it is a small part. We remember quite well how the continent was also illuminated some years ago, and a light was called Che Guevara, as it had previously been called Bolivar, because sometimes the people take up a name in order to say they are taking up a flag.

And we want to tell the people of Cuba, who have now been on their path of resistance for many years, that you are not alone, and we do not agree with the blockade they are imposing, and we are going to see how to send you something, even if it is maize, for your resistance. And we want to tell the North American people that we know that the bad governments which you have and which spread harm throughout the world is one thing - and those North Americans who struggle in their country, and who are in solidarity with the struggles of other countries, are a very different thing. And we want to tell the Mapuche brothers and sisters in Chile that we are watching and learning from your struggles. And to the Venezuelans, we see how well you are defending your sovereignty, your nation’s right to decide where it is going. And to the indigenous brothers and sisters of Ecuador and Bolivia, we say you are giving a good lesson in history to all of Latin America, because now you are indeed putting a halt to neoliberal globalization. And to the piqueteros and to the young people of Argentina, we want to tell you that, that we love you. And to those in Uruguay who want a better country, we admire you. And to those who are sin tierra in Brazil, that we respect you. And to all the young people of Latin America, that what you are doing is good, and you give us great hope.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Social Europe, that which is dignified and rebel, that you are not alone. That your great movements against the neoliberal wars bring us joy. That we are attentively watching your forms of organization and your methods of struggle so that we can perhaps learn something. That we are considering how we can help you in your struggles, and we are not going to send euro because then they will be devalued because of the European Union mess. But perhaps we will send you crafts and coffee so you can market them and help you some in the tasks of your struggle. And perhaps we might also send you some pozol, which gives much strength in the resistance, but who knows if we will send it to you, because pozol is more our way, and what if it were to hurt your bellies and weaken your struggles and the neoliberals defeat you.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Africa, Asia and Oceania that we know that you are fighting also, and we want to learn more of your ideas and practices.

And we want to tell the world that we want to make you large, so large that all those worlds will fit, those worlds which are resisting because they want to destroy the neoliberals and because they simply cannot stop fighting for humanity.

Now then, what we want to do in Mexico is to make an agreement with persons and organizations just of the left, because we believe that it is in the political left where the idea of resisting neoliberal globalization is, and of making a country where there will be justice, democracy and liberty for everyone. Not as it is right now, where there is justice only for the rich, there is liberty only for their big businesses, and there is democracy only for painting walls with election propaganda. And because we believe that it is only from the left that a plan of struggle can emerge, so that our Patria, which is Mexico, does not die.

And, then, what we think is that, with these persons and organizations of the left, we will make a plan for going to all those parts of Mexico where there are humble and simple people like ourselves.

And we are not going to tell them what they should do or give them orders.

Nor are we going to ask them to vote for a candidate, since we already know that the ones who exist are neoliberals.

Nor are we going to tell them to be like us, nor to rise up in arms.

What we are going to do is to ask them what their lives are like, their struggle, their thoughts about our country and what we should do so they do not defeat us.

What we are going to do is to take heed of the thoughts of the simple and humble people, and perhaps we will find there the same love which we feel for our Patria.

And perhaps we will find agreement between those of us who are simple and humble and, together, we will organize all over the country and reach agreement in our struggles, which are alone right now, separated from each other, and we will find something like a program that has what we all want, and a plan for how we are going to achieve the realization of that program, which is called the “national program of struggle.”

And, with the agreement of the majority of those people whom we are going to listen to, we will then engage in a struggle with everyone, with indigenous, workers, campesinos, students, teachers, employees, women, children, old ones, men, and with all of those of good heart and who want to struggle so that our Patria called Mexico does not end up being destroyed and sold, and which still exists between the Rio Grande and the Rio Suchiate and which has the Pacific Ocean on one side and the Atlantic on the other.

VI - How We Are Going To Do It

And so this is our simple word that goes out to the humble and simple people of Mexico and of the world, and we are calling our word of today:

Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona

And we are here to say, with our simple word, that…

The EZLN maintains its commitment to an offensive ceasefire, and it will not make any attack against government forces or any offensive military movements.

The EZLN still maintains its commitment to insisting on the path of political struggle through this peaceful initiative which we are now undertaking. The EZLN continues, therefore, in its resolve to not establish any kind of secret relations with either national political-military organizations or those from other countries.

The EZLN reaffirms its commitment to defend, support and obey the zapatista indigenous communities of which it is composed, and which are its supreme command, and - without interfering in their internal democratic processes - will, to the best of its abilities, contribute to the strengthening of their autonomy, good government and improvement in their living conditions. In other words, what we are going to do in Mexico and in the world, we are going to do without arms, with a civil and peaceful movement, and without neglecting nor ceasing to support our communities.

Therefore…

In the World…

1 - We will forge new relationships of mutual respect and support with persons and organizations who are resisting and struggling against neoliberalism and for humanity.

2 - As far as we are able, we will send material aid such as food and handicrafts for those brothers and sisters who are struggling all over the world.

In order to begin, we are going to ask the Good Government Junta of La Realidad to loan their truck, which is called “Chompiras,” and which appears to hold 8 tons, and we are going to fill it with maize and perhaps two 200 liter cans with oil or petrol, as they prefer, and we are going to deliver it to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico for them to send to the Cuban people as aid from the zapatistas for their resistance against the North American blockade. Or perhaps there might be a place closer to here where it could be delivered, because it’s always such a long distance to Mexico City, and what if “Chompiras” were to break down and we’d end up in bad shape. And that will happen when the harvest comes in, which is turning green right now in the fields, and if they don’t attack us, because if we were to send it during these next few months, it would be nothing but corncobs, and they don’t turn out well even in tamales, better in November or December, it depends.

And we are also going to make an agreement with the women’s crafts cooperatives in order to send a good number of bordados, embroidered pieces, to the Europes which are perhaps not yet Union, and perhaps we’ll also send some organic coffee from the zapatista cooperatives, so that they can sell it and get a little money for their struggle. And, if it isn’t sold, then they can always have a little cup of coffee and talk about the anti-neoliberal struggle, and if it’s a bit cold then they can cover themselves up with the zapatista bordados, which do indeed resist quite well being laundered by hand and by rocks, and, besides, they don’t run in the wash.

And we are also going to send the indigenous brothers and sisters of Bolivia and Ecuador some non-transgenic maize, and we just don’t know where to send them so they arrive complete, but we are indeed willing to give this little bit of aid.

3 - And to all of those who are resisting throughout the world, we say there must be other intercontinental encuentros held, even if just one other. Perhaps December of this year or next January, we’ll have to think about it. We don’t want to say just when, because this is about our agreeing equally on everything, on where, on when, on how, on who. But not with a stage where just a few speak and all the rest listen, but without a stage, just level and everyone speaking, but orderly, otherwise it will just be a hubbub and the words won’t be understood, and with good organization everyone will hear and jot down in their notebooks the words of resistance from others, so then everyone can go and talk with their compañeros and compañeras in their worlds. And we think it might be in a place that has a very large jail, because what if they were to repress us and incarcerate us, and so that way we wouldn’t be all piled up, prisoners, yes, but well organized, and there in the jail we could continue the intercontinental encuentros for humanity and against neoliberalism. Later on we’ll tell you what we shall do in order to reach agreement as to how we’re going to come to agreement. Now that is how we’re thinking of doing what we want to do in the world. Now follows…

In Mexico…

1 - We are going to continue fighting for the Indian peoples of Mexico, but now not just for them and not with only them, but for all the exploited and dispossessed of Mexico, with all of them and all over the country. And when we say all the exploited of Mexico, we are also talking about the brothers and sisters who have had to go to the United States in search of work in order to survive.

2 - We are going to go to listen to, and talk directly with, without intermediaries or mediation, the simple and humble of the Mexican people, and, according to what we hear and learn, we are going to go about building, along with those people who, like us, are humble and simple, a national program of struggle, but a program which will be clearly of the left, or anti-capitalist, or anti-neoliberal, or for justice, democracy and liberty for the Mexican people.

3 - We are going to try to build, or rebuild, another way of doing politics, one which once again has the spirit of serving others, without material interests, with sacrifice, with dedication, with honesty, which keeps its word, whose only payment is the satisfaction of duty performed, or like the militants of the left did before, when they were not stopped by blows, jail or death, let alone by dollar bills.

4 - We are also going to go about raising a struggle in order to demand that we make a new Constitution, new laws which take into account the demands of the Mexican people, which are: housing, land, work, food, health, education, information, culture, independence, democracy, justice, liberty and peace. A new Constitution which recognizes the rights and liberties of the people, and which defends the weak in the face of the powerful.

TO THESE ENDS…

The EZLN will send a delegation of its leadership in order to do this work throughout the national territory and for an indefinite period of time. This zapatista delegation, along with those organizations and persons of the left who join in this Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona, will go to those places where they are expressly invited.

We are also letting you know that the EZLN will establish a policy of alliances with non-electoral organizations and movements which define themselves, in theory and practice, as being of the left, in accordance with the following conditions:

Not to make agreements from above to be imposed below, but to make accords to go together to listen and to organize outrage. Not to raise movements which are later negotiated behind the backs of those who made them, but to always take into account the opinions of those participating. Not to seek gifts, positions, advantages, public positions, from the Power or those who aspire to it, but to go beyond the election calendar. Not to try to resolve from above the problems of our Nation, but to build FROM BELOW AND FOR BELOW an alternative to neoliberal destruction, an alternative of the left for Mexico.

Yes to reciprocal respect for the autonomy and independence of organizations, for their methods of struggle, for their ways of organizing, for their internal decision making processes, for their legitimate representations. And yes to a clear commitment for joint and coordinated defense of national sovereignty, with intransigent opposition to privatization attempts of electricity, oil, water and natural resources.

In other words, we are inviting the unregistered political and social organizations of the left, and those persons who lay claim to the left and who do not belong to registered political parties, to meet with us, at the time, place and manner in which we shall propose at the proper time, to organize a national campaign, visiting all possible corners of our Patria, in order to listen to and organize the word of our people. It is like a campaign, then, but very otherly, because it is not electoral.

Brothers and sisters:

This is our word which we declare:

In the world, we are going to join together more with the resistance struggles against neoliberalism and for humanity.

And we are going to support, even if it’s but little, those struggles.

And we are going to exchange, with mutual respect, experiences, histories, ideas, dreams.

In Mexico, we are going to travel all over the country, through the ruins left by the neoliberal wars and through those resistances which, entrenched, are flourishing in those ruins.

We are going to seek, and to find, those who love these lands and these skies even as much as we do.

We are going to seek, from La Realidad to Tijuana, those who want to organize, struggle and build what may perhaps be the last hope this Nation - which has been going on at least since the time when an eagle alighted on a nopal in order to devour a snake – has of not dying.

We are going for democracy, liberty and justice for those of us who have been denied it.

We are going with another politics, for a program of the left and for a new Constitution.

We are inviting all indigenous, workers, campesinos, teachers, students, housewives, neighbors, small businesspersons, small shop owners, micro-businesspersons, pensioners, handicapped persons, religious men and women, scientists, artists, intellectuals, young persons, women, old persons, homosexuals and lesbians, boys and girls – to participate, whether individually or collectively, directly with the zapatistas in this NATIONAL CAMPAIGN for building another way of doing politics, for a program of national struggle of the left, and for a new Constitution.

And so this is our word as to what we are going to do and how we are going to do it. You will see whether you want to join.

And we are telling those men and women who are of good heart and intent, who are in agreement with this word we are bringing out, and who are not afraid, or who are afraid but who control it, to then state publicly whether they are in agreement with this idea we are presenting, and in that way we will see once and for all who and how and where and when this new step in the struggle is to be made.

While you are thinking about it, we say to you that today, in the sixth month of the year 2005, the men, women, children and old ones of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation have now decided, and we have now subscribed to, this Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona, and those who know how to sign, signed, and those who did not left their mark, but there are fewer now who do not know how, because education has advanced here in this territory in rebellion for humanity and against neoliberalism, that is in zapatista skies and land.

And this was our simple word sent out to the noble hearts of those simple and humble people who resist and rebel against injustices all over the world.

Democracy!
Liberty!
Justice!

From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.

Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee – General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

Mexico, in the sixth month, or June, of the year 2005.

Leninist-Democratic Socialist

2005-06-21T18:22:00.000-05:00

Truthfully, I am not a complete Leninist - however Lenin's teachings have molded much of my view of Socialism. In the past month, I've come to realize an everlasting dictatorship is bound to fail.

Obviously, if one looks at the history of socialism, they will see that many of the successors of the leaders of the Revolution strayed away from the real cause and took their country directly into the gutter. In Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito led a socialist revolution and remained in power until 1980. He succeeded in raising the standard of living and made his country far better off than many of the Stalinist Socialist regimes. However, after his death - Yugoslavia went downhill. This occurred in many of the countries that became socialist.

Every Socialist country to this date has had a Vanguard dictatorship, and with the exception of a few that are still standing, they have all failed. Many Leninist blame this on how the wrong people got into power and ruined from within, however still believe in a dictatorship.

My solution is rather simple. After the revolution, a Vanguard of the leaders should take power. Their main goal at the time will be to set up the necessary socialist policies, revamp the education system and make all of their changes unchangeable.

That essentially is what the old Vanguard usually did, but this is where I differ from the rest. After they've accomplished these goals, they will then set out to create a Democratic Socialist state to return the power back to those who deserve it, the Proletariat.

Not only would this ensure that the people will not be oppressed, but it will also take away the authority of the leaders to make counter-revolutionary changes without committing a crime against the state. The laws forbidding the changes made by the Vanguard would make it impossible for a Capitalist to lie his/her way into office and destroy everything from within. The only way they will ever be capable of reclaiming the power they once had is by use of military force. In order for this to work, the people need to be behind them... Capitalism isn't exactly for the people and they will never receive a massive backing.

Mexican Uprising?

2005-06-15T16:49:00.000-05:00

Andrés Manuel López Obrador is a Mexican politician who belongs to Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). The PRD is a leftist party in Mexico that promotes Peaceful Revolution. As a politician, López Obrador was elected in 2000 as the Federal District's Head of Government. Mexico's Capital, Mexico City is within the Federal District and is a vastly important political area.

López Obrador is one of the most popular politicians in Mexico. His slogan is "First, the Poor" which is rightly so due his support for social programs for the people in Poverty. While the Federal District's Head of Government, López Obrador succeeded in lowering the corruption of Mexico Cities police department, as well as lowering the crime rate.

After all of López Obrador success in the Federal District, on May 9th, 2005 he announced he would be running for presidency. Since he has been running, he has been ahead in almost every survey and he has maintained his high approval ratings.

To think, however, that the Upper Class of Mexico would just allow this to happen seems unlikely. As usual, the Capitalists have attempted to stop López Obrador from running for presidency.

In 2004, a judge in Mexico accused López Obrador of intentionally disobeying a judicial order. Under Mexican law, López Obrador wouldn't be allowed to run for president in 2006 if convicted.

On April 24th, 2005, 1.2 million Mexicans took to the streets of Mexico City to protest the political motivated accusation of López Obrador. Vincente Fox's, the current President of Mexico, attempts to silence López Obrador has backfired on him and resulted in a movement against corruption.

López Obrador announced he would go to prison as an example of how corrupt Mexico's democracy is. Him being in prison would stir up even more backing of him and his party. However, two PAN deputies paid his bail and kept him out of prison. PAN, National Action Party, is one of the three main parties in Mexico and are Conservative; advocating for free enterprise and everything else that comes with the right side of the spectrum.

Government officials told López Obrador that he was no longer the Mayor of Mexico City and would be arrested if he returned to his position. He returned to work and has not been arrested. The current government knows that the more they try to hold López Obrador down, the more people will support him. They have no choice but to allow him to run and most likely win the election - which may lead to many social/socialist policies, if López Obrador sticks to what he's been preaching.

Throughout Latin America, more and more countries have become more leftist than ever. From the Socialist Dictatorship in Cuba to the Social Democracy in Venezuela. I don't think that it's an coincidence that the initial sprouts of Social Movements occurred around the largest and most ruthless imperial power.

Family

2005-06-02T20:56:00.000-05:00

Have you ever looked back on your families ancestry, not the distant ones, but the ones who you may have just missed by a lifetime? Most people will come across someone and possibly many more relatives who lived in poverty - or very close. However, at the same time they were working incredibly hard at their job in order to give his/her family the essential needs.

Much of the Middle Class look down on those who are poor and rather unfortunate. However, they neglect the fact that their own family was also in that exact same situation, but not always directly the person who looks at others with disdain.

Due to our [Americans] current society, those who are at the bottom cannot propel themselves anywhere above the lower-middle class, no matter how hard they work. This also holds true in the past, possibly even more so. Many families moved here from poorer nations, mine from Norway - which at the time wasn't as well off as they're now. My great grandparents moved here in hopes of allowing their children a better life and possibly improving their own. Their daughter, my Grandma, was raised rather poor and when she became an adult - she was still rather poor. She raised 7 children and worked at a food plant. Her son, my father, got a job working in a car part manufacturing company. He has a lot of contempt for his job, but every weekday he goes for ten hours and a few hours on a the weekend. I doubt that anyone in the line of people leading from me to my great grandparents ever liked the job they had or got their dream job. None of the people listed were able to go to college due to lack of funds and / or lack of proper public education.

Why is it then, that I am allowed to go to college and pursue my dream of becoming a Video Game Programmer and possibly a Politician? I don't believe that it's fair that my Parents, Grandparents, and Great Grandparents all made these sacrifices for me along with my cousins, sisters, nieces and nephews to be born with everything we needed to be capable of higher level success.

After all of this, how can anyone allow other families to repeat this exact same process in which whole lives are spent doing something they hate with a passion? I do not understand how anyone can just take their education after their forefathers and foremothers have suffered dearly to achieve what you're allowed to do today and not change the country for the better.

Humanity has hit a new low, they're allowing the exact problems to repeat themselves over and over again because of their own greed. They rarely stop to think about how poverty has affected them and the sacrifices people before them made in order for them to be where they are. The US will continue to allow people to spend their lives doing something they don't like for their whole life - unless we do something about it.

Stereotypes

2005-05-24T12:28:00.000-05:00

The present day solution to deal with Racism is to try to ignore the color of everyone's skin. This never works because when you look at someone, unless you're color blind you will see the color of their skin. The differences among the races create stereotypes caused by ignorance.

Most people don't talk about stereotypes and usually keep them to themselves. An occasional slip up will result in someone getting extremely angry. This anger I find unnecessary.

Instead of being offended by these stereotypes, we should be able to just make fun of them. Before you get your panties in a bundle, hear me out.

When you're among friends, do you feel as though you can crack a joke about one of them? I doubt if you did, you would be jumped, more than likely you would get a few laughs. However when you walk up to someone you don't know and start talking about their mother - you're more than likely subject to get hit. All the races are so uneasy around each other, so if we ever were to joke around one side would be angry. The solution would be to simply take all of these stereotypes we have all come to know so well, and use them for a comedy, without making anyone feel inferior.

If we could possibly make stereotypes useless, we would essentially eliminate the major part of racism. If you ever turned in Comedy Central and watched some stand up comedy, you will more than likely observe someone who is making fun of some stereotypes. Laughing at them doesn't make you one bit racist.

I'm not advocating walking up to someone of a different race and throwing a stereotype at them. More so when you're among friends of a different race. Whatever jokes you use amongst people of your own race shouldn't be shielded from the races they include.

Racism is when you hate someone for being a different color. The use stereotypes as a joke doesn't imply hatred, as long as they're in context. Taking away the power of 'The Stereotype' will make the arsenal of the KKK-type racist much smaller.

Being able to make fun of our differences is much better than defining our selves by those differences.

Leninism and Stalin

2005-05-23T18:24:00.000-05:00

Specifically, I believe in Leninism. Lenin believed that a strong Vanguard is required to bring about Communism successfully. The Vanguard will create a Socialist state and be in control until Communism is ready to be implemented.

Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. This doesn't go too easy with many people, including fellow Comrades. Many Communists deny that Stalin was ever Marxist, but much he made the USSR more Socialist than any other leader of the USSR, through his policies. I personally don't approve of Stalin's actions when it comes to how he handled his people.

Although those who are ignorant of Communist history don't know much about Lenin, and therefore will not make the connection between Lenin and Stalin. However, for those who are educated - I've noticed that when I'm expressing my views, they commonly refer to me as a 'Stalinist', this however couldn't be any more wrong. Due to the actions of one person, a group of people shouldn't be labeled as 'evil'.

As Lenin approached death, he wrote one final testament. The two following statements were said:
"Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution."

"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."

People who are anti-Communist or pro-Stalin claim that this was a forgery due to the document being leaked by Trotsky to a US newspaper. However, Lenin's wife personally handed the testament to the Communist Party. From there, the men with the most power set rules for when the document was to be read aloud in Congress. They're as following:

The testament should be read by representatives of the Party leadership to each regional delegation separately.
Making notes would not be allowed.
The testament must not be referred to during the plenary meeting of the Congress.

Whether or not Trotsky embellished Lenin's Testament, the leadership of the USSR had tried censoring the document as much as possible without being labeled a counter-revolutionist. This leads me to believe that the Testament spoke harshly on the leadership of the USSR and if read throughly, their power would be threatened.

I believe that Lenin recognized Stalin's following of Marxism, however he feared how Stalin would fair leading a country and being in control people's lives. Lenin had every right because we all know what came about after Stalin obtained power. Stalin would've been better off had he been in a position to bring about economic policies that would bring about a successful Socialist state, and not the power to sign someone's death warrant.

Evolution of a Revolution

2005-04-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

To bring about Communism, we can no longer go about the same means as Cuba. We, however, have a much simpler means.

The Internet has connected millions of people and because of that - the communists can gather without traveling. Our new weapon is, the computer. Through a computer we will be capable of shutting down the Capitalist society, without exposing ourselves to immediate danger. More and more our society relies on computers, this reliance will become the ending of their old society - making way for a new, better society.

Hackers will be in the forefront. This doesn't mean there will be no bloodshed, there will be occasions when a reckless revolutionary will not give him/herself enough time to escape. The Capitalists will still have control of an Army, however that Army will be weakened due to the efforts of the Hackers. Confrontation will undoubtedly occur between the revolutionaries and the opposing force, in which case death will occur - but that's too be expected in a revolution.

Note: I didn't come up with the "Evolution of a Revolution" phrase, the credit goes to the person who made the shirt which contained the phrase on jinx.com.

Open Source: USE IT!

2005-03-11T22:18:00.000-06:00

The open source community creates free (for the most part) software. Very few people, however, are aware these things exist and instead they fuel capitalism by buying software from the likes of Microsoft or some other corporations. In my opinion, open source is the most communist thing the world has going for it. The community consists of people who enjoy what they do so much that they would do it for free or let their code be seen by any one and everyone.

People have a lot of misconceptions of Linux. Most people think that you have to type in everything in order to get it to work. However, if you get the right distributions it can be as simple as Windows. I use Fedora Core 3 and I found it rather simple to learn. There are something you need to learn about Linux, such as installing non-RPM programs and getting your printer to work. For those of you who would like to try Linux, but don't want to install it you should try PHLAK or Knoppix - both are Linux distros that are bootable from a CD. If you have any questions, I can answer them at DCH.Bokk@gmail.com.

Not only does the open source community offer OS's, they also offer other types of software. For those of you who use MS Office, OpenOffice is similar - and free. MS Word also has a free and good replacement, AbiWord. If there's software that costs money, there is probably someone who made the same thing and is distributing it for free. For more open source (free) software, visit SourceForge.net.

The Evils of Capitalism

2005-03-06T00:33:00.000-06:00

To quote Albert Einstein, "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." If you would like to read more about what he has to say read: "Why Socialism?"

One would wonder why it is anyone would want to move away from capitalism in favor of a different type of economic system . Currently, the US is ranked number one in GDP. Capitalism, on the outside seems to be working extremely well. However, when you look at the people in the country and it's wealth distribution, you will soon see why it isn't such an ideal economic system.

In America, one out of every five children live in poverty. One out of six children go to bed unnourished. How can it be that the wealthiest nation cannot supply it's weakest citizens, children, with enough food? The problem infact is that the vast majority of the wealth is polarized towards a small minority who are constantly striving to get more.

Americans tend to work more than our European counterparts. Not only do we work more, but we also have a higher poverty rate than most European countries. The minimum wage has stayed stagnant at $5.15 since 1997, while the living standards rose. The large corporations will not pay more because that will cut into their profits, so our third class citizens must suffer so the higher ups can become more wealthy.

Every once in a while we're told about the "trickle down" effect. The government gives tax breaks to big companies claiming that the money will trickle and create more jobs. However, this practice, in theory, sounds like a good idea, but never works. The top executives, in turn, will use the money as a bonus for themselves and rarely use it to create more jobs. If anything is trickling down, it's their urine.

700,000 Americans are homeless and of those are families that work full or part time jobs. No matter how hard some people try, they're doomed to remain at the bottom. Harvard studies show that people are not free to move up in life, the ones at the bottom tend to remain at the bottom. Capitalism makes people believe that if they work hard, they can become rich. However, for those whom weren't already born into a propelled family, have a far greater difficulty. The "American Dream" is just that, a dream.

Sources:
GDP:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Children Poverty: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html
Homeless:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050226/ap_on_re_us/24_hours_with_the_homeless

Socialism - What is it?

2005-03-05T21:59:00.000-06:00

For those of you whom aren't aware of what socialism is; it's a form of government in which every civilian is equal. Our current class system is completely demolished and there is no private property, the land belongs to everyone. Some claim that this system is a utopian form of government and will never work. However, I don't believe that and in future postings, you will see why.