July 7, 2009 - The Socialist Party USA condemns the coup recently carried out in Honduras by the military and backed by a section of the Honduran elite. We call for the immediate reinstatement of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. We also support the call made by pro-Zelaya protesters to have all charges against Zelaya dropped. Finally, we demand an independent investigation into the brutality and murder carried out by the Honduran military while repressing pro-Zelaya protests. Although Zelaya was elected in 2005 on a mild center-left reform platform, deteriorating economic conditions, the refusal of the elite to implement even the most basic reforms and pressure from popular movements have pushed his Presidency in a more militant direction. Honduras remains the third poorest nation in the hemisphere with 40% of the population living on less than $2 a day. To combat this, Zelaya attempted to implement reforms such as, raising the minimum wage by 60%; a move which infuriated elites who fired workers or ignored the new regulations. Popular organizations have supported Zelaya in this process by initiating a series of strikes and mobilizations in the name of wealth re-distribution and social equity.
Honduran elites have disregarded these movements, choosing to use parliamentary process and the security forces to preserve political and economic control. They have attempted to paint Zelaya as a puppet of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "What I believe we were seeing was the evolution of a democratic dictatorship," Elizabeth Zuñiga of the Nationalist Party stated. Such illogical hyperbole mirrors the false proclamations issued by elites in Venezuela and Bolivia in the face of challenges by leftist governments and popular movements. The Honduran elite care little for democracy. Their sole concern is the maintenance of social and economic privileges. The new left in Latin America has demonstrated a consistent commitment to organize itself democratically. Endless elections in Venezuela have been combined with electoral victories in Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Nicaragua. In each case, electoral campaigns have been backed by grassroots mobilizations of a myriad of worker, community and indigenous groups. This has had a general democratizing effect in the region, which has served to reverse the history of US-backed military coups and dictatorships. The elite coup in Honduras is an attempt to return to a bankrupt political model. But the people of Honduras are resisting.
As socialists, we therefore stand firmly with the popular movements in Honduras who are demanding that President Zelaya be returned. As socialists in America, we also recognize the negative role that US foreign policy has played in the region. We pledge our solidarity to the people of Honduras as a means of repairing the damage done by the US government. We share in the sentiments recently expressed by President Zelaya, "Do not bring weapons. Practice what I have always preached, which is nonviolence. Let them be the ones who use violence, weapons and repression.”
No the Coup! Return Zelaya! Justice for working and poor Hondurans!
The brutal repression of the popular upsurge against Iran's ruling clique of Islamic clerics only postpones the inevitable. Iran's theocracy has lost the confidence of its people, as militant protests continue on the streets of Tehran.
The Socialist Party USA stands with the people of Iran in demanding an immediate end to arbitrary rule and the holding of genuinely free and open elections. We believe that the complete separation of religious institutions and the state is an essential prerequisite for a democratic society. Every resident of a nation should have the same rights and privileges, no matter what her or his religious belief may or may not be. Women have been systematically oppressed under the rule of the mullahs in Iran. It is the Socialist Party's hope that the insurgency in Iran will lead to a new society where women are guaranteed full rights. Women should be able to fully participate in the workforce. They should be able to dress in accordance with their own wishes, and not have their life style be coerced by those holding rigid interpretations of religious dogma. It is time for Iran to move beyond outmoded puritanical repression, and to recognize the equal rights of gays and lesbians.
Iran is a wealthy country, with immense oil resources and a highly educated populace. Nevertheless, poverty is widespread, and corruption endemic. Independent trade unions are persecuted and strikes are crushed. Although the popular movement protesting the theocratic regime's autocratic policies has been a broadly based, inter-class, coalition, segments of the movement have presented a more radical critique. The Socialist Party USA supports the Iranian Left, with its base in the working class, in the call for an economic program that will provide essential services to all, while narrowing the vast gap between rich and poor.
Barack Obama and the U.S. government are not interested in a democratic Iran. For decades, the United States has shored up reactionary theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, where it found it served its imperial interests. The Iranian people remember the U.S. role in overthrowing the popular regime of Mossadegh in 1953, leading to the return of the Shah, a repressive dictatorship that lasted until the popular revolt of 1979. Iranians will make sure that the government that replaces the current theocracy will continue to maintain its independence from U.S. foreign policy.
Iran's effort to develop nuclear power has caused disquiet in the region. Nuclear power is a threat to the future of the planet. There is no valid reason why a country with vast oil resources should rely on nuclear power for energy. Iran should be in the forefront in converting from oil to sustainable alternative energy sources, particularly solar power. The Socialist Party USA has consistently opposed the use of nuclear power in the United States, and we call for a rapid conversion here to alternative energy sources.
Nuclear power frequently acts as a precursor to nuclear weapons. The problems confronting the Near East will not be resolved through wars. Furthermore, nuclear weapons only make a volatile situation more dangerous. The Socialist Party USA believes that the entire region should become a nuclear free zone. This would mean that Iran would forego the development of nuclear weapons, as Israel dismantles its arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
The popular insurgency in Iran is of historic importance. It has demonstrated to everyone that a reactionary theocratic regime cannot provide a desirable alternative to capitalism. It is up to us in the United States, and in the rest of the industrialized countries, to build a democratic socialist movement that can pose a positive alternative to religious fundamentalism.
Massive protests in the streets have been a tool of popular resistance as old as the cities where they take place. Yet in the US today it is common to hear people say “protests don't work.” Even seasoned veterans of the antiwar movement who have organized some of the largest protests in recent memory will make this declaration. Since 2001 we have seen the number of people mobilizing in the streets rise and fall. Some fatigue is understandable. But is the era of mass protest over? We had better take a closer look at this tactic before passing a blanket judgment.
Our ability to mobilize large numbers of people in the street depends on a number of factors, namely the political mood of the country, current events, and functioning organizations that can lead. Taking stock of these factors, it is not surprising that we are at a momentary low point. The political mood of the country is either enamored by our new Democratic president, or fatigued by years of protest with few tangible rewards. Everyone is reeling from the housing market crash, the bank bailouts, soaring unemployment, deteriorating working conditions, and unabated environment devastation. Many grassroots organizers are second guessing if we have the power or the energy to fight back. Through all these escalating struggles, the antiwar movement remains a cornerstone of political dissent – as well it should be in a country with troops all over the world. The antiwar movement continues to radicalize young people and provide political organizing experience. Regrettably, the leadership of our major antiwar coalitions have failed to build a united movement. It's been years since the antiwar movement has united to build a demonstration, let alone any other project or campaign requiring more complex and ongoing coordination.
We must not allow the current low level of mobilization to color our attitude toward mass protest. Like any tactic, it requires the context of a strategy in order to be effective. A liberal perspective has frequently dominated the antiwar movement. Under this model mass demonstrations are just another form of lobbying that gives power to the bargaining team – the professional liberals. After we march, there isn't much for us to do but wait until the next election cycle so we can campaign for Democrats and lobby them again as loyal supporters. The last thing the liberals want to do is jeopardize their relationship with liberal Democrats. These politicians are their connection to power. No matter how slow progress seems to come, they will maintain their relations in order to cut a deal. Their bargaining power with politicians comes from their ability to discourage embarrassing acts of protest. This strategic perspective has demoralized rank and file antiwar protesters.
We cannot pin our hopes on US politicians heeding popular opinion when we are not prepared to act beyond one peaceful march on a Saturday in Washington DC. These protests cannot be expected to veto war plans, overturn injustice, or establish our rights. What protests can do is provide an event around which large numbers of people will be introduced to the movement. The ideas we develop, relationships we build, and organizations we create will give a protest its deeper significance. The mass protest should not be counter-posed with other acts of resistance before or afterward. Rather it is an opportunity to do outreach and generate broad participation in a collective act of protest.
From this radical perspective, mass protests do more than register popular opinion on an issue. They represent the power of the movement. It signals to the ruling class that they cannot tell us what to think anymore, and if they don't change policies, they may soon lose control over what we do. When we work together and share information, it means the mechanisms the ruling class uses to control us are being broken down. Racism, sexism, regional isolation, and indoctrination are all levers of power against us. Nationally coordinated demonstrations must be organized to announce a movement that is resisting and circumventing those levers of power.
Our challenge is no longer to convince people that the wars are wrong, but that we can take action to oppose them. We must build unity among current antiwar forces representing radicals, veterans, pacifists, students, workers, community groups and other organizations. While the groundwork for unity must begin with conversations and small actions at the local level, it must lead toward a national mass protest. A successful event of this sort could represent the rebirth of the antiwar movement and send a clear message to the war-makers in Washington that the people will not consent to unending wars.
A successful movement must place clear demands on policy makers. Progress toward meeting those demands is an important measure of success. But we should also consider other measures, such as changing popular opinion, influencing popular culture, and building institutions that empower people. We must measure these successes ourselves and not wait for the corporate media to admit we have won anything. The G20 will bring heads of state to Pittsburgh in September to discuss economic policy. With the antiwar movement's National Assembly coincidentally also meeting in Pittsburgh in July, this presents a unique opportunity for a dialog between movements. The struggles against war and corporate pillage must share a symbiotic relationship rooted in an understanding of their interconnectedness. In the current context of the global economic crisis and full assault on government social spending, the G20 may possess the most potential for the next mass protest.
Perhaps the pessimism expressed toward protest organizing reflects a resentment toward relying on the tactic almost out of habit. The antiwar movement has devoted most of its educational efforts toward explaining the middle east and US foreign policy, with relatively scant attention to how popular movements wield power. Perhaps we have mistakenly left this to the domain of leaders. The National Assembly may represent a new organizational formation for the antiwar movement to include its base in forming the strategy. If it succeeds, it will be in part because mass protests bring new people into the movement, and a new political culture to the people.
(Vancouver, Canada) Sex workers in two provinces are challenging Canada’s solicitation laws in different ways but with a common desire—to work and live with greater dignity.
In the province of Ontario, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms case is well underway and is based out of Toronto. The suit is being handled by well-known activist lawyer Alan Young. As he’s an Osgoode Hall Law professor vital case preparatory work is being performed by articling students.
The calendar is marked for October 5, 2009. The Ontario Superior Court is scheduled to hear what’s become of this on-going constitutional challenge that has the aim to strike down three sections of the Criminal Code. These include: prohibitions on keeping a bawdyhouse, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of prostitution. In Vancouver, British Columbia it’s clear that the action is moving at a much slower pace. A judicial roadblock has been put in the way. On December 15 2008, Supreme Court Justice W. F. Ehrcke of British Columbia refused to proceed to hear the claims brought forward by the plaintiffs which are, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach.
Ehrcke’s ruling indicates that claims may only be brought by a currently-practicing sex worker. And because Kiselbach declared herself a former sex worker she is deemed to have no legal standing. She’s believed to have no case with which to proceed.
In other words the Justice would only listen to a practicing sex worker.
Some critics of the ruling have suggested that this tends towards a sort of “Gotcha!” mentality, that— despite the thinking that one isn’t supposed to surmise about what’s going on in a Justice’s mind—under present law—it could be argued that such a person could be considered a defendant in Ehrcke’s court and not a legitimate Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] appellant.
“Catch 22” legal chicanery of this nature obstructs those seeking a more progressive and constructive application of Canada’s human rights laws in dealing with sex work.
Fortunately, in Ontario, there’s no question that better legal process can be reported.
According to Alan Young who’s leading the challenge there: “Bringing this case is of utmost importance because, despite the fact that prostitution is a legal occupation, the current Criminal Code provisions operate to deny sex workers safe legal options for conducting their legal business. Ultimately this fight is destined to go all the way to the Supreme Court.”
The appellants—Amy Lebovitch, Valerie Scott, and Terri Jean Bedford—are sex workers.
They want the laws struck down as unconstitutional. They will argue that they violate their Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person, as well as their Charter right freedom of thought, belief, opinion and communication.
To be clear, Lebovitch does not favour legalization of sex work. It’s decriminalization she seeks. “The movement is toward exemption, not unlike the decriminalization paradigm operating in New South Wales Australia at this time.”
Decriminalization is commonly confused with legalization, but there are key differences. Legalization is viewed as a potentially overbearing state overseeing and regulating sex workers. While decriminalization would simply remove specific sections of the criminal code from the law books.
Meanwhile the City of Vancouver seems to have tacitly accepted the need for sex workers to protect themselves. Susan Davis, a long-time spokesperson for sex workers’ rights, reports that she’s been granted an opt-out to operate a safe house. The safe house is to be a self-managed workplace with working safety central to its operation.
In effect, the city of Vancouver is said to be operating an informal blind-eye policy while the legal battles resolve themselves. The city’s general approach encourages constructive city-community relations as it works with self-policed sex workers in creating this safe house-initiative template. Workers and clients can feel protected from the violence and extortion so often a feature of the street world; and police are relieved of the requirement to investigate and process responsible workers, secure in the knowledge they are maintaining good order and a concern for community safety.
Nearby in Victoria, Jody Paterson has helped to establish a cooperative where a percentage of trade proceeds go to job-option alternatives and drug programs for workers who want to leave the trade. Paterson, who once served a three-year term at Prostitution Empowerment Education Resource Society (PEERS), in Victoria is also known for putting pressure—some say shaming—Canadian unions to take up the safety for sex workers’ cause. For her, the issue is one of workers’ rights.
Paterson’s and PEERS’ work have resulted in a much improved social support network for workers. Yet the Victoria community has yet to hear a great deal about this union-activist piece of the story since mainstream publications have yet to take up the subject in any great depth.
Nevertheless, workers’ access to resources and information continues to improve together with their opportunities to combine and mobilize. It is to be hoped that the Charter litigation will soon be supported by the appropriate Trades Unions. Since these issues are undoubtedly workers’ rights issues, the strong and interested support of organized labour must be natural and urgent.
Libby Davies has been busy putting pressure on fellow politicians. For more than a decade, the Member of Parliament (NDP, Vancouver East) has sought changes in sex work-related laws at the municipal and federal levels. Davies and her colleagues managed to get an all-party Commons review committee to study sex work safety.
“The report does not go as far as to recommend decriminalization—which is what I wanted—but it says that three [political] parties believe that the state should not intervene or prohibit consenting adult sexual activity,” Davis explains. She believes that the language in the report is pivotal.
Davies backed the safe house initiatives in Vancouver. “Of course, it is quite controversial,” says Davies, who met with women’s committees in the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress. “Unions are very interested in this issue,” she continues, noting that, the women’s committee of BC Federation of Labour is somewhat divided on the issue, not unlike the wider feminist community.
“Some feminists say sex work is inherently exploitative, but I think that is an unrealistic position. The key question is to differentiate what is consensual adult behaviour and what is harmful. Using the analogy that there is violence in marriages, our response is not to ban marriage.”
Davies adds, “It is far preferable to have a place run by sex workers themselves; they have control of comings and goings; they have people close by to monitor what is going on. Sex workers are in incredible danger, especially the street sex workers.”
Davies predicts that a successful lawsuit in tandem with progressive community support “will create almost a compulsion in Parliament to have-to embrace the safe-house concept.”
Davies plans to put forth a private member’s bill in support of decriminalization. This parliamentary motion would ask that those running a safe house be given exemption from the Criminal Code under right to life, liberty, and—importantly, security, [thus] protected by the Charter. This suggests that the police could simply not enforce the controversial aspects of the Criminal Code that are being disputed in court, until the results could be analyzed and more proactive and sensible policy measures can be developed and executed in concert with sex workers themselves.
Davies and Paterson are closely watching the Ontario case, which also emphasizes safety concerns. Lebovitch explains that fear of being arrested by police means that sex workers are more inclined to work alone rather than in groups of two or three, which would be much safer.
The bottom line is that sex workers and their advocates want to ensure that sex workers are no longer a segregated labour class having to work under inhumane conditions and on the wrong side of the law. “You would hope that everyone would agree that we should be allowed the same rights and freedoms that others in Canada experience,” says Lebovitch. “People should not be afraid of us. We are not home-wreckers, immoral women. We are mothers, daughters, friends, lovers.”
The legal team and the Crowns from the Attorneys General of Canada are due to argue the case, in Ontario, in the fall of 2009; however, the case is likely to be resolved eventually by the Supreme Court of Canada where it could take a couple of years to render a judgment.
British Columbia’s case is now in the air, having been scuttled by last December’s surprise ruling of Justice Ehrcke hence the need for re-grouping in the Vancouver community for the moment.
On his trips to China, Andy Stern may have learned how to hone his union managerial skills. The authoritarian rulers of China go beyond simply punishing critics; they go after the victims' lawyers to teach other lawyers the painful consequences of helping dissidents. Stern can pay well to hire an army of his own lawyers to harass lawyers who represent his opponents.
When the 150,000-member SEIU Local United Healthcare Workers-West, under its president, Sal Rosselli, was a normally self governing local and it dared to criticize Andy Stern's policies, it was compelled to retain lawyers to try to ward off Stern's moves to destroy its autonomy. Now that Stern has taken over the local, ousted all its officers, and seized its treasury, his appointed trustees are not content with mere total authoritarian control. They are moving against the lawyers who represented UHW in its days of independence.
Rosselli and the former officers of UHW have resigned from the SEIU and set up a new union, the National United Healthcare Workers; they are challenging the SEIU for representation of those 150,000 healthcare workers in California. The dispute could be resolved by collective bargaining elections sponsored by the NLRB for private employees and public employee relations boards for local government workers. No such elections will be fair and square democratic contests. The SEIU begins the campaign with an enormous treasury, swollen by the seized assets of UHW, and with a big staff. Rosselli's NUHW enters with an empty coffer and must painfully piece together campaign money and staff salaries. But at least elections will give workers a chance to decide. Now comes SEIU's double legal assault: one set of lawyers is retained to confront Rosselli and a host of former UHW representatives on charges like "stealing" SEIU "property" e.g., mailing lists. Another set of lawyers is hired to confront the lawyers who represented the old autonomous UHW. The effect of these suits, and apparently the intention, is to make it extraordinarily difficult for the dissident NUHW to campaign for support among healthcare workers. They can be so tied up in defending themselves in court that they will have few of their meager resources left for election contests. In contrast, with guaranteed dues and agency shop fees from a million and a half workers, the SEIU remains loaded with cash.
Harassing legal action, like that against Rosselli and his union supporters, is nothing new and does not seem to require special comment. As part of the "normal" repression of union dissidents, it brings no credit to Stern for imaginative inventiveness. But the action against Rosselli's lawyers does seem to introduce a kind of China refinement.
In their guise as the new representatives of UHW, and their reputed replacement as the former legal clients of one of UHW's former law firms, Stern's trustee- attorneys are bombarding the firm with an extensive list of burdensome demands. Their suit in California state court, against the firm of Siegel and Lewitter and 100 unnamed "Does," demands they produce every scrap of paper and electronic blip ("correspondence, files, memoranda, billing records, and other documents and materials") that are in any way related to its services for the autonomous UHW and its former officers, now removed.
The suit of the Stern-appointed trustee goes far beyond a mere fishing expedition for data. Its effect, if successful, would make it difficult for the Rosselli team and its National Union of Healthcare Workers to mount an effective legal defense. By taking over UHW-W and its treasury, the trustee has already deprived Stern's critics of money, forcing them to seek voluntary donations from supporters. The suit would compound that disability by depriving them of experienced legal representation. The trustee-attorneys ask the court for "injunctive relief enjoining and restraining Defendants, and all of their principals, associates, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, and each of them, from providing any form of legal services or representation to the Former Officers with respect to any matters relating directly or indirectly to Defendants' former representation of UHW-W, and from disclosing to any subsequent counsel for Former Officers any of the confidential information of UHW-W which Defendants obtained in the course of their representation." They want more than data and disqualification. They want money: "damages," costs, legal fees. The Siegel firm insists that it must resist these sweeping demands because it must respect the confidential limits of its attorney-client relationship. In rejecting any attorney-client assertion, the trustee-attorneys claim that they, as UHW's current legal representative, have the right to any material produced for it. But equating the status of a democratically elected leadership with an officialdom imposed arbitrarily is a misleading stretch. The Siegel firm, in representing UHW-W through its democratically elected officers, was obligated to protect the rights of the members by defending their democratically elected officers. The trustee-attorney represents the Stern administration which appointed it. A more apt comparison would be between the democratically elected leaders of a small nation and a replacement Quisling officialdom imposed by a tyrannical oppressive invader.
The trustee-attorney may have certain extensive technical legal rights over the trusteed UHW. In contrast, the Siegel firm asserts a legal responsibility to protect the interests of its clients. In the context of current events, that claim is buttressed by the moral standards of fair play, decency, and democracy.
Andy Stern began with the proclaimed goal of helping to liberate workers of the world from oppression. Along the way, he has taken a devious detour. He is busy liberating an army of high-paid lawyers to torment union dissidents and their attorneys.
Chilean poet and political hero, Pablo Neruda is often viewed as a visionary. While many of his poems have a political content, many do not and he is often more commonly known for his love poems, and his lyrics filled with nature metaphors. However, his political activity and membership in the communist party propelled him to political leadership. He was even nominated for president, but declined in support of Salvador Allende. His political identity took a big leap in its development when he lived in Spain, working as consul in Barcelona. Later he lived in Madrid, all the while developing close friendships with Spanish poets including Garcia Lorca, Alberti, Guillen. The Spanish Civil War begun in 1936 disturbed and upset him; he suffered the brutal death of his friend Garcia Lorca at the hands of Franco's troops, and he witnessed bombings of Madrid. In 1937, he returned to Chile to works on his poems and to organize anti-fascist solidarity. There he formed the Alliance of Intellectuals and participated in the electoral campaign of the leftist Frente Popular (Popular Front).
"Peace rules in Chile - Pablo Neruda" Walter Womacka (1973)
He developed his Marxist thinking in Canto General, the "General Song" of Chile, where he pays tribute to indigenous leaders of the Americas, political heroes, historical battles and the natural , political and social histories of Latin America. In 1948, Chilean President Gabriel Gonzalez Videla launched a program of open persecution of labor unions, of the Communist Party, and particularly, Neruda. Although President Gonzalez Videla was a Radical and part of the Frente Popular (an alliance of Communist and Radical Parties), and had given three seats in his cabinet to communists, mining strikes in 1946 provoked general strikes, leading to an escalating social conflict with spurred the President to impose a state of siege. US government pressure to eliminate communism in Latin America spurred the conservative in the Chilean Congress to outlaw the Communist Party, and a hunt began to arrest all involved. As a result, Neruda went into hiding and then into exile, living in France, Mexico, Guatemala, and other parts of Europe. Two-thirds of "Canto General" were written in 1948-49 while he was in hiding.
School of the Americas-Trained Military Detains and Expels Democratically-Elected President Zelaya
June 28, 2009 - Early this morning approximately 200 Honduran soldiers arrived at President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya's residence, reportedly fired four shots, and detained the President. Zelaya told TeleSUR that the soldiers took him to an air force base and put him on a plane to Costa Rica.
Zelaya told TeleSUR from San Jose, Costa Rica, "They threatened to shoot me." Honduras' ambassador to the Organization of American States, Carlos Sosa Coello, reports that the president has been beaten up. Zelaya told TeleSUR that he doesn't believe it was regular soldiers who kidnapped him. "I have been the victim of a kidnapping carried out by a group of Honduran soldiers. I don't think the Army is supporting this sort of action. I think this is a vicious plot planned by elites. Elite who only want to keep the country isolated and in extreme poverty."
Zelaya fears for the safety of his family, who remains in Honduras. He pleaded with TeleSUR viewers to seek a way to "have a dialogue with these soldiers so that they don't harm my family, so that they don't shoot anybody. We can settle our differences through dialogue."
The anti-Zelaya President of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, has declared himself interim president of Honduras. On the Friday before the coup, Zelaya called Micheletti "a pathetic, second-class congressman who got that job because of me, because I gave you space within my political current."
Zelaya informed TeleSUR that he has not requested asylum in Costa Rica, and that he will return to Honduras as its president to complete his term, which expires in 2010. Honduran Media Shut Down
Radio Es Lo De Menos, an independent radio station reporting from Honduras, issued a press release before its power was cut. The press release states that several cabinet members have been detained, and there are arrest warrants out for other cabinet members as well as leaders of social organizations. It calls on the international community to hold protests outside Honduran embassies and consulates.
TeleSUR reports that the soldiers have also arrested the Cuban, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan ambassadors to Honduras, as well as Chancellor Patricia Rodas. The Venezuelan ambassador told TeleSUR that the soldiers beat him during the kidnapping. La Prena reports that soldiers have detained at least one pro-Zelaya mayor, San Pedro Sula's Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri.
Cell phones are reportedly no longer working in Honduras. The power has been cut in at least some parts of the country, disabling independent media and state television stations for the time being. Before the state televisions went off the air, Channel 8 managed to communicate to its viewers, "It appears as though the soldiers are coming here." Seconds before it went off the air, Channel 8 told citizens to gather in the Plaza de la Libertad. Channel 8 appears to have been taken over by the military, but it is still not transmitting.
Honduras' privately owned Channel 12 and Channel 11 are showing classic soccer clips.
Soldiers Block Opinion Poll
Soldiers have also moved to block the opinion poll that sparked the coup. Today Hondurans were supposed to register their opinion in a non-binding poll that asked them, "Do you think that the November 2009 general elections should include a fourth ballot box in order to make a decision about the creation of a National Constitutional Assembly that would approve a new Constitution?" The poll would have had no legal weight.
In the town of Trujillo, soldiers have taken the streets and are not allowing citizens to vote in the opinion poll.
In Santa Rosa, soldiers reportedly under the orders of the Federal Prosecutors Office have seized ballot boxes from schools and public places.
Soldiers seized ballot boxes in Dulce Nombre Copan as well, but citizens have gone to the military base to take them back again.
In Santa Barbara, La Prensa reports that the opinion poll is going on as planned, with no interference thus far from the military.
Soldiers are also carrying out operations on the country's major highways, according to La Prensa. The situation could get ugly on the highways, as La Prensa reports that peasants from the Guadalupe Carney community have taken over some highways. School of the Americas Connection
The crisis in Honduras began when the military refused to distribute ballot boxes for the opinion poll in a new Constitution. President Zelaya fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez, who refused to step down. The heads of all branches of the Honduran armed forces quit in solidarity with Vasquez. Vasquez, however, refused to step down, bolstered by support in Congress and a Supreme Court ruling that reinstated him. Vasquez remains in control of the armed forces.
Vasquez, along with other military leaders, graduated from the United States' infamous School of the Americas (SOA). According to a School of the Americas Watch database compiled from information obtained from the US government, Vasquez studied in the SOA at least twice: once in 1976 and again in 1984.
The head of the Air Force, Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, studied in the School of the Americas in 1996. The Air Force has been a central protagonist in the Honduran crisis. When the military refused to distribute the ballot boxes for the opinion poll, the ballot boxes were stored on an Air Force base until citizens accompanied by Zelaya rescued them. Zelaya reports that after soldiers kidnapped him, they took him to an Air Force base, where he was put on a plane and sent to Costa Rica.
Congressman Joseph Kennedy has stated, "The U.S. Army School of the Americas...is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world." The School of the Americas has a long, tortured history in Honduras. According to School of the Americas Watch, "In 1975, SOA Graduate General Juan Melgar Castro became the military dictator of Honduras. From 1980-1982 the dictatorial Honduran regime was headed by yet another SOA graduate, Policarpo Paz Garcia, who intensified repression and murder by Battalion 3-16, one of the most feared death squads in all of Latin America (founded by Honduran SOA graduates with the help of Argentine SOA graduates)."
Honduran Gen. Humberto Regalado Hernandez was inducted into the SOA's Hall of Fame. School of the Americas Watch notes that he was a four-time graduate. As head of the armed forces, he refused to take action against soldiers invovled in the Battalion 3-16 death squad.
School of the Americas Watch points out that this is not the first time the SOA has been involved in Latin American coups. "In April 2002, the democratically elected Chavez government of Venezuela was briefly overthrown, and the School of the Americas-trained [soldiers] Efrain Vasquez Velasco, ex-army commander, and Gen. Ramirez Poveda, were key players in the coup attempt."
According to School of the Americas Watch, "Over its 58 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counter-insurgency techniques, sniper skills, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. Colombia, with over 10,000 troops trained at the school, is the SOA's largest customer. Colombia currently has the worst human rights record in Latin America."
Just two weeks after Iran exploded into protests over contested elections, scenes of angry demonstrators clashing with security forces were repeated in the Central American republic of Honduras. The National Congress accuses President Manuel Zelaya of violating the constitution by defying a Supreme Court ruling that barred him from holding a referendum on constitutional reform. The military removed him from power and deported him from the country on June 28—the day the vote was scheduled. He has pledged to return to Honduras this week—and the new regime of de facto President Roberto Micheletti has pledged to arrest him if he does. Meanwhile, street clashes continue. Media coverage has suggested the central issue in the proposed constitutional reform was a bid by Zelaya to eliminate term limits and thereby remain in office—but a close reading reveals social justice demands of the Honduran popular movements to be far more relevant. Weekly News Update on the Americas provides the following overview of the resistance so far—and examines the truth behind the constitutional question.
Resistance on Day 2 of the Coup Despite a 9 PM to 6 AM curfew, Hondurans protesting a June 28 military coup against President José Manuel ("Mel") Zelaya Rosales remained outside the Presidential House in Tegucigalpa the night of June 28-29. In the afternoon of June 29 heavily armed soldiers using shields dispersed most of the demonstrators in a few minutes; some youths remained and some threw stones, but they fled after the soldiers began firing in the air. Protesters a few blocks away weren't "so peaceful," according to a local leader. Youths there had erected barricades and were burning tires; they hurled rocks and bottles at the soldiers, who used tear gas and rubber bullets on the crowd but were forced to retreat at least three times. The military said 15 soldiers and 15 officers were injured in the Tegucigalpa confrontations, which lasted about two hours; protest organizers reported 276 injured on their side. (La Jornada, Mexico, June 30; BBC, June 29; AFP, June 30) A student at the protests told the Mexican daily La Jornada that more people would have been out in the streets except that "the majority think President Zelaya resigned. The media have been kidnapped, and we, the people, have been too," she added. The de facto government had taken independent radio stations off the air, along with television networks like the US-based CNN and the Venezuela-based TeleSUR. Radio América, one of the remaining local stations, didn't report the protests—it simply advised motorists to avoid certain roads, without explaining that they were blocked by protesters. "I'm not interested in having communism here," the student added. "I'm a student, I love peace and I'm a Christian. But I can't be complicitous in this robbery."
With the news blacked out nationwide and electricity interrupted in different areas, it was difficult for reporters to determine what was happening outside the capital. Grassroots organizations said protesters were marching and blocking roads in Colón and Atlántida departments. Some 10,000 campesinos were reportedly trying to get to Tegucigalpa from Olancho, Zelaya's home region, but were stopped at military roadblocks. There were also unconfirmed reports of military batallions that were refusing to support the coup. (LJ, June 29; Milenio, Mexico, Aug. 29 from Notimex)
Labor activists driving in the middle of the day on June 29 near San Pedro Sula, the country's second largest city, said there were protests against the coup in every town they passed, and that that progressive forces had captured the Puente de la Democracia in the city of El Progreso and had liberated the independent station Radio Progreso. Another activist reported that 15,000 people demonstrated in San Pedro Sula and that there were protests in El Progreso and La Lima. (Personal communications to the Update) Resistance Grows on Day 3 The French wire service AFP reported that the protests grew on June 30 as all three of the country's labor federations joined with organizations of campesinos, youth, the unemployed, street vendors, lesbians and gays, and other sectors in an open-ended general strike that the groups said they would maintain until Zelaya was returned to power. (The teachers' unions had started the strike on June 29). Organizers said at least 10,000 people were taking part in pro-Zelaya protests in the capital, as well as in other protests around the country; AFP put the number of demonstrators in Tegucigalpa at 2,000. A legislative deputy from the lefitist Democratic Unification of Honduras (UPH), Marvin Ponde, said thousands of anti-coup protesters trying to come to the capital by bus had been stopped at military roadblocks. They had set out from Santa Bárbara in the northwest; Danlí, Juticalpa and Catacamas in the east; and Choluteca in the south.
Violent clashes clashes were reported outside the Presidential House and in other parts of Tegucigalpa, where protesters erected barricades and battled security forces with rocks and bottles; the number of injuries was unknown. Similar actions reportedly took place in other cities.
Supporters of the de facto government held their own demonstration in the capital's Parque Central, with an attendance of 10,000, according to organizers. (AFP, June 30; Diario Colatino, El Salvador, June 30; El Universal, Mexico, June 30)
Zelaya, the Referendum and the Social Movements Zelaya is a business owner who was elected president in November 2005 as the candidate of the centrist Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH), which along with the National Party of Honduras (PNH) has led the coup against him. Despite his conservative background, "[t]he grassroots movement has been Zelaya's fundamental ally and has remained firm in its rejection of the coup," members of the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization (OFRANEH) told the Brazil-based Adital grassroots news service.
"You have to understand that Honduras' political class is extremely backwards," Rafael Alegría, the local leader of the international group Vía Campesina ("Campesino Way") explained to La Jornada on June 29. "What Zelaya has done has just been little reforms. He isn't a socialist or a revolutionary, but these reforms, which didn't harm the oligarchy at all, have been enough for them to attack him furiously." Another reason for grassroots opposition to the coup, according to the OFRANEH members, is "a tremendous aversion to the armed forces in Honduras. Not many people forget that 20 years ago the soldiers controlled things from cement factories to food production to their own bank. For many, their return to power implies an historic step back that will have incalculable consequences for the country." (Adital, June 29; LJ, June 29)
The military and the de facto government say the coup was necessary to keep Zelaya from holding a nonbinding referendum on June 28 about rewriting the Constitution. US media have generally repeated without qualification the claim that the referendum would clear the way for Zelaya to extend his term, which ends Jan. 27, 2010, by eliminating the 1982 Constitution's provision that presidents can only serve one four-year term. The referendum would in fact have simply asked voters whether the Nov. 29 general elections—for the president, three vice presidents, 128 legislative deputies and 298 municipal governments—should also include a "fourth ballot box" to elect a Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution. For Zelaya to extend his term, the Constituent Assembly would have to meet, approve a Constitution and have it ratified by the voters before the president turns over power to his successor on Jan. 27. Zelaya has denied that he would seek to stay in office past January, although he said he might try to run again in the future if the Constitution was changed to permit reelection. His government claimed that 400,000 people signed the petitions to initiate the referendum. (The Nation, New York, June 30; El Nuevo Herald, Miami, June 25; EFE, June 27) (Honduras' total population is about 7.5 million.)
According to the Honduras correspondent of the Argentine daily Clarín, the coup supporters say that if the referendum had passed, Zelaya was going to cancel the presidential elections, extend his term, close down the Congress and seize power "in the best style of [Venezuelan president Hugo] Chávez." "None of this [scenario] could be confirmed," the correspondent remarked. (Clarín, June 30)
The Chicago-based People's Weekly World reported on its website that Zelaya "had been building relationships with the [Democratic Unification of Honduras—UDH], the only left-wing party registered to participate in Honduran national elections. Most observers expected Zelaya to swing his support to Democratic Unification candidate César Ham [Peña]" in the November elections. (PWW, June 29)
The National Police told the Mexican wire service Notimex on June 28 that Ham was killed that morning when he resisted arrest. The report was false. He fled the country, saying there was an arrest order for him and Marcos Burgos, head of the government's Permanent Commission on Contingencies (COPECO). On the evening of June 29 the two men landed at El Salvador's Comalapa airport for a connecting flight to Nicaragua. They thanked El Salvador's leftist Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation (FMLN) and Salvadoran president Mauricio Funes for their help. (Prensa Gráfica, El Salvador, June 29)
June 28, 2009 - A creeping assumption lies just beneath the surface of arguments concerning the disputed election in Iran. Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is cast as an anti-US populist crusader resisting the materialistic advances of the West. His opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as his foil—a Western-backed liberal intent on implementing free-market policies. Violent street battles have been presented as a re-enforcement of the Western disposition to see the two idealized positions as the limit of what is politically imaginable. Such arguments conveniently avoid a third force—the people of Iran, whose street politics threaten to move well beyond the confines of the electoral campaigns. Questions remain. Is Ahmadinejad really a populist—the only force preventing a wave of pro-market policies in Iran? Does Mousavi’s campaign mark the limits of the reform movement?
Since his election in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, under the guidance of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has overseen a regime dedicated to the privatization of state-controlled industries. The intention of the regime, as stated by the newly appointed governor of the Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Seyyed Shams Al-din Hosseini, is to privatize 80% of state-owned industries by 2010. This mandate was made real just prior to the disputed elections as a state-owned bank, Saderat, announced it would offer 6% of its shares to private investors (Press TV, June 8, 2009). Other significant privatizations during Ahmadinejad's reign include the postal service; two other state-run banks, Tejerat and Mellat; and, in February 2008, a 5% bloc of shares in the publicly owned steel maker, Foulad-e Mobarakeh, was sold out in eight minutes. (Iran Daily, Fen. 14, 2008). In total, since 2005, 247 enterprises have been processed by the Iran Privatization Organization, the state-ministry specifically charged with overseeing privatizations (Iranian Privatization Organization website).
Khamenei has propelled the process forward. While Ahmadinejad crafted just enough populist rhetoric to provide headlines, the Supreme Leader issued a letter in 2006 ordering the sell-off of banking, mining, industrial, and transport companies—80% across the board. Ahmadinejad's ministers have aggressively followed suit. In September 2008, Labor Minister Mohammad Jahromi described the fact that so many of the country's resources are located in the public sector as an "obstacle" to growth (Iran Daily, Sept. 29, 2008). Heidari Kord-Zangeneh, Ahmadinejad's deputy finance minister and head of the Iran Privatization Organization, drew pro-market policies together with the myth of anti-imperialism. "We are going to activate our private sector and our private banks," he exclaimed, "in order to fight against these [US] sanctions." He punctuated this with a pre-election promise, "I promise that if I am here for the next two years, between 80 and 90 percent of the government will be sold." (Iran Daily, Feb. 12, 2008)
Ahmadinejad's supposed anti-Western approach stops short when it comes to allowing foreign investors to penetrate Iran's economy. His Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Davoud Danesh-Jafari boasted at a 2008 meeting of the Islamic Development Bank that foreign direct investment in Iran had increased by 138% since 2007. (Iran Daily, Feb. 17, 2008) Some 80 projects had been initiated during that period. Key to this capital penetration was the 2004 acceptance of the International Monetary Fund's Article VIII Obligations (IMF press release, Sept. 14, 2004). Under this provision, Iran agreed to refrain from imposing restrictions on currency transactions and other elements essential to capital flow.
While Ahmadinejad has been the implementer of privatization policies, the reform camp was its architects. Central to this process was the creative violation of Article 44 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This article mandates that key sectors of the economy remain in public hands. It represented the radical-populist edge of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Parliamentary legislation in 2004, near the end of the term of reformer Mohammad Khatami, created the first breech in Article 44. The legislation called for a "change in the role of government from direct ownership and management of enterprises to policymaking, guidance and overseeing" (Iranian Privatization Organization website). The one consistent voice pushing this process forward is Khamenei, whose tenure as Supreme Leader encompasses both reformer and populist presidential regimes.
The IMF has hailed this process, describing Iran in a 2007 position paper as, "Managing the Transition to a Market Economy." The Fund has had a constant presence in the country since 1945, surviving even the turbulent 1979 Islamic Revolution. IMF officials have employed the usual equation of debt and technical assistance to enforce their pro-market agenda. The next phase, according to IMF planners, of market transition is to "curb the growth of internal demand" through the reduction of state subsidies. Ahmadinejad's Central Bank appointee, Al-din Hosseini, indicated a shared sentiment, stating: "The government plans to implement a strategy that involves significant reforms, the most important of which is the reform aimed at better subsidy system." (IMF meeting, Washington DC, Oct. 13, 2008).
Pro-market privatizations have been combined with harsh restrictions on workers' ability to organize, in order to advance Ahmadinejad's neo-liberal restructuring of Iran. Although Iran is technically a member of the International Labor Organization, and thereby mandated to allow free trade unions, workers are restricted from forming independent unions. Under the constitution, they are only allowed to join ideologically-centered Islamic Workers' Councils, which hold no right to deal with worksite issues or collectively bargain. Despite these legal restrictions, privatization and soaring inflation have resulted in a series of escalating confrontations between workers and security forces.
In March 2007, thousands of schoolteachers spilled out into the streets in front of Parliament, demanding that their collective grievances be heard and their salaries increased. They were attacked by security forces and their leaders received prison sentences of up to five years. Such repression did not deter Mahmoud Salehi, a baker, from making his annual demand to celebrate May Day. Salehi was found guilty of "acting against national security" and imprisoned. This year, in a small preview of the post-election street protests, Ahmadinejad's security apparatus was used to repress 2,000 workers who attempted to organize a May Day celebration.
But the real foil to Ahmadinejad's pro-market policies is a middle-aged bus driver from Tehran. Mansour Osanloo, acting as the president of the 17,000 worker-strong Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, led a 2005 strike in which drivers refused to accept fares in protest of working conditions and rising fares. The strike was immediately criminalized with Osanloo and fellow leaders placed under arrest. Undeterred, Osanloo led another strike attempt in 2006. He was again arrested and today sits in a cell in Iran's notorious Evin prison—a living testament to both the courage of Iranian workers and the repressive nature of the regime. Soon to be joining Osanloo in Evin are thousands of protesters who have also been criminalized by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei's regime because of their protests over the stolen election. While it is difficult to describe a candidate with as many establishment credentials as Mousavi as a reformer, it is easy to see how the demonstrations on the street have rapidly progressed beyond his campaign. Slogans have moved from "Mousavi get our votes back" to "Death to the Dictator." With this shift come possibilities for more radical measures. Automotive workers at Khodro Automobile Company have pledged resistance, university students are conducting sit-ins, and the Bus Drivers Union has issued a call for international solidarity.
Meanwhile, somewhere deep inside Evin prison, clandestine communications may be being initiated between a jailed bus driver and a newly minted student radical or an ailing baker and young rock-throwing worker. These actors need little help in understanding that Ahmadinejad's regime, despite all his populist rhetoric, has worked hand-in-hand with IMF privatizers. After failing to deliver on his populist rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has stolen the election. Now, his only recourse is state repression. On the streets, something far more brilliant is underway—an open-ended emancipation project demanding nothing less than political freedom.
---- Billy Wharton is the editor of The Socialist magazine and the Socialist WebZine. His articles have recently appeared in the Washington Post, Common Dreams, Monthly Review Zine, NYC Indypendent, World War 4 Report and the Links Journal.
You will not be able to stay home, brother. You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out. You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip, Skip out for beer during commercials, Because the revolution will not be televised. -Gil Scott Heron
Many people take serious offense when I say that television could quite honestly be the largest road block to real democracy ever invented. While the potential for it to be the greatest tool and asset simultaneously exists, it’s power is unfortunately controlled by corporate giants who use it largely for “bad”, not “good” ends.
Being among the few die hard purists that avoid corporate media like the plague, it’s easy to see the vast majority of Americans absorb it’s sleazy content daily (like an ex-smoker smelling tobacco on everyone else). For most people it’s either a necessity or simply the most convenient way to find out “what’s happening.” Trying to gather as many varied sources as possible from the internet, radio and television can make us more completely informed, but most people don’t have the time or frankly the interest to do this; just the political news junkie types who read it for pleasure as well as education. I’m the guy that walks into the doctor’s office, sees Fox News on the idiot box and immediately locates the remote to change the channel to Animal Planet (one of 100+ stations owned by Discovery Communications, Inc). To the surprised, and sometimes angered onlookers I offer: “We can all learn how to behave a little bit better by watching these animals than those other sly foxes.”
But, sadly “we, the people” rely heavily, if not exclusively on the media in order to make informed decisions; both public and private. Unfortunately, the information we receive is always biased. While I realize that unbiased media is a virtual impossibility, a little slant wouldn’t seem so bad if there were some balance coming from other major stations. Such balance used to exist to a certain extent, but it certainly does not in today’s profit-minded media system. The so-called “liberal media” is owned by a handful of very wealthy conservatives whose sole interest is in maximizing profits, to hell with public service. There is a bit more diversity in radio, but it’s still largely controlled by the same folks who own the television stations, cable networks and newspapers.
This extreme consolidation of media ownership is a relatively recent phenomenon. The private control of more and more media outlets by fewer and fewer companies was rapidly facilitated by one act of congress in the winter of 1996. While Bill Clinton was running for re-election, O.J. Simpson was on trial and the Taliban was capturing Afghanistan, five major corporations were conspiring to buy up and control 75% of what you see, read and hear in the United States. Guess which one of these stories didn’t get covered by the corporately owned media? Clinton won re-election and the media skewered him. OJ was acquitted and he was flambéed as well. The Taliban got mixed reviews from pundits, but the results of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 got just as much coverage after it was passed as it did before it was passed….virtually none.
Wasn’t it big enough news that the FCC and congress undid media regulations that dated back to the birth of radio and television? Damn right it was! Just not the sort of thing that the winners of the spoils wanted their viewers/listeners/readers to know much about. This is yet another glaring example of how democracy under capitalism serves the highest bidder.
So, having been left out of the know and now suffering it’s consequences, let’s examine what the Telecomm Act of ’96 actually did for the “liberal media.”
The Telecommunications Act of 1996: (Source: The Fallout of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned, The Common Cause Education Fund, 2005. www.commoncause.org)
• Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, the homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
• Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp [owner of Fox], General Electric, owner of NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
• The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
• The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
• The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
• The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.
In a small “d” democratic society it is absolutely imperative that the voting public have access to pertinent information that will guide their decision-making processes on issues that will effect them, their families’, friends and communities’. The simple fact that the major media outlets chose not to cover this legislation that changed media ownership rules tells me that they are more than willing to put profits before public service. How many other bills in congress or local policies have we missed out on? With now fewer owners controlling more media, their interests have also been consolidated and our access to information that may be contrary to their profit interests will be even more difficult to find. While some stations are actually exposed for reporting blatantly inaccurate information regularly, it is the more “trustworthy” stations that pick and chose which stories to cover or not cover that have the most dangerous outcome for democracy.
Now, being a book that advocates more, rather than less socialism, you may be wondering at this point how socialism could address this problem. Well, first of all, erase any image of the state run Chinese media or Orwell’s ministry of information (or Fox News Channel) or any other undemocratic propaganda machine. The solution lies in having access to more diversity, not less.
To better serve the public interest, a few simple steps can be taken: 1. re-instate regulations. Implement strong public interest rules that require stations to cover local issues, issues of public interest, local elections, etc… in order to maintain a broadcast license. 2. Create more high quality, publicly funded, local media that is not in the business of making profits, but rather interested in informing, educating and entertaining the public, period. Give the public some democratic control over content. 3. Guarantee equal media access to all candidates for office, including eligible minor party candidates. Eliminate for-profit campaign advertising and open the television/radio debates to minor parties as well.
Although not often perceived as such, the media operates like the 4th branch of the government. They are the liaison between the state and the public, the gateway of information. This makes the media the single most important issue in politics today because it sets the agenda and provides the voice to opinions on all other issues. While the internet is currently a valuable resource for diverse information, it is not readily accessible by all Americans; especially not those in the lower income brackets, the elderly and less tech-savvy. But even the internet is now under attack by corporations like Comcast who wish to privatize every aspect of the web as well (see www.savetheinternet.com).
In sum, greater social ownership and democratic control of the media can only serve to improve democracy and hence society at large.
Order your copy today!
Buy a one-year subscription for only $10!
Send a check or money-order made out to the Socialist Party USA (write Socialist subscription in the memo)to:
Socialist Party USA
339 Lafayette St. #303
New York, NY 10012
or pay ONLINE
The Socialist WebZine
The Socialist WebZine is the electronic version of the The Socialist magazine. The WebZine provides weekly commentary from original sources as well as re-prints from radical blogs and websites. The WebZine is always looking for fresh material which highlights the struggles of the working class. News stories, first-person testimonials and all forms of the arts are welcome.
In Solidarity, Billy Wharton Editor, Socialist WebZine billyspnyc(at)yahoo.com
Disclaimer
Unless otherwise noted, views expressed in the Socialist WebZine are those of the authors and not necessarily of the Socialist Party USA. Bloggers are welcome to link to our site and re-print material. Please note the source when re-printing.
