NarcoNews...

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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!

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

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.

...

Anti-US Bloc

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

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?

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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?

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

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.