People Before Profit blog

Robert Reich's Wrecking Ball

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 06:19:00 +0000

12-29-07, 12:32 pm

Robert Reich served under President Clinton as his Secretary of Labor and is proud of the fact that he served what he calls 'one of the most pro-business administrations in American history.' It's hard to think of any administration that wasn't pro-business. Reich has a new book out: Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life. Tony Judt the historian (author of 'Postwar') has written an essay about Reich's book: 'The Wrecking Ball of Innovation (The New York Review of Books, 12-6-2007). The following is a review of Judt's essay. The 'wrecking' is of the regulatory state. The capitalist version of 'smash the state.'

Reich is quoted as saying, 'While Europeans set up cartels and fussed with democratic socialism, America went right to the heart of the matter -- creating democratic capitalism as a planned economy, run by business.' This post war situation [post WW2 that is, we are always in some war or another] was reflected by a 'stable and comfortable equilibrium' (Judt explains) which gave to the American economy, and people, a sense of security and progress.

But the technological innovations and developments, starting in the 70s, which have led to globalization and increased international competition have forced unpleasant adjustments on the American economy; most notably a drive to deregulate American business to make it more competitive globally.

According to Reich this new economic paradigm has shunted democratic values aside in pursuit of corporate profit. 'Supercapitalism,' Reich says, has spilled over into politics, and engulfed democracy.' Ideals based on the common good and common citizenship have been shunted aside.

Judt says this is how Reich sees our current reality. 'But what is to be done?' From Judt's point of view it looks like 'an incipient collapse of the core values and institutions of the republic.' Congress and the Administration as well as the Courts have become creatures of the military industrial complex and a rich elite and regular citizens are left to fend for themselves. Should we organize to fight these forces?

Evidently not, as, Judt says, Reich does not want us draw such conclusions. He thinks no one is to blame for what is happening. 'As citizens,' he says, 'we may feel that inequality on this scale [i.e., 1% reaping 21.2% of national income] cannot possibly be good for a democracy.' Nevertheless, ' the super-rich are not at fault.' Reich says there is no evidence, according to Judt, to think corporations or CEOs have become more greedy or irresponsible.

It is true that business, especially big corporations are not acting in the common interest, but that is not their function, As Judt puts it, 'Economics isn't about ethics.' Corporations exist to make money, and consumers want the best deals. That is just the way it is.

Judt thinks that 'Reich is a technological determinist. New 'technologies have empowered consumers and investors to get better and better deals.' These deals have 'sucked ... social values ... out of the system .... The story of what transpired has no heroes or villains.'

Judt doesn't buy this explanation. He doesn't like the way Reich pigeon holes Americans into 'consumers,' 'investors,' and 'citizens.' Reich: 'As citizens [we] are sincerely concerned about global warming; as consumers and investors [we] are actively turning up the heat.' This doesn't explain the anti-globalization movement nor why people in other countries are more active than we are in trying to solve social problems.

Judt agrees we are living in an age of globalization dominated by international capitalism and that we are constantly told 'as Margaret Thatcher once summarized it: There Is No Alternative.' This is the master narrative of Reich's 'Supercapitalism.'

But Judt, rightly I think, questions, the conclusion, that this all natural and there is nothing we can do, or should do, to try and alter the situation. Reich's formulation leaves politics and democratic choice out of the equation. Four factors seem to be powering our response to globalization, namely PRIVATIZATION, WELFARE REFORM, DEREGULATION, and TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION. What these four factors thrive on is the limitation of the power of the state.

As the state shrinks so does the ability of regular people to exercise democratic control over the masters of industry and the private sector. 'If modern democracies [he means capitalist democracies] are to survive the shock of Reich's 'supercapitalism,'' Judt writes, 'they need to be bound by something more than the pursuit of private economic advantage....'

This is a problem, I think, especially from a Marxist point of view. Morally we may think that globalization, privatization, the lust after money and profit is 'essentially repulsive (Mill)' but that is just how capitalism works. Judt doesn't think the present system can long endure. He thinks the insecurity that globalization and privatization brings to the masses will have political repercussions, such as nationalism and a return to more state power in the form of protectionism. This could lead to nasty consequences.

While, Judt says, 'it may be true that globalization and 'supercapitalism' reduce differences between countries, they typically amplify inequality within them -- in China, for instance, or the US -- with disruptive political implications.'

Judt thinks we may have to reconsider a return to the 20th century regulatory state in order to maintain bourgeois democracy because 'in a world increasingly polarized between insecure individuals and unregulated global forces, the legitimate authority of the democratic state may be the best kind of intermediate institution we can devise.'

But I don't think a return to the past is a good answer. The bourgeois democratic state has failed to protect the interests of the masses of working and middle class people, and indeed even of the physical environment. This has been, as well, the case (with a few exceptions) of the authoritarian workers states of the past century.

The state as an 'intermediate institution', as a referee between the classes, has failed in the past because it was a creature of one of the classes, the corporate classes and to return to this model would be fruitless. The struggle of this century is to build a working people's politics based on a socialist solution eventuating in the abolition of privatization with respect to the major industrial and financial institutions fueling globalization. Only then will dreams of a harmonious society begin to make sense.

--Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

10 New Year's Resolutions to Take on Global Warming

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:38:00 +0000

12-27-07, 9:41 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: My New Year’s Resolution is to reduce my “carbon footprint” to help fight global warming. Do you have suggestions for ways I can make good on my promise? -- Carrie, via e-mail

There’s never been a more urgent time to reduce your carbon footprint. With the U.S. government still opting out of mandatory emissions cuts, it’s up to every individual, business owner and city or state government to take steps. So here are 10 ways to get you started in the new year:

(1) Step-up Recycling and Composting. Recycling prevents carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by saving the energy it takes to make products from new materials and by saving the energy it takes to incinerate or landfill what we discard. And composting food scraps turns organic material back into fertile soil, which itself is an efficient carbon “sink.” To get started, see: and .

(2) Stay close or stay put: About half the CO2 we generate comes from our car trips, so walk, bike or take mass transit instead. Air travel also produces huge amounts of CO2, so the less you fly, the smaller your carbon footprint. See: .

(3) Eat organic and local: Stick to foods produced organically and you prevent harmful pesticides and fertilizers from polluting air, waterways, soils and family members. And if the food is grown nearby, thousands of pounds of CO2 weren’t emitted getting it to your grocery store. See: .

(4) Buy green power. Your power company might just source part of its supply from renewable sources like hydro-electric or wind, and will sell it to customers who know to ask for it. See: .

(5) Change out your lightbulbs. A compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) uses less than a third of the energy of an incandescent bulb to produce the same amount of light—and it lasts 10 times longer. And some CFLs now have 3-way capabilities and can be dimmed. Visit Energy Federation, Inc. at: .

(6) Upgrade and unplug: Upgrading any appliances (including computers and TVs)? Be sure to look for the “Energy Star” logo, which only energy efficient models can wear. Also, turn off appliances when not in use to prevent wasting so-called phantom energy coming in off the grid. See: www.energystar.gov.

(7) Adjust your thermostats: If you don’t need a sweater indoors, your heat is too high. Likewise, in hot weather turn down the AC. Also, keeping your hot water at no more than 120 degrees—the minimum temperature to keep the water bacteria-free—is another way to save energy, money and the environment.

(8) Plant a tree…or 300! An average tree stores 13 pounds of carbon per year; a mature tree can absorb upwards of four times that amount. Just 300 trees can counterbalance the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that one person produces in a lifetime. So get to work! See: .

(9) Buy offsets: Many organizations sell “carbon offsets,” whereby you pay a voluntary fee to offset your daily CO2 emissions. The money usually goes to develop alternative, renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar. See: www.climatetrust.org, www.nativeenergy.com and www.my-climate.com.

(10) Get involved: Donate time or money to groups working to fight global warming. Just about all green groups devote some work to climate change, and they need your help. See: www.volunteermatch.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.co//earthtalk/archives.php.

Newly Displaced in Northern Iraq Considering Alternative Livelihoods

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:37:00 +0000

12-27-07, 9:37 am

BAGHDAD, 26 December 2007 (IRIN) - Nearly 4,000 people have fled their homes in Iraq’s northern semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan over the past two weeks in the wake of Turkish bombardments of rebel hideouts, a local official said on 26 December.

'Since 16 December when Turkish warplanes renewed their bombing of the borders, nearly 700 families, about 4,000 people, have fled their villages, leaving everything behind,' said Mohammed Khalil, a spokesman for the Regional Displacement and Immigration Directorate.

Some are beginning to realize that they may not be able to return home soon and are considering alternative livelihoods in the cities and towns to which they have fled.

'The villagers’ displacement is still continuing… and could get out of control. Some of these families have lost their cattle or have seen their homes… demolished,' Khalil told IRIN in a phone interview.

The affected families had gone to relatives’ and friends’ houses but these hosts could not provide shelter for long, he said. As yet no camps have been set up. Aid supplies are being dispatched, in cooperation with local officials in each area, he added.

In search of a new life

Hama Numan Jalil, speaking from a relative’s house in Arbil, said it had become unbearable to live in the border area.

'I lost all my animals last week: nine cows, 18 sheep and 14 goats which we depend on for a living,' Jalil, a 65-year-old father of eight, told IRIN in a phone interview.

'We left everything behind - our home, which is partially damaged, and our land, and now we have ended up here at my cousin's home in the city; my cousin has 10 sons to feed already,' Jalil said.

Jalil is now thinking about taking two of his sons out of school to help feed the family.

'This conflict looks like it will go on for a long time. We have to think seriously about finding new ways to make a living. The boys can sell items on the roadside or work as masons or drivers,' he said.

Recent military action

The most recent attack was on 26 December when Turkish warplanes hit eight suspected Kurdish rebel hideouts, according to Turkey's military, quoted by media reports.

The warplanes targeted eight caves and other hideouts used by the rebels in an 'effective pinpoint operation' after spotting a group of rebels in the hideouts, the military said in a statement posted on its website.

The 26 December strikes were the third confirmed aerial operations against the rebels since 16 December. The military has also confirmed it sent in ground troops to hunt down the rebels on 18 December.

Turkey's military said on 25 December that over 200 Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq had been hit since 16 December and that hundreds of rebels had been killed.

UNHCR concerned

On 18 December the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) expressed concern about the increasing number of people being driven from their homes by the shelling.

'We are very concerned about the displacement of people in northern Iraq caused by the ongoing shelling by Turkey and have urgently dispatched supplies to help those who fled, leaving everything behind,' UNHCR spokesperson Astrid van Genderen Stort said.

“Winter has set in and living conditions are very harsh, particularly for host families which now have to care for additional people,' van Genderen Stort said.

She said many of those displaced could not afford to pay monthly rents of US$200-$300 for accommodation.

Non-food items such as blankets, mattresses, stoves, lanterns and other relief goods were distributed by the UNHCR to the most needy families in Sulaimaniyah and Arbil but there was still an urgent need for kerosene.

This new wave of displaced people adds to the approximately 2.4 million who have been driven from their homes to other parts of Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. Some 2.2 million have also fled to neighbouring countries, mostly to Syria and Jordan, according to the UNHCR.

From IRIN News

US Majority Opposes Iraq War

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:34:00 +0000

12-27-07, 9:34 am

Washington, Dec 26 (Prensa Latina) Most US citizens are against continuing of the war in Iraq, according to polls by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.

According to the surveys, 68 percent of US residents demand the end of the conflagration and 69 support the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Besides, 59 percent of the people polled considered that none of the sides is winning the conflict, while 11 percent thinks that after nearly five years of confrontations the Iraqi rebels are winning.

Since the beginning of the aggression led by Washington on March, 2003 over 3,890 US soldiers died and another 28,000 have been wounded in that nation.

A previous poll, from CNN also, showed that most of US people remain deeply skeptical regarding President George W Bush's policies in respect to Iraq war.

The US TV's poll showed that the chief of the White House is only backed by 36 percent of the citizens at the moment.

Opinion Research interviewed over 1,017 adults in the last few weeks with a margin of error of three percent.

From Prensa Latina

Venezuela Enters Fifth Consecutive Year of Economic Growth

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:26:00 +0000

12-27-07, 9:29 am

Paraguaná, December 20, 2007, (venezuelanalysis.com) - The Venezuelan economy enters its fifth consecutive year of sustained growth in 2008, according to predictions from the Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL). Venezuela had the third fastest growing economy in the region for 2007, but the growing demand of the domestic market could create problems of undersupply in 2008, say some analysts.

Venezuela led the region in 2007 with a growth rate of 8.5 percent, surpassed only by Argentina (8.6 percent) and Panama (9.5 percent), a CEPAL report said last week. The region as a whole grew by 5.6 percent, finishing its fifth consecutive year of economic expansion, in spite of high levels of inflation and social spending that were criticized by some experts.

The economic expansion is the greatest in 40 years and should continue through 2008, although at a slightly slower rate, said the report. CEPAL attributes the growth in part to the growing demand from China and India, as well as the recovery of Brazil. As a result, since 2003, around 31 million Latin Americans have been able to pull themselves out of poverty.

The economic growth has allowed Venezuela to improve in many respects, including an improved purchasing power among its population of around 8 percent annually from 2004-2007, only surpassed by Uruguay at 10 percent annually.

The unemployment rate reached its lowest point in November at 6.3 percent, according to the National Institute of Statistics (INE), a decrease of 2.5 percent from 2006, and the formal sector of the economy showed an increase from 2006, reaching 55.6 percent of the work force. Venezuela also maintains one of the highest minimum wages in the region.

The situation has also allowed Venezuela to drastically increase its social spending, as well as reduce its external debt. Venezuela led the region in social spending with an expansion of 37 percent in 2006-2007, surpassed only by Argentina with 43 percent.

The Venezuelan government has approved a budget for 2008 of Bs. 137.5 billion (US$ 63.9 billion) with an emphasis on increased social spending. 46 percent of the 2008 budget is directed toward social programs and projects, reported Prensa Latina, with the government “missions” alone receiving Bs. 5.6 billion (US$ 2.58 billion), a 61.5 percent increase from the 2007 budget.

External debt was reduced by US$ 1 billion during 2007, according to the director of the National Office of Public Credit, Luis Davila. Total external debt is currently US$ 26 billion, said Davila, and will not be increased in 2008. Internal debt will also be maintained around the current level of US$ 6 billion in 2008, he said.

But Venezuela’s sustained growth has created an increased demand among the population that could create problems in 2008, according to some analysts. Ex-director of the Central Bank of Venezuela, Domingo Maza Zavala, warned that 2008 will be a “difficult, complicated, and unpredictable” year for Venezuela for various reasons, and recommended that the government change its policy on price controls.

Zavala warned about the increase of imported goods in recent years, and insisted that the government needs to take measures in 2008 to assure supply in the domestic market. In his opinion, the most urgent measure to be taken is increased flexibility in the government price controls.

“If effective measures aren’t taken to supply the market of the most-demanded goods, the situation will continue as it is now, with the consequence that the sectors with lowest income suffer the most,” he said.

The ex-director of the Central Bank insisted that the government will need to have dialog with the various productive sectors of the economy to achieve a successful policy of price controls and supply. He also warned of continued high inflation (18.6 percent in the first 11 months of 2007) for which he said the causes have not been attended to.

However, Venezuelan Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas announced on Wednesday that the national government was analyzing the possibility of increasing the flexibility of price controls on some goods. Although he didn’t give details, Cabezas explained that they would be developing an “extraordinary plan” for 2008 to supply the domestic market and control inflation.

Cabezas noted that last week’s decision to loosen the price controls on some types of milk is a part of the government’s plan to make price controls in general more flexible, but he assured that they would not totally remove controls.

Since 2003, the national government has maintained price controls on around 400 basic goods and services to guarantee their supply to all sectors of the population. National production has increased in recent years, but imports have also increased due to the growing purchasing power and demand of the Venezuelan population.

The Venezuelan economy is expected to continue to grow in 2008 at a rate of between 7 and 8 percent.

From

On the 2008 Russian Presidential Election

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:20:00 +0000

12-27-07, 9:25 am

We are entering a new stage in the political battle, the presidential elections of March 2, 2008.

The previous stage the parliamentary elections has proved to be a serious test for the people. Never has society faced such crude coercion to go and vote for the party in power, followed by large-scale rigging of the election returns. Everything was pressed into service: massive administrative pressure, persistent brainwashing over television, numerous bogus parties, ballot stuffing, voting by absentee ballot faking of protocols of election commissions and so on.

The CPRF was confronted not with a political party. Fighting against us was the bureaucratic-oligarchic state apparatus disguised as the United Russia party. Hence the results of the 'poll' which no reasonable person can trust. The bureaucracy and the oligarchy have managed to hold on to power only through gross violations of the law and universally accepted norms of conscience and human morality.

The CPRF is the only real opposition party that stood its ground in the face of crude pressure and falsifications. We have gained new supporters. We have increased the number of votes by half a million compared with the 2003 elections. We offered society a massive program of reviving Russia and have managed to convey it to the people by spreading tens of millions of copies of the newspapers Pravda and Sovetskaya Rossiya.

Almost two-thirds of the electorate 65 million people either stayed away from the polls or failed to vote for Putin and his United Russia. However the current regime may brag about its electoral victory, it is unable to hide the fact that it does not have the support of the majority of the people.

What happened during the elections for the Duma cannot but leave the whole nation with a feeling of anxiety. And those who have again obediently voted for the ruling party whether out of false loyalty, time-serving, careerism or sheer indifference are unlikely to feel joy. The sense of anxiety and disquiet undoubtedly grew stronger after the Kremlin's cynical moves made shortly after the elections.

Now any sober-thinking person can see that our society is being openly and brazenly manipulated. Without asking anyone, new tsars, viziers and overlords are being foisted on the people. They are all recruited from a department of the former Leningrad City Council. We see a reshuffling of one and the same stack of cards consisting of personal friends and courtiers loyal to their leader and lusting for power and money. Meanwhile the country and the world are being told that they are concerned to preserve the Constitution, to preserve legality, democracy and justice.

In fact what we are offered is to have, in addition to a legitimate president and government and other constitutional bodies, a national leader standing above all and determining the country's destiny under some unknown mandate.

We are offered to have a docile parliament totally controlled by an unconstitutional leader, consisting of three or four hundred people who have no other program or convictions except the readiness to serve the oligarchy.

They are imposing on us the power of United Russia party which in reality is not a party at all. It is a bureaucratic structure disguised as a political organization. It is the product of the alchemists in the presidential administration who have concocted a monstrous instrument of total control over the life of the Russian state and society.

We are being told that the country is experiencing an economic, defense, cultural and scientific upsurge whereas in reality industry is not performing, agriculture is in disarray, the army is not capable of fighting, science is neglected, and national culture has been overrun by foreign-made apologies for culture.

We are told that incomes are rising and abundance is about to become reality whereas the country is in the grip of poverty.

We are told about the free press whereas every kid in Russia knows that there is no such freedom, instead there is ruthless and brazen censorship, total control over the media, above all electronic media.

Putin's plans and the vertical power structure he has created is a mockery of democracy and constitutional order. Before our eyes Russia is turning into a gigantic 'Potemkin village with oil towers,' it is sinking ever deeper in the morass of lies, semi-feudal authoritarianism and Russophobia. It is time to stop. It is time to put things in order and to respect ourselves.

We renew our appeal to all the thinking voters, to the people who want to understand things, who resist being turned into zombies by the TV box and who care about the destiny of their Homeland. Ultimately it is up to you to decide how to live in the future. But we again urge you to pause and think. And it is up to you to compare whose views are closer to the truth and to act as common sense, duty and conscience bid you.

We are the heirs of the party which had ensured the resurgence of the country after a devastating Civil War and had done everything to create a modern industry and defeat fascism. Not everything had been cloudless in our history, as indeed in the history of many other states. We admit the mistakes committed in the past and we do not absolve ourselves from the responsibility for them.

But simultaneously we remind you that it was under Soviet government that our country had become a real world power and was the first to conquer outer space. Everyone had a job and a decent wage. Education and medical care were free. Housing and summer vacations were very cheap. Any students, not to speak of people who worked, could afford to fly to Moscow or to the south and back on their government grants. Children went to sports schools and amateur circles. There was practically no drug addiction. Every person was confident of his future. Our country commanded enormous respect in the world. In the times of the USSR NATO would not have launched its aggression against Yugoslavia, let alone penetrate the expanse that had been Russian over thousands of years.

With the advent of Yeltsin and those who succeeded him new times began.

A handful of tightwads 2-3% – are prosperous while the majority of the people live in poverty. The official difference between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% is 15 times, while some experts put it at 30-40 times. In Europe the ratio is 1 to 5-7.

The economy is addicted to oil and gas revenues. Healthcare and education are becoming inaccessible for ordinary citizen. Food and energy prices are growing day by day. Crime is rampant throughout the country. Once again there are millions of street children and illiterates. In terms of the human development index Russia has dropped to 65th place, trailing right behind Libya, an African country which is in 64th place.

And this in spite of the fact that we are the richest country in the world. The amount of natural riches in Russia is 160,000 dollars per person, in the US 16,000 and in Europe 6,000. But we live far worse than they. Why? Because the natural resources and the money are being taken abroad, enriching the handful of oligarchs and their Western masters.

What is the essence of the CPRF position? To stop the looting of Russia and to run it in a way that would make every person comfortable. We disagree with the gross injustice. Why has a tiny part of the population grabbed huge riches created by several generations of our fathers and grandfathers? They do not invest in the development of production, instead they buy castles in France, yachts in Italy and football clubs in England. Russia has the second largest number of billionaires in the world, but is close to the bottom of the list in terms of life expectancy. Is that normal? Why is it that while the government keeps 600 billion dollars in foreign banks, teachers and doctors get puny salaries, peasants can barely make ends meet and the average pension 3000-3500 rubles is about half of what is spent on a prison inmate? Can one live decently on such pensions, especially considering the constantly growing prices?

We are categorically against working people becoming paupers in Russia. Why is it that out of 74 million of able-bodied people, 55 million earn less than 5,000 rubles a month and the living minimum is set at 2600 rubles, which is 700 rubles less than the world poverty line. Why is it that out of every 100 dollars of oil revenues only 34 go into the Russian treasury compared with 60 in the US, 82 in Norway and 91 in the Emirates? Could this be one of the reasons why the people are steeped in poverty?

A lot of publicity has been given to the national projects in the field of public health, education and housing. But simultaneously rural schools, hospitals and medical centers are being dismantled. Healthcare and education are no longer free of charge, their quality is deteriorating and the price of a square meter of housing floor space is so high that even a family with a medium income cannot afford it.

Many candidates are trying to garner votes by giving lavish promises which they are not going to fulfill. The plans of Putin and his team, as witnessed by their 8 years in power, are no more than a set of good wishes aimed at misleading the people, robbing them and pampering the Russian billionaires.

The CPRF rejects these plans. It is entering the presidential election with its own clear idea of what needs to be done.

What do we propose?

We have a minimum program that is to be implemented immediately. Its aim is to pull the country away from the edge of the abyss on which it has been teetering for many years and into which it will immediately slide as soon as the windfall profits from oil cease. The maximum program is to ensure stable and worthy living standards for all Russian citizens without exception by reviving the economy and the spirituality of Russia and restoring our positions in the world.

The CPRF is confident that the life of the people can be greatly improved if the looting of the country is stopped, industry and agriculture are restored and everybody gets a job. We are a fabulously rich country. We have absolutely everything: unique natural resources, talented, industrious and well-educated people. We have a great history and traditions. We have huge assets frozen in Western banks. We have everything to modernize the economy and improve people's lives.

What to start with?

It is necessary to review the anti-people laws adopted since 1991: the cash-for-benefits reform and 'mandatory auto insurance', the Land, Water, Housing and Labour Codes.

The CPRF demands nationalization of the country's natural resources and strategic industries: power, the military-industrial complex, transport and communications. To introduce a government monopoly on the production and sale of alcohol and tobacco. The oligarchy must give back to society the riches grabbed during the free-for-all of the 1990s. Nationalization of big industries will be combined with measures to support small and medium business. Only then will there be money for decent wages, pensions and stipends, for housing, free education and healthcare.

It is necessary to bring back to Russia the money of the Stabilization Fund and invest it in the modernization of the industry and agriculture, the revival of science, culture, education, public health and the army.

No less than 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP) should go to fund education, 4% (and eventually up to 8%) to fund science and at least 3.5% for the armed forces.

Already at least 15% of the state budget should be allocated to support the agro-industrial complex and rural development. We must seek a parity of prices for industrial and agricultural products. Revive the system of consumer cooperatives. The purchase and sale of land must be cancelled. Schools, medical and cultural facilities must be restored everywhere in rural areas.

The CPRF is confident that the living minimum and the minimum wage must be not 2600 rubles, as now, but 10,000-12,000 rubles. Pensions must be raised by 3-4 times to equal at least 50% of the wage (and not 24%, as now). The allowance for the birth of a child should be 30,000-50,000 rubles and the monthly child allowance 1500 rubles. It is the duty of the state to control these prices.

Taxes should be redistributed to leave 60% to the regions and 40% to the federal center. People whose wages are under 10,000 rubles must be exempt from taxes. And the superrich should pay an income tax not of 13%, as now, but at least 30%. Housing loans must be offered on easy terms, at an interest of not more than 5% per annum. The birth of the first child should lead to 25% of the loan being forgiven, and of the second child, to a 50% write-off. A family with three children should have an interest-free loan.

All that can realistically be accomplished. Remember that under Soviet government the minimum wage was 100 rubles (equivalent to 10,000 today). The average pension was 90 rubles (9,000). There were no unemployed people in the country, the crime rate was very low and education and healthcare were free. We will steadfastly work to restore all this.

What else? To immediately start repayment of the bank deposits of which the people were robbed during the Yeltsin-Gaidar 'reforms'. Why are we bending over backwards to pay off the debts to Western countries but stubbornly refuse to repay the debts to our population? We are categorically against it. Corruption must be curbed and the death penalty for very serious crime must be restored.

What is the difference between us and the other political forces which have nominated candidates for president? For the uninitiated it may be a confusing question. The party of power which comprises United Russia, LDPR, Fair Russia, the Agrarian Party and the Civil Force have taken to aggressive rhetoric about patriotism and social justice. Only a few years ago only the communists spoke about it. All the rest were extolling the virtues of the 'free market' and 'Western values'. Today they are all disguising themselves as parties of 'fairness' trying to hijack the ideas and slogans from the communists.

But United Russia and its vassals could have long implemented everything they promise their voters today. The windfall oil profits have been flowing into Russia for many years, yet it was only on the eve of the elections that the authorities decided to share a tiny fraction of them with the people. Once the elections are over these crumbs, and even more, will be taken back.

The main difference between the CPRF and the self-proclaimed 'champions of the people' is that our commitment to the people's good and patriotism have been tested. Another difference of the CPRF from other parties is that they all give lavish promises to the voters, but these are mere words. We are convinced that a rapid improvement of people's lives can only be achieved on a solid economic basis. And that can only be done by nationalizing strategic and simultaneously the most profitable branches of the economy, restoring the normal operation of industry and agriculture.

We are not calling for turning the clock back. We call people to move forward towards a new socialism that meets the realities of present-day Russia and the world, a socialism cleansed of past mistakes and delusions.

The whole humanity, including China and Latin America, is moving towards socialism. China chose its successful road to socialism long ago, and today it is the fastest growing economy in the world. China has become the workshop of the world. It is building 20 automobile plants, first-class roads and is preparing a mission to the Moon.

Latin America only recently turned to socialism. After decades of painful wavering it chose to follow Cuba and not the USA. For it is the only road towards salvation from abject poverty and the plunder by the 'market economy'. They have already covered the road to the market which Russia is following today and they have firmly opted for socialism.

Russia will inevitably resume its march towards socialism. The sooner we change the country's course the sooner we will return to a worthy life.

On whom can we lean in implementing our plans?

We are deeply grateful to the veterans who refused to be bribed by handouts from the government and remained our staunch supporters. We appreciate those who, while not sharing our ideology, have nonetheless honestly recognized the CPRF as the only alternative to the current robber government. We are aware of a major change of political sentiments in the country.

Not only the older generation votes for the CPRF, but increasingly people in the prime of life, the most thinking and able-bodied part of the people. The CPRF wins 30-35% of the votes in research centers and high technology centers. They are not CPRF members. These are people who take an unbiased view of the situation in the country and realize that the present course will inevitably lead it to a collapse. They realize that Russia needs an influential opposition and only the CPRF is capable of putting Russia back on the road to reconstruction and prosperity.

Only the pampered bureaucracy, the barrack rooms on pain of punishment, the inmates of prisons and mental hospitals vote for the current authorities. We get the votes of free people: universities and science cities. People concerned about the destinies of their country and their families increasingly vote for us. People who are beginning to understand that only socialism can ensure the development of the country as a whole and every citizen in particular.

Contrary to the claims about sagging support for our party, its social base is constantly growing because the people cannot but see the futility of the present power of bureaucrats and oligarchs. The people cannot help comparing their recent good past with the ugly setup imposed on them under the label of a 'market economy' and 'Western values'.

The people are for social justice and patriotism. And these are precisely the values championed by the communists.

We appeal to the honest voter. If you think that our life is wonderful vote for the candidate of United Russia and its vassals, for the candidate of the party of oligarchs and bureaucrats. If you think that this life needs to be changed in some ways, back CPRF, the party of the working people. Other candidates are there just to catch votes and divert attention from the country's pressing problems. If you support them your votes will go to the candidate of the party in power.

We appeal to the thinking voter. Very much depends on you. You can stay away from the polls. You can go to the polls and obediently vote for the party in power. But then things will not only remain as they are, they will become worse.

We appeal to the patriotic voter. Support the CPRF. Our country can and must be revived. By voting for us you will also vote for your future.

--Gennady Zyuganov chairs the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and is its candidate for President of the Russian Federation.

Why Isn't Recycling Mandatory?

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:07:00 +0000

12-26-07, 10:11 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: I can’t understand why it is not mandatory to recycle in the U.S. In my home we recycle 80 percent and toss 20 percent and I am trying to improve those percentages. What needs to happen to make recycling the law of the land? -- Vicki, Geneva, NY

Mandatory recycling is a hard sell in the U.S., where the economy runs largely along free market lines and landfilling waste remains inexpensive and efficient. When the research firm Franklin Associates examined the issue a decade ago, it found that the value of the materials recovered from curbside recycling was far less than the extra costs of collection, transportation, sorting and processing incurred by municipalities.

Plain and simple, recycling still costs more than landfilling in most locales. This fact, coupled with the revelation that the so-called “landfill crisis” of the mid-1990s may have been overblown—most of our landfills still have considerable capacity and do not pose health hazards to surrounding communities—means that recycling has not caught on the way some environmentalists were hoping it would.

However, many cities have found ways to recycle economically. They have cut costs by scaling back the frequency of curbside pickups and automating sorting and processing. They’ve also found larger, more lucrative markets for the recyclables, such as in developing countries eager to reuse our cast-off items. Increased efforts by green groups to educate the public about the benefits of recycling have also helped. Today, dozens of U.S. cities are diverting upwards of 30 percent of their solid waste streams to recycling.

While recycling remains an option for most Americans, a few cities, such as Pittsburgh, San Diego and Seattle, have made recycling mandatory. Seattle passed its mandatory recycling law in 2006 as a way to counter declining recycling rates there. Recyclables are now prohibited from both residential and business garbage. Businesses must sort for recycling all paper, cardboard and yard waste. Households must recycle all basic recyclables, such as paper, cardboard, aluminum, glass and plastic. Businesses with garbage containers “contaminated” with more than 10 recyclables are issued warnings and eventually fines if they don’t comply. Household garbage cans with recyclables in them are simply not collected until the recyclables are removed to the recycling bin. Meanwhile, a handful of other cities, including Gainesville, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii, require businesses to recycle, but not yet residences.

In perhaps the most famous case of a city putting recycling to the economic test, New York, a national leader on recycling, decided to stop its least cost-effective recycling programs (plastic and glass) in 2002. But rising landfill costs ate up the $39 million savings expected. As a result, the city reinstated plastic and glass recycling and committed to a 20-year contract with the country’s largest private recycling firm, Hugo Neu Corporation, which built a state-of-the art facility along South Brooklyn’s waterfront. There, automation has streamlined the sorting process, and its easy access to rail and barges has cut both the environmental and transportation costs previously incurred by previously using trucks. The new deal and new facility have made recycling much more efficient for the city and its residents, proving once and for all that responsibly run recycling programs can actually save money, landfill space and the environment.

CONTACTS: Franklin Associates, www.fal.com; Recycling in Seattle, www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Recycling; Hugo Neu Corporation, www.hugoneu.com

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Iraqi Labor Unions, Class Struggle and the Role of Women

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:01:00 +0000

12-26-07, 10:05 am

International Trade Union Confederation: Spotlight interview with Hashemiyya Muhsin Hussein (Iraq - GFIW)

Brussels, 28 November 2007: Defying the anti-union legislation inherited from the old regime, which prohibits unions in public services, fighting to improve the poor wage and health and safety conditions… many are the challenges facing Hashemiyya M. Hussein, president of the Electricity Workers’ Union of Basra. Also a member of the Executive of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers of Basra and the ICEM Women’s Committee for the Middle East and North Africa, Hashemiyya embodies the very active trade unionism in this southern region of Iraq, where insecurity is nonetheless rife.

How did your Electricity Workers’ Union come to defy the ban on unions in public services?

In 1987, the regime of Saddam Hussein banned all unions in public services. The private sector unions managed to survive, but under the authorities’ control. In 2003, when the old regime fell, a number of unions regrouped. That’s what happened in my sector – electricity. After setting up regional committees throughout the country, we held a conference, in 2004, to set up a leadership structure for the union. Two years later, in June 2006, union elections were held, and I was elected president of the Electricity Workers’ Union for the Basra region. That’s how we defied the ban on unions in public services.

Why, in your view, were you elected to this leadership post?

During the two years running up to the elections, I had worked very hard to press ahead with the demands of the workers in this sector and was able to secure a number of advances, such as a pay review. Prior to that, there had been huge disparities in the wage scale, with the least experienced and lowest skilled workers receiving very poor wages. Thanks to our struggle, we were able to secure a less unequal wage scale

What are the main problems facing workers in the electricity sector?

There are many problems. Aside from the extremely difficult situation in terms of insecurity and pauperization, affecting the population as a whole, the preservation of labour legislation that was in force under Saddam Hussein’s regime, which prohibits unions in public services, is a major problem. Even though it’s forbidden, we nevertheless continue to work as unions. The new authorities, by decree 8750 passed in 2005, have frozen all access to trade union assets on Iraqi territory (with the exception of Kurdistan), thus stopping us from having a financial situation that would allow us to operate normally. That is the second greatest difficulty.

What kind of image do unions have among the general public?

Illustration de l´article Many workers are oblivious to trade unionism. The situation is better now in the electricity sector thanks to the concrete results achieved by the trade union, through our negotiations with the Electricity Ministry, for example. The strike of last July did a lot to improve the image of the union.

What were the demands put forward by the strikers?

There were many, such as the demand for the reform of the law prohibiting unions in public services, or a pay rise for the day laborers, who are very poorly paid as compared with those receiving a monthly wage. We were also protesting at the wage arrears, and raised the issue of workers exposed to uranium, some of whom have contracted serious illnesses. The Ministry accepted our demand to conduct an inquiry into these serious work-related health problems, so that measures can be foreseen to protect these workers. Similarly, we demanded that efforts be made to ensure the maintenance of electrical equipment that represents a danger for the workers, and the authorities also agreed to examine the question, so that the risk of accidents can be reduced.

Do women workers face specific difficulties?

Illustration de l´article The law provides for gender equality in the electricity sector, but the fact is that some departments discriminate against women when it comes to awarding bonuses or giving promotions. There is a great deal of women working in this sector. During the war between Iran and Iraq, the men left for the front and so women replaced them on a wide scale, which is why there are so many of them now.

Four million Iraqis have fled their homes, half to take refuge in other regions of the country and the other half to go abroad. How has this massive exile affected your sector?

The most qualified and experienced workers have left, creating serious problems in terms of the loss of skills and experience.

Murders, abductions, violence… What is the perception of the widespread insecurity suffered by the Iraqi people as a whole, and that targets trade unionists in particular?

Anyone who is considered to be working against any group or party or faction automatically becomes a target of the other side. Trade unionists are greatly affected. Public opinion, moreover, sees being a trade unionist as being synonymous with taking a huge risk. The security situation is even worse in the Basra region than in Baghdad. There are many murders everyday. People live in a constant state of fear.

How do your family and those close to you feel about your trade union involvement and the risks it entails?

There are two types of reactions. There are those who are afraid and try to discourage me, and then there are those who support me and are proud of me.

Aside from being a trade unionist, is being a woman an added source of danger?

People write slogans on the walls of the markets and other public places against women, against women who work and against women who do not wear the veil. The simple fact of working is dangerous for a woman. But many women have no alternative, because of their financial difficulties. Yes, the fact that I am a woman has made things very difficult as well, but I didn’t want to give up and so I fought for this position, even though I received death threats against myself and even against my son.

What drives you to take so many risks?

I profoundly believe in my work to improve conditions for working men and women.

What role do women occupy in trade unions?

There are many women among the 1700 union members, but only four out of the 49 leading members of the Basra union are women. Because of mentalities and the insecurity, their families put pressure on them not to take risks.

Do you have relations with women’s organizations that form part of Iraqi civil society?

Yes, we organize seminars, for example, to which the various women’s organizations are invited. When we hold these seminars, we manage to get women trade unionists to come from the various regions of Iraq (1).

What kind of relations do you have with the international trade union movement?

We are in contact with the ICEM (the International Federation of Chemical, Mine, Energy and General Workers’ Unions), to which our union affiliated this year. I am a member of its women’s committee for the Middle East and North Africa.

I have also taken part in several international trade union missions abroad, in Great Britain and the United States, for example, where I met with trade unionists from the “Labor Against War” movement, as well as many people from the media. We have a lot of contact with other countries, via Internet.

Interview by Natacha David

(1) The ITUC supports regular training activities for Iraqi trade unionists. In March, the ITUC also supported a conference in Amman, attended by ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder, bringing together Iraqi union leaders and representatives from the World Bank and the IMF. The ITUC, in conjunction with the ILO and its other partner organizations, has on numerous occasions condemned the murders and violent attacks committed against several Iraqi trade unionists. The international trade union movement is drawing special attention to the Iraqi oil sector, which is threatened by the proposed Hydrocarbon law that runs counter to workers’ interests.

From International Trade Union Confederation

Outcomes of the ANC Conference

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:48:00 +0000

12-26-07, 10:00 am

The African National Congress national conference drew to a close today as votes were being counted for a new national executive committee and with a public address and press conference by its new president Jacob Zuma.

Winnie Mandela topped the list of votes in the polling for the new leadership body. Communist Party leader Blade Nzimande also received a high vote and was 11th. Communist leaders, Charles Nqkula and Ronnie Kasrils, both of who hold important post in the current government, however were not re-elected, but others were.

Zuma, in a conciliatory address stressed the need to build unity in the post conference period: 'The conference is now behind us and we will continue to work together to unite and build a stronger ANC,' he said.

The new ANC president stressed continuity in terms of economic and political policy:

'We have taken various resolutions at this conference, which will guide us on our way forward. ANC policies, including economic policies that have been adopted at this conference do not indicate a fundamental shift from the policies that the ANC has adopted since it has come into power. Let me reiterate that decisions with regards to policies in the ANC are taken by conference and not by an individual.'

Prior to the conference Zuma visited India, Great Britain and the US to insure investors that the new leadership’s economic policy would not shift. The conference however did reaffirm its earlier policy conference decision to embark on a new industrial policy, public works, and more state investment. The Stratfor Corporation, an intelligence company among whose biggest client is the CIA, sponsored Zuma’s US visit.

In an important policy plank Zuma highlighted the importance the new leadership took to the issue of land reform:

'Comrades, the conference has taken an important resolution on agrarian revolution, calling for a 30% redistribution of land by 2014 and support for subsistence farming and food security while maintaining a productive agricultural sector.'

Zuma returned to the unity theme a number of times in his speech, noting the role of President Mbeki, calling him 'brother,' 'comrade,' and 'my leader'. On the unity of the organization he stressed that the meet was not:

'ANC Conference of victors and losers. As the newly elected NEC we will endeavor to work with all the comrades who did not make it to this NEC to ensure that the unity of the ANC is strengthened. We are all ANC members who just happened to prefer a different set of leadership collectives as it is our democratic right. It is our collective task to repair whatever damage or harm may have been caused as we were building up towards the conference. Let me emphasize that the leadership collective will serve the entire membership of the ANC, regardless of whether a person voted for Thabo Mbeki or Jacob Zuma or any other member or leader. We cannot have a Zuma camp or a Mbeki.camp, there is only one ANC. None among us is above the organization or bigger than the ANC.'

The South African Communist Party in a press statement, pointed to the significance of the conference and the great responsibility it placed on the new leadership to address the grave problems faced by the poor:

'ANC delegates have sent a clear message, but the electoral outcome of this conference does not mean that the underlying challenges of our society have gone away - poverty, unemployment, deepening inequality. As an alliance leadership, we will be failing the hopes and aspirations of the thousands of ANC branch delegates if we do not use the new reality as a platform to address with an even greater sense of urgency and determination these realities that impact upon millions of South Africans'.

The SACP also addressed the issue of unity, declaring:

'This is not a moment for triumphalism or factional revenge. Those inclinations will simply plunge us into another cycle of inward-focused maneuvering. Let us devote our energies to uniting around the tasks of transformation.'

The statement went on to indicate the need for reflection on why delegates decided to elect a new leadership pointing to frustration building from below.

Indeed it seems that great economic and health challenges that ordinary South Africans face – massive unemployment, HIV/AIDS, lack of adequate housing, became a material force at this conference, crying out for solution.

With pressure mounting and given the maneuvers of forces hostile to South African revolution the ANC faces a daunting challenges. New efforts to prosecute President Zuma on corruption charges floated Thursday only underscore the problem. The world watches with hope and anxiety.

Smithfield CEO Joseph Luter III Elected 2008 'Grinch of the Year'

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:43:00 +0000

12-21-07, 10:44 am

With 28% of nearly 10,000 votes cast, Smithfield Chairman Joseph Luter III narrowly beat out American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey to win the seventh annual online 'Grinch of the Year' election sponsored by National Jobs with Justice. Nominated by the Justice @ Smithfield Campaign, the company is criticized for maintaining an environment of fear and intimidation for workers. For over ten years now, workers at the Tar Heel plant have fought relentlessly for a voice on the job.

American Airlines President and CEO Gerard Arpey came in a very close second with 27% of the vote. In 2003, workers gave concessions to keep the airline out of bankruptcy. Now that the company is back in the black, upper-level management is reaping the benefits with millions of dollars in bonuses, but workers get nothing. Fifteen percent of the votes went to Verizon Business’ Bob Toohey for his efforts to suppress worker organizing. Another 13% of the vote went to write-in candidate United Airlines’ CEO Glenn Tilton, and the remaining votes were split among Burger King CEO John W. Chidsey, American Motion Picture and Television Producers President J. Nicholas Counter III, and a number of write-in candidates.

The 'Grinch of the Year' awards began locally with Jobs with Justice Coalitions around the country highlighting the greedy grinch in their hometowns. That tradition has remained in many areas. Paul Levy of Beth Isreal Deaconess Hospital was elected Massachusetts Grinch of the Year. Paul Dockendorff, CEO of Northwest Security Services, Inc. was elected Grinch of Martin Luther King County, WA, and Tomlinson Linen was elected Grinch of Pierce County, WA.

South Florida JwJ named Jose Infante, owner of South Florida Maintenance Inc., as their Scrooge of the Year. His company, owes employees over $90,000 in back wages. His company violated the City and County living wage ordinances, so workers were forced to take him to court. SFM and the City of Miami agree the money is due--but like Scrooge not a penny has gone out.

In St. Louis, a record 14,268 votes were cast and Illinois Distributing Company was named Grinch of the Year. Despite profits so high they have built a new $15 million buiding and bought out a competitor distributorship, Illinois Distributing Company has imposed a contract on its drivers that slashes pay and health care benefits.

Jobs with Justice is a national campaign for workers' rights. Around the country, local Jobs with Justice Coalitions unite labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations to build power for working people.

From Jobs with Justice

Shooting Rampage in Sasebo, Japan Sparks Demand for Gun Control

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:39:00 +0000

12-20-07, 9:42 am

A shooting rampage occurred on December 14 at a private sports club in Sasebo City in Nagasaki Prefecture, killing a 26-year-old woman and a 36-year-old man and injuring 6 people, including two children.

The suspected gunman, a 37-year-old man, was found dead the next day. He is believed to have committed suicide. Two shotguns and one air gun were reportedly found in his car.

Commenting on the incident on a TV debate program aired on December 15, Japanese Communist Party Policy Commission Chair Koike Akira said, “The recent series of fatal shootings reveal the inability of the authorities to cope with the increase in gun violence. Now is the time to take action to stop gun violence.”

The number of incidents involving gun violence between January and November this year was 54, up 10 from the last year. The January-November death toll was 19, up from the last year’s total of 17. But no effective steps have been taken so far.

According to the National Police Agency, the number of illegal handguns seized by the police decreased from 1,549 in 1996 to 489 in 2005.

The number of crimes committed by persons with firearms they possess with permits is also increasing. Between 2002 and 2006, the number of incidents involving the use of licensed shotguns or rifles was between 3-16 a year. Seven incidents occurred during the first six months of this year.

Sloppy screening of gun ownership is a contributing factor in the increasing number of gun-related crimes and accidents.

For example, a man in Utsunomiya City killed a housewife neighbor with his licensed shotgun in 2002. Surprisingly, only about one month prior to the event, the police had issued a permit to allow his gun ownership.

In the latest case in Sasebo, it has been learned that nearby residents knew that the suspect had guns and that they were frightened by the man’s odd behavior. They often asked police to do something about it, but the police did not take the request seriously, according to reports.

The police and relevant authorities should respond to such concerns seriously and take effective gun control measures. It is particularly an urgent task to crack down on illegal gun ownership and impose stricter standards for issuing gun ownership permits.

From Akahata

Challenges and Opportunities in the 2008 Elections

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:32:00 +0000

12-20-07, 9:36 am

Not every struggle carries the same political significance. Some leave little trace on the political landscape; others rearrange it extensively.

The decisive defeat of the Republican Party next year falls into the latter category. Much like the elections of 1936 and 1964 where Democrats won in a landslide, a similar Democratic victory next year will alter the political landscape in a positive direction and give new energy, confidence, and hope to the labor-led people’s movement, thereby setting the stage for progressive and radical reforms.

What is more, the defeat of the right will weaken not only the most reactionary section of the capitalist class — it will weaken the capitalist class as a whole.

So these elections cannot and should not be reduced to simply a contest between Republicans and Democrats, or between the two wings of the ruling class, one reactionary, the other more moderate and realistic.

Such an analysis misses what is essential: The 2008 elections are the main arena of the class struggle in the near term and depending on their outcome could greatly reshape the terrain of struggle for years to come in favor of the working class and its allies.

While Communists fully support militant and broad expressions of solidarity in other arenas of struggle, such expressions will be successful only to the degree that they are tightly tethered to the struggle to decisively defeat the right in next year’s election.

2008 elections: eye of the needle

Will a Democratic Party sweep solve every social problem? By no means. Why would anyone think so? But it will allow the labor-led people’s movement to fight on far more favorable ground going forward.

Just as there is no road to socialism that bypasses the anti-corporate stage, there is no path to a direct confrontation with the giant corporations and their political sponsors that bypasses the 2008 elections. They are the eye of the needle through which the people’s movement has to pass in order to reach and then march down the road of broad political, economic and social advance.

Perhaps this is too stiff a political construction for some, but I believe that if we have learned anything from the 20th century it is that the class struggle goes through different phases and stages, and that the movement ignores this at its own peril.

Diverse coalition of forces

We should not recoil at the thought that the coalition to defeat the right will include heterogeneous forces. There are no pure forms of struggle at any stage of the political process. The sooner the left and progressive movement learns that, the better.

Any mass movement contains varied tendencies and trends. A common political platform doesn’t mean a singularity of political outlook. Indeed, in a broad, multi-class political coalition, relations will be contested as well as cooperative. Each component will promote its views and attempt to leave its imprint on the overall struggle, while not rupturing the unity of the larger coalition. And this is more so as the movement gains in scope and influence. Haven’t we seen this in the peace movement?

Struggle for unity, an art and science

Thus, the struggle for unity in its multiple forms is as much an art as it is a science, or maybe, more an art than a science. Whatever the case, it is something that all of us in the movement have to master. And the coming elections will provide a practical laboratory to perfect this, for a diverse mixture of political forces is gathering to defeat the right and each of them bring their own distinct views and resources.

From the standpoint of the progressive and left movement, the most vexing element in this mixture is the Democratic Party, which, as we know, is a class-based party. It is incapable of being consistently democratic; it discourages the independent initiative of the people; it resists efforts to heavily trample on capital’s profit imperatives; and while it makes concessions to the people, it tries to limit them.

In next year’s elections, the Democratic Party will attempt to frame the scope and substance of the political discourse and agenda, not to mention define the role and influence of grassroots and people’s organizations on the election process. At the same time, it is the only election instrument that is capable of defeating the extreme right at this moment in the electoral arena.

While we wish there existed an independent and powerful political party with leadership and support from the working class and its organized sector, the racially oppressed, women, youth, and other social movements (all of which comprise the labor-led people’s movement), there is not, and we have no choice but to live with this reality for now.

So what should be our concrete attitude to the Democratic Party in the upcoming election?

On the one hand, we should not fall into the trap of hurling equal doses of abuse on both parties, or of damning the Democratic candidates with the faintest of praise, or of acting as if it doesn’t matter who wins.

On the other hand, we should not hesitate to criticize the Democratic Party and its candidates. But it should be done within the framework of our strategic task of defeating the right. And it should be done in such a way that it gives those candidates space to move in a progressive direction.

Frankly speaking, I never subscribed to the notion, embraced by too many on the left, that people have illusions in the Democratic Party, and that a new party would emerge if only we were able to dissipate these illusions. Such thinking oversimplifies a very complicated problem.

Who will leave an imprint?

Vladimir Lenin once argued against the idea that a “bourgeois revolution is a revolution which is only of interest to the bourgeoisie.” By the same token, we can argue that the defeat of the right at the polls next year is not only to the advantage of the Democratic Party and to the section of the capitalist class it represents, but also to the advantage of the labor-led people’s movement. To acknowledge one doesn’t deny the validity of the other.

In fact, I would go a step further, and say that a decisive (as compared to a more limited) victory will be of more advantage to the working class and people’s movement than to the sections of the capitalist class that support the Democratic Party.

Which begs the question: what constitutes a decisive victory? A decisive victory would mean a shift in the balance of forces in Congress and the country is such a way that the labor-led people’s movement is positioned to go on the offensive in 2009 and beyond.

For that to happen, three conditions have to be met.

First, there will have to be a Democratic Party landslide at the Presidential and Congressional levels. Second, it will be particularly important to increase the number of progressive members of Congress.

Lastly and most importantly, the labor led people’s movement — not the Democratic Party, not Wall Street — must leave, or, more accurately, impose its imprint on the election process. Admittedly, because the working class and its allies don’t have their own political party, this won’t be easy. But it would be wrong to infer from this that the labor-led people’s movement has virtually no political space and leverage to leave their clear and unmistakable imprint on the election, its outcome, and its aftermath.

We should not forget that the boundaries of politics and democracy in a capitalist social formation, and even in one in which the working class doesn’t have its own political party, are malleable, elastic, and can be stretched to include radical reforms and new configurations of political power. What those boundaries are, however, can’t be answered abstractly, but depend on the balance of forces, on which forces leave their mark on the political process, and on unforeseen events and contingencies of all kinds.

Vigorous participation is necessary

Thus, the labor-led people’s coalition —and Communists as a current within that coalition — must energetically participate in every phase of the election process. It must give substance to the national dialogue. It must be a major factor in the primaries, with an eye to electing the most progressive candidates. It must shape the political platform of the Democratic Party and its candidates. It must reach, register and educate new and stay-at-home voters. It must unrelentingly expose the reactionary positions of the Republican candidates. It must guarantee a maximum voter turnout. And it must define the political mandate and agenda in the election’s aftermath.

In doing this, the movement will position itself to qualitatively reshape the political terrain to its advantage and to take another critical step on the transition to a new stage of struggle. At this moment, this is the essence of political independence. A sweeping defeat of the right will give labor and its allies far more political leverage and independence than they have had for a long, long time.

--Sam Webb is the national chair of the Communist Party USA. This article originally appeared in the People's Weekly World and is an edited excerpt from “On the Road Again,” a report to a recent meeting of the CPUSA’s National Committee. The full text is available at .

War Is Over--Say the Pundits

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:23:00 +0000

12-20-07, 9:32 am

Media Advisory Fairness and accuracy in Reporting War Is Over--Say the Pundits But it's media, not voters, who seem to have lost interest in Iraq 12/19/07

To hear many in the mainstream media tell it, the Iraq War is of diminishing importance to American voters. But the evidence for such a shift in the electorate is thin at best--suggesting that journalists and pundits are really the ones who would rather not talk about Iraq as we head into an election year.

The New York Times offered a glimpse of this argument in a November 25 piece headlined 'As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts.' The article suggested that 'leading Democratic presidential candidates' were having trouble acknowledging 'success' in Iraq while still opposing the war: 'But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue.'

This was carried further a few days later by the Washington Post (11/28/07), where it was reported that the 'debate at home over the Iraq war has shifted significantly,' a phenomenon that 'has strategists in both parties reevaluating their assumptions about how the final year of the Bush presidency and the election to succeed him will play out.' The Post suggested that the 'evolving public attitudes reflect, or perhaps explain, a turn in Washington as well.' The suggestion that Washington might be reacting to subtle changes in public opinion is a curious one; if public sentiment were truly guiding policy, then U.S. troops would have been home long ago.

The idea that the public was ceasing to care so much about Iraq was heard again in the Post on December 3, when pundit Peter Beinart advanced the argument in a column under the headline 'Non-Story Remakes the Race.' Beinart's lead example was that a recent Democratic candidates' debate featured little talk about the Iraq War. As Beinart put it, 'In the biggest surprise of the campaign so far, the election that almost everyone thought would be about Iraq is turning out not to be. And that explains a lot about which candidates are on the rise and which ones are starting to fall.'

Beinart also noted that the rate of deaths in Iraq has seemed to decline, so too has the media's interest in covering the war, which is showing up in the polls. Between June and November, according to NBC and the Wall Street Journal, the percentage of Americans citing Iraq as their top priority fell eight points. A Post survey recently reported a six-point decline since September. It's worth noting that even with such a decline, Iraq still remains the top concern for voters; in the NBC poll cited by Beinart, for example, Iraq was still 10 points ahead of the next issue (healthcare). Beinart's column was nonetheless the main inspiration for New York Times columnist David Brooks' December 11 'The Postwar Election.'

USA Today turned in a similar story on December 5, leading with this claim: 'Growing anxiety over the economy, healthcare and immigration rival Iraq as the central issues in the presidential campaign, shifting an election landscape once dominated by the war.'

But the very next paragraph explained that the issues that might 'rival' the Iraq War were still well behind, since the war 'still tops the list of issues cited as most important. It's raised twice as often as the next-ranking issue, the economy.' USA Today reporter Susan Page explained on PBS's NewsHour (12/10/07) that the diminishing importance of the Iraq War was obvious in the campaign:

I think it's one of the repercussions of the fact that the surge in Iraq has been working, that the level of violence there has gotten somewhat lower. That's made Iraq less of an issue on the campaign trail. It's still an important issue, but we've seen issues with the economy, the mortgage crisis, health care become more important.

NBC's Tim Russert was sounding the same tune on the December 9 broadcast of NBC Nightly News: 'With the surge in Iraq and the level of American deaths declining, it is off the front pages. It looks like it could be a bread-and-butter election, where people are very concerned about their homes, the financing, the economy, those kinds of gut issues.' Russert's conclusion was based on polls in three early primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina), but those surveys painted a mixed picture. New Hampshire Democrats, for example, still ranked Iraq as their most important priority.

It should go without saying that polls in a handful of states should not be mistaken for a notable shift in national priorities. Most national polls suggest that Iraq is hardly fading; according to a recent CBS/NY Times poll (12/5-9/07), when asked to name the most important issue facing the country, the public named the Iraq War by a large margin--twice as many as the next issue (healthcare). NBC Nightly News reporter Savannah Guthrie (12/15/07) nonetheless declared: 'For many, many months, the smart thinking was this was going to be all about the war in Iraq, but that's kind of been pushed aside to some degree. Now issues about immigration and the economy [are] taking center stage.'

Given the slight evidence, it's unclear why journalists would advance this argument--unless the declining interest in the Iraq War is actually more a media phenomenon than a public one. Beinart's Washington Post column and the paper's November 28 report noted a drop in discussion of the Iraq War in presidential debates. But candidates might talk less about Iraq if the questions posed by journalists are not about the Iraq War. The Post news article suggested this might be the more relevant factor when the paper noted that the 'Washington debate has moved on'-- by which they meant: Bush at his most recent news conference last month was not asked about the Iraq war until the 10th question. Not a single Iraq question came up at four of White House press secretary Dana Perino's seven full-fledged briefings this month.

The discussion permitted by the media inevitably affects voters' feelings about major issues: If Iraq is absent from the front pages of newspapers or rarely discussed on network newscasts, the war will become a lesser concern for U.S. citizens. The media, however, seem to want us to believe that their choices have no effect on public opinion, that viewers and readers arrive at conclusions about the state of the world independent of what is on their television screens or newspaper front pages.

On December 12, the deadliest car bombing in months killed dozens of Iraqis. The news elicited brief mentions on the network newscasts, and was buried deep inside the Washington Post and New York Times. Was it the public who decided to treat this as a non-story?

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Cuban President Stresses Importance of Accords of Conf. on Climate Change

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:39:00 +0000

12-19-07, 9:42 am

Havana, Dec 18 (acn) Cuban President Fidel Castro sent a letter on Monday to the daily prime-time radio and television program 'The Round Table' in which he stressed the importance of the international agreements reached at the recently concluded conference on climate change held in Bali. The Cuban leader said that the Conference of Bali brought together many heads of state and government from the so-called Third World who fight for their development and demanded fair treatment, financial resources and transference of technology from the representatives of the industrialized world who were also present there.

Fidel explained that the UN Secretary General, in front of the stubborn obstruction by the US government after 12 days of negotiations among the 190 countries represented in the meeting, on Saturday said that the human species could disappear as a consequence of climate change.

The leader of the Cuban Revolution noted that this statement turn the conference into a madhouse and that, after 12 days of futile persuasive efforts, the American representative, Paula Dobriansky, after taking a deep sigh, said: 'We join the consensus.'

'It is clear that the United States tried to avoid its isolation but it did not change at all its dark intentions,' Fidel wrote.

'But the best was yet to come,' added the Cuban leader recalling that Canada and Japan then joined the United States in front of the countries that were demanding serious commitments about the emission of gases that cause climate change.

Fidel explained that it had all been planned among NATO allies and the United States that, in a deceitful maneuver, agreed to negotiate next year in Hawaii - a US territory - a new project of agreement that would be introduced and approved in the Conference of Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009, which would replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012.

The Cuban President pointed out that Europe was to play the role of 'savior of the world'. 'Several European leaders spoke asking for international gratitude. What an excellent gift for Christmas and New Year!,' satirized Fidel.

'None of them mentioned the millions of poor people who die from diseases and starvation every year due to the current realities of the world,' he stressed.

The leader of the Cuban Revolution recalled that the Group of the 77, which is comprised of 132 nations, had reached a consensus to demand from the industrialized countries a reduction of gases that cause climate change. This reduction in the year 2020 would be from 20 to 40 percent below the level achieved in 1990, and from 60 to 70 percent by the year 2050, which is technically possible.

He added that the demands included the allocation of funds for the transference of technology for the Third World.

Fidel highlighted that it is necessary to recall that these gases also cause heat waves, desertification, the melting of glaciers and the rise of sea levels, which could make entire countries or a great part of them disappear.

The Cuban President explained that the industrialized countries and the United States share the idea of turning food into fuel for luxurious cars and other wastes of consumption societies.

'What I say was demonstrated when on Saturday, December 15, the president of the United States announced that he had asked the US Senate, which had already approved it, $696 billions for military spendings in the 2008 fiscal year, including $189 billions for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,' Fidel wrote. From the Cuban News Agency

Iraqis Returning to Destroyed, Looted or Occupied Homes

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:34:00 +0000

12-19-07, 9:39 am

BAGHDAD, 9 December 2007 (IRIN) - Iraqi refugee Ibtissam Abdul-Wahab Hassan returned from Syria to her home in Baghdad to find the doors broken down, some furniture stolen and parts of the house gutted by fire.

The house of another returnee, Adil Abdullah Munthir, was spared a ransacking, but is now occupied by another family who refuse to leave until he finds them another place to live.

In recent weeks, tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees living in Syria have been coming back to Baghdad after a sharp decline in violence in the Iraqi capital. Many of the returnees have been shocked to find their homes destroyed, looted or occupied.

“We lost everything,” said Ibtissam, a 54-year-old Shia mother-of-four who arrived in Iraq three weeks ago. “Nearly two years ago we fled to Syria after my husband escaped an assassination attempt by Sunni militants after he refused to obey them and leave the neighborhood.”

She decided to return to Baghdad with her 16-year-old son to prepare the house for when the rest of the family came back. ”But I never imagined how hard and expensive this was going to be. We have almost run out of resources and we depend only on our pensions,” she said.

Government assistance

In a bid to help these families, the Iraqi government is giving each returning family one million Iraqi dinars (about US$900).

“This amount is not enough to buy furniture for two rooms,” said Ibtissam, who now lives in her brother’s house.

“I was really dismayed when I found children playing in our garden and a woman washing clothes in a cooking pot in our garage,” said Munthir, a 44-year-old Sunni father-of-two who returned to Baghdad’s southern Bayaa neighborhood after having fled to Syria for 18 months.

“When I told them that this is my house and they have to leave, they told me ‘find us another place, as we were forced out of our house by your militants [Sunni insurgents], and then you will never see us again’,” Munthir said.

“Now I live in my parents’ house and I’m contacting Shia religious and political officials in my neighbourhood who promised to help me solve this,” he added.

On 5 November, the Iraqi government said that it had formed a committee headed by the Minister of Immigration and Displacement to address the problem of returnees’ properties.

“We are facing some problems but all these problems will be solved as the governmental committee will survey the refugees’ houses which are occupied by other displaced families,” Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Mousawi, spokesman for the Iraqi army, told a press conference in Baghdad.

However, al-Mousawi refused to elaborate on what specific measures the government would be taking to resolve the issue.

Government unable to handle huge influx

While the Iraqi government has been encouraging refugees in neighboring countries to return – such as by airing commercials on state television and providing free buses from Damascus to Baghdad - it acknowledges that the country is not yet safe enough to absorb big numbers of returnees.

According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), just over two million Iraqis have become refugees in other countries – largely Syria, Jordan and Lebanon - while more than 2.4 million Iraqis are displaced within their own country.

UNHCR said on 7 December that it is proving difficult to determine the number of Iraqi returnees from Syria. Spokesman William Spindler said that between August and the end of November, UNHCR staff in Syria had received reports from the Iraqi border authorities that 97,000 Iraqis had entered Syria from Iraq, while at the same time 128,000 left Syria for Iraq through the main al-Waleed border point.

He added that not all these people had been refugees.

According to a study conducted by UNHCR in Syria, 46 percent of Iraqis were going home because they could no longer afford to stay, 14 percent because they heard the security situation had improved and 25 percent because their visas had expired.

According to the Iraqi government, 45,000 refugees returned to Iraq during October alone and 10,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) have gone back to their homes due to the improved security situation.

'If the influx is huge, then neither the ministry nor the entire government could handle it,” Abdul-Samad Rahman, Iraqi Migration Minister, told a Baghdad news conference on 4 December. “Priority would be given to those who wish to return from neighboring countries, like Syria and Jordan, where Iraqi exiles are living in difficult conditions.

'The security situation is 90 percent stable but the rate at which Iraqis are returning is not proportionate to the level of stability and security,” Rahman said.

UN relief package

In addition to the Iraqi government’s financial aid to returning families, the UN has allocated US$11.4 million for an assistance program for the most vulnerable returning families.

Staffan de Mistura, the chief UN envoy to Iraq, said the assistance would include food baskets and other emergency kits for 5,000 families, or some 30,000 individuals.

'There is a flow of returnees,' he said. 'It's not massive, but it is a flow. We have the responsibility to respond to it in a way that we provide adequate assistance and protection,” de Mistura said at the 4 December press conference.

De Mistura repeated recent UN warnings that it was too early to encourage a mass return among the more than two million Iraqis living outside their country because of the fragility of the security situation. But he acknowledged that some Iraqis were coming home and needed to be cared for.

'The focus is on vulnerable groups and mostly in greater Baghdad because that's where they are currently returning [to],' he said.

From IRIN News

After Annapolis: Press for Real Negotiations Now

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:29:00 +0000

12-19-07, 9:33 am

The vast majority of the people of Israel, Palestine, the United States and the world want something done to bring peace with justice to Israel and Palestine, and feel there is a chance the recently concluded Annapolis conference can accomplish something toward that aim.

That is why so many countries attended, including some of the world’s more progressive countries, putting their prestige on the line for the process and putting more pressure on the U.S. and Israel to do what is necessary for success.

Of course, many in our country and around the world are rightly skeptical. There is clearly good reason to question the motives of the Bush administration, which seeks to continue its militarist policies on behalf of the extreme right-wing sections of our ruling class. Its threats against Iran and support of reactionary regimes like Saudi Arabia serve those on the right who would use military force to impose control over the greater Middle East, with its vast energy resources and strategic geographical position. This was part of the context for the conference.

At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has moved backward from positions of some earlier governments on key issues, such as borders of a future Palestinian state. His center-right government is being pressed by the extreme right, whose backing he needs in coming elections and who reject a two-state solution.

Previous peace negotiations in the 1990s produced mixed results. But the installation of George W. Bush in the White House marked a sharp change for the worse.

For the past seven years, his administration has shown no interest in diplomacy to resolve this 60-year-old political and humanitarian crisis. Instead, despite lip service to a two-state solution, it gave a green light to the Israeli right’s drive to prevent formation of a truly independent Palestinian state. Bush gave active encouragement to moves to expand throughout the occupied territories a web of settlements, military installations, walls, watchtowers and checkpoints that make a two-state solution increasingly difficult.

The result has been highly damaging for all involved.

Palestinians, Israelis and Americans are all paying a price

The Palestinian people endure a humiliating military occupation that has shredded their communities, taken their land and livelihood, turned them into a captive workforce and market for Israeli capitalists, undermined their leadership, deprived them of national statehood, and promoted internal divisions. One result has been to turn Gaza into a vast prison camp enclosing 1.5 million Palestinian people. All this has fueled despair and plowed a fertile ground for acts of violence by a small minority.

At the same time, the Israeli right wing has used this volatile situation to fan a sense of fear and threat among the Israeli people and, under this cover, has imposed on Israeli working families Bush-style privatization, loss of pensions, and cuts in education and other social needs. As in the U.S. under Bush, poverty and inequality have risen sharply in Israel in recent years. Militarism, racism and religious fanaticism harm the Israeli social fabric.

Americans are also paying a price. This continuing flashpoint of conflict provides a cover for reactionary regimes to hold onto power and increases the threat of terrorism and war. Our government provides approximately $3 billion a year, the bulk of it military aid, to the Israeli government. If a just peace were achieved, these billions could be used for constructive aid to the people of the region and also fund some of our pressing human needs here at home.

Bush’s foreign policies have delivered a severe setback to the standing of the U.S. in the world, starting with the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. For some time now, significant sections of the ruling class have been voicing concern, and calls for change are mounting. A year ago, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, composed of influential political figures, identified solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict as a key priority, and called for “a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.” More recently a similar bipartisan group including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft sent a letter to Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling for “credible and sustained permanent status negotiations under international supervision and with a timetable for their completion,” to achieve a two-state solution based on the widely accepted Arab Peace Initiative.

Now Annapolis. Will anything come of it?

The Communist Party USA is convinced that a just Israeli-Palestinian peace is possible and necessary. There will never be a perfect set of circumstances for negotiations. Every delay, every day the present situation continues, only serves the playbook of the far right in Israel (along with right-wing forces in our own country), which has long used lack of a peace settlement to create “facts on the ground” to entrench its occupation of Palestinian land.

Overwhelmingly, as numerous polls have shown, both Israelis and Palestinians want a just solution based on two states, Israel and Palestine.

Principles for a real solution are widely accepted

The Arab Peace Initiative, approved by the Arab League in 2002 and reconfirmed this year, and the unofficial Geneva Initiative of 2003 are widely seen as offering a way forward.

The basic principles for a real, negotiated solution are already generally accepted:

• An end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, returning to the internationally recognized boundaries of June 4, 1967, with any minor modifications negotiated by mutual agreement, as a border between the two states of Israel and Palestine.

• East Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine, West Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Public access to all Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites guaranteed.

• A negotiated solution addressing the needs and rights of Palestinian refugees.

• As part of the process, Israeli settlements on Palestinian land frozen and then dismantled, the “separation wall” taken down, and mutual security measures and prisoner release implemented.

Experience has shown that temporary and partial measures cannot substitute for resolving the fundamental “final status” issues. Right-wing forces will have to be compelled to drop their aim of imposing a subservient Palestinian state compliant with right-wing U.S./Israeli policy. Moreover, it is up to the Palestinian people to determine their leaders and negotiators, not the U.S. and Israel.

Our government holds the key

We join with others who see the Annapolis meeting as an opportunity and a challenge to organize as broadly as possible to demand that our government act to at long last end this tragic, destructive conflict.

A significant new informal coalition has emerged in the U.S. around this conference, that includes Jewish, Palestinian and church groups who support a two-state just solution. They played a big role in getting a letter signed by 135 members of Congress calling for aggressive U.S. diplomacy aimed at “resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, through the establishment of two states for two peoples,” calling the issue “too important not to seize the opportunities that have emerged over the past weeks.”

We urge all peace-loving Americans — Jewish, Palestinian and everyone else — to press the White House, Congress and presidential and congressional candidates to take a stand for real negotiations based on the above principles. Our government holds the key.

Our political leaders need to hear the message loud and clear: the time is now to move to a just and lasting peace. It is in the interest of the people of Israel, Palestine, the U.S. and the world.

--This statement was issued the Communist Party USA National Board on Dec. 6. For more information, contact cpusa@cpusa.org.

Latvia and the Collapse of the USSR: Interview with Alfred Rubiks

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:23:00 +0000

12-19-07, 9:28 am

Editor's Note: Alfred Rubiks is the former leader of the Communist Party of Latvia. When Latvia broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991, the nationalist political leaders unilaterally banned the Communist Party and imprisoned Rubiks. This is his story of those events. The interview was conducted by John Bachtell, a member of the national board of the Communist Party USA, during the November international meeting of communist and workers' parties celebrating the 90th anniversary of the 1917 Revolution in Russia.

PA: We’re very interested in the struggle that you have been waging in Latvia. Could you talk about your imprisonment after Latvia's break with the Soviet Union?

Alfred Rubiks: By the end of 1990, it was quite obvious that the Soviet Union, as it was then, would not last long. At the time I was a member of the Politburo of the Soviet Communist Party, which was elected under Gorbachev several months before. Most people, including myself, felt that Russia was fidgeting, falling between two chairs, so to speak, that it did not know what it actually wanted and was being rather vague and evasive. A group of us actually called on Gorbachev one day and asked him to explain, in two or three sentences what he wanted and what perestroika meant after all. We would read his lengthy speeches, and some contained two or three points, some, say, seven points, and some contained nothing at all. So we demanded from him the essence, the gist of what he was going to do, and what he had been doing. But he wouldn’t explain. He just retorted sharply and placed us in a rather humiliating light, saying that we were poor, illiterate people who didn’t understand anything, and he simply refused to explain. Then we realized that he really did not want to explain himself, he didn’t want to elaborate – and that behind the fog and behind his vagueness, there were certain political aims that were only clear to him.

Things became clearer when, soon afterwards, the so-called Union Treaty of the new Soviet Union emerged, the treaty for the union of independent sovereign states. At the next Congress of People’s Deputies we – that is, all those deputies who were genuinely Communist and progressive – insisted on having a referendum on the preservation of the Soviet Union. We managed to organize this referendum on March 17, 1991. When 76% of those who took part in the referendum voted for the Soviet Union to remain, we were unsure how Gorbachev would react and what he would deliver in response. It should be noted, however, that prior to this referendum, on May 4, 1990, the Parliament, the Supreme Soviet of Latvia, according to the old constitution, had already passed a declaration of independence.

Following the referendum, I had an audience with Gorbachev, and stated to him that this declaration of independence was unconstitutional. There, in the presence of the then Chair of the Supreme Soviet of Latvia, Anatolijs Gorbunovs, Gorbachev said, “Well, I’ll issue a decree, and it will be declared null and void.” The decree did appear on May 14, 1991, but it did not make a stir and it was ineffective. This situation encouraged our nationalists and they went further. The nationalists started to set up public procurators in charge of their own militias and other power-wielding structures. They also approved legislation, which stipulated that the decisions of the local republican authorities had priority over decisions at the federal or Soviet level.

As the Secretary of the Communist Party of Latvia, my position was quite simple. I said, “Let’s have a referendum and ask the people if they want to secede from the Union or not.” The nationalists then retorted that in 1941, when Latvia joined the Soviet Union, there was no referendum. Shortly after this I, along with a number of my comrades in the Latvian Communist Party, was accused of high treason according to the then-existing Soviet legislation, since at that time, local, Latvian legislation did not exist. The charge was high treason and the penalty was capital punishment.

PA: Could you clarify what the charges of high treason involved?

AR: It was because we would not obey the new local legislation, which claimed that Latvian legislation had priority over Soviet legislation – all Soviet legislation. However, the Latvian nationalists quickly changed the original punishment prescribed under the law – death, because obviously, as I understand now, they were themselves afraid that they might be prosecuted under this article, and their fear was well grounded since their actions were high treason indeed.

Shortly after, at the session of the Supreme Soviet of Latvia, on August 22, 1991, they denied me the power of immunity as a deputy of the Latvian Supreme Soviet, although I was also at the same time a deputy of the Congress of People’s Deputies of the Soviet Union. I was not really that upset and worried, because I knew that I had diplomatic immunity. Thus I became a “foreigner” and remained under the protection of the Soviet government. I didn’t go home, because I felt there might be unlawful actions taken against me if I did. Thus, I remained in my private quarters at the Central Committee building. I also did not want my family to see me being detained, if it happened.

That evening my two sons came to see me. One of them is now a Socialist deputy in the Latvian Parliament (known as the Saeima). We said goodbye just in case and agreed to meet the following day, because it was a special day. I knew this was a risky task, because I had received quite a few telephone calls from people who warned me what might happen. Others offered their assistance, even armed protection. From the window I could see policemen placed in different strategic locations. The Central Committee building is situated near a canal, and there were quite a few armed people around, placed in important locations all around the building. Perhaps they were afraid that I would call in the riot police. During the night we contacted all the members of the Central Committee, and on the following day we decided to hold a plenary session of the Central Committee at 12 o’clock.

At 8 o’clock in the morning it had been a sleepless night for most of us. I had the leading members of the committee come over, and we took counsel about what to do. There were 11 members present. One was from Byelorussia, and he said that he would leave immediately for Byelorussia and return home. The others said they would simply go home to their families. I stated that I was not going to flee because I was not guilty of anything. I decided to stay on. I realized that it was really getting very, very serious when my two bodyguards did not report for work. The security people had removed them from their job. At this point, the situation of the Party personnel and apparatus arose. The Central Committee decided that under such extreme circumstances, all Party employees should receive three months pay and that some of the Party’s records, such as membership lists, needed to be destroyed immediately, but that others should be left in place. After that everybody was dismissed.

At about 10 o’clock, two Saeima (parliament) deputies arrived. They were armed with guns and told me to stay in the Central Committee building. They wouldn’t let me go to the Parliament Building. I asked them to allow me to call my family, but they refused. I asked them to let me have something to eat because it was already midnight, but they wouldn’t. Soon more armed people came, and with the butts of their guns they destroyed all the telephones that were there. Then the Deputy Procurator General – not the Soviet, but the newly appointed Deputy Procurator General – came accompanied by armed security and started interrogating me. I told them what I had to tell. I was asked what I had been doing in recent days, that day and the day or two before. It turned out they were suspicious that I was a member of the State Committee for Emergency Situations in Moscow, but I wasn’t. My personal assistant, who is a good lawyer, then said that other people would now come, and that I would be treated not as a witness but as a suspect.

Soon more people arrived. They took up positions on my floor (the 6th floor), and the Procurator General, a woman, came in and began my interrogation. When I realized that it was an illegal interrogation, I refused to answer any questions. Then she demanded I appoint a specially authorized person in charge of handing over Communist Party property to the state. I demanded a legal document, so they showed me a law, a decree passed by the Supreme Soviet of Latvia, saying that all the Party property should be confiscated. With that, I appointed a person to do what they asked. Their representative came over and we made up a list of what we had to hand over to the government. On the list was the Central Committee building and the buildings of local and regional committees, the Party’s car pool, and other movable and immovable property. They wanted my signature, but I refused to sign. All this lasted a long time. At 5 p.m. a large group of armed men in bullet-proof jackets and helmets came upstairs. They isolated my personal assistant from me. Then the Deputy Procurator General showed me a legal document, a summons for my arrest, and ordered them to arrest me.

At this point, quite a few journalists and media people came running, including the BBC, and the coverage was quite extensive. I showed them my identity card as a national deputy of the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies, which supposedly gave me immunity, but they still took me away. I refused to be handcuffed. I said that I was not going to offer any resistance – just take me away. They didn’t allow me to change my clothes or take any personal belongings. They just took me away with what I had on. Outside my office there was a long spiral staircase. I was squeezed between two security men, apparently. Maybe they were afraid I would leap over the balustrade, but the thought never entered my mind. They were pushing me along with the muzzles of their submachine guns. Strange as it may seem, I was not afraid. I was bitter and angry. On every floor I could see Central Committee employees watching what was happening. Many of the women were crying and the men just stood there helpless, but I went on calmly. To see their concern and anguish gave me a lot of strength. I felt that I needed to behave properly and with dignity in this situation – not only when I was in a high position and calling the shots, but also in circumstances such as these.

As I was leaving the building, I saw that the glass doors and the sign of the Central Committee of the Latvian Communist Party had been shattered. Outside there was a crowd of about 3,000 people. I know the square and how many people it holds. Many people had gathered because the media was broadcasting the story and announcing that Alfred Rubiks was being arrested. It was a mixed crowd. Some were against the Communist Party; some were supporters of the Communist Party. There were different cries and slogans and a lot of shouting.

At this point I was shoved inside a 10-seat minibus and they took me somewhere. I didn’t know where we were going, because the windows were closed and had curtains over them. It turned out we were heading to the Municipal Police Building. I was being guarded in the van by four soldiers with submachine guns and an officer. The officer got out and entered the building; he was gone for maybe 25 minutes. I found out later that he was trying to persuade the head of the city police to put me into a detention room in the building, but the police chief refused pointblank.

I guessed they would take me next to the office of the Procurator General of Riga. I didn’t know for certain where we were going, because the curtains were still drawn. My assumption turned out to be correct. There were armed men everywhere with Kalashnikovs and armed soldiers on every floor. We had to climb to the fourth floor. I was taken to the office of the new Deputy Procurator General for further interrogation. The room was filled with armed soldiers standing by the windows and guarding the door. I asked to see the statute, the law which allowed such actions. Quite cynically the Procurator General said, “In urgent times, legislation doesn’t act.” At that, I refused to speak with him and said that I would go on a hunger strike. He kept jumping around trying to persuade me, but I flatly refused to say anything.

At this point, they again pushed me inside the minibus and drove me around for a while. Only later did I find out where I ended up. They brought me to the infamous central prison of Riga. It has a special gate. The second gate will open only if the first is closed, and the new arrival had been placed in the custody of the prison guards. The deputy director of the prison had me brought to his office. He offered me tea, but there was no cell ready for me. I spent the whole night in the office of the head of this prison, guarded by a captain and a major. They brought me some food, but I refused it because I was on a hunger strike. They found a cell – it was unfit for habitation – and I spent six days there. There were no windows and no lavatory, so the guards took me to the facilities. Then they transferred me to a solitary cell. There were no window, no daylight, only artificial light throughout the day – which of course has very ill effects and is very hard on the nerves. I had to sleep with my hands visible to the guards and was not allowed to cover my face. There I spent 2 years. After that they transferred me to another solitary cell, so all in all I spent 4 years in solitary confinement. The investigation went on for 2 years, and the preliminary sentence changed 3 times, worded differently each time. The trial itself lasted 2-1/2 years.

When I was taken to the hearings, I joked to myself that I was like a student going to hear a lecture. They managed to come up with a new legal statue regarding an “aborted coup d’etat.” It was, of course, a kangaroo court. They claimed that I commanded the riot police and the troops of the military district, but these were directed by someone in Moscow, and I had no control over them. The final verdict was 8 years imprisonment and confiscation of property. Since I was an exemplary inmate, I was released 20 months early. They couldn’t confiscate anything, because there was nothing to confiscate, really. I didn’t have a car or bank deposits, no luxuries – nothing. They made a serious mistake when they didn’t make a careful list of all my personal effects and property, because they could have confiscated one of my beds or taken all the books from my home.

PA: Can you talk about what is happening in Latvia today?

AR: Basically, Latvia is now a country that obeys orders. It takes orders from the European Union and NATO. Agriculture has been destroyed. In current statistical reports, the category of total agricultural output no longer exists. It is included in a more general category, along with peat and lime extraction, or some other minor natural resources that Latvia has. Industrial output is now only 50% of what it was in 1990. Only 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP) involves industries engaged in actual processing. The rest of Latvia’s GDP involves construction, banking (the issuing of loans), and various services. On the surface, it appears that the GDP is growing at 8% a year, but living standards are not improving in the least. In every European statistic, Latvia holds last or next-to-last place in every category except for inflation, where it is first in the EU at 13%.

Latvia once had dreams of becoming a banking services capital, but larger and more powerful banks, especially from Scandinavia, gobbled up all the local Latvian banks, so that today only the Central Bank of Latvia still belongs to the nation. One of the measures to curb inflation was the introduction of a cap on the granting of loans, but since most of the banks are foreign, they don’t fall under this legislation.

Today in Latvia, retired people and senior citizens constitute about 26% of the population, and it is a sad fact that 94% of retired people subsist on incomes below the poverty level. People emigrate to the UK, Ireland, and the Nordic countries. When high school students in the 10th-through-12th grades were polled, 82% said that they see their future as workers elsewhere in Europe. Now in Latvia there is a new phenomenon – where people camp out in the streets demanding human treatment and raises in salaries and pensions.

So there are no prospects. The situation is quite gloomy, because our young people see no prospects, no future here. Of course, most young people dream of being successful, of becoming business executives or cabinet ministers. I didn’t become an executive myself, but I did become a cabinet minister! Now things have changed. There are basically no young people living in the rural areas. They are forced to flee. Now the situation is such that the birthrate is half as much as the mortality rate! It is true that the EU does provide funds. It channels in funds, but the funds can be used only if the Latvian side puts up 25-50% of the capital, and we cannot afford that. Therefore, all these funds have become a big waste of time and money, since the Latvian side is unable to match the percentage.

My forecast for the future is pessimistic. With the mortality rate so high and no babies being born, there is no future for such a state, and those who are still living emigrate. I believe that the people are starting to realize this, but if even if there is a chance to rectify the situation, it will certainly take a long time. For instance, 30% percent of the land now belongs to foreigners. They buy arable land and plant trees on it. That’s an example of what we are faced with and how long it is going to take.

PA: Is the Communist Party legal now?

AR: The Communist Party of Latvia, which was part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was banned, and it is still banned. You can set up any other new party, but the current legislation bans the propaganda of communist ideas. It places Marxism and communism on the same level as the ideas of Nazis. The propaganda of communist ideas and the propaganda of fascist ideas are strictly forbidden. On top of this, former members of the Communist Party of Latvia, who were active members of the Party after January 13, 1990, cannot be elected deputies. Under such circumstances, when members of the Communist Party cannot run for Parliament, and the people are afraid of joining the party, there is no use in setting up such an organization. We want to have this discriminatory law removed, and then maybe we will restore the Communist Party of Latvia. People say to me, “Petrovich [Rubiks’ nickname –ed], it will happen only when you die, because as long as you are alive, they will never give in.” They say they are afraid of me. Today the party which represents us, the Socialist Party of Latvia, has 4 seats – my son Arturs is a deputy, and the coalition we are part of (known as the Harmony Alliance), has 17 seats in the Saiema. It’s funny, but when I go to the Parliament building these days and bump into some of the nationalists they are petrified of me. But so far I haven’t been harassed. Still, I am not allowed to run for Parliament.

PA: What percentage of support do you think the Socialist Party and the Harmony Alliance have among the population?

AR: It is difficult to say precisely, but judging from the election results, the Socialist Party received 8% of the total vote in the last Parliamentary elections, while the coalition as a whole won 19-20%.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Subsumed

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:18:00 +0000

12-19-07, 9:22 am

The meeting in Annapolis last month marks the transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a component of the battle for hegemony in the Middle East between the United States and Iran. Of course, the dynamics attending the 100 year struggle between Israel and the Palestinians are still very much in evidence. But the main direction of development is shaped, more and more by the larger conflict.

As in the Iraq crisis, the United States prepares to use military force to prevent further political-economic deterioration in its regional and international status. However, many well informed observers stress the low probability of armed United States intervention against Iran. There is indeed no shortage of clearly recognizable, serious considerations against the military option against Iran. These should indeed, by all logic force the Bush government to give up on the idea of another military expedition in the Gulf.

However, the political fall out of the Iraq fiasco has not prevented Bush from escalating new threats against Iran, including two major statements on the danger of a third world war, even an atomic one, to save Israel. Of course, the recent “intelligence” to the effect that Iran had scuttled its nuclear weapon program as far back as 2003 has further complicated matters for those pursuing a military option. But given the will to go to war with Iran, the obstacles are in no way decisive.

The Bush administrations wants a show down with Iran, but knows that such a war would be, to say the least, highly unpopular in the United States. But if it is a bit crude to attack Iran directly, variations and combinations that could lead to the same result must be examined. Even the Bush people can figure out that by including Israel’s fate in the equation, this would weaken considerably the reservations in the US public and in congress regarding a clash with Iran. If Bush wants to break out of relative isolation on the Iran issue, his best bet is to create a situation wherein the confrontation with Iran begins as, or is perceived as, an Israeli-Iranian confrontation.

In the past, the Democratic Party leadership had no choice but to reflect rank and file pressure against US policy in Iraq. There exists, of course, a great deal of suspicion regarding Bush’s motives and plans in Iran. But Bush might finesse that opposition by involving Israel and “its security” in the coming hostilities. It will be very hard for the current Democratic leadership to oppose aggressive actions against Iran if they are sugarcoated as necessary to Israel’s security or even its very existence.

The manipulations required to structure a military confrontation with Iran as one between Israel and Iran are a relatively simple matter. There is no need to resort to work on a complicated conspiracy because all the makings of a new war are all out in the open. Israel will not fail to cooperate in getting an anti-Iranian operation off the ground for the simple reason that it has been campaigning energetically for such an operation since the debacle last summer in Lebanon. Every minister and general is on record supporting an attack on Teheran; the only disagreements are tactical. There are no questions as to “if” but there are natural shades of opinion on how and when. One of the central questions being examined is whether Israel can work out a joint activity with the US administration that involves the US coming to the aid of its faithful ally, embattled as it were against the combined forces of terrorism engulfing the region. Of course, there are too many factors involved to suggest that we can predetermine the path of events. The comment regarding the possibility of US-Israeli collusion is offered against unwarranted certainty that Bush has run out of means to further his aggressive goals.

Any of the numerous potential flash points for conflagration between pro-Iranian forces and the Israeli army provide ample opportunities to get things moving. Burgeoning hostilities between the proxies, Israel on one hand and Hamas, Hezbollah or Syria on the other hand would place Israel in the line of “indirect” Iranian fire. The resulting tensions would enable Bush – even Bush – to sell war with the Iranians as an absolute necessity for Israeli survival. The Israelis face “pro-Iranian” formations in three fronts: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrians, in three areas, on the Golan, in Lebanon and along the Syrian-Lebanese border. There is no shortage of opportunities for large scale provocation, there is no shortage of room for major maneuvers that can create real threats to Iranian allies. Normal, stable circumstances in the region are the exception, the situation looks like a war waiting to happen. And Israel, will not have to stand alone.

--Reuven Kaminer lives in Jerusalem.

Review: Day of Empire – How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance – and Why They Fall

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:31:00 +0000

12-18-07, 9:34 am

Day of Empire – How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance – and Why They Fall By Amy Chua Doubleday, New York, 2007.

This work had so much anticipatory potential as Amy Chua’s previous work “World on Fire” had provided a strong, well-supported thesis on how the colonial elites later brought about much of the incompetence, racism, and malevolent tendencies of post-colonial governments. “Day of Empire” held this promise, but for one significant word. If it had continued on the theme of elitism (as in fact, elitism is one of the main sub-themes), it would have been a much more acceptable work. That one word makes all the difference, turning what could have been a well-written exposition on the rise and fall of empires into a very poorly argued one.

That one word – toleration. Chua’s thesis is that “Every single hyperpower in history…was extraordinarily pluralistic and tolerant during its rise to preeminence,” arguing even more strongly that “tolerance was indispensable to the achievement of hegemony.” She puts many qualifiers on the word – “relative tolerance”, “strategic tolerance”, “religious tolerance”, “instrumental tolerance”, “calculating tolerance”, “internal tolerance,” - but the most antithetical one is her definition that “tolerance means letting every different kinds of people live, work, and prosper in your society [emphasis added].” How very kind of these empires – after razing, slaughtering, suppressing, annexing, taxing, defeating, subduing, imposing, and enslaving other societies – words repeated frequently throughout this book - they then suddenly became magnanimous in victory and tolerated their presence in their heartland – implying of course that they were still not tolerated in the hinterland, as the many colonial and frontier wars are sufficient evidence to show that they were not.

As for enslavement, Chua qualifies that with a ‘notwithstanding’ clause. She admits, “For much of its history the United States was no more an exemplar of human rights than were the Romans or the Mongols. Americans kept slaves; they brutally displaced and occasionally massacred indigenous peoples. Nevertheless….” Ah yes, nevertheless, if we can argue notwithstanding slavery and indigenous massacres, then, yes America was tolerant. Obviously then, indigenous peoples and Blacks do not count when addressing tolerance. How plainly disingenuous. Her more modern variant when looking at the twentieth century states that “notwithstanding Vietnam or its chronic Latin American misadventures ” America had great goodwill “built up in the world.” Okay, now we add, Latin Americans, and Southeast Asians to the clause. Occasional massacres? Misadventures?

It takes a huge twist in rational to go from all this qualifications, from these notwithstanding clauses, to accept the thesis that tolerance is one of the main reasons for imperial success. By looking at what become sub-themes, a more realistic picture of what makes an empire a hyperpower appears.

One of the ongoing sub-themes, and this reflects her first book and really should be the main theme continued on from her previous work, is that of elitism. Throughout her arguments, Chua constantly uses the word “elite” in reference to how the empire controlled the peoples that were conquered. Elites were “marshalled…to help rule their vast empire”, the “elites” had citizenship extended to them, the “elites of defeated powers were enticed to embrace Roman culture as a means to power and privilege,” the elitism “began with the aristocracy” so that they would “identify themselves with Roman rule and to see their interests as aligned with the preservation of the empire,” while guaranteeing “a certain level of protection, both from imperial officials above and from the masses below.” Those darned unruly masses, always convenient for conscripted labour and cheap cannon fodder, but very inconvenient when it comes to equal rights and distribution of wealth, but then, notwithstanding them, yes, lots of tolerance towards the opportunistic quisling elites.

Another sub-theme, one that is primary in many other works on empire, is that of militancy. Again, throughout the work, Chua argues almost counter-intuitively that the military made the initial conquests in most cases and then were required as ongoing backup to the economic and political control of the hinterland. This backup was often used directly, often it existed as an ongoing threat, and always it was related to the control of the elites. The Tang of China “combined military aggression with vigorous foreign diplomacy” or alternately they subdued “rival kingdoms through shrewd diplomacy backed by the threat of force rather than bloody conquest.” The military theme predominates in the section on “The Great Mongol Empire,” one of the more violent descriptions of tolerance in action I have ever read.

The sub-themes change marginally as the book progresses. Elitism and militancy carry throughout. Tolerance becomes even more narrowly defined as “religious tolerance” as the western empirical powers take turns slaughtering each other. Chua argues that the Jewish religion becomes the main religious benefactor as the governance of the world becomes more and more mindful of finance capitalism to accompany the ongoing militancy proven so successful by earlier empires. The rise of corporate capitalism - with the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company, and the many corporate charters that enabled the settlement of the Americas - is introduced, but the predations of capitalism and the ingathering of wealth to the empirical heartland is not well developed, although she does state that “colonization was largely financed by private entrepreneurs.” Finally, after centuries of this rather bloodthirsty “tolerance” the American hyperpower arises.

Tolerance had little if anything to do with it. Natives were slaughtered genocidally, treated as sub-human savages. Sitting Bull was tolerated for a while on the rodeo circuit for his entertainment value, then murdered when he refused to give way to the American government at Wounded Knee. Blacks were seen as not even human, relegated to mere property, although property owning is one of the ‘virtues’ of the American empire. The Mexican lands were fought for militarily and not bought by tolerance, with violence reigning over the land. The Spanish War opened on the pretext of the sinking of the Maine, while the indigenous rebellion in Cuba was squashed even though it was successful. The same happened in the Philippines, where an indigenous rebellion against the Spanish turned into a war with the Americans when they refused to acknowledge the rebels’ success.

It goes on, through Central America and the many incursions there on behalf of the elites of the banana republics, the splitting of Panama from Colombia, on to the more recent subversive activities in Chile, Argentina, Colombia again, Panama again, Brazil, tiny Grenada, Guatemala, San Salvador, and more, all backed by the military or the more modern tolerant approach of using the CIA. In Asia, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia suffered great direct military intervention all because the U.S. could not tolerate the democratic vote that would have brought a socialist government to Vietnam.

Chua’s tolerance has nothing to say about the American fear of socialism, or perhaps more correctly, the elitist fear of socialism. There was no tolerance for the democratic principle of sharing the wealth of a nation amongst all its people, at home or abroad. In the early Twentieth Century the military was used in the heartland – along with private security guards – to quell labour strikes that threatened to disrupt the wealth and power of the elites. As the Twentieth Century entered it second half, militant epical activities were more and more accompanied by economic imperialism, with the WTO, IMF, OECD, the World Bank, all acting in the corporate interest of drawing wealth, sucking wealth, out of the hinterland (now the world, more and more ‘globalized’) and to the heartland for the benefit of an ever decreasing smaller but richer elite. Chua says quite directly that “economic dominance continued to require military dominance” a reflection of Thomas Friedman’s “hidden fist” of the military. Tolerance? Free markets are anything but free.

Another element missing in Chua’s thesis is that of propaganda. It is mentioned early in the work, but is never discussed as a means of attracting wealth, resources, and skilled labour to the heartland. Nor is it discussed as a means of propagating the empire ever further into the hinterland, at least for the folks back home who are susceptible to the calls of freedom and democracy and free trade and rule of law and the many other lies that are used to perpetuate military and economic dominance of other countries. Tolerance is now part of propaganda.

All hyperpower empires have failed. Chua posits a rather obvious extension to her thesis that they become intolerant, that there is no “glue” to hold them together. Certainly they did become more intolerant, but nothing is really new there – desperate rulers seek desperate measures as rebellion and opposition spreads, as the control of the elites weakens, as the arrogance and hubris of the “civilizing” nation becomes more and more at odds with the reality in the hinterland. The “glue” that holds empires together is a combination of economic and military elitism. Any group that is favoured over another group will eventually become the target of opposition of some kind, and the more repressive the elitist factor, the more violent the opposition.

Elitism and militancy tend not to go away voluntarily. Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika worked for a while but lingering empirical resentments still trouble the Russian frontier. Chua’s arguments show that none of the previous empires died out peacefully but rather violently. The world can only hope that as the American hyperpower faces more and more problems globally that it does not react as other empires have in the past by becoming more and more violent.

Tolerance is not a creator of empire. Chua’s own arguments at times seem to be against herself, thus all the qualifiers and ‘notwithstanding’ clauses necessary to keep the thesis alive. Tolerance is easy propaganda for the powerful, an easy pretend factor, an opportunistic word to placate the home crowd. A simple change of thesis to that of elitism or cronyism would make “Day of Empire” a consistent reasonable presentation. --Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. His interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American government. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

ANC Meeting Sounds the Call for Social Progress

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:24:00 +0000

12-18-07, 9:29 am

Progress was a central theme of South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki address to the 52nd National Conference of the African National Congress which opened Sunday. The meeting is being held in Polokwane, capital of South Africa’s northern province of Limpopo. Over 4,000 delegates are attending.

Mbeki’s wide ranging address, which has been given scarce attention in the Western press, however was preceded by hot debate that rocked the football field sized white tent housing the historic gathering. On the surface at least, the issue was whether an electronic or paper ballot would be used in convention elections. However, underlying it are deep-set divisions causing many a delegate to exclaim, “This is not the ANC we know.”

At the center of this debate in the opinion of some is the trajectory of South Africa’s democratic revolution: in what direction should the country go and how to chart the course. Communist Party leader, Blade Nzimande, in an op-ed published the day of the Congress said as much claiming the very nature of the country’s orientation was hanging in the balance.

Curiously, however, the main policy planks of the ANC seem to enjoy a wide consensus by all parties particularly, after a conference several months ago adopted a stronger public works orientation and greater state intervention. The issue then seems to dissatisfaction with the rate of change, the method its implementation, style of leadership, democracy and the old age problems of raw opportunism, thirst for power and ego. These have combined to produce a pronounced factional situation, one that if not checked could pose a grave danger to the country’s future.

An example of this is that in the opening session, forces siding with ANC president Jacob Zuma, had proposed using a paper ballot only, opposing a recommendation by the outgoing executive committee of a combined used of both to reconfirm results. After much raucous back and forth with delegates seizing microphones, and the chair of the session virtually losing control of the proceedings, delegates later in a closed session agreed to use paper.

Mbeki touched on some of these issues in a two and one-half hour presentation that was long on substance and short on style which charted the achievements of the ANC since its last national meeting. Much attention was paid to the country’s steady economic growth rate over the last several years, with the country achieving records in all fields of the economy save agriculture. In Mbeki’s opinion the essentials for continued progress are in place. On the other hand, all would acknowledge that these growth rates had failed to dent unemployment or adequately address the housing and health crisis, these issues clearly being among the chief concerns of delegates.

Mbeki insisted that a campaign of lies had been undertaken by some, a campaign that misled and confused many. He acknowledged that problems in the Alliance with Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party had not been handled well including the much debated issue of the socialism and the national democratic revolution. Monday began with a continuation of the previous day’s acrimony and two mid-day allies by the respective camps. A credentials report given later in the day seemed to calm nerves and nominations for top officers concluded the day. Voting is to begin Tuesday. In another development, delegates agreed to expand the National Executive of the ANC by 20 and to mandate a 50/50 gender balance in it.

As delegates cast their ballots both sides seem sure of victory, with many claiming that, at the end of the day, it’s each voter, their ballot, and their conscience. However, in light of the intensity of this internal struggle one wonders whether whoever wins if South Africa loses. --Joe Sims is editor of Political Affairs. Reach him at