The events in Libya are tragic because they are a civil war, not part of the North African Spring.



by David McReynolds

This will be longish so let me put a brief summation on Libya at the beginning,
though I'll return to it later.

The original UN resolution, pressed for by France, Great Britain, and the US (all three led by men who have never been in armed combat) was to use such force as was needed to protect the civilian population. It was explicit that the NATO operation was not designed to force a regime change - though Obama has since made it clear that in his view Gaddafi must leave.

The events in Libya are tragic because they are a civil war, not part of the North African Spring. Far more violence has been used in Syria, with no word of NATO intervention. At last report Saudi Arabia had over a thousand troops "loaned" to Bahrain, with no hint of NATO intervention. What makes Libya different? It has oil.

I'm not writing a brief for or against Gaddafi. I am saying that NATO has violated the UN Resolution, that it should cease combat, and accept any of several offers put forward by other countries for an immediate cease fire. In particular the use of air attacks in a transparent effort to murder Gadaffi are completely indefensible.

But it is NATO which I want to look at first, and this carries us back to the early days of the Cold War. There have been books written on the origins of the Cold War but we have time only for a sketch. When WW II ended in 1945, it was won, in Europe, by the extraordinary losses of life by the Soviet Union. From the Western side there was a fear of the masses of Soviet troops and tanks and, the reality of the mass Communist Parties in France and Italy. The Soviet theory, at that time, not to be revised until Khruschev became the Soviet leader, was that conflict (and by this one assumed war) between capitalism and communism was inevitable. The one ace in the hole of the West was the nuclear bomb, and the speed with which the US surrounded the Soviet Union with air bases which would make possible nuclear strikes deep in Soviet territory.

From the Soviet side, their massed troops were exhausted, the lines of communication made any serious attack on the West impossible. What the Soviet did want - what would have been true of any government in Moscow, regardless of its politics - was a buffer zone between Russia and Western Europe. Russia has no natural defenses, no oceans, no rivers, no mountains. It had suffered from the Napoleonic invasion in the 19th century and from two German invasions in the 20th century. The Soviets sought at first to gain security through getting US and British agreement to a neutral Germany, along the lines that had been worked out with Austria and Finland. But in
the climate of 1948 when nerves were raw on both sides and at a time when, possibly, wiser heads on either side might have changed the course of events, the Soviets moved to take control of Czechoslovakia, bringing it into the East European Bloc. (There was an unintended tragedy here - in the last free elections in Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party had a strong share of the vote - the Soviet moves to bring it into the Soviet Bloc was a death blow to the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia).

The same year saw the raw testing of nerves, when the Soviet Union cut off the land route from West Germany into Berlin, and the West responded with the Berlin Airlift.

Western Europe, essentially under the control of the US (though a much gentler control than Eastern Europe faced from Mocow) responded to events in Czechslovakia, and the Berlin crisis by establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - a military defensive shield. That was in 1949.

The Soviets established the Warsaw Pact in 1955, several years after the founding of NATO. The Soviets had waited, still hoping for some kind of de-militarization of Germany, but this hope was ended when West German military forces were admitted to NATO in 1954.

In theory (and in the eyes of almost everyone in Europe), the two military pacts were "mutually defensive pacts". But it was Professor Johan Galtung, a Norwegian academic (and pacifist - who served time in prison rather than doing military service) who advanced a theory I think proved more accurate. Galtung felt that the NATO and WARSAW Pacts were never intended to protect from outside forces (ie., the West realized Moscow was in no position to send forces into Western Europe, while the NATO forces knew that massive public opposition would make it untenable to invade the Warsaw Bloc). Rather, Prof. Galtung suggested, the two pacts were designed for "vertical control".

If one goes back to that period there is a great deal of evidence of plans by the US, and by the military and police forces in France and Italy, to prevent even a free election of the Communist Parties in those countries, and to use NATO forces to achieve this - ie., a "vertical control" Looking to the East the examples abound. On June 17, 1953, there was a major workers' uprising in East Germany, put down with Soviet military forces, with at least 125 killed. In Poznan, Poland, in 1956 there were substantial working class riots, put down with Soviet forces, with something
close to 200 people killed. Finally, and most dramatically, in Hungary, in October of 1956, there was a revolution which overthrew the government. The Soviets at first agreed to withdraw and permit the formation of a new government, but then sent in troops. It is estimated that at least 700 Soviet troops and 2500 Hungarian were killed. (Matters were not helped by the fact that in October, 1956, when the world should have been focused on Hungary, Britian, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to seize control of the Suez Canal - a lesson reminding us that workers should never look to imperial powers for help at a time of need!).

It was at this moment when, if more rational minds were in control in the West, the leaders of NATO would have put through a call to Moscow saying "Look, it is obvious that the Warsaw Pact cannot possibly attack us - you can't even control the countries in your own bloc. So we are now, unilaterally, dissolving NATO and we urge you to join us, and together see if we can work out some plans for genuine demilitarization of Europe".

But rational minds were not in control. Even when the Soviet Union itself collapsed in a remarkable series on nonviolent revolutions, the West did not say "Hey, we don't need NATO anymore - the Warsaw Pact has dissolved, and our only excuse for existing dissolved with it".

No, the "realistic" political minds in Washington, Paris, London and Bonn began to talk of ways of finding new functions for NATO, admitting the nations that had been under Soviet control, and pushing the Western military machine closer to Russia's borders. Part of this is the fulfillment of the sociological law that no organization goes quietly into the night. When the March of Dimes realized it had won the fight against polio, it didn't dissolve - why dissolve when so many people had jobs? They just found a new disease. NATO provides all kind of jobs for Generals and for ordinary bureaucrats in Brussels. To dissolve NATO might threaten the survival of Brussels itself.

And so NATO found new purposes. It deployed military forces to Afghanistan!! A most remarkable deployment, since not one of the countries in NATO (with the exception an the earlier ill-fated British Mission) had ever even been to Afghanistan. A new war! A new purpose! No need for generals to find honest work! The bureaucrats at Brussels were safe!

So in this sense it is not surprising that NATO, finding itself firmly locked out of events in North Africa, not invited by play a key role in Tunisia or Egypt or Bahrain, decided it could play a role in Libya, and at least Libya had oil!

My first point has been NATO - an organization which probably should never had been formed, and which in any case was formed entirely in relation to tensions in the middle of the 20th century - NATO should be dissolved now. It should have been dissolved long ago. "Out of NATO" should be the slogan of every socialist and peace group in NATO.

The second point is international law, which has surfaced since the European courts of issued a writ for the arrest of Gadaffi. I do not know if Gaddafi qualifies for the writ - there is much that I don't know. But I do know that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair qualifies for such a writ, as does the former President of the United States, George Bush. I write this not because I have a special dislike to Blair or Bush, but because the force of law must carry with it some element of logic. I am very glad that some of the surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge are being brought to trial. But even in that case I am worried over the process by which the international courts selected who should be prosecuted. All scholars who have followed the deep tragedy of Cambodia know that both China and the United
States maintained support for the Khmer Rouge long after the Vietnamese Army had driven it from the cities. Scholars of events in Indochina know that it was the CIA action in installing Lon Nol in Cambodia, which in the process, drove the King from his throne, and opened the door to the Khmer Rouge. Again, scholars know the the heavy air attacks on Cambodia, ordered by Kissinger and Nixon, gave the Khmer Rouge a legitimacy. Nixon, of course, is gone, But Henry Kissinger still makes guest appearances on TV shows. He is still a paid consultant by at least one network. In no way am I trying to excuse the former leaders of the Khmer Rouge from their day in court - Cambodia deserves no less. I have been to Cambodia. I have seen the death pits, the skulls with the bullet holes. I want justice.

But the "trick" of international law is that if it is too obviously selective - if in the case of Cambodia we have only four Cambodians on trial - we are surely mocking the dead, and in the process, using that trial to mock the law itself.

And if, with the memory of Iraq on our minds, and knowing all that we know about it, knowing all the civilians in Iraq who were killed, all our own men and women who were killed, or who bear injuries that will twist their minds to the final days, if, given those realties, we bring in a writ only against Gadaffi is this not to turn international law on its head?

Turning to Libya. To admit I do not know enough about Libya, is not to say I know nothing about it. Sheila Cooper, a friend of mine and a woman who liked secretarial work, had been secretary to Peggy Duff, also a good friend, and a leader in the British (and international) peace movement. Of Peggy, Noam Chomsky said she was "one of those heroes who is completely unknown, because she did too much . . . she should have won the Nobel Peace Prize about twenty times". When Peggy died in 1981, Sheila took a secretarial job in Libya. The pay was good and she hoped to make enough to retire. I was in touch with Sheila about Libya, she never conveyed a sense of living in a dictatorship, she chatted about the differences among the Libyans depending on what part of Libya they were from. Sheila, sadly, died of cancer before her retirement, but on the one occasion when I visited her in London, while she was on leave, she did not express any sense of horror or dismay about Libya.

Most of us who are old enough to remember World War II know of Libya from the surge of Allied or Nazi tank battles across the desert, or from an old Humphrey Bogart film set in Libya. What we don't know is that the Nazis, Italians, British and American armies left vast numbers of land mines behind, but never gave the Libyans the maps which could make possible finding the mines. As a result even when I visited Libya in 1989 there were still farmers being blown up somewhere in Libya almost every week.

Nor do most of us have any idea of the patriotic struggle of the Libyans against Italy. We may be aware that the name of Libya's leader, Gaddafi, is spelled several different ways. The Libya we know today came into being in 1969, when Muammar Gaddafi took power in a coup, overthrowing the monarchy. But already oil had been discovered and Libya, which had not held much interest to other countries (the exception would be the US, which had a major air force base at Wheelus, Libya), was suddenly very much "on the map of world politics". (This was not the first contact the US had with Libya - in fact, the first US foreign military action was in 1805 in Tripoli against the "Barbary Pirates").

One of the first things Gaddafi did was to expel the US from Wheelus - something for which I don't think the US has ever forgiven him. Libya, under Gaddafi, entered world politics in ways that are confusing. I have a good friend who thinks he is insane. Certainly, with his strange ways of dressing, it is obvious he is not your ordinary political leader. He holds no title, and while he is considered a dictator by his opponents, I think our problem is trying to find some way to think about Libya and Gaddafi - and it is hard. Shortly after taking power he changed the name of Libya to "Jamahiriya", an Arabic term generally translated as "state of the masses". Gaddafi did not line up, politically, with either the Soviet Union or the Peoples Republic of China. Instead, he wrote the Green Book, of which I had a copy at one time but found close to incomprehensible and have (I think) lost it.

Remember, he was only 26 when he took power, he found himself in charge of a country which had, almost overnight, moved from being one of the poorest to being one of the most wealthy. He used that wealth of build universities, housing, medical centers. The form of government was - in theory - to be based on "direct democracy" without any political parties, governed through local popular councils named "Basic People's Congresses".

Clearly he had to have had considerable charisma to hold things together, and he seems to have hoped that his views, as set forth in his Green Book, would be a guide to the third world. The best we can do in trying to translate "Jamahiriya" into English is to say it can be rendered as "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya". And that really leaves us more confused than before!

Gaddafi's foreign policy is, at best, erratic. He has extended financial aid to a wide range of groups, acted as a friend to people such as Idi Amin, given aid to the Irish Republican Army, supported armed Islamic rebels in the Philippines, etc.

At some point in the early 1980's (I don't have exact notes) I got an invitation to a conference on Peace and Liberation to be held at Malta. I checked with my friend Sheila Cooper, and she said the Libyans had asked her for any names that she could think of - and she had sort of turned over her address book. In addition to myself and Daniel Ellsberg, there was an old friend from the independent left movement in Japan, a woman from Yugoslavia, two people from the Fellowship of Reconciliation in the US - perhaps two dozen in all.

My guess that Libyan money was behind it was true enough - we had to raise the air fare to get to Rome, but from there we had tickets to Malta, and our costs in Malta were covered. The one real give away was the huge table with Gaddafi's Green Book. There were only about four Libyans present for the conference, they did not "guide us" to any conclusions. I was interested that there were no representatives from the World Peace Council - the Soviet Union's front group. It was clear that this was an experiment in trying to reach out beyond the usual group. My own feeling was that the money spent on us was at least not spent on Irish terrorists.

In 1989 the Fellowship of Reconciliation sent a team, including myself, Virginia Baron, an academic - Dirk Vandewalle - and a half dozen others for a week to take a look at Libya. Having Prof. Vandewalle with us was very helpful, as he could give us what clearly Obama needs and doesn't have - a short course in the history of Libya. We did not meet Gaddafi, but we met with pretty much all the key people in government. But even to say that is tricky. I realize much has changed since 1989, but there were no civil associations as we would know them, no trade unions, no lawyers associations, no political parties. The question of "how" decisions were made was no clear.

None of us found the political climate oppressive. Our hosts were frank and easy in their talks with us, we visited Tripoli without any "minders", and had a chance to see some of the real wonders of the ancient history of Tripoli. And of course we saw the home of Gaddafi, which was hit, on orders from Reagan, in revenge for Libya's alleged involvement in a bombing in Berlin. (Proof of that involvement is sketchy - but the impact of the US bombing was very clear. Not only had one of his daughters been killed, but we saw a part of the French Embassy which had been hit, and an apt.
building in a clearly residential neighborhood which had been totally destroyed, along with everyone in it).

The only contact I had since, was indirect. Someone I've been in email contact with, an American, had gone to Libya recently for a job, and then when the "troubles" began early this year, she had to leave but in her notes to me after she left, she expressed no sense of horror at Gaddafi - nor any great love for the man. She said that he probably had a fair amount of popular support, wrly noting that even Nixon won two free elections.

The most painful link to Libya was the Lockerbie bombing, since two good friends of mine lost their daughter - their only child - who was on the plane when it was destroyed. There are arguments about whether the Lockerbie bombing was actually the responsibility of Libya but the fact is that Libya had been the source of funds for terrorism (or, if you look at it from the Libyan standpoint, the source of funds for various struggles for national liberation). There is also no question that Libya had, on at least one occasion, sent out hit squads to silence Libyans who had left Libya but remained openly critical of Gaddafi

One does need to remember that the late Soviet Union did the same thing, Israel has done this, and I'm afraid the US has also had a hand in this miserable game.

What is interesting is that in recent years Libya seemed to have made a major change in policy, settling British claims over the Lockerebid bombing, agreeing to end any further research into nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. It is this most recent period that I know so little about - but how strange that Gaddafi and Libya would now have moved to the top of a hit list.

Two things are clear. This is not a revolution but a Civil War. I don't know what forces are involved among the "rebels" but how little real support they have is provided by the fact that months after the French, British, and Americans have destroyed any Libyan air force, and after the murder of one of Gaddafi sons, and repeated attacks on his various compounds, Gaddafi is still there, he had been seen in public, he has received foreign guests, and Tripoli remains in his hands. It is
not surprising that various officials have "defected" since I think any of us might consider defecting as we realized guided missiles are being sent to track down key officials. This is less an appeal to a moral reason to leave the government, than an urgent sense of survival.

The other thing which is clear is that the rebels have also killed people. In one case (documented from press reports) the rebels admitted to having killed a number of prisoners of war they had captured "because they were black and we assumed they were hired killers".

Civil wars are very nasty things. We lost more men in our Civil War than were killed in almost all our wars combined - WW I, WW II, and the Korean War - until late in the Vietnam War the total military dead was greater. We lost those men from a much smaller population. Civil wars are not civil. This one is tragic and we should be urging the European forces to rush to the negotiating table.

Certainly the Libyan adventure is one very good reason not to leave NATO in existence - it is a weapon that has already killed many in Afghanistan and may yet kill many more in Libya.

***
David McReynolds, former chair, War Resisters International, Socialist Party candidate for President in 1980, and 2000. He is retired, lives with is two cats on New York City's Lower East Side and may be reached at: dmcreynolds@nyc.rr.comhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

from Edge Left



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Every person has the right to live in safe home that they can afford.




by Brandon Collins for Charlottesville City Council

July 6, 2011 - Every person has the right to live in safe home that they can afford. In Charlottesville, too many people pay way too much to rent their own homes, too many are too far behind in their rent payments. Too many people cannot afford to rent a home at all, too many people are on waiting lists for public housing, too many people are on waiting lists for section 8 housing. Too few people are able to own their own homes.

Affordable housing is supposed to be priority for Charlottesville City Council, so what is the hold-up?

I believe that perhaps the hold up is our inability to adhere to a comprehensive plan and provide ample funding to make housing affordable.

First, a simple concept- rather than seeing the different types of housing as separated we see them as steps on a ladder. We have to work for a continuous move up the ladder from homelessness to SROs for the homeless into public housing and affordable rents and into home ownership- sounds pretty simple right? This concept is already considered a good approach by the city but unfortunately the inter-connectivity of these things is often ignored in planning and practice- this needs to be forefront in our minds. We must also consider looking at other ways to deal with affordable housing other than current method of putting a band aid on the issue.

Lets start by taking a look at rent since it is central to a comprehensive strategy. Those of us who rent our homes might agree, in the words of Jimmy McMillan (former candidate for Governor of new York), that “rent is too damn high!” Unfortunately, capping rents is something that the city does not have the legal authority to do. (This means an even bolder approach, which is a good thing, we need a bolder approach!)

We have to look at many factors to determine why rent is high, and how we get it lower inside of a system that requires poor folks to pay as much as possible to rent a home. Biggest factor- We have a shortage of housing in town. Much of this is due to the student population, and newcomers. Homes and apartments built for those populations means that the starting point for rents is already high, as landlords can rent these places for much more, and those populations can afford to pay more. This makes for a double whammy, shortage of housing means higher rents generally, and when that bar is already set high it means even higher rents. So, the easy answer is to create a surplus of housing- supply and demand, more housing equals lower rents. On the surface it makes sense but there are other factors to consider.
We have to consider that rent never gets decreased for any reason whatsoever, absent some major shift in how things are done. The other is what kinds of homes are we building and for whom. Currently we have some guidelines, that say at least 5% of certain development projects are deemed affordable in order for the developers to get incentives. We need to completely rearrange that and provide that all new housing is required to be at least 50% “affordable”, or even for the time being make sure that ALL new homes being built are intended to be affordable for large segments of the population (affordable is generally defined as being 30% of your income). In any event, this is going to require a lot of new homes to be built, something that will also add to revenue in the form of real estate taxes paid by landlords.

If we rely solely on the private sector to build these homes it will never happen. Charlottesville is going to need a comprehensive strategy to lure new housing into the city, or to simply do it ourselves.

As we do this we must also ensure that public housing, rent relief, and section 8 gets expanded to further keep rent low city wide. Just like with guaranteed employment, if we consistently tweak the market by expanding public housing, rents will continue to get lower as a result. In the process it is extremely important to not just include, but give actual decision making authority to the Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR). Further- we use a workforce of public housing residents to expand and upgrade, in a sustainable fashion, all public housing and pay them a living wage to do it. The new “Section 3″ coordinator the city has created is a great first step in making sure that public housing residents can access employment.
If PHAR had a full-time funds coordinator for writing grants, exploring the issuance of bonds etc. that could go a long ways towards making sure the concerns of public housing residents are met. Such a coordinator might also seek ways to secure funds for expansion of Section 8.

We have a large and growing homeless population in Charlottesville, so far all attempts to transition the homeless into adequate housing has been reliant on non-profits. If we are serious about eliminating, rather than alleviating, homelessness, we need to put our money and energy where our mouths are. If we continue to rely on non-profits than we must allocate them more public funds. If we take a more active role through the city directly we need to get to work. The new SRO being built (sustainably I might add) is a great first step. We need to build more of these, and ensure that some public agency is actively working to get homes for the homelss, and working with them to transition up the ladder further.

I suggest doubling the funding for all affordable housing programs, that means expanding public housing, expanding the section 8 program, and expanding rent relief. Providing our own public agency to make sure all people have somewhere to live is a good step. Currently we have non-profits (greatly underfunded) that help a little, we need to change this and make sure all people in Charlottesville can get their rent paid, and that no one gets evicted. I suggest something similar to my plans on electricity, water and gas shut-offs- whereby the City directly intervenes before someone is evicted to pay back the landowner, then work with the renter for re-payment, reduced rent with City subsidy, re-location, or re-location into public housing. This is no easy task, but we must find ways to bring in revenue to make this happen.

One way is to simultaneously promote the upgrading of low wealth residents into homes that they own. Currently a program exists to grant low interest mortgages to poor folks so that they can purchase their own homes. This provides a bit of revenue for the city in real estate tax, and helps to move away from the landowning class/land renting class structure. If we are serious about changing how housing works we can make this a priority by looking at other models for moving working class folks away from renting and into owning. The tried and true method is a public bank, or housing corporation whose sole purpose is to provide mortgages for all city residents at low interest. This would require some funding up front, but if it is based on bonds I believe we could get this going without any long term effect on our budget. We might also consider using some such corporation to fund the construction of new, sustainably built affordable homes. Again, as we do
this on a large scale, we work towards creating a surplus of housing, and we offer a place for all residents to get a decent and fair loan to own their own home. The incentive to rent is much smaller, and rents will come down, or at least they won’t increase. Of course, not all residents would be able to participate immediately in such a program due to circumstance and inability to pay. Keep in mind however, that residents for the most part are able to pay their rents, why shouldn’t they be able to pay their mortgages?

Working up the housing ladder must always be the object, whereby residents eventually have the ability to own their own homes. Home ownership would be a top tier of a multi-layered system. As people begin to increase their wages (under some of the other ideas I am presenting in this campaign) they are able to move from public housing and section 8, into rentals, and into their own homes. Something that I think many on the current council would be interested in in theory, but don’t have the stomach necessarily to take big steps to make this a reality citywide.
I do, but we can’t take any short cuts.
Council needs to make this a priority not just by saying so and setting aside a meager amount of funding for small programs. I will be a city councilor who pushes for affordable housing for all residents of Charlottesville.

Further-

-The expansion of MACAA or the formation of a social services “action committee” might be able to pay more attention to the needs of residents concerning moving up the housing ladder (among other things).

-a policy needs to be formed and adhered to for people banned from visiting public housing to be allowed back.

-all new structures should be built in an environmentally sustainable manner by ordinance. -the city, through a public bank or agency, should retrofit all existing housing to be sustainable

-gentrification must be resisted, new homes in traditionally working class neighborhoods should not be allowed to drive up real estate taxes for established residents.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

-a city wide “tenants council” needs to be established to advocate for the needs of renters -as much as possible, new homes should be focused around pedestrian and public transportation access.

from Vote Brandon Collins



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

A special moment came when he recited the poem “Uncle Sam called me full of Lucifer”, with a booming voice and so much passion


by Stefano Aldighieri


The Chairman Speaks

“when in the course of human events it becomes necessary ... “

After a very short introduction, Bobby Seale takes the stage, grabs the microphone and begins to talk, with a strong, vibrant voice. He is wearing a blue shirt, chinos, and a black hat. Standing above the old photos of himself, he shows his age, but still has a young and very captivating energy.

He talks for almost two hours, remembering his youth as a child in the Oakland projects, his past experience in the Air Force, his jobs as aeronautical engineer, jazz drummer, stand up comedian ... his youth, living first hand the painful racist environment of those years.

The news of the assassination of Malcolm X at the hands of some FBI killer left a great impression on young Bobby; he goes on a “one man riot” and starts to see his role in society under a different light; people have to defend themselves from the endless persecution. His random encounter with Huey P. Newton on Merritt college grounds, the early days of what would become the Black Panther Party for Self Defense., first with the AA and RAM and then finally in its proper form, once the famous Ten Points were enunciated.

A special moment came when he recited the poem “Uncle Sam called me full of Lucifer”, with a booming voice and so much passion, that you would have thought for a moment you were in front of a great actor; the simple act of reciting that poem had him - and Huey P. Newton and his friend Weasel among others - arrested for no reason other than the fact that freedom of speech did not apply to everyone!

It was great to hear straight from the legendary founder of the movement so many tales of how the party started, gained its own consciousness and developed into a strong, powerful movement; the press did all they could possibly do to lie and misrepresent the real nature of the movement; J. Edgar Hoover systematically attempted, with terrorist tactics, to destroy them by murdering several members, jailing many others on phony charges, introducing secret instigators within the party to create a backlash against them from the black community.

In spite of all that, the party was gaining momentum, starting successful programs for their communities, feeding hundreds of thousands of children daily, creating free clinics, educating people and helping them with jobs and assistance.

That was the real reason why the US government went so ferociously after them; it had nothing to do with “violence” and weapons, those were within legality and strictly necessary to defend themselves with; the real danger was that for the first time since Marcus Garvey there was a real, growing consciousness within the oppressed classes. The words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr and of Malcolm X were explained to the masses and supported with real action.

Bobby Seale lead the movement for several years, witnessing the murder of several of his associates and friends, the incarceration of many others - including of course himself (the trumped up charges that brought the famous trials against the Chicago Eight, and the New Haven trial with Ericka Huggins, for which he spent years in jail before being acquitted).

The Black Panther Party may have been virtually destroyed by their mighty enemy, but the Chairman remained involved with the communities, running for office (for Mayor in Oakland, which almost won twice), and helping organizing community work.

Some words for the present and the future

The relevance of Mr Seale’s words and action became even more evident when he talked about fundamental issues that affect us today and how we can be instrumental in solving them. The key message can be summarized in his focus in “community controls of economic frameworks that retail and produce services and goods and political institutions that affect our lives”. Practical, pragmatic words, no theoretical nonsense, and a total rejection of any form of violence.

Working within the system, in order to fight against what people like the Koch Brothers and their puppet governors and politicians are doing, trying to destroy the basic humane elements of our society in order to satisfy their endless greed.

Powerful message and inspiring words, to push people to ‘do something’ instead of being ‘armchair revolutionaries’. The vision of a real, honest, enthusiastic community organizer - this is the community organizer who should be in the White House!

This panther may be seventy three years old, he may have gone to hell and back several times, he may have been beaten, gagged, caged, wounded, but he never lost his spirit. His claws may not be as sharp, but his growl is still a force to be reckoned with.

This panther can definitely still pounce.

from Socialist Party of Los Angeles



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

It was precisely these actions that alarmed elites seeking to place themselves at the head of the revolutionary movement.


by Billy Wharton

A neighbor illustrated the problem with the Fourth of July. He broke out a new bumper sticker for his car just in time for the annual celebration. The sticker promoted the US Navy with the slogan, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of all those who oppose us.” This twisted take on the spirit of the day is a perfect illustration of the worst American chauvinism that often pushes leftists and other progressives away from the holiday. However, as historians such as Howard Zinn have demonstrated, there are alternatives – there is a counter-narrative to American history that represents ordinary people. The Fourth of July is the perfect opportunity to discover it.

The standard version of the American Revolution on the left is remarkably simplistic – a barely more intelligent competitor to my Navy loving neighbor. The American Revolution was not a revolution – revolutions rapidly transform society from the bottom to the top. This was a revolution of the slaveholders, of the landholders, of those who were well-heeled, but irked by British imperialism. At best, George Washington and his bunch, get credit for making an anti-colonial revolt. Leftists would be better off, the argument goes, looking to modern 20th century revolts where working class people were active participants.

While it is indeed true that the American Revolution has gone through generations of cleansing in popular thought to the point where it is now a reference point for reactionary groups like the Tea Party, something more exists to this history. We can even start at the top, with Thomas Jefferson, the slaveholder and racist ideologue who took a slave as his mistress. Jefferson was swept up in the revolutionary fervor of the moment and authored a draft version of the Declaration of Independence that stands as a stunningly radical indictment of British Imperialism. Most important, this version of the document condemned slavery viewing it as, “paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” Unfortunately, this section and others originally proposed by Jefferson were removed – the section on slavery by the objections by slaveholders in South Carolina and Georgia. Yet, the record still exists and this alternative Declaration points to much more radical ideas bubbling up from the base of society.

A bit closer to the social status of most people is George Robert Twelve Hewes. The story of Hewes’ participation in the American Revolution was unearthed by historian Alfred Young in The Shoemaker and the Tea Party. Hewes was a shoemaker who participated in the political mobs of Boston that gave the Revolution a popular face. He took part in many local actions and others such as the Boston Tea Party that became central to the story of the Revolution and was prominent in a series of tar-and-feather attacks on British officials and Loyalists (American supporters of the British). Hewes documents how these street protests often grew from attacks on privileged Loyalists to attacks on social privilege in general. It was precisely these actions that alarmed elites seeking to place themselves at the head of the revolutionary movement.

Even ordinary people who did not engage in the extraordinary acts of Hewes were deeply impacted by the revolutionary fervor of the day. For instance Agrippa Hull, an African-American whose life was documented in Sidney and Emma Kaplan’s The Black Presensce in the Era of the American Reovlution, served in the seemingly low positions of porter and orderly to Revolutionary War Generals. However, doing so brought him into contact with a European version of radicalism spreading across the globe. Hull worked for the Polish General Tadeusz Kosciuszko and used these experiences to develop an innovatively progressive take on race relations in the young Republic.

As a result of his service, Hull became an active participant in politics in his home town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. After his death he was described as having “no cringing servility,” always felling himself to be “every whit a man.” He would argue with friends that “it is not the cover of the book, but what the book contains” that is important. “Many a good book,” he quipped, “has a dark cover.” Once, while attending a sermon delivered by a mulatto preacher, the white man who he worked for asked him, “How do you like nigger preaching?” Hull replied “Sir, he was half black and half white: I like my half, how do you like yours?” Perhaps it was the influence of Hull that moved Kosciuszko to donate land given to him in recognition of his service to local African-Americans who wished to set up a school for children.

Finally, well after the American Revolution had ended, a different sort of patriotism lingered on – what one historian friend of mine called Emma Lazarus patriotism. Lazarus was a poet and political radical who dedicated her work to forcing America to live up to the lofty ideals it espoused. Her poem The New Colossus that adorns the inside of the Statue of Liberty epitomizes this sentiment. America she seems to argue, can be more than just another nation, it can be a place of refuge that welcomes all people, “From her beacon-hand, Glows world-wide welcome.” And those that are welcome are not just the elites with private jets or the highly coveted white collar workers, but ordinary folk, “The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” Lazarus’ poem is reminder of how far the current immigration policies and endless war on terrorism fall from this ideal.

The influence of Lazarus was felt long after her death and spread beyond just one poem. As John Nichols demonstrates in his recent book The S Word: A Short History of an American Tradition…Socialism, generations of left-wing activists identified themselves with the radicalism espoused by Lazarus. She became a rallying point for those interested in supporting campaigns for justice among the poor, especially in communities of recent immigrants.

This Fourth of July there are some alternatives. Although a recent Harvard University study said that children exposed to a Fourth of July celebration are 2% more likely to become Republicans, we can imagine a different sort of celebration. To get there, we can begin by recognizing that the interpretation of history is a struggle. My navy loving neighbor, although he may not be conscious of it, is engaged in this struggle. Leftists should be equally engaged by acknowledging the great contributions made by people like George Hewes, Agrippa Hull and Emma Lazarus. We should celebrate the right to dissent and the duty to wage war against social privilege. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are lofty goals which can serve as a basis for politically radical ideals in the present. So, this Fourth don’t shy away from a celebration: bring George, Agrippa and Emma along with you.

***
Billy Wharton is a writer, activist and the editor of the Socialist WebZine. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly@gmail.com.



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

the American people will pay approximately $172 billion dollars to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of millions more for military actions in Libya




2011 NJ Industrial Union Council Resolution Calls for New Priorities

June 11th, 2011

CALLING ON CONGRESS TO ADOPT NEW PRIORITIES TO CREATE JOBS, MEET DOMESTIC NEEDS,
AND PUT THE NATION ON COURSE TO A MORE JUST, EQUITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

WHEREAS, the economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst in eighty years and has had a disproportionate impact on working and poor people; and

WHEREAS more than fifty million Americans lack health care; home values have plummeted forcing millions into foreclosure and bankruptcy; 43.6 million Americans now live in poverty – the most poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept; thousands of teachers, fire fighters, police and other dedicated public workers have lost their jobs; real unemployment and underemployment together are in excess of 15% and in some communities of color, over 50%; class size increases as educational resources are slashed; social services and public programs are being cut or eliminated; parks and libraries are being closed; public infrastructure continues to deteriorate yet goes unrepaired; and

WHEREAS, the burden of these conditions is borne overwhelmingly by working and middle class Americans whose standard of living has declined as a small wealthy elite has enriched itself at the expense of the majority, producing a nation that is growing far more unequal, with the top 0.1% (those earning $2 million per year or more) enjoying a 94% increase in income between 2002 and 2007 and the wealthiest 1% claiming one-quarter of all income and 40% of all wealth, with six times the financial assets of the bottom 80% of all households, and the 400 richest Americans holding combined net worth of $1.37 trillion, or an average of $3.425 billion each; and

WHEREAS, the crisis in the U.S. can be directly traced to (1) $3.8 trillion in tax cuts given over ten years by the Bush administration and Congress to investors, large corporations and the wealthiest households; tax loopholes that allow the rich and many corporations to avoid paying taxes, with some like GE and Bank of America paying none at all; (2) deregulation of the financial system that allowed greedy reckless banks, hedge funds, stockbrokers and investors to take irresponsible risks that produced an economic catastrophe; (3) bailouts to Wall St. and giant corporations paid for by taxpayers to the tune of trillions of dollars; (4) run-away military spending that supports a bloated Pentagon bureaucracy and profiteering military contractors, developing and stockpiling what Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz described as “weapons that don't work against enemies that don't exist”; and (5) the cost of illegal wars that Professor Stiglitz calculates have cost us $3 to $5 trillion when costs of replacing equipment, paying interest on war debts, medical care for returning veterans and other residual costs are included; and

WHEREAS, the people of the United States this year alone will pay approximately $172 billion dollars to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of millions more for military actions in Libya – all three without a declaration of war from the Congress; and will devote over one trillion dollars to its national security budget (a 60% increase to the Pentagon since 2001), including a $180 billion ten-year commitment to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal which are useless against terrorists; and

WHEREAS, more than 6,000 members of the US armed forces have died in these wars, hundreds of thousands more have been wounded, suffer from PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury, mental health problems or addiction; and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed, maimed, and wounded, while millions more have been turned into refugees; and

WHEREAS, both countries are rife with corruption, and in Afghanistan in particular, the Karzai regime is packed with war lords, drug lords, and other criminal elements who profit handsomely from continuation of hostilities; and

WHEREAS, Osama bin Laden is dead and according to the CIA there are fewer than one hundred al Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan, and it is now quite clear that we don’t need to commit 100,000 troops to chase down, apprehend or eliminate terrorists, and that established criminal investigative methods, diplomacy, multi-lateral intelligence collaboration, economic development to address poverty, and other non-military means can more effectively and efficiently achieve these ends; and

WHEREAS, the severity of the economic crisis has created budget shortfalls at all levels of government that call for a re-examination of the allocation of resources and national spending priorities;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NJ State Industrial Union Council supports efforts to bring these wars to a speedy end, starting with the withdrawal of all U.S. military and private security personnel and closing of U.S. bases in Iraq by year’s end, as called for in the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, and a significant drawdown of military personnel from Afghanistan this year, setting a firm end date for total withdrawal immediately; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NJ State Industrial Union Council calls on the U.S. Congress to bring these war dollars home and to make a substantial reduction in overall military spending, instead using those resources to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal, county and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy and technologies; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NJ Industrial Union Council calls on the U.S. Congress to radically reform the tax code so that the burden of taxation is fully progressive, removing loopholes and preventing schemes by which the rich and multinational corporations avoid and evade taxes, so that the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires is raised at least to the level in effect when Ronald Reagan took office or double the present top rate of 35%, and so that corporations no longer are able to avoid paying taxes by shifting revenues to foreign subsidiaries or to tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Switzerland where they are able to evade U.S. taxes; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NJ State Industrial Union Council shall communicate this resolution to its members and actively seek to inform and educate them about these issues to more effectively mobilize them to hold elected officials accountable to fulfill the intent of this resolution – to create a more just, equitable and sustainable economy in a world in which moral leadership is more important than military might and security is defined by the welfare of our people, not just the size of our military budget; and shall communicate this resolution to its parent organization and intermediate bodies and request that they take similar action.

NJ Labor Against War, June 10, 2011

from US Labor Against War




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

What does it mean to support a “sovereign” Palestine which is totally disarmed and geographically divided by a hostile Jewish state brimming with military might?




By Landon Frim

This month marks the 44th anniversary of the Six-Day War between Israel and the bordering states of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It was this conflict in June of 1967 which has shaped Arab-Israeli relations ever since, primarily because of Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the whole basis for the perennially stalled peace process between the Palestinian people and the Jewish state centers upon what portion of these occupied territories will become the new, sovereign state of Palestine.

However, a simple return to “1967 borders” has always been something which the Israelis have publically rejected. Ostensibly, this is because these borders are deemed geographically indefensible should another armed conflict arise. So when last month President Obama became the first American commander in chief to publically set the 1967 borders as the starting point for peace negotiations, all hell broke loose. It was not much longer than Benjamin Netanyahu, the hard-line, Likud prime minister of Israel, hopped on a plane to personally tongue-lash the president and then deliver a scheduled speech in front of a joint meeting of congress – to thunderous applause.

So there we had it; this was a Manichean war of words between two irreconcilable worldviews. President Obama was the liberal universalist, naively enthusiastic about emerging democracies promised by the so-called “Arab Spring.” Besides, to the conservative imagination, Barack Hussein Obama did not exude the same intuitive love for the Jewish state which could otherwise be expected of any patriotic American, let alone the president himself. Netanyahu was the experience-hardened, Israeli realist. He knew the proper limits of such idealistic enthusiasm, and he knew the real price for Israeli security. An emerging, sovereign, Palestinian democracy could not be trusted to be friendly toward Israel. The establishment of such as state on the supposedly indefensible borders of 1967 would, therefore, be out of the question. American pundits weighed in on either side of the melee with articles and op-eds. Characteristic of the tone was the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and his oft-quoted piece, “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way.”

Not so radical after all

Of course, obscured by the rancor was the plain fact that none of this was at all new. Some variant of the “Two State Solution” has been a part of the mainstream discourse since Israel’s inception in 1948. In fact, the suggested demarcation of the border was much more generous to the Palestinians during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950’s than it is today. The last Bush administration publically affirmed a Two State Solution which, de facto, would have to be drawn largely along the 1967 border; though, crucially, this language was never used in any high profile speeches. (Instead, in a 2005 press conference, President Bush employed the term “1949 armistice lines” which, in fact, amounts to basically the same thing.) Even Netanyahu himself has acknowledged in June 2009 the ultimate goal of a Palestinian state within the territories of the West Bank and Gaza (where else?) with certain land swaps so as to ensure the Israeli retention of the large, Jewish settlement blocks. True, emotionally and politically charged issues remain – first among these is the future of east Jerusalem, a point on which Netanyahu has never shown any flexibility. Nonetheless, at its core, this supposedly polarizing debate is mostly a semantic one after all, at best a protracted political dance where each participant jockeys to win an edge at the bargaining table where the final lines will be drawn. No one, though, really thinks that this table can ultimately be avoided.

Two states - A consensus of dunces

Unfortunately this “hidden consensus” is totally disengaged from reality. Two basic facts preclude the Two State Solution as being a truly viable option. The first can largely be placed under the heading of “geography.” The basic premise behind any Two State Solution is, first, the recognition of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state, and second, the recognition of a sovereign and independent Palestine alongside. Yet within the very heart of the West Bank exists very large Jewish settlement blocks. Even the most dovish Israeli politicians acknowledge that these enclosed settlements, which now truly amount to mid-sized towns and cities, must be retained within Israel proper if and when a Palestinian state is declared. The problem is that these enclaves will have to be connected with one another and to the rest of Israel via secure roads, manned by Israeli police and military officials.

This means that, not only will Palestine continue to be divided geographically between the West Bank and Gaza; The West Bank itself will necessarily be completely fragmented to the point where Palestinians, in order to travel between one West Bank town to another, will have to pass through Israeli checkpoints. How this amounts to a sovereign Palestinian state, I cannot fathom. (All of this is aside from the very real interdependence of Israeli capital and Palestinian labor which, itself, necessitates a porous yet highly militarized border.)

In the words of the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti, “The geopolitical condition that’s been created in '67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg," (60 Minutes interview, January 25th 2009)

It is also the case that, largely because of these same geographic concerns, any future Palestinian state will be a demilitarized one. This was, incidentally, also a feature of Obama’s high profile speech. Not to valorize militarism for its own sake, but it is far from clear what politicians really mean when they claim to support a Two State Solution. What does it mean to support a “sovereign” Palestine which is totally disarmed and geographically divided by a hostile Jewish state brimming with military might?

The second obstacle for any Two State Solution is far more intractable. This is basic demographics. Leaving aside the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, we can shortly expect a demographic tipping of the scales within Israel itself. As it stands, Arab Israeli passport holders make up about 20% of the total population, and the percentage of Israeli Jews has shrunk, by proportion, by about 1-2% each year since 1949. This means that, within one to two generations, it is possible that Jews will be the minority within the Jewish State.

Between 2020 and 2030, the population of Israeli Jews is expected to increase by less than 15%. This is compared to the Arab and non-Jewish populations which are expected to increase, in this same decade, by just over 26%. (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010) Again, these figures pertain to “Israel proper” and would not be significantly affected by Israel ceding the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

Counterbalancing the “tipping point” with the Orthodox birthrate

The kicker is that the one plausible way for Israel to avoid this “tipping point” scenario is by relying upon the high birthrates of the ultra-Orthodox and Haredi Jewish communities. Secular Zionists are, therefore, between a rock and a hard place. Over the next 20-40 years Israel will become increasingly Arab and, simultaneously, increasingly Orthodox Jewish. Therefore, even if Arabs and non-Jews do not make up 51% of the population within 50 years, it will nonetheless be the case that secular-minded Jews (traditionally the bedrock of Israeli, Jewish democracy) will find themselves to be the absolute minority far sooner than anyone has imagined. The prospects for Israel retaining its fragile “secular,” “Jewish,” and “democratic” identity in the long run are therefore negligible.

What must be understood is that these demographic shifts are not necessarily fatal for any given democracy; they are detrimental specifically to that chimerical creation that is a religio-ethnic democracy. A state which tries to maintain popular sovereignty, secular government, and equal representation under the law alongside a specifically determined ethnic and religious character intrinsically brings upon itself these tensions which, given the right circumstances, will tear it apart from the inside. Truly modern, secular states which disavow any predetermined ethnic identity are able to absorb diverse and even undemocratic populations, and then go on to secularize and democratize these very same groups.

“Progressive assimilation” is the order of the day.

However a country which is always staking its very existence upon certain demographic ratios necessarily cannot employ such a strategy. It will have to cast its lot with the most closed, culturally entrenched sectors of its own ruling, ethnic population. In doing so, it may for a while offset countervailing demographic pressures, but it ultimately cuts itself off from any sustainable model of secularization, growth, internal unity, and progress. In the end, it cannot even remain democratic.

That hard-liners and liberals continue to pitch mock battles with one another over the minutia and semantics of a Two State Solution is therefore the height of irresponsibility. For the very idea of “two states” is predicated, in the first place, upon the unworkable and premodern idea of “identitarian” government. In many ways the “Two State Solution” is, therefore, an oxymoron; for it solves nothing. It only conceals and maintains the basic contradictions a form of government which is, right now, propelling two peoples towards a very real and bloody conflict.

A Realist’s Utopia

What is needed now is a rational assessment of the situation in light of the given facts. When this is carried through, all signs point to a One State Solution. What was once the utopian dream of Jewish intellectuals like Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem, and Albert Einstein, has now become the banner of hard-nosed realists.

Just last year, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (a member of the conservative Likud party) came out against any partition of the land of Israel, and instead proposed a bi-national solution to the current crisis. Speaking on the de facto inseparability of the Palestinian people from Israel, Rivlin commented, “It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society." (Haaretz, “Israel official: Accepting Palestinians into Israel better than two states,” April 29th, 2009)

True, heads of state and diplomats rarely discuss this taboo option, at least in public. However, like all timely ideas, the One State Solution is gaining broad consensus just below the surface. A sure sign of this fact is that Israelis themselves have begun to see the inevitability of one state on both ends of the political spectrum. A recent poll showed a relatively equal level of support for a bi-national state amongst self-described “right-wing” and “left-wing” Israelis, 15% and 18% respectively. (March 2010 poll, The Israel Democracy Institute of the Guttman Center)

For an idea which is constantly derided as being the fantasy of only the most deluded, anarchic radicals, these are truly shocking numbers. They show that one-third of Israelis, broadly distributed across the political landscape, support a single, bi-national state with equal rights for all its citizens.

Today, the support for a trulysecular, bi-national state is no longer motivated by sheer idealism alone. This “utopian” solution is now the most realistic one as well. Speaking on the abovementioned poll, Dr. Ya’akov Shamir of the Israel Democracy Institute confirmed, “In Israel there is a group that believes that a bi-national state is inevitable because with Jewish and Palestinian communities so entangled in the West Bank, it will be almost impossible to divide them.” (The Jerusalem Post, “Palestinians increasingly back 1-state,” March 22nd, 2010) We may only add that this “indivisibility” is rapidly becoming the new reality on both sides of the 1967 line.

***
Landon Frim is an instructor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University and the chair of the Faith and Socialism Commission of the Socialist Party, USA
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

from Counterpunch




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

An unimaginable variety of ideas, proposals, and forms of struggle surged forward against the coup.



An Interview with Bertha Cáceres
by Todd Gordon and Jeffery R. Webber

27 June 2011 - On June 18, 2011, during a two-day assembly of the Espacio Refundacional (Refoundational Space) current of the Frente Nacional de la Resistencia Popular (National Front of Popular Resistance, FNRP), we caught up with with Bertha Cáceres, General Coordinator of Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares y Indígenas de Honduras (Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, COPINH). COPINH is one of the most important social forces within Refoundational Space, and the resistance more generally. In the National Assembly of the resistance that took place in Tegucigalpa on June 26, 2011, and which is discussed in an anticipatory way at different points in this interview, the electoral strategic option won the day, with a majority of the delegates voting in favour of the formation of a new political party to run in the 2013 elections. The new political party will be a temporary coalition for participation in these elections, and the FNRP will not be dissolved as an independent entity, or formally subsumed into the new party, according to the resolutions adopted.

Can you describe your political formation and trajectory?

My participation has been directly in COPINH itself, which is a collective space. Inside this space everyone has the opportunity of participation, debate, and discussion about the wider political process that we’re living through. Above all, COPINH is a form of struggle. It’s is a dynamic and complex space, which is always moving. There are a number of different foci of COPINH – the struggle for territory, indigenous culture, autonomy, self-determination, the anti-patriarchal struggle, the struggle against racism, and the struggle against capitalism. There’s an effort within the organization to construct a vision against these multiple forms of domination. Our answers to these questions within the resistance have to operate along these multiple dimensions.

And your personal political formation within this process?

COPINH is a school, a space of popular, indigenous and communtarian education. It’s within this space that we’re all constantly learning, relearning, and unlearning.

Can you explain in general terms the different phases of the resistance since the coup of June 28, 2009?

The first thing to mention is that it started with a spontaneous stage that was of historic importance in this country. It emerged out of the indignation with what had just happened. The coup was extraordinary. We couldn’t believe that this could happen in the twenty-first century. There was consequently a tremendous period of agitation, of massive mobilizations, a period of direct struggle against the coup.

But this was also a period of effervescence and diverse creativity – for us, this is one of the richest aspects of the resistance. An unimaginable variety of ideas, proposals, and forms of struggle surged forward against the coup. Social sectors that had not been considered militant moved to the forefront – for example, the youth.

After this initial period another one began with the signing of the San José-Tegucigalpa Accord. From our perspective, this had a dampening and demobilizing effect on the first explosive phase of mobilization, the phase of the unarmed insurrection of the Honduran people. If there had not been this damming of the the process of resistance through the accord we believe it would have been possible to reverse the coup that Micheletti had orchestrated.

But the resistance still didn’t have a sufficient level of debate, development of consciousness, to move beyond the slogans of ending the coup and demanding the return of Mel Zelaya. The latter was an important demand, but there hadn’t yet developed a more strategic perspective.

In light of this absence, a number of organizations started arguing that we had to strengthen the resistance movement, and that would best be achieved through the development of a refoundational position, one that would demand profound, transformative change. Out of this necessity emerged the argument for a foundational (originario), democratic, inclusive, and radical (refundacional) Constituent Assembly. The Honduran people wanted to be listened to. This continues to be one of the principal demands of the struggle.

The resistance movement in general began an expansive – although still inadequate – debate on strategy, as well as on the collective construction and strengthening of the Frente, its national and local structures.

An additional component of the resistance has been the various historic struggles of the Honduran people – the struggle against repression, the struggle against the privatization of water, against the privatization of education, joining the vitally important teachers’ struggle, the anti-mining struggle, and the struggle against the privatization of our forests.

There are a huge number of struggles that the resistance has taken up, and we have to continue with these historic grievances of the Honduran people, including the situation of Afro-Hondurans, the indigenous peoples, and women. But the leadership of the Frente has still not understood that these areas of struggle are fundamentally important to the resistance as a whole, and that we need to integrate each of them as a basic necessity.

Shifting gears slightly, on May 22, 2011 the Cartagena Accord was brokered by the Colombian, Venezuelan, and Honduran governments, facilitating the return of Zelaya and the reintegration of Honduras into the Organization of American States. What is your analysis of the impact of the return of Zelaya in the wake of the accord?

The last return of Zelaya to the country, on May 28, 2011, marks a new phase of the resistance, I believe, but it doesn’t mean the Honduran context has changed fundamentally. We have made a number of criticisms of the Cartagena Accord. Everyone is happy that Zelaya has returned, and his right of return should have always been unconditional. He’s a human being and he has the right to return to his country.

However, we believe that the Cartagena Accord is in accordance with US strategy. Juan Manual Santos, the President of Colombia, played a key role, alongside Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan President. For us it’s unacceptable that someone like Juan Manuel Santos, a recognized backer of paramilitarism in Colombia, and a violator of human rights, is talking about reconciliation and peace. For us, this is unacceptable. Furthermore, it’s unacceptable that Chávez participated in this process without listening to the Honduran resistance, the resistance that is actually here in this country, because the resistance is not reducible to Mel Zelaya.

All of this together, the Cartagena Accord and the reintegration of Honduras into the OAS, ignores the grave violation of human rights in Honduras, which continues systematically, and the militarization and paramilitarization of politics in the country. Honduras has become an industry of paramilitarism, it’s been transformed into a business sector in this country.

Meanwhile, we should not forget that the US began to strengthen its military bases in Honduras immediately after the coup d’état in Honduras, a military presence that we’ve been denouncing for many years – the bases in Caratasca, La Mosquitia, Mocorón, and Guanaja. They have now established one very near Puerto Lempira, and want more bases in the Zona Lenca (which operated during the 1980s as torture camps and bases for counterinsurgency training) . In addition, we have witnessed the militarization of Río Patuco and Río Plátano. Through these mechanisms the US has been positioning itself in the region, and supporting the coup regime.

The economic transnationalization of the country also has to be taken into consideration, with events like Honduras is Open for Business, that took place on May 5 and 6, 2011, in San Pedro Sula. Those of us in COPINH have argued that this event and what it represents, together with the coup d’état, is one of the most nefarious recent blows against the Honduran people. They’re aiming to give away this entire country.

So the context in which Mel Zelaya is returning is one in which the situation of the economy is even worse than it was, respect for human rights has diminished still further, gains won in the past by the women’s movement have been overturned, the situation for young people has worsened, and there has been a further criminalization of social movements.

How has the Frente navigated through this new social and political terrain?

The leadership of the Frente has not responded effectively to this environment. The leadership has not taken into account all the different social forces in the resistance, and therefore hasn’t been able to unify all these forces. They have not taken into account the perspective of Refoundational Space, which, as I mentioned, is demanding profound change.

It has to be pointed out, also, that part of the current leadership – not all of it, but part of it – has even been talking about reconciliation with the regime of Porfirio Lobo, a position which we don’t share whatsoever. We don’t agree with reconciliation because the strategy of the coupists continues, the strategy of assassinations, torture, militarization, and criminalization. And these promise only to become worse.

The looting of the Honduran people has intensified. The pressure for the privatization of natural resources has amplified. They’ve given out concessions for mountain ranges, rivers, and beaches. They’re planning their so-called “model cities,” tourism projects, huge new ports for cruise ships, and floating discotheques for rich people. The beaches in Garífuna communities are being privatized.

We can add to these dynamics the issue of the military bases, the free trade agreement, and the impunity enjoyed by the transnational mining companies. The mining companies are ready and waiting for the reforms that will be introduced in the new mining law which will provide them with even further legal guarantees. So, the situation is fucked. And there needs to be a big internal debate within the resistance that is transparent, honest, and horizontal. This is the only way the Frente won’t be steered, as the US desires, into participating in the 2013 elections.

What is regime’s strategy in the new context, and how is the US responding to recent developments?

The regime wants to promote the image that there has been an advance in the situation of human rights in Honduras. For example, Mario Canahuati, Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the last session of the OAS, hypocritically declared that there had been a massive improvement in respect for human rights in Honduras.

The gringos couldn’t care less if an electoral political force is formed under the banner of the Left, if all of these favourable conditions – of investment, militarization, criminalization of social movements – persist. The US doesn’t care in this context if there is a political force called “the resistance” or “the Left.” This doesn’t worry them. What worries them is the prospect of the resistance and the Left demanding real, transformative changes to these conditions.

To fall into the trap of participating in the 2013 elections would be a huge mistake. We believe that the Frente should continue to be a diverse, multicultural space, rooted in the authentic self-organization of the Honduran people. We hope that the resistance continues in this vein, in this socio-political manner, because we are a crucial socio-political force. Politicians operating through the existing political parties do not have a monopoly on being political. What we’ve been doing is inherently political, with the indigenous peoples, with our struggle. To abandon this path for elections would be to abandon the principles and objectives of the resistance that were defined and determined in past assemblies. This is the biggest challenge that we’ll be up against in the next national assembly of the resistance, on June 26, 2011.

What are the different currents within the resistance, and what are their unique strategic perspectives?

It’s difficult to characterize the different components of the Frente because it’s very complex. The social base of the resistance is extremely diverse. There is no uniformity, even within those spaces of the resistance that are more or less defined. Even within these spaces there are differences, and I think these constitute one of the strengths of the movement. We must not see this as a weakness. These are all expressions of the different perspectives that exist within the Honduran people.

Nonetheless, there are some spaces within the resistance with clear objectives. For example, in Refoundational Space, we’ve argued for the self-organization of a Constituent Assembly, to be achieved through a profound social and political struggle, through mass mobilization from below, building from the barrios and the communities, an inclusive process that would privilege building a path toward transformation rather than merely reforms.

There are other currents within the resistance that argue for the electoral path. They believe that to win elections means to have assumed power. Their idea is to govern the state apparatus, and from there to convene a Constituent Assembly. This is all premised on the supposed legality of the current regime. This is not something with which we can agree. Even before the coup in June 2009, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, for example, backed the electoral law that favoured the continuity of the two-party system (bipartidismo). Not to mention the corruption that exists within the existing institutions, that is phenomenal.

Those advocating an electoral path have a very different conceptualization of power from those of us in Refoundational Space. We believe that power has to be built from below, rather than simply taken. It has to be constructed from below in all of its diversity – a popular, constituent power built from below. From this perspective, the people have to continue preparing themselves in the current moment for their self-organized Constituent Assembly. This is not a theme that can be left to intellectuals and lawyers. It’s a matter of social and political struggle.

There are, furthermore, a number of additional components to the resistance that are based in sectoral struggles, with actors that have very specific demands. It’s extremely complex. There are, for example, those sectors with religious affiliations. And this has generated debate within the women’s movement, over the necessity of a secular state and the abolition of patriarchy. But there are those in the resistance who are religious, and they have their personal options of faith.

There are also rural and urban sectors, intellectuals, and small parties of the Left, parties that don’t have official institutional recognition, but that are authentic parties. Therefore it’s very complex panorama, one that is very difficult to characterize easily, to document all the different tendencies within the resistance. At the same time, we can characterize those currents that are most clearly defined.

Do you think those of you within Refoundational Spacet have sufficient socio-political weight to influence the outcome of the national assembly of the resistance that is to take place on June 26, 2011 – that is, to persuade the assembly to move against participation in the 2013 elections, and to opt instead for a strategy of sustained building of socio-political power from below?

Refoundational Space, rather than being a clearly defined or structured current, is better conceived as a process. We have a number of basic principles, originating from the practice of the various organizations that in part constitute the space. We recognize that one of the most important components of the struggle is to dynamize the resistance through debate, through analysis, but not through personal or particular interests. This perspective has allowed many different social sectors to see Refoundational Space as a process in which these kinds of necessary debates and analysis take place.

Refoundational Space has never had as its objective the conquering of the structures of power within the resistance. We have succeeded in having an influence, though, through the kind of debate we’ve been promoting, for example, in the last national assembly of the resistance that took place in February 2011. We argued against the transformation of the Frente into a political party, and that was the decision adopted by the assembly. We managed to prevent this transformation, and in the face of tremendous disadvantages. Because we don’t control the media within the resistance. What we managed to achieve was an interesting debate, before the February assembly, in the public sphere, and during the assembly itself.

It was very difficult and trying. Within the resistance the task of dismantling machismo, patriarchy, racism, and discrimination remains to be done. These are internal challenges that stand out within the resistance. And when you enter into these political debates, the patterns of oppression I’ve mentioned express themselves. We need to be committed to fighting against these processes, and to make ourselves be heard. This is a crucial point. In the lead up to this next assembly of June 26, 2011, therefore, Refoundational Space has engaged in extensive debate in an effort to arrive at the position we will be advancing.

In the context of this next assembly there is one issue that is incredibly important – that is, the position that Mel Zelaya will adopt. If Zelaya takes a position – within the general space of the Frente, which still lacks sufficient debate and analysis of the real situation that exists in Honduras – and if the position adopted by Zelaya is to steer the struggle of the resistance toward the electoral path, this is what will occur in the assembly.

We are opposed to this kind of caudillismo (big-man leadership), the centralization of the Frente, the concentration of power within the resistance – this is precisely the sort of thing that we have been fighting against. But we can’t pretend that Mel Zelaya doesn’t continue to have significant weight within the resistance. We would like it if he understood this, and played a positive role from his position of leadership, supporting the refoundational process and arguing for the profound changes we need. But we don’t know if this will be possible. In the last assembly it was very important that Zelaya himself was opposed to converting the Frente into an electoral party. But, obviously, at that time he was in exile. Now he’s back in Honduras. So it’s a more complex situation.

If engaging in elections is not the way forward in the current conjuncture, what is the best alternative strategy of struggle from the perspective of the Refoundational Current?

The first thing we would say is that the struggle for building constituent popular power from below has to continue, has to be built, has to be strengthened. And this process of building is a form of preparing ourselves for the self-organized Constituent Assembly that we are demanding, which can take place with sectors of Honduran society that are not necessarily a part of the resistance, but which are progressive social sectors. This is the way forward for the resistance, a path that puts us in confrontation with imperialism.

Once we have achieved this, a Constituent Assembly of this type, participation in elections might be possible. But even then we won’t put aside these other struggles. We won’t leave by the wayside the social struggle, the struggle of social movements, the defence of our communities, the struggle for the self-determination of communities and peoples.

There are different logics at work within the resistance. We are committed to this process of building from below. And if in the June 26th national assembly of the resistance, the Frente decides in favour of participating in the electoral path, our proposal is that they should be able to have the space to participate in elections, but that the FNRP not become an appendix of any new electoral party nor be absorbed within it.

We also argue that it should be the autonomous decision of each popular organization participating within the resistance to decide whether or not it is going to participate within any political apparatus that is oriented toward participation in elections. The structures of the Frente must not serve as the apparatus for this electoral option. The Frente must not be coopted simply for electoral ends. This would result in the dampening of social struggle, and the quelling of the efforts of the refoundational sectors of the resistance in their fight for transformative change. It would institutionalize the Frente. We do not want this. We can see how such processes have played out negatively elsewhere in Latin America.

This theme of electoral participation has generated a huge amount of discussion and impassioned debate. So those within the Frente should have the option, at the individual or organizational level, to participate or not participate in the 2013 elections.

***
Thanks to Karen Spring for all her help organizing interviews. Todd Gordon teaches Politics at York University, Toronto. He is the author of Imperialist Canada. Jeffery R. Webber teaches Politics at Queen Mary, University of London. He is the author of From Rebellion to Reform in Bolivia and Red October: Left-Indigenous Struggles in Modern Bolivia. They are both currently in Tegucigalpa.




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

“dean of the Impressionist painters"..."by virtue of his wisdom and his balanced, kind, and warmhearted personality”



Camille Pissarro (10 July 1830 – 13 November 1903) was a French Impressionist and Neo-Impressionist painter and political anarchist born on the island of St Thomas (now in the US Virgin Islands, but then in the Danish West Indies). His importance resides in his contributions to both Impressionism and Post-Impressionism, as he was the only artist to exhibit in both forms. Pissarro studied from great forerunners, including Gustave Courbet and Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. He later studied and worked alongside Georges Seurat and Paul Signac when he took on the Neo-Impressionist style at the age of 54.

In 1873 he helped establish a collective society of fifteen aspiring artists, becoming the “pivotal” figure in holding the group together and encouraging the other members. Impressionism historian John Rewald called Pissarro the “dean of the Impressionist painters", not only because he was the oldest of the group, but also "by virtue of his wisdom and his balanced, kind, and warmhearted personality”. Cézanne said "he was a father for me. A man to consult and a little like the good Lord," and he was also one of Gauguin's masters. Renoir referred to his work as “revolutionary”, through his artistic portrayals of the "common man", as Pissarro insisted on painting individuals in natural settings without "artifice or grandeur".

Pissarro is the only artist to have shown his work at all eight Paris Impressionist exhibitions, from 1874 to 1886. As a stylistic forerunner of Impressionism, he is today considered a "father figure not only to the Impressionists" but to all four of the major Post-Impressionists, including Paul Cézanne, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin.

from Wikipedia




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!