People Before Profit blog

Australia: Who Will Rudd Really Govern For?

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:01:00 +0000

11-29-07, 3:06 pm

The comprehensive defeat of the Howard government and Howard himself is a great victory for the Australian labour movement, from Kevin Rudd to the tens of thousands of rank and file trade unionists and the members of many other community organizations.

They hope and expect that there will be a real new direction in policies on the many pressing issues raised in the election campaign — living standards, climate change, education, health and on the rights of trade unions.

There is one claim made several times by Kevin Rudd that he cannot fulfill — it’s the claim that he will govern for all Australians.

Howard made the same claim when he celebrated his election victory in 1996 under the banner of 'For all of us.' It didn’t turn out that way and never could. Howard governed for the big end of town while systematically dismantling welfare, living standards and the rights of working people. He imposed the 'never ever' GST and pushed Australia into war in Iraq and Afghanistan on a raft of lies. He fenced off Australia, demonizing and incarcerating asylum seekers.

Those who elected the ALP candidates around the country were once again the 'true believers' and the millions of voters who believed that a new government would pursue policies that are different from those of Howard. Many ALP candidates were elected via Green preferences. In fact, it is likely that the ALP would not have been returned to government without Green preferences.

The ALP’s candidates were not elected by those from the North Shore or from Toorak or by those who have made new found wealth out of the resources boom in WA.

Perhaps Kevin Rudd believes that he has the answer to the class struggle and that his 'togetherness' will be able to eliminate that feature of social life. But that’s a myth. All the talk of 'fairness' and the 'national interest' will not alter the fact that the economic interests of workers and those of the corporations are opposed.

Workers and their unions will struggle for wages, working conditions and the right of trade unions to stand up for their members’ interests. Furthermore, workers comprise the overwhelming majority of the population. On the other hand the corporations comprise a very small percentage of the population but they do control the economy at present. The Howard government has seen to it that big business has even more powers than previously.

They control prices, interest rates, trade, investment, can hire and fire workers, control the media and much else. Any government restriction of their power and privileges is immediately met with counter action, including the sabotage of governments and a media counter-offensive to whip up 'popular' support against such measures.

Big business control of the economy has been strengthened in the last several decades by the privatization of many public enterprises (Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, airports, massive aid to private schools, etc) by both Liberal and Labor governments. There is no suggestion that a Rudd government is going to alter the policy of privatization.

It is as well for the new government to remember who elected it and that it is not there to continue, even with some changes, the same policies that were implemented by Howard.

There are already some straws in the wind. In an ABC interview Julia Gillard said that the government will consult the Business Advisory Council on industrial relations legislation and, only as an after-thought, mentioned consulting the trade unions. ALP policy statements leading up to the elections indicated that the same anti-trade union penalties are going to stay in place. Furthermore, the severe attacks made against several militant trade union leaders illustrates the existence of a underlying hostility to trade unionists who happen to disagree with Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

Another straw in the wind is Rudd’s decision that he will handpick his cabinet without any input from the other members of the ALP Caucus, thereby overturning a 100-year-old practice of former newly-elected Labor prime ministers. This act alone suggests an authoritarian streak that may grow in the future. It remains to be seen whether the ALP Caucus will meekly accept Rudd’s unilateral decision.

The next few weeks and months will reveal all.

From The Guardian

Venezuela's Constitutional Reforms are Needed for Stronger Democracy

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:52:00 +0000

11-29-07, 1:57 pm

Much has been made in the US media about the Constitutional reform process in Venezuela, but very little study of what those reforms entail has been undertaken. Certainly no serious or detailed analysis along with any effort to put the proposed changes into context exists in the US media.

According to Olivia Goumbri, executive director of the Washington-based Venezuela Information Office, the December 2nd vote on Venezuela's constitutional reforms has been the result of months of national dialogue and debate in Venezuela and of what may be one of the most democratic processes in the world.

In addition to a far-ranging dialogue that has in many ways altered the Constitutional reforms proposed by the Chávez administration and its supporters, the process has involved millions of people who up until the election of President Chávez were simply excluded from Venezuela's political life, says Goumbri.

One of the first and perhaps most important reforms President Chávez instituted at the beginning of his time in office was the creation of a system that provided Venezuela's poor and working people with citizenship rights. The implementation of a national identification system gave more than 8 million previously invisible people the right to vote, access to government programs and public education, and other citizenship rights that had been denied them, according to Goumbri.

'This was important because (prior to Chávez) there has never been real political participation by Venezuelans,' says Goumbri.

In addition to the creation of popular and successful social programs like free K-College education which has created an approximately 97% literacy rate, an extensive system of free health care, food and other anti-poverty programs, public works programs, boosting the minimum wages, and fostering the emergence of an independent trade union movement, the biggest accomplishment of the Chávez administration has been to recognize poor and working-class people in Venezuela exist, have rights, and can share in the political process that rules their country.

And it is this political process that is overseeing the Constitutional reforms that will be voted on this weekend.

One of the most controversial pieces of the Constitutional reform package is the proposed changes to the presidency. The reforms would extend to seven years the term in office (from six) and allow perpetual reelection rather than limiting reelection to two terms.

Goumbri argues that fears about dictatorship are unfounded. If the reforms pass, elections will remain competitive and presidential candidates will have to win the majority of votes, she says. Venezuelans will also retain the right to recall a president in midterm, 'which is something we don't even have in the US,' she adds.

Further, the plurality of political parties and choices in Venezuela ensure both wide participation and broad debate, something many critics of the US political process say is missing here in a system dominated by media corporations and powerful and wealthy interest groups.

Other observers have pointed out that there are no term limits on the prime minister in the United Kingdom, and no similar criticisms have been lodged against that institution. Additionally, until the 1940s, no term limits existed for the US presidency, having only been instituted out of Republican partisanship aimed at the popularity of Franklin D. Roosevelt and not out of any real fear of dictatorship.

In addition to the changes to the presidency, Goumbri states that another key reform is the decentralization of power through the redistribution of social resources directly to community councils rather than municipal governments. Critics have insisted this would centralize authority, but Goumbri offers another interpretation.

'My assessment of that,' she says, 'is that they're trying to hold the local governments a little bit more accountable.' The point of this reform is to give people in local communities and their representative organizations more access to social resources and more direct influence on the decisions of local governments, rather than imposing government decisions on the people.

Other important reforms would legally define and recognize different forms of property. For the first time private property will be defined and legally recognized along with state, social, and collective forms of property. For the first time, Afro-Venezuelans will be recognized as a national minority which has made important cultural and historical contributions to Venezuela. The central bank will come under the authority of the government. The national boundaries will be redefined to enhance Venezuela's sovereignty over its internationally recognized sea regions.

Finally, a controversial proposal that defines presidential power to declare a state of emergency initially included a measure that would have limited due process rights during a state of emergency, a fact of daily life with warrantless wiretapping in the US under the Bush administration. This particular legal change was an attempt to address what happened during the US-backed coup back in April of 2002, says Goumbri.

After much debate, the proposal to limit due process rights, however, proved extremely unpopular and was withdrawn. In addition to the right to not be tortured or mistreated, detainees held during a state of emergency will retain the right to due process and trial in court, a fact that contrasts sharply with conditions in the US and a fact that has not been reported on in the US media.

In sum the reforms being debated and voted on in Venezuela empower working and poor people. These reforms limit the power of the wealthy and the corporations to influence or control the government of Venezuela. It really is no wonder why the process has been sharply criticized and its content distorted by the US media, the Bush administration, and corporate entities who see profits from exploiting Venezuela slipping away.

--Reach Joel Wendland at

Venezuela: Term Limits and the Revolutionary Process

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:15:00 +0000

11-29-07, 12:26 pm

A prominent item in the news this morning is Venezuela’s upcoming referendum on Sunday. Recent polls show the proposals going down to defeat by ten percentage points, 49 percent to 39 percent, a sharp reversal of fortune from previous weeks.* Everyone cautions however that the outcome will ultimately hinge on turnout: who has the capacity to bring the voters out.

At stake is the issue of term limits for the country’s president, the current constitution allowing for only two terms. Those is the US who might see this as a drift toward undemocratic rule might remember that only after the long reign of FDR did the US adopt term limits for the presidency. Are term limits universally a good thing? It depends. Each country is different and should determine its own policy on the matter without outside interference. Readers should take note that a senior US diplomat may be expelled from Venezuela for meddling in their internal affairs. It also seems that this week Russians complained about Bush’s interference in their upcoming elections. No surprise there.

In the case of Venezuela, given the stage of the revolutionary movement, having an experienced leader at the helm might benefit the process lending continuity and stability. There is no substitute for mature leadership with decades old experience in governing. Lenin used to argue that it takes at least a decade to forge a communist cadre: perhaps twice that is needed for steady leadership to emerge. There is no hard and fast rule here and the experience of the revolutionary movement varies: with Vietnam having established a rotating leadership with term limitations; China now achieving smooth transitions void of “leadership for life,” Cuba etching towards a new dispensation with Fidel’s ill health, and South Africa’s (albeit very different) constitutional two-term rule.

Venezuela’s experiment then should be settled on its own term in keeping with the dynamics of its own revolutionary process, one in which the leadership is relatively new, and the party political institutions still forming. In this regard, as an outside observer looking in, it seems caustic “either-or” comments may not be helpful. For example, when Venezuela’s Communist Party recently hesitated about dissolving to join Chavez’s new party, the president is reported to have said, “you are either with me or against me.” So too, calling those on the left who are reluctant on the referendum “traitors” seems ill-advised.

However that said, it’s the issue for Venezuela to decide and clearly it’s more than about just term limits, but how to direct deeper more thorough going changes in a poor and under developed country confronting a formidable foe in US imperialism and the Bush administration.

*By contrast, the Venezuelan polling firm Consultores 30.11, which accurately predicted Venezuela's 2006 presidential elections, released a poll on 11-29 showing the Constitutional reforms passing by 12 points.

--Reach Joe Sims at

The International Communist Movement and the Struggle for Socialism

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:54:00 +0000

11-29-07, 10:02 am

Editor's Note: John Bachtell attended the international meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties held in Minsk, Belarus in early November. Bachtell is a contributing writer for Political Affairs, a member of the national board of the Communist Party USA, and the organizer of the CPUSA in Illinois.

PA: What, basically, is an International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties? What is the purpose?

John Bachtell: These meetings were initiated 9 years ago by the Communist Party of Greece. For a number of years they were held in Athens, but beginning last year they began branching out. The meeting last year was held in Lisbon, and this year the meeting was held in Minsk, Belarus. The whole idea is to bring together Communist and Workers Parties from around the world to exchange experiences, discuss various thematic questions, and talk about the different problems facing the parties. This is the second meeting I have been to. At the one I attended 3 years ago, the main topic was globalization. At the meeting in Minsk, since it was held during the 90th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, the theme under discussion was “The Relevance of the Great October Revolution to Today’s Struggles.” Everyone made a contribution directed at that theme, taking into account their own, specific situations. It was an opportunity for parties to really get together and exchange experiences, but it also provided an opportunity to work out joint, fraternal relations and develop a common political estimate about what is happening throughout the world.

PA: What is your sense of the various parties’ views of the Russian Revolution?

JB: From the speeches that I heard, the consensus was that the Great October Revolution was certainly the most important event of the 20th Century as far as human history is concerned, and maybe the most important event, historically speaking, because it inaugurated the era of transition from capitalism to socialism on a global scale. Therefore even though there have been some setbacks to Socialism in 1991 in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries, that doesn’t change the content of that epoch. The transition to socialism is moving forward, even though we have been through a difficult period. There are many signs that the period of setbacks is coming to an end and once again the working class, and especially the socialist movements throughout the world, are on the advance again.

PA: How do you relate the Great October Socialist Revolution to the situation in the United States today?

JB: In my presentation, what I mainly tried to do was draw the lessons to be learned from from the Great October Revolution, particularly the ideas that emerged from the Revolution and during the build-up to the Revolution, which are embodied in the writings of Lenin and other Marxist theoreticians at that time, and discuss how they are applicable to our own situation here. I also talked about the general experience of the Communist movement for the past 90 years, about the lessons we have drawn not only from the Revolution itself and the Soviet process of transformation, but also from the building of socialism, both the positives and negatives, the achievements as well as the mistakes that were made, including the mistakes that led to the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

For example, one of the lessons our Party has drawn is that there are no models for socialism, that socialism is different in every country, and that the model the Russian working class developed and called socialism was applicable to that country. Conditions here, however, are different, and socialism will look very different here. The CPUSA has the concept of Bill of Rights Socialism, which takes into account the whole history of the struggle for democracy in the US, which is very central to our history. And similarly the path to socialism is different here. We have had to creatively develop our whole concept of the path to socialism in the United States. We see the path to socialism in the US as progressing through a broad movement for democracy, and going through many stages, including the present stage of defeating the extreme right wing, which, as we know, will be a big struggle in the elections next year.

Once the extreme right wing is defeated, then we can move on to a whole new stage, which is the stage of directly taking on the monopoly capitalist class. At each stage the struggle for democracy deepens, and eventually the vast majority of people will see the need for a socialist transformation. Those were some of the ideas I developed in my remarks.

PA: Were there any surprises at the meeting?

JB: There were two things, which I felt made this meeting different and reflected a new phase in the consolidation and regrouping process of the international communist movement. One was that the Communist Party of Belarus and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation hosted the meeting, and that it was held in a country that was formerly a Republic of the Soviet Union. What was also significant was that Belarus, which is a country of about 9 million people, has remained on a path of socialist development. The economy there is about 80% still publicly owned, and the Communist Party is in a governing coalition with Alexander Lukashenko and the forces around him. Lukashenko emerged during the struggle against the privatization of the economy, the efforts to loot it and turn it capitalist; he became a very popular figure, and the Communist Party formed a coalition with him. So in Belarus you have a Party that is part of the governing coalition, and which hosted this meeting and played an important role in the meeting itself.

The second major factor, I thought, was the participation of the Communist Party of China. The Communist Party of China has 73 million members, a huge party, the biggest in the world. And in all the previous international meetings they have only been observers. They have generally sat in the back of the meeting and not mixed in much. At this meeting, however, they played a very active role in the meeting itself. They spoke right up front. The Chinese representative reported on the 17th Party Congress in China, about the problems they are confronting in building socialism and what they are trying to do about them. The representative also spoke later on in Moscow, where there was a big celebration that we all went to marking the 90th Anniversary. In his remarks there, he said that the revolution in China had its roots in the Great October Revolution, and that the Great October Revolution introduced Marxism to China. You got this feeling of tremendous unity in the world Communist movement because of their participation. As we know, there have been some divisions in the past, but the Chinese delegation was fully a part of this meeting and fully a part of the whole process, which I think is a really important sign of the vitality of the international communist movement.

PA: In addition to the Communist Party of China, what other parties from outside Europe were able to participate?

JB: First of all, it is important to note, as Gennady Zyuganov, the General Secretary of the Russian Federation said, that if you take a look globally, 40% of the world’s people live in countries where the Communist Party is either the governing party or part of a governing coalition. That includes China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and also a whole number of governing coalitions, including several in Latin America. Of the parties that were represented, there were at least 8 parties from Asia, 6 parties from Central and South America, and 2 parties from Africa. The participation of parties from the developing countries, particularly from Latin America, Asia and Africa is restricted a lot by finances. because of this, there has been a solidarity fund set up to try to make it possible for parties from these continents to attend. The next meeting is going to be held in Brazil, and I think that the participation from Central and South America and the Caribbean will be enhanced.

--Reach John Bachtell ator send your letter to the editor to

La crisis del mercado de la vivienda y la economia: Entrevista con Art Perlo

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:09:00 +0000

11-28-07, 12:30 pm

PA: ¿Nos puede describir algunas de las causas básicas de la crisis hipotecaria actual?

Art Perlo: Hay dos causas básicas e interrelacionadas: las hipotecas de alto riesgo (“subprime”) y la burbuja sin precedente en los precios de inmuebles. Las hipotecas de alto riesgo ocupan todos los titulares. Esa fue una innovación tremenda por parte de la comunidad financiera que permitía a la gente comprar inmuebles que luego no los alcanzaba a pagar. Fue perpetrado esto prometiendo mensualidades iniciales muy bajos, y luego de un plazo determinado, usualmente de dos años, subiendo las mensualidades. Así es que alguien podía comprar una casa con mensualidades de $1,200, cantidad que muy apenas alcanzaba pagar, y luego a los dos años disparaban sus mensualidades de noche a la mañana a $2,000.

La otra causa de la crisis que resulta estrechamente relacionada fue la burbuja en los precios de inmuebles. Se encuentra a gente no solamente atrapada con hipotecas que no alcanza a pagar, pero también que debe cantidades muy superiores al valor real de la casa. Durante los últimos 10 años han subido los gastos de la vivienda un 70 por ciento más rápidamente que la taza de inflación, una situación que ha creado 8 billones de dólares en plusvalía virtual. Esto quiere decir que la gente ha pagado mucho más por sus casas que su valor real. Pero al fin en el curso del último año esta burbuja ha caído a tierra. Se aumentan las mensualidades de todas esas hipotecas de alto riesgo y la gente ya no las puede pagar. Las empresas de construcción y contratistas que habían hecho su agosto con los altos precios de inmuebles seguían construyendo casas sin pensar nunca de la mañana, hasta que creció su inventario de casas no vendidas desde algunos 2 millones en 2001 hasta más de 4 millones de viviendas sin venderse hoy día. Con tantas casas sin poderse vender en el mercado de inmuebles no se pudieron sostener sus precios. De repente se encontraba la gente atrapada con deudas hipotecarias inmensas para sus casas. Pueden deber $300,000 por una casa, pero si tratan de venderla, si es que logran venderla, pueden recibir apenas unos $200,000 o $150,000 por esa misma casa. Así que salen debiendo más por la casa que el valor real de la misma.

PA: ¿Quiénes son los más afectados por esta crisis?

AP: Los más afectados directamente son, principalmente, las más de 2 millones de familias que han perdido o que van a perder sus hogares, y esta figura muy fácilmente puede llegar a 3 ó 4 millones antes que se resuelve la crisis. Y además los millones que tienen 2 ó 3 trabajos y que sacrifican a su salud, a la educación de sus hijos, y hasta su misma alimentación, todo en el esfuerzo por mantener a sus hogares. También hay por lo menos 100,000 trabajadores que han perdido sus trabajos de construcción, en materiales de construcción y en el mercado financiero e hipotecario, y las pérdidas de trabajos apenas han comenzado. A lo mejor se perderán millones de empleos. Algunos gobiernos estatales y locales ya enfrentan déficits en sus presupuestos por la pérdida inesperada de ingresos por impuestos. También hay aspectos económicos negativos de mayor envergadura, pero ese es un breve resumen de los que se ven afectados de manera más directa.

PA: ¿Cómo evaluaría Ud. la rapidez de la respuesta de Bush a la crisis y al contenido de la misma?

AP: Mi impresión, aunque no he estudiado detenidamente su propuesta, es que él está proponiendo que unos 100,000 o 200,000 dueños de casa sean elegibles para solicitar hipotecas garantizadas por el gobierno. Eso quiere decir que está ofreciendo la posibilidad de una cierta ayuda a solo un diez por ciento de los dueños de casa afectados por esta crisis. La mayor parte de esta ayuda iría para rescatar a los mismos prestamistas que ofrecieron estos malos préstamos en primer lugar. A los inversionistas se les va repagar el valor completo de las hipotecas, aunque en el mercado de inmuebles la hipoteca ya no valga más que una fracción de su valor nominal.

PA: ¿Cuales serán algunas soluciones inmediatas para ayudar a la gente a que no pierdan sus hogares?

AP: A nivel nacional, creo que tenemos que reconocer que hay millones de inmuebles que fueron sobrevalorizados, y que los dueños de casas ya deben mucho más que el valor real de sus casas, mucho más que lo que pueden repagar. En realidad se trata de billones de dólares de valor, valor que ya se esfumó y que tendrá que darse por perdido. Eso debe resolverse de una manera planeada, organizada, y a costo de los prestamistas y de las instituciones financieras, no los dueños de casas. Eso quiere decir que se deben reducir las hipotecas a un valor realista que el dueño de casa puede alcanzar a pagar. Por ejemplo, si una familia tiene ingresos de $50,000 anuales, pueden alcanzar a pagar realmente una hipoteca de más o menos $180,000, con mensualidades de $1,100. Si una empresa hipotecaria les prestó $350,000 para comprar una casa sobrevalorizada, ya están tratando de pagar más de $2,200 al mes. Y no alcanzan hacerlo. El banquero hipotecario nunca debió ofrecer esta hipoteca, así que es el banquero quien debe pagar las consecuencias.

Es importante organizar a nivel local, comunitario. En algunas comunidades en distintas partes del país ya están haciendo eso, tanto por organizaciones comunitarias que por gobiernos locales. El primer paso es el de buscar y encontrar a esas familias que están en peligro de perder sus hogares. Deben celebrarse audiencias públicas. Hay que darse cuenta que este es un problema comunitario y no una serie de desastres particulares que cada familia tiene que enfrentar en aislamiento. Se puede negociar con los prestamistas para mejorar los términos de pago, pero esto resulta más eficaz si se hace lo más temprano posible y con el apoyo de un grupo organizado. No hay formula universal que sirva en todas las comunidades.

En términos macroeconómicos, parece que la crisis hipotecaria puede transformarse en el gatillo de disparo de una crisis financiera más generalizada y a lo mejor, una recesión económica.

PA: ¿Cómo se relaciona este retrato de crisis que Ud. nos presenta al sistema mismo del capitalismo?

AP: La crisis hipotecaria y la situación económica del país en general ya es casi un ejemplo clásico de lo que Marx calificaba como una crisis de sobreproducción. Dijo Marx, La razón última de las crisis siempre subyace en la pobreza y en el consumo restringido de las masas, que se opone a la tendencia de la producción capitalista de desarrollar las fuerzas productivas como si su límite fuera el poder de consumo absoluto de la sociedad.

Eso quiere decir que, en su afán por las ganancias los capitalistas expanden su producción casi sin límite, eso, con la mano derecha. Pero con la mano izquierda y también con su afán de ganancias hacen todo lo que puedan para reducir a los trabajadores sus salarios y su poder adquisitivo. Entonces, producen más y más pero los trabajadores no alcanzan a comprar lo que ellos mismos producen. Desde el 2001 se ha pospuesto una crisis económica llenando la brecha con pura deuda. Las familias trabajadoras se encuentran más y más endrogadas, y con el brote de la crisis hipotecaria la gente ya no puede sacar más dinero prestado respaldado por el valor de sus casas. No solamente tenemos una sobreproducción en el ramo de la vivienda (ya me había referido a las 4 millones de casas sin venderse que la gente ya no alcanza comprar) pero hay un peligro de que los consumidores pueden salir perdiendo entre 400 y 900 mil millones de dólares en poder adquisitivo nada más porque ya no pueden conseguir préstamos respaldados por el valor de sus casas. Y es por eso que hay un peligro real de que caiga la economía en una recesión abrupta que puede prolongarse porque la gente no alcanza a comprar lo que necesita.

No tengo ningún mapa de cómo debe funcionar el socialismo. Pero el socialismo es un sistema racional bajo el cual la gente trabajadora posee y maneja a la economía a su propio beneficio. La meta es cumplir con las necesidades del pueblo, no producir ganancias antes de nada. Y, ¿cómo se aplica eso a la vivienda? Si examinamos más ampliamente la cuestión de la vivienda no es solamente una cuestión de construir cuántas casas a qué precio, pero es también la cuestión de dónde construir esas casas, y bajo qué condiciones. Tiene que ver con todas las cuestiones ecológicas. Una sociedad socialista se dirigiría a la vivienda de una manera completa. Primero, se pudieran evitar a las “burbujas”. Pudiera examinarse las estadísticas demográficas y decir que en el curso de los próximos 20 años vamos a necesitar tantas unidades nuevas y que tendremos que remozar a tantos departamentos. Se construyen viviendas a un ritmo estable, empleándoles a una fuerza estable de trabajadores, y no habrán altibajos tremendos que afectan las vidas de millones de gente. Por el otro lado de la moneda, dirías, “Está bien, aquí vive la gente; acá es donde se planea el desarrollo económico. Y este es nuestro plan para integrar la necesidad de más viviendas con las preocupaciones ecológicas y la eficiencia energética.

El socialismo como sistema no siempre crea respuestas correctas, pero sí crea posibilidades para encontrar respuestas correctas, porque el pueblo, por medio de sus organismos electivos y sus organizaciones de masas, tiene capacidad para planear y determinar sus propias necesidades.

Standing Up for Public Education

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:59:00 +0000

11-28-07, 12:30 pm

“We can’t live with this for another five years.”

These words from Jerry Jordan, president of the 17,000 member Philadelphia local of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT Local 3) captures the mood of educators across the country as the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) comes up for re-authorization in the current session of Congress. The law, originally passed in 2002, is the Bush Administration’s response to rising demands for an increased federal role in support of public education. But, after five years, growing numbers of Americans are deciding that the administration did not “get it right.”

The law has generated widespread frustration and resentment among teachers and administrators at the state and local level, but the opposition now goes beyond educators. Numerous polls suggest that dissatisfaction with NCLB deepens as parents and others learn more about the law and its effects. As early as January of 2004, surveys suggested that NCLB was not what people wanted from the federal government. At that time, an Opinion Research Corporation poll found that over half (52%) of those responding would use federal funds to reduce class size, a goal not included in the law. On the other hand, a large majority (70%) said they would oppose taking money away from their own child’s school, should the school be classified as “failing.”

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that pollster Monty Neill, director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, found “growing resistance” to NCLB in December 2006. By May of this year a survey of over 1,000 adults by Scripps Howard News and Ohio University found that nearly 2/3 of those responding wanted the law either rewritten or abolished and that the more people learn about its provisions, the more likely they are to oppose it.

So, what are the problems with NCLB? A summary of its provisions would read as follows: It requires schools to meet, each year, increasingly unrealistic goals in reading and math, as measured by standardized test scores. The threatened sanctions for failing to meet the goals, are punitive and not likely to result in school improvement This is resulting in narrowing the curriculum as schools focus on preparing for the tests and are forced to reduce instructional time for “non tested” subjects such as social studies and the arts. At the same time, the law provides for little or no support from Washington for the considerable efforts demanded of schools in order to meet the goals. In other words, NCLB amounts to one enormous “unfunded mandate.”

All of this forces one to wonder. Could NCLB as presently written be part of the long range plan of the administration to undermine public education? If the law’s harsh provisions result in more schools being branded “failures,” could that lead to an exodus from the public schools into the proliferating charter schools or religious or other private “academies”? Could the educational crunch currently facing post Katrina New Orleans or the proliferation of charter schools in Philadelphia represent outcomes envisioned by the Bush team? And, could the law generate such frustration with the federal government’s clumsy attempt to influence education policy, that it causes a “backlash” movement opposing any federal role?

We can not say for sure, but what seems clear is that NCLB needs major revision and that the expanding dissatisfaction with the law presents an opportunity as well as a challenge. The current Congress is not the same one that passed the original version of the law. While the 2006 election was not exactly a referendum on NCLB, the changes wrought by the voters in that election have created an opening that supporters of public education cannot afford to miss.

This brings us to the key role that the two school employee unions are playing in this process. The unions can, for instance, use their organizational structures to mobilize their members. Working teachers and their unions, The NEA and the AFT, have expressed some doubt that proposals now in Congress for amending the law will address their primary concerns. Both organizations have campaigns in progress aimed at urging their members to contact legislators and express their views. They have urged – and organized – their members to let legislators hear their voices. At their national meeting last July, the NEA distributed an “Action Guide” to members with the title “NCLB; It’s Time for A Change.” This folder contained a wealth of useful information about the problems with the law. The NEA takes sharp issue, for example, with the “single snap shot fill in the bubble” test scores as the basis for assessing student – and school – progress. It also notes that the federal class size reduction program, which originally provided $4.1 billion to hire some 37,000 teachers, was eliminated under NCLB. The AFT’s American Teacher reports that AFT members have organized Activists for Congressional Education (ACE) committees across the country to meet with senators and representatives.

In addition to organizing, bringing the teachers’ point of view into the mix is an important contribution. The NEA literature, for instance, notes some of the problems with NCLB’s stated goal of putting a “highly qualified” teacher in every classroom.

The NCLB teacher quality mandates are overly focused on “content” knowledge… and overlook the importance of knowing how to teach, of presenting information effectively and connecting with an increasingly diverse student population… The rigid “highly qualified” requirements force too many teachers and paraprofessionals to clear a succession of hurdles, and they are driving some out of the profession, making it even more difficult to recruit and retain quality educators.

Another union contribution to the debate is the NEA’s explanation of the history of federal legislation regarding education. As their literature states, NCLB is actually a revision – a drastic revision, but still a revision – of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Many of us use the term “Title I,” for example, without remembering that it refers to a part of that law. The ESEA, was passed as a result of the struggles of the Civil Rights movement. It established the precedent for a supportive federal role in public education and it has funded Title I and other programs. The most destructive parts of NCLB, on the other hand, can be seen as part of the right wing attack on Civil Rights, but there is more to this story. The NCLB law, itself the result of political deals and trade-offs, retained programs such as Title I and, in fact, includes some progressive additions. For example, it strengthens the rights of homeless children to attend local public schools, as well as of English language learners and special education students. (In fact, the name of the law was hijacked by the Bush Administration from the Children’s Defense fund slogan “Leave No Child Behind”.)

Therefore, simply abolishing NCLB is not the goal of supporters of public education. The original character of the 1965 law needs to be restored and further improvements made. In the first place, that means providing federal funds in amounts necessary to insure that teachers and students in every school district have class sizes that make real teaching and learning possible. The “teacher quality” and testing provisions also need major revisions in order to make the federal role in education a supportive one.

With the ESEA/NCLB due for reauthorization in the coming year, now is the time for educators, parents, students and all those who support equitable quality public schools to make their voices heard. If Americans have one nearly universally shared experience, going to school is it. Despite the confusion sowed by well publicized campaigns for vouchers, religious schools, charters and other “alternative” options, the fact is that around 90 percent of American young people attend public school. The fact is that, while well aware of the work still needed to fulfill the promise of public schools – full funding for every school, breaking down barriers of race, class and geography that students face – most americans support the concept of equitable, universal, state supported education. It is an urgent issue for the majority of Americans. We can make a start by making sure Congress gets ESEA/NCLB right this time. For more information see:

American Federation of Teachers – National Education Association – People for the American Way –

--Ben Sears is labor editor of Political Affairs. Send your letters to the editor to

Warning: Climate Crisis Maybe Hazardous to Your Health

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:43:00 +0000

11-28-07, 12:30 pm

The world today is entering a period of rapid climate change due in large part to increasing the atmospheric concentration of energy-trapping gases. This amplifies the natural “greenhouse effect” that makes the Earth habitable. These greenhouse gases are mostly comprised of carbon dioxide (mostly from fossil fuel combustion and forest burning), plus other heat-trapping gases such as methane (from irrigated agriculture, animal husbandry and oil extraction), nitrous oxide, and other chemicals.

There is very little that is “natural” about this. It is largely the direct and indirect consequence of the plundering of the world’s resources and exploiting the world’s people by multinational corporations maximizing short-term profits. There is little room for long-term environmental stewardship in this endless, unquenchable, scorched earth quest for maximum profits. There are many casualties in this rush to profit – perhaps the most important, ultimately, is the health of the people.

In its Third Assessment Report, released a few years ago, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said “corporate policies guiding human activities,” but the general concept is evident.

During the 20th century, world average surface temperature has increased by approximately one degree Fahrenheit, and approximately two-thirds of that warming has occurred since 1975. Climatologists, using increasingly sophisticated and accurate methods, forecast further warming and changes in precipitation and climatic variability during the coming century and beyond.

The global scale of climate change differs fundamentally from the many other familiar localized environmental concerns. Worldwide climate change signifies that Earth’s biophysical and ecological systems are being altered at the planetary scale. Among other processes, this is evidenced by stratospheric ozone depletion, accelerating biodiversity losses, stresses on land and marine foodproducing systems, depletion of freshwater supplies, and the global spread of persistent organic pollutants.

The IPCC has estimated that the global average temperature will rise by several degrees Fahrenheit during this century. In addition, the IPCC has projected changes in extreme climate events that include more hot days and heat waves; more intense precipitation events; increased risk of drought; increase in winds and tropical cyclones over some areas; intensified droughts and floods with El Niño events; and increased variability in Asian monsoons. A key question is, “What will be the health consequences in all of this for human beings?”

150,000 Deaths

Scientific evidence relating climatic trends to altered health outcomes remains sparse. This impedes estimating the range, timing and magnitude of likely future health impacts of global environmental changes.

Even so, an initial attempt has been made by the World Health Organization. Analyzing only the better studied health outcomes, the climate change that already occurred since the climate baseline period 1961-1990 was estimated to have caused 150,000 deaths and 5.5 million “Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS)” in the year 2000 (DALYs are the sum of the years of life lost due to premature death in the population, in addition to the years of good health lost due to disability).

The IPCC concluded with high confidence that climate change would cause:

• increased heat-related mortality and morbidity,

• decreased cold-related mortality in temperate countries,

• greater frequency of infectious disease epidemics following floods and storms, and,

• substantial health effects following population displacement from sea level rise and increased storm activity.

Both temperature and surface water have important influences on the insects that spread infectious disease. Of particular importance are those mosquito species which spread malaria and viral diseases such as dengue and yellow fever. Mosquitoes need access to stagnant water in order to breed, and the adults need humid conditions to live. Warmer temperatures enhance mosquito breeding. However, very hot and dry conditions can reduce mosquito survival.

Malaria in the US

For North America, the IPCC concluded that insect-born diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, may expand their ranges in the United States and may develop in Canada. Malaria, today, is mostly confined to tropical and subtropical regions. However, other carriers of human disease in the United States may increase as a result of climate change. Recent analyses have shown that the malaria epidemic risk increases around five-fold in the year after an El Niño event. Rodents, which proliferate in temperate regions following mild wet winters, act as reservoirs for various diseases. Some rodent-born diseases are associated with flooding. Other diseases associated with rodents and ticks, which show associations with climatic variability, include Lyme disease, tick borne encephalitis, and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (mostly in the American Southwest).

Many diarrheal diseases vary seasonally, suggesting sensitivity to climate. Both floods and droughts increase the risk of diarrheal diseases. Major causes of diarrhea linked to heavy rainfall and contaminated water supplies are: cholera, cryptosporidium, E.coli infection, giardia, shigella, typhoid, and viruses such as hepatitis A. In 2030 the estimated risk of diarrhea will be up to 10 percent higher in some regions than if no climate change occurred.

Extremes of temperature can kill. In many temperate countries, death rates during the winter season are 10-25 percent higher than those in the summer. In July 1995, a heat wave in Chicago caused 514 heat-related deaths and 3,300 emergency hospital admissions. Most of the excess deaths during times of temperature extreme are in persons with preexisting disease, especially heart and respiratory disease. The very old, the very young, and the frail are most susceptible.

Global climate change will be accompanied by an increased frequency and intensity of heatwaves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters. For example, the annual excess summer-time deaths attributable to climate change, by 2050, is estimated to increase several hundred percent, to between 500-1,000 for New York and 100-250 for Detroit.

The effects of weather disasters (droughts, floods, storms and bushfires) on health are difficult to quantify, because secondary and delayed consequences are poorly reported. It is projected that there will be additional numbers of people killed or injured in coastal and inland floods, and would generally cause a greater rise in related diseases.

It is also known that El Niño events influence the annual toll of persons affected by natural disasters. Moreover, in contrast to many other risk factors, climate change and its associated risks are increasing rather than decreasing over time.

Ozone in the Stratosphere and Skin Cancer on Earth

Stratospheric ozone absorbs much of the incoming solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR), especially the biologically more damaging, shorter-wavelength, UVR. We now know that various industrial halogenated chemicals such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs – used in refrigeration, insulation and spraycan propellants) and methyl bromide, while inert at ambient Earth-surface temperatures, react with ozone in the extremely cold polar stratosphere. This destruction of ozone occurs especially in late winter and early spring.

During the 1980’s and 1990’s at northern mid-latitudes (such as Europe), the average year-round ozone concentration declined by around four percent per decade: over the southern regions of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa, the figure approximated 6-7 percent. Estimating the resultant changes in actual ground-level ultraviolet radiation remains technically complex. However, exposures at northern midlatitudes, for example, are likely to peak around 2020.

Scientists expect the combined effect of recent stratospheric ozone depletion and its continuation over the next 1-2 decades to be (via the accumulation of additional UVB exposure), an increase in skin cancer incidence in fair-skinned populations living at mid to high latitudes. For the US population this would result in a 10 percent increase in skin cancer incidence by around 2050. There may also be increases in cataracts, adverse consequences for human ability to fight infections, and a reduction in the efficacy of certain vaccines.

Ground-level ozone can damage lung tissue, and is especially harmful for those with asthma and other chronic lung diseases. Sunlight and high temperatures, combined with other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, can cause ground-level ozone to increase. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone.

Another pollutant of concern is “particulate matter,” also known as particle pollution. Particulate matter is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. When breathed in, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems. Climate change may indirectly affect the concentration of particle pollution in the air by affecting natural sources of these particles such as wildfires and dust from dry soils.

Finally, we have only the slightest understanding about how all the interrelated elements of climate change will ultimately affect the health of the world’s people. But we do know, as the IPCC has noted, there is relationship between human actions like deforestation, migration and land use, the spread of infectious disease, and global climate change.

Class Consequences

It is increasingly evident that all people will not be equally affected by climate change. Working families, the poor, the elderly and the disabled will be affected the most because they have the fewest resources. The wealthy, and the corporations that have plundered the wealth, will be least affected. In the United States, with a public health system starved by war financing at the federal level and corporate tax breaks at the local level, working people are in great jeopardy by the threats of climate change. In the United States, where perhaps a third of the working poor lack real access to health care, they will be the principle victims of injuries and illnesses resulting from climate change.

Now more than ever we need an efficient national health service to provide high quality health care to all the people – no exceptions, no profits, no insurance companies – just the best health care for all the people. This is how the highest rated health care systems around the world are operated, and this is how we can minimize the adverse health impacts of the climate change we know has started.

--David Lawrence is a contributing writer for Political Affairs. Send your letters to the editor to

The Housing Crisis and the Economy: Interview with Art Perlo

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:38:00 +0000

11-28-07, 12:30 pm

Editor's Note: Art Perlo chairs the economics commission of the Communist Party USA.

PA: Could you briefly describe some of the basic causes of the current housing crisis?

Art Perlo: There are two basic, interrelated causes: sub-prime mortgages and the unprecedented bubble in housing prices. The sub-prime mortgages are what are getting all the headlines. This was a great invention by the financial community, which allowed people to buy houses at prices they couldn’t afford. They did this by setting low introductory monthly payments, and then after a period of time, usually about 2 years, the payments would increase. So somebody might buy a house where the initial monthly payments were $1,200 a month, which they could barely afford, and then after 2 years, the payments would reset overnight to $2,000 a month.

The other cause of the crisis, which is closely connected, was the bubble in housing prices. People not only got stuck with home mortgages they couldn’t afford, but they were for amounts far more than what the house was realistically worth. In the last 10 years, house prices have risen 70 percent faster than inflation, which has created $8 trillion in surplus wealth on paper. What that means is that people paid far more for houses than they were worth. Eventually, over the last year, this hit a wall. All these sub-prime mortgages were resetting, and people could not afford to pay them. As houses were being foreclosed, housing prices had risen so high that people could not afford them. The builders and developers, who had been cashing in on the high housing prices, built like there was no tomorrow, until the number of unsold homes increased from 2 million in 2001 to over 4 million unsold houses today. There got to be so many unsold houses on the market that they just couldn’t keep the prices up. Suddenly people were stuck owing huge mortgages. They might owe $300,000 on a house and if they tried to sell it – if they were able to sell it at all – they could only get maybe $200,000 or $150,000 for it. Now they owe more on the house than the house is worth.

PA: Who are the people that have been most negatively affected by the crisis?

AP: The people who directly are affected, first of all, are at least 2 million families who have lost or will lose their homes, and there could easily be 3 or 4 million before this is over. Then there are the millions more who are working 2 or 3 jobs and sacrificing their healthcare, their kids’ education, even their food, in an effort to hold on to their homes. There are also at least 100,000 workers who have lost jobs in construction, building supplies, and real estate and mortgage finance, and the job cuts are only beginning to roll in. There will probably be millions of jobs lost. Some state and local governments are already facing budget shortfalls because of lower than expected tax revenues. There is also a broader economic downside, but that’s a brief summary of those most directly affected.

PA: How would you evaluate the timing of Bush’s response to the crisis and its content?

AP: My impression, although I have not studied his proposal closely, is that he proposes to make 100,000 or 200,000 homeowners eligible to apply for federally-backed mortgages. This means he is offering to possibly provide some relief to only one-tenth of the homeowners who are affected by this crisis. And the bulk of relief will go to bailing out the lenders who made the bad loans in the first place. The investors will get the full value of the mortgage repaid to them, even though on the market the mortgage is not worth nearly the full amount.

PA: What are some immediate solutions to help people avoid losing their homes?

AP: Nationally, I think we have to recognize that there are millions of homes that were overpriced and that homeowners owe far more than the homes are worth, far more than they can pay back. Literally trillions of dollars in wealth, wealth that has now proved to be imaginary, will have to be written off. This needs to take place in a planned, organized way, and at the expense of the lenders and financial institutions, not the homeowners. That means that mortgages should be marked down to a realistic value the homeowner can afford to pay. For example, if a family has an income of $50,000 a year, they can realistically afford a mortgage of about $180,000, with monthly payments of $1,100. If a mortgage company lent them $350,000 to buy an overpriced home, they are now trying to pay over $2,200 a month. They can’t afford it. The mortgage banker should never have made the loan, so the banker should be the one to live with the consequences.

It is important to organize at the local, community level. This is already being done in some communities around the country, both by community organizations and local governments. The first step is to reach out and find those families who are in danger of losing their homes. There should be public hearings. It needs to be acknowledged that this is a community problem, that these are not just individual disasters that each family has to meet in isolation. It is possible to negotiate with lenders to improve payment terms, but this is most effective if it is done as early as possible and with the backing of an organized group. There is no single formula that is going to work in every community.

In terms of the larger economic picture, the housing crisis appears to be turning into a trigger for a more general financial crisis and probably a recession.

PA: How do you relate this picture of crisis you present to the system of capitalism itself?

AP: The housing crisis and the general economic situation in the country is almost a classic case of what Marx described as a crisis of overproduction. Marx said, The ultimate reason for all real crises remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses, as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.

This means that, in their drive for profits, capitalists expand production almost without limits. That’s with their right hand. But with their left hand and also in their drive for profits, they do everything they can to keep down the wages and the consuming power of the worker. So they produce more and more, but workers can’t buy what they produce.

An economic crisis has been held off since 2001 by filling in the gap with debt. Working families have gotten deeper and deeper in debt, and now that the housing crisis has hit, people can no longer borrow any more money against the value of their homes. Not only do we have overproduction in housing – I talked about the 4 million unsold houses people are unable to afford – but an estimated $400 to $900 billion a year of purchasing power stands to be lost by consumers, just on the basis that they can no longer borrow against their homes. And so there is a real danger of the economy slipping into a steep and possibly prolonged recession, because people can’t afford to buy what they need.

I don’t have a roadmap for how socialism should work. But socialism is a rational system where the economy is owned and run by working people for their own benefit. The goal is to meet the needs of the people, not first to make profits. How does that apply to housing? If we look at the housing question broadly, it is not only a question of how many houses are built and what they cost, it’s also a question of where they are built and under what conditions. It ties in with all the environmental issues.

A socialist society would look at housing holistically. One, it could avoid bubbles. It would be able to look at the demographics and say, over the next 20 years we are going to need this many new units, and we are going to need to refurbish this many apartments. You’d build housing at a steady rate and employ a steady number of workers, and you would not have huge booms and busts, which disrupt the lives of millions of people. On the other side, you would you say, okay this is where the population is. This is where economic development is planned. This is how we can integrate the need for more housing with environmental concerns and with energy efficiency.

Socialism, as a system, does not always create the right answers, but it creates the possibilities for the right answers, because the people, acting through their elective bodies and their mass organizations, can plan and determine what they need.

--Art Perlo chairs the economics commission of the Communist Party USA. Send your letters to the editor to

December 2007 – What the Housing Crisis Means to You

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:08:00 +0000

Dear Readers,

Due to high costs, the editorial board along with the leadership of the Communist Party has been forced to take cost cutting measures. This includes layoffs of two valuable and committed staff persons along with changing both the format and frequency of PA. The number of times we print will change from 11 to 6, and the glossy cover will be eliminated. Each issue will contain the same amount of reading material: however, the changed format will mean printing without pictures and therefore a reduced number of pages.

The PA editorial board remains committed to insuring the same quality of editorial work and content. In fact, we will work even harder to improve it. We also intend to maintain our concept of PA as a magazine of politics, culture and ideology, but with longer and deeper articles.

We want to strongly encourage you to continue to follow PA online as our publication expands its presence there. In this world of 21st century publishing, more of our resources have to be devoted to publishing in the interactive online environment, where print, video, audio, and telephone are combining into one powerful platform. The fact is that the press – be it capitalist or working-class – is in transition from hard copy to electronic publishing, and we must become part of it. Already we have 3 times the number of regular readers online as we do in print and this number is sure to grow.

We look forward to working, struggling and dynamically interacting with you to achieve our goal of a new society and the realization of the scientific socialist and communist idea. If you have any questions about your subscription, we can be reached at or 646-437-5336.

In struggle, PA Board

Departments:

4: Letters

5: Marxist IQ

6: Commentary

Viva Frida: A Tribute By Claire Carew

Standing Up for Public Education By Ben Sears

An injury to one is an injury to all: House passes anti-discrimination bill By Political Affairs

12: Book Reviews

Fellow Travelers: A Novel Reviewed by Martha Kramer

The People’s State: East German Society from Hitler to Honecker Reviewed by Tony Pecinovsky

14: Poetry

Full Moon By Carolyn Gregory

Notes on the Long Poem (Tuscaloosa, AL) By Michael S. Harper

Can We Have Some Peace and Quiet Please? By Eliot Katz

30: International Notes

Features:

16: How Goldman Sachs Plays Both Sides and Wins

With fingers in every pot, Goldman Sachs has been a leading light of the capitalist class. By Lawrence Albright

18: Setting the Record Straight: Doris Lessing is Politically Incorrect

Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing accuses Marxism of abusing language. Novelist Phil Bonosky responds. By Joel Wendland

20: The Housing Crisis and the Economy: Interview with Art Perlo

What are causes and solutions for the housing crisis? By Political Affairs

22: On the Ropes: US Imperialism Today

Far from stable, US imperialism is on the brink of disaster. By Gerald Horne

26: Warning: Climate Crisis May be Hazardous to Your Health

Global warming will have disastrous public health side-effects. By David Lawrence

28: Private Eye, Public Activist: Dashiell Hammett and the Detective Novel

Celebration of the life and work of America’s first great detective writer. By Norman Markowitz and Eric Green

32: Last Exit to Utopia: A Traveler's Guide to a New Society

Thinking through the transition to socialism. By David Cavendish

36: Managing Markets and the Socialist State: An Overview

What is a working-class government and what are its main goals? By David Pena

40: Capitalism vs. Labor: The Pullman Strike Showdown

By Jon Allen

44: La crisis del mercado de la vivienda y la economia: Entrevista con Art Perlo

Por Political Affairs

Japan: PM Fukuda Pledges to Support Bush's War, Opposition Criticizes

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:25:00 +0000

11-28-07, 9:29 am

Prime Minister Fukuda Yasuo and U.S. President George W. Bush on November 16 held their first talks at the White House.

Fukuda vowed that he will make the “utmost effort” to get an anti-terrorism special measures bill enacted as early as possible in order to resume the Maritime Self-Defense force refueling mission in the Indian Ocean.

Bush expressed his hope for the early resumption of Japan’s refueling operation, stating, “I appreciate the great leadership that Prime Minister Fukuda is showing.”

Both leaders stressed the importance of the Japan-U.S. alliance. Bush stated, “Our alliance is vital for peace and security;” Fukuda stated. The “Japan-U.S. alliance is playing an indispensable role in enabling Japan and the U.S. to address global issues together, and also provides the basis for our active diplomacy vis-a-vis Asia.”

Asserting that the Japan-U.S. security setup serves as the basis for Japan-U.S. relations, Fukuda and Bush stressed the importance of the “strengthening of deterrence.” They agreed on the steady implementation of the plan to realign the U.S. forces in Japan as well as extend and strengthen the Japan-U.S. military alliance to meet global challenges.

Fukuda also promised to settle early on the issue of payment of expenses for U.S. forces in Japan that the U.S. has pressed Japan to do.

Concerning the North Korean nuclear issue, both leaders agreed to maintain close coordination to fro the complete abandonment of all nuclear weapons and programs by North Korea through the six-party talks.

Japanese Communist Party: On Japan-U.S. summit talks Concerning the Japan-U.S. summit talks held on November 16 in Washington D.C., Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo on November 17 issued the following statement:

Prime Minister Fukuda Yasuo and U.S. President George W. Bush in their talks agreed that the Japan-U.S. alliance is “vital for peace and security” and that the two countries will “play an indispensable role” in addressing global issues.

Prime Minister Fukuda pledged that he will “make utmost efforts for early enactment” of an anti-terrorism special measures bill to resume the Maritime Self-Defense Force refueling mission which public opposition helped shut down.

The JCP discussion in the Diet has exposed that this bill is intended to allow Japan to assist in the war of retaliation, that this bill will do more harm than good in eradicating terrorism, and that the Japanese defense organization which is responsible for the enforcement of the law is being deeply tainted with scandals.

By ignoring these problems, the prime minister, under strong pressure from the U.S., promised the early enactment of the bill, thus putting on display the deep subservience of the Japanese government to the U.S. We strongly denounce this act.

Joining forces with the opposition of the public, the JCP will make every effort to defeat the bill.

Prime Minister Fukuda also pledged that “in order to strengthen deterrence” he will steadily implement the Japan-U.S. agreement on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan.

However, the U.S. military realignment based on the U.S. preemptive attack strategy is to radically change the Japan-U.S. military alliance into an alliance capable of carrying out aggression, extend and strengthen it as a global alliance, and press ahead with strengthening functions of U.S. bases in Japan and the Self-Defense Forces’ overseas deployment operations.

It is unacceptable for the government to forcibly implement the realignment plan by trampling on the opposition of a wide range of the public, including the municipalities and their residents that will be adversely affected by the realignment.

The JCP will block the government from using three trillion yen of tax money for the lawless U.S military realignment coupled with the struggle against the extension of a special agreement on the payment of expenses for the U.S. forces in Japan called the “considerate budget.” The JCP will make efforts to force the government to give up on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan.

From Akahata

Australia's Elections: Historic Victory for the Labor Movement

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:22:00 +0000

11-28-07, 9:26 am

The decisive defeat of the Coalition Government in last Saturday’s federal elections was a great victory for the labour movement, for the thousands of rank and file trade unionists and members of the Labor Party, for Your Rights @ Work groups and thousands of rank and file workers.

They gave their money and weeks of their time in the campaign to deliver millions of leaflets, to knock on countless doors and to hold many both big and small meetings. This was a victory for this army of workers who had one thought – to vote the Howard government out. It was helped by the fact that Kevin Rudd outmanoeuvred Howard who attempted to play wedge politics to the end.

A diverse range of other aggrieved and concerned groups also played their part in this historic defeat. Community organisations active among parents, hospital workers, environmental groups and new internet-based organisations such as GetUp which built up a membership of over 200,000 in the course of less than a year.

The Indigenous people gave an emphatic thumbs down to the military and police intervention in their communities reflected in votes in the NT.

All the hard work of many thousands of workers was rewarded with the defeat of one of the most reactionary, backward and mean governments ever elected in Australia. The sweetest victory of all was the personal removal of John Howard from his formerly “safe” seat.

The myth making by his Liberal colleagues has now begun. They claim that he was the greatest Prime Minister after Robert Menzies and that he had made an enormous contribution to Australia.

Alan Ramsey, columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald (Monday, November 26, 2007) puts a different view. He wrote: “Howard’s [defeat] couldn’t be more exquisite than that the Labor iceberg should take our outgoing prime minister down, too. Nobody is more deserving of oblivion … Howard’s enduring legacy is the utter destruction of the party to which he professed … to “owe” everything …

Nastiest, meanest ….

“As for this last election, the one that kills Howard off politically, along with the nastiest, meanest, most miserable, self-absorbed Commonwealth government to blight Australia in living memory… All that remains to sweep [Howard] out of sight is to get rid of the more obscene remnants of his governance in the months ahead”.

Howard attempted to build an Australian society that was a mirror image of his own vile sentiments and “values”. His attempt has come crashing down showing that there is in the Australian community, a huge pool of people with high moral values, who care about their communities, who are honest and motivated by goodwill.

In many respects it was more a vote against Howard than an endorsement of the ALP. The ALP’s primary vote was about 44 percent which climbed to 53.75 after the allocation of preferences.

The National Party’s De-Anne Kelly with a “safe-seat” margin of 10.1 percent, lost her central Queensland seat of Dawson, in one of the largest swings against the Coalition of 13.4 percent. The electorate had experienced an influx of unionised mineworkers since the 2004 elections. They clearly made a statement against WorkChoices.

Support for Indigenous population

Another high profile casuality was Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, who sent the troops and police into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. He was thrown right out in a swing of over 10 percent, in the Queensland electorate of Longman, on the northern outskirts of Brisbane.

The vote in the Northern Territory showed that the Indigenous people soundly rejected the Coalition government’s takeover of Indigenous communities. Labor Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon reports 88 percent support for Labor – up from 78 percent in outback booths. This is a very strong condemnation of the Howard government’s appalling treatment of Indigenous Australians.

Climate change was another critical issue that saw traditionally more conservative electorates undergo massive swings.

The Australian Democrats were wiped out. The Greens have unquestionably emerged as the third party in Australian politics. Nationwide The Greens polled an average of 7.76 percent in the House of Representatives.

The exchange of preferences between Labor and The Greens played a critical part in the election of a number of ALP candidates, without them winning a single House of Representatives seat themselves. The Greens are expected to hold five Senate seats. The Coalition’s majority hold on the Senate appears to have been broken.

The newly elected Senators do not take their places until July 2008, leaving the Coalition in control of the Senate until then.

The campaign by the Party leaders was presidential in style as Howard and Rudd personally took over “ownership” of their parties and policies, often omitting to mention the name of their party.

So-called policy statements poured out endlessly as embedded media packs scrambled for voice grabs, gaffes and photo opportunities. Their campaigns were superficial, mainly limited to the outpouring of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars as they vied to buy votes. While Rudd’s “me-tooism” stymied Howard’s attempts at wedge politics it obscured and confused voters, many of whom came to see very little difference between John Howard and Kevin Rudd.

High expectations

But the electorate expects substantial change, real change in policy direction, particularly in the areas of industrial relations, climate change, health, education, Indigenous affairs, interest rates, housing, petrol prices, childcare, and foreign policy.

There has been much talk coming from the new Prime Minister of a vision for change. But whether Rudd’s vision, new leadership and change of direction accords with the expectations of the electorate is another question. The mixed messages which came through in the election campaign have left serious questions and doubts in many minds.

The majority of the people of Australia firmly rejected the neo-liberal economic and social policies of the political right but the ALP has also endorsed these policies and implemented them in the Hawke/Keating years.

During the election campaign the ALP supported the Tasmanian Pulp Mill and the intervention in the communities of the Indigenous people. It will take more than saying “Sorry” and putting something in the Constitution to right the wrongs of successive governments. It is what happens on the ground that really counts. Will the Rudd government send in armies of teachers, health workers and work out schemes and provide money to create viable jobs in Indigenous communities?

Will the new Labor government take the opportunity to move away from a slavish following of US foreign policy? Its policies suggest it will follow a more multilateral path and play a better role at the United Nations.

These questions will be answered in the near future. In the meantime we celebrate the defeat of the worst, meanest, most dishonest and manipulative government every experienced in Australia.

From The Guardian

Environmental Impact of Paving and Road-building

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:18:00 +0000

11-28-07, 9:23 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: The impacts of all the paving that is done for new roads and parking lots must be considerable. Other than Joni Mitchell’s “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” issue, what else is this activity doing that will come back to haunt us? -- Libby Morse, via e-mail

The history of paving dates back to Roman times if not earlier, but our modern society has taken the practice to the extreme. Originally conceived as a way to make dirt- and mud-covered thoroughfares passable, roads (and parking lots) now cover the majority of urban and suburban areas around the world. In the U.S. alone, pavement covers some 60,000 square miles, or about two percent of the nation’s total surface area. One out of every 10 acres of arable land is paved over.

Beyond larger issues like urban sprawl and the loss of farmland, paving itself is an environmental scourge, preventing the natural seepage of rainwater at the soil surface, and increasing the volume and speed of water run-off. The result is often severe soil erosion on adjacent unpaved areas. Also, paving reduces the total area through which the soil absorbs rainwater, forcing pollutant-laden run-off quickly to lower ground, increasing the risk of flooding accordingly.

Another environmental problem created by our overzealous application of asphalt is that, because the soil underneath paved areas absorbs very little water, natural aquifers below can dry up, reducing the overall amount of potable water available to people, wildlife and the larger ecosystem. Paving also prevents the growth of plant life and destroys wildlife habitat.

According to the nonprofit American Farmland Trust, which works to preserve farmland and promote healthier farming practices, Americans lose three acres of productive farmland to new paving every single minute of every day. The group reports that since the first Earth Day in 1970, the U.S. has lost more than 40 million acres of farmland to development. With Americans now spending upwards of $200 million a day building and rebuilding roads, such problems are only getting worse.

In response to such concerns, a diverse coalition of 170 community groups, individuals and businesses came together in 1990 as the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (APM), with the goal of addressing the “tremendous environmental, social and economic damage caused by endless road building.” The group charges that our society’s obsession with paving and road-building draws public funds away from alternative transportation projects in service to the automobile, destroys inner cities as it promotes sprawl, fouls the air and water, contributes to global warming and—because most asphalt is a product of fossil fuels—plays into ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

Jan Lundberg, a former oil-industry insider and transportation policy analyst who helped create APM, sees a bright future in putting less emphasis on paving and roads: “Money would immediately become available for public transportation and making cities more walkable. It could also go toward refurbishing existing downtown buildings so that people could live in them. Parking lots could be de-paved to make gardens and parks. Cities can be pleasant places, you know.”

CONTACTS: American Farmland Trust, www.farmland.org; “The High Costs of Paving,” www.culturechange.org/issue19/high_costs.htm.

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.

Evo Morales Leads Massive March in Bolivia

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:06:00 +0000

11-27-07, 11:18 pm

La Paz, November 26 (PL).— Bolivian President Evo Morales today joined a column of campesinos that has been marching for several days in favor of a variety of social measures and a new national Constitution.

The unexpected appearance of the leader at dawn brought cheers of joy and support from the approximately 2,500 demonstrators who have covered hundreds of kilometers, coming from different parts of the country to arrive at the central seat of government.

Morales marched at the head of the demonstration with trade union and indigenous leaders who have denounced the Senate’s continuing obstruction of projects beneficial to the country such as the universal “Dignity” stipend for the elderly.

This law establishes that beginning next January a monthly payment of 200 bolivianos ($25) will be made to persons over the age of 60. The Senate approved the measure with modifications to its financing.

Social organizations opposed the legislature’s failure to finance the benefit with income from the direct tax on hydrocarbons (IDH).

According to campesino leader Isaac Avalos, the Senate is attempting to postpone the implementation of the measure, considered a qualitative leap forward in the social policies of the government and deserving of the support of the Bolivian people.

Avalos pointed out that the march, supported by the Bolivian Retirees Association, is demanding the ratification of other laws that are “asleep” in the Senate.

The mobilization is backing the National Constituent Assembly and its most recent decision approving the basic structure of a new Constitution despite the attacks of the opposition and its machinations to destabilize the country, he remarked.

Translated by Granma International

A People’s Retort to the Media’s Detached ‘Experts’

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:41:00 +0000

11-27-07, 9:45 am

What do an organic farmer from Spain, a union worker activist from Brazil, and a human rights scholar living in London have in common? They are all individuals who affect substantive change in their communities, and they are also individuals who are overlooked by the corporate media. The latter has its own lists of ‘experts’ – usually well-groomed males with little involvement in the daily struggles of the unseen and unheard multitudes of the world, yet able to influence their lives (most often detrimentally) from a well-guarded distance.

So how does the business of expertise work? Why are those qualified to address their own affairs so widely ignored by mainstream channels in favour of intellectual middlemen who purport to have some sort of legitimacy over a range of narratives, without any convincing credentials, let alone first-hand experiences?

The phenomenon precedes the advent of network television and satellite news. It is embedded in a Western tradition that was formulated around imperial conquests: for a people to be conquered, they have to be understood in a language that prioritises the interests of the colonialist over the rights of the colonized. The latter’s identity is replaced by verbal and textual reductionism. Thus Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, the Somali leader who strove for twenty years to free his people from British and Italian colonialism was termed ‘Mad Mullah’ by the British. Hassan, of course, was as ‘mad’ as Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the vigorous leaders of numerous struggles around the world. The list of these individuals is ever expanding, as activists are written off by those in power, those whose ‘sanity’ preaches subscribing to the status quo and the inherent wisdom of the ‘system’.

This system serves not the majority of people living within it, but rather the combined interests of those with the money and those with the weapons: one funds the other’s military adventurism, and the other guarantees unhindered access to cheap supplies, labour and markets. Without Bush’s war in Iraq, Blackwater could not generate over a billion dollars of extra contracts; the relationship is painfully obvious.

Of course neither Bush nor Blackwater executives are imprudent enough to speak of their real motives, and it would be equally imprudent for us to trust that Blackwater’s ultimate objective is to contribute to the efforts of the US military to ‘protect’ their country and its founding principles. Unfortunately, though the deceptiveness of dominant rhetoric may often be apparent, when repeated numerous times to millions of people worldwide, it eventually gathers force, and even credibility. The process has real and very deadly consequences: Blackwater mercenaries go on killing sprees; endless media airtime is given to its executives and sympathetic ‘experts’ who ‘objectively’ defend their company’s image; a congressional hearing of good cop/bad cop is held whereby one congressman thanks Blackwater for protecting the lives of Americans overseas while another gently reprimands it for not using extra care. Extra care in gunning down innocent people? At this question the story is shelved. By the time Blackwater kills again it is no longer even newsworthy.

Many far from credible ‘experts’ are employed in this way to neutralise and effectually justify violence. Their roles are those of apologists of state and corporate crimes, and as ideologues who tailor information to fit political and economic agendas. They are dangerous because they have the leverage of being presented as impartial observers, even when their very identity should give away their partiality. Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to reinvent himself to US publics as a ‘terrorism expert,’ thanks to Fox News. As for the former Israeli Prime Minister’s own crimes while in office, and his close ties to the neoconservatives – the ‘intellectuals’ behind the Iraq war – and his persistent use of anti-peace language – these are unimportant diversions.

According to the corporate media and the selective samples of humanity they endlessly feature and tout for their ‘expertise’, the world is a convenient place that consists of big companies (and no workers, thus no workers’ rights), prison guards (no prisoners, thus no prisoners’ rights), war engineers (no victims, thus no accountability), celebrities (no ordinary people, thus no widespread and urgent grievances). All those in brackets don’t exist as actual, living and breathing individuals; they only exist as part of skewed narratives, designed carefully by an expert and a think tank. That ‘expert’ needs not be there to understand, he needs only to speak in a language that manipulates prejudice. The working women of India fighting globalization, the lawyers of Pakistan fighting for judicial independence, the teachers of Palestine fighting for survival amid siege and boycott, the millions of uninsured Americans fighting for a doctor’s appointment – these people simply don’t exist as far as corporate media is concerned. Or worse, they exist but don’t matter.

As those justifying violence on the basis of security, justice and democracy work to make the world increasingly unsafe, unjust and undemocratic, there seems an equally increasing need for a new kind of media, one which requires a new kind of ‘expert’.

When I contacted Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Arun Ghandi, Ilan Pappe and many other intellectuals and activists from all over the world, proposing an alternative to ‘expertise’ in the media, I didn’t expect that just a year later the discussion could evolve into JUSTmedia (JustMedia.net). JUSTmedia is the first initiative to be launched by the People Media Project, a global scheme that hopes to offer a different kind of platform for discourse, dialogue and commentary by promoting the voices of people from all walks of life. Supported by intellectuals who refuse to play by the roles of the ‘mainstream’, the idea is to extend a bridge across cultural, language, geographic and political divides to show and extend the possibilities of true democracy and human rights in the media.

They say it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. After much darkness and much cursing, another kind of candle may well be lit, one which only the efforts of ordinary people could keep alight.

--Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

New Australian PM Rudd Vows to Sign Climate Pact

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:37:00 +0000

11-27-07, 9:41 am

BEIJING, Nov. 26 -- New Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has vowed to sign a global pact on climate change and to negotiate to withdraw frontline troops from Iraq after an emphatic national election win on the weekend.

The Labor leader ascended to the nation's top post after his party secured a majority of 24 in the country's 150-seat lower house to oust long-serving conservative leader John Howard, a staunch ally of U.S. President George W. Bush, in Saturday's Federal ballot.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao sent a message of congratulations to Rudd Sunday.

A national swing of about 5.5 percent delivered the formidable majority to Rudd's center-left party after the Liberal-National coalition led by Howard, 68, had held a 16-seat advantage ahead of the poll.

'Today, Australia has looked to the future,' Rudd, Australia's 26th prime minister, said during his acceptance speech in his home city of Brisbane in the northern state of Queensland Saturday night.

'Today, the Australian people have decided we as a nation will move forward, to plan for the future, to embrace the future and, together as Australians, to unite and write a new page in our nation's history.

'I say to all those who have voted for us today, I say to each and every one of them that I will be a prime minister for all Australians.'

Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on limiting carbon emissions - which the United States has also refused to sign - withdrawing Australia's frontline troops from Iraq and scrapping the Howard government's controversial industrial relations legislation were high on Rudd's list of priorities at his first press conference as national leader Sunday.

Earlier, the honors graduate in Putonghua and devout Christian attended mass with his family.

Rudd, who served as first secretary at the Australian embassy in Beijing in the 1980s, first struck a chord with voters earlier in the year by proposing to upgrade Australia's substandard broadband Internet capability.

This contrasted his 'new-leadership' election pitch with the status quo outlook of Howard's government, which only attacked Rudd's plans to fund the popular project.

From

Democratic Republic of Congo: 'The blood keeps flowing'

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:31:00 +0000

11-27-07, 9:37 am

MASISI, 27 November 2007 (IRIN) - Semivumbi Ntawiheba never used to be interested in politics. Growing up on a mountain farm close to Masisi town in the Democratic Republic of Congo's restive North Kivu, Ntawiheba lived only for his cattle.

Then, two months ago, soldiers loyal to dissident General Laurent Nkunda attacked his village and took away some of the men aged between 12 and 50 for 'conscription'. 'I didn't want to be one of them,” Ntawiheba says. 'So I decided to flee.'

Ntawiheba ended up in a camp for the internally displaced, a squalid settlement near Masisi. Conditions are tough, he says as he hops over the muddy brooks that crisscross the camp, built on the only piece of flat land in town. 'I never used to care about politics, but now it's been shown to me in real life - now I'm interested,' he says.

Young people such as Ntawiheba are among the worst-hit in North Kivu's escalating humanitarian crisis. When his village was attacked, the 25-year-old's cattle farm was doing well; he was almost self-sufficient when the conflict reversed all his gains. Now he lives with 1,500 others in the IDP camp, relying on agencies to bring him what little food there is.

Masisi - one of the most isolated towns in North Kivu - is cut off from the rest of the region by political insecurity and poor road conditions. It is just 58km from North Kivu's main town Goma, but the mountain pass is crowded with soldiers from the competing factions and muddy throughout the rainy season. Until the World Food Programme (WFP) convoy arrived in Masisi on 21 November, there had been no food delivery to the camp for three weeks.

'We stayed alive. But there wasn't a lot to eat and there wasn't anything to do,' says Ntawiheba. Women living at the camp set up a modest market, selling yams, some goat meat, a bunch of bananas, a single pineapple. Even the strip of land adjacent to the camp that once served as the town's football pitch can no longer be used because it has to function as an emergency landing strip for the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) helicopters that sporadically fly in and out.

'Conditions have been terrible at the camp. For two weeks there was no food - absolutely nothing. And life is probably no worse here than for Masisi's general population,' said Philippe Havet, project coordinator for Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) in Masisi.

In any other town, MSF would probably be dedicating all its resources to medical needs. But as few NGOs are operating in Masisi, MSF has been forced to expand, handing out non-food items such as blankets and tarpaulins as well as coordinating free healthcare at the 120-bed Masisi hospital and adjacent nutrition centre.

'Often cut off from the rest of the region, the situation here is exceptional,' Havet said.

Circulation has been helped by a new MONUC mobile base in Mushake, established in late November on the road between Goma and Masisi. 'The base will help goods and people to move more freely,' said Sylvie van Wildenburg, spokeswoman for MONUC.

A checkpoint set up by forces loyal to dissident general Laurent Nkunda, le Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple (CNDP) in Mushake partially cut off the Goma-Masisi route, taxing trucks and passenger vehicles passing through the town.

Malnutrition rising

The hospital is perched on a cliff top overlooking the valley that is home to most of Masisi's 26,000 people. Specialists at MSF's nutrition centre see 40 cases a day - mainly children younger than five, who have been surviving on a diet of sorghum wheat, cassava and maize, which lack the nutrients they need.

Gakaru's mother is one of them. She and her son walked through persistent rain for 30km to reach MSF's nutrition centre. At two years old, Gakaru ought to weigh 7kg. He is 1kg lighter and shows signs of oedema, a build-up of excess fluid characterised by a puffy face, belly and ankles. It is a textbook case of malnutrition.

'He is one of twins. The other baby died shortly after birth,' his mother says, looking on anxiously as Gakaru rejects a spoonful of Plumpy’nut, the peanut derivative often given to malnourished babies in sub-Saharan Africa.

Inside the hospital, Save the Children runs a feeding centre for the sickest children. Sekabamdu Utamuleza is inside, a shadow of an eight-year-old girl cradled by her mother. Three weeks of treatment have failed to improve her condition, and she is taken to a main ward by a nurse.

'She throws up her food every night,' her uncle, Musanga Khami, says. 'We just don't know what to do any more.' Khami says there are not enough nurses at the centre to care for all the children; Sekabamdu's mother had to choose between staying at home with her other children, who have had little to eat since the conflict came close to their farm, or coming to the centre with the girl.

'If these mothers leave their homes, they don't know whether there will be an attack while they are gone. That's the choice they have to make,' says Havet.

Localised fighting has meant many local people are unable to reach their cattle farms, restricting food supplies further. Road conditions and spontaneous clashes prevent access to MSF's nutrition centre, so the organisation also manages an ambulatory feeding programme targeting 1,200 vulnerable children in the district.

Inside the hospital are the other victims of the war - wounded rebels, Congolese army soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. An attack on the neighbouring town of Lushebere killed seven civilians on 13 November. MSF brought the survivors here.

Among them is Namagi Kima Nizaine, a widow in her 40s, who lost all her children in the DRC's most recent war, which ended in 2003. 'She was caught in the fighting and sustained a bullet injury to her arm,' says nurse Anne Koudiakoff.

In the surgical ward, James is recovering from a leg injury sustained during an attack by CNDP soldiers on his village on 16 October. For two days he hobbled along some of the most dangerous roads to reach the hospital.

'Masisi has become a restaurant for flies. Everyone keeps getting hurt and the blood keeps flowing. They feast on it. After the elections in 2006, everyone in Masisi cried out for peace. But look at Masisi now,' he says.

By the end of November, MSF will have been working in Masisi for nearly four months; longer than its emergency remit of two. 'Usually emergency operations cease after two months. But how could we possibly leave when there is hardly anyone else here?' asks Havet, rhetorically.

From IRIN News

Book Review: Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:27:00 +0000

Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader by Michael Parenti City Lights, 2007.

It's not often that you get the chance to review a book about which nothing really negative can be said, but this is definitely the case with Michael Parenti's recently published collection of essays Contrary Notions.

Unlike many left-wing academics, Parenti writes in a clear, direct and articulate style, managing to explain quite complex ideas in a way that is both simple and accessible.

His approach to social issues is also unashamedly systemic and he goes far, far beyond the usual gripes that some of the anti-globalization movement seem content to focus on.

Class struggle is seen as neither irrelevant nor obsolete, while the importance of Marxist theory for understanding societies both past and present is emphasized throughout.

Best of all, though, is the fact that Parenti is keen to defend the achievements of socialism to date - a very important concern bearing in mind the present wave of anti-communist politics.

It's all good stuff and Parenti helps things along even more by being able to write on a whole number of different topics, ranging from the role of the media to his own experiences growing up in a predominantly Italian working-class neighborhood.

All of this material has been published elsewhere, but it's a useful collection to have if only to pass on to others. Political writing at its best.

From Morning Star

What is Venezuela’s Constitutional Reform Really About?

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:23:00 +0000

11-27-07, 9:28 am

Much controversy surrounds the recent proposal to reform 69 articles of Venezuela's national constitution. Both national and international media have focused their attention on the reform proposal and the opposition protests against it. But, as usual, mainstream media have failed to provide the context and analysis necessary to actually understand the meaning and purpose of the reform, instead focusing mostly on some of the smaller and less significant parts, such as the elimination of presidential term limits.

The central focus of Venezuela's constitutional reform and how it fits into the larger picture of the political process being carried out in the country has been entirely absent from mainstream accounts. By leaving out the larger context in which this reform lies and how it plays an essential part of the political program of the Chavez government, the major media have created the image that the central purpose of the reform is to concentrate power in the hands of the presidency. Once again, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez appears as a power-hungry autocrat, a tin-pot dictator sitting on massive oil wealth, this time reforming the constitution as a means to install himself as president for life.

But what is Venezuelan's proposed constitutional reform really about? Is it simply an ill-conceived power grab on the part of Venezuela's popular president? Or is there something deeper and more important to this wide range of constitutional changes? Only an understanding of the political project that Chavez plans to develop in the country, and the specific political, economic, and social structure that it entails, allows us to fit the constitutional reform into the larger context and understand the real role it plays in laying the groundwork for the future plans of the Chavez government.

Setting the Stage for 21st Century Socialism

Long before his reelection in December of 2006, President Chavez had announced his intentions to lead Venezuela towards socialism. Convinced that the problems that plague Venezuela and much of the world could not be resolved within capitalism, Chavez proposed a new kind of socialism: Socialism for the 21st Century. This new form of socialism, which emphasizes not repeating the same errors of previous socialist states, was never explained in detail and is still a project in design. But Chavez made it clear before last year's elections that those who voted for him were voting for the socialist path and Venezuela overwhelmingly gave Chavez the go-ahead on his 21st century project.

In January of 2007, during his inaugural speech before the National Assembly and the nation, Chavez explained the future changes that would need to take place in order to implement the new socialist system. These changes were laid out in five steps, the five 'motors' of the revolution, as Chavez called them. These 'motors' would set the framework for a new social, economic, and political organization of the country.[1]

And although the Chavez government has put forth many plans for economic development, before these could be put in place it would have to be established how the economy would be organized and under what form of control. This is the key way in which the five motors of the revolution would set the stage in which 21st Century Socialism could be built.

'The first of the five motors that I am referring to is the mother of all laws: the Enabling Law,' announced Chavez at his inaugural speech in January.

The Enabling Law was the first motor to be put in place, and consisted of giving the president the power to decree laws in certain areas for a period of 18 months. The law was passed in early 2007, and was used to nationalize some strategic sectors of the economy, such as telecommunications, electricity, and oil operations in the Orinoco River Delta.

Chavez explained that certain adjustments to the nation's laws, as well as articles of the national constitution, would not only be necessary, but would need to happen all together at the same time. For that reason, the first motor would have to work in conjunction with the second motor, the Constitutional Reform, in order for all the new laws to be put in place.

'The Enabling Law and the Constitutional Reform are like two sister motors, two motors of the same machine,' explained Chavez. 'It is required that we coordinate the two quickly because there are laws that we have in mind that will only be possible when the reform is done, when part of the constitution is reformed, because [the constitution] is the law of all laws, we can't pass over it, it's impossible.'[2]

The remaining motors of the revolution would depend upon the legal changes in the Enabling Law and the Constitutional Reform. Motor number three is a national educational campaign known as 'Lights and Morals.' Number four is 'The New Geometry of Power,' and consists of a reorganization of the nation's political structure. And the last of the five motors is 'the Explosion of Communal Power.'

Each of these motors plays a specific role in setting the country on the path towards a new model of economic development under a new structure of social and political organization. But what exactly is this new model, and how will these changes play a role? Although 21st Century Socialism is still a project in development and has not been clearly defined, fortunately there are some indicators that give us an idea as to what this new model might look like.

A New Model of Development

There are several possible models of economic development that any given country could choose to adopt upon building national productive capacity. The most common model is, of course, the development of industry under the ownership of private capital, creating the fundamental problems of the concentration of wealth and power that ultimately compromise democracy, as is well known in the capitalist world.

Other obvious alternatives to this model include the development of the national economy under the ownership and control of the state or worker councils and cooperatives, also with their own issues of inefficiency and bureaucracy.

It was last June when President Chavez announced an important part of his own 'Bolivarian' project for national development. In order to build productive capacity and the beginnings of national industries, Chavez announced the creation of more than 200 'socialist' factories over the next two years.[3] More recently, Chavez stated that the first 66 factories would be installed and inaugurated around the country by mid-2008.[4] Many of these will be joint projects with various other countries to bring in foreign technology from places like Iran, China, Brazil, and others.[5]

But before the new factories can be installed in different parts of the country, their organization and control would have to be established under new definitions of property and management. Under the Bolivarian model, the means of production will apparently not be solely under the control of the state, the private sector, or the workers, but rather a mixture of many kinds of ownership and control. The text of the proposed constitutional reform describes it in the following:

'The state will foment and develop different forms of production and economic units of social property, from direct or communal-controlled, to indirect or state-controlled, as well as productive economic units for social production and/or distribution.'[6]

President Chavez explained this during his presentation of the reform proposal before the National Assembly last August:

'You see that here is the basic economic triangle: property, production and distribution. We are entering in all three elements, and it is necessary that we do it with success in the movement towards, and the construction of the socialist model... The economic units could be mixed arrangements between the state, the private sector, and the communal power. You see, businessmen of the private sectors, private sector producers, you are not being excluded. We need you to work with us, to ally with us. Together we will make the great nation that Venezuela is beginning to be, inside of the great South American nation.'[7]

Therefore, it is under these kinds of property relations that the constitutional reform proposes for the means of production in the Bolivarian model. The reform arranges the framework for an economy under the control of organized communities, the state, and private groups, as well as any number of mixtures of these forms. And in 2008, as the government begins to install 'socialist' factories in the country, they can be set up under this framework.

Last September, the government gave an indication as to how these factories might be organized in the future with the inauguration of a new corn processing plant in the western state of Yaracuy and announcements about these new economic units in general.

The Central Planning Committee discussed the construction of this new type of economic structure, starting with the inauguration of the first of ten corn processing plants around the country. The corn processing plants, as is planned with other types of factories, are operated by the local communities organized into Communal Councils.[8] Chavez has also recently mentioned the possibility of putting the thousands of PDVSA gas stations across the country under the control of the organized communities in which they are located.[9]

The Central Planning Committee discussed the creation of the 'socialist' factories under the control of 'communes' as a way of developing a new form of socialist economy. President Chavez stated that the new factories could eventually be put under the control of communes as a form of 'communal' property or 'social' property, as is also laid out in the constitutional reform.

'These are the means for the participation and central role of the people in the direct practice of their sovereignty and for the construction of socialism,' said Chavez upon presenting his reform proposal. 'And for the democratic management by the workers of any enterprise of 'social' property. This is a term that starts here, social property. This is new, totally new in our constitution.'[10]

Thus, the constitutional reform is also an attempt to establish the new social and political organization of the country into 'communes' as a new power structure. Organized communities, currently in a process of forming and operating Communal Councils around the country, will unite with neighboring communities to form the communes, and groups of communes will unite to form cities. The text of the reform says the following:

'The primary political unit of the national territorial organization will be the City, understood as the population base inside a municipality and made up of areas or geographic extensions denominated as Communes. The Communes will be the geo-human cells of the territory and will be made up by communities, each one constituting the basic indivisible nuclei of the Venezuelan Socialist State where the citizens will have the power to construct their own geography and history.'[11]

Chavez has said that in the whole country there will be around 60,000 communal councils, organized into 10,000 communes, 3,000 cities, and 200 federal districts.

Therefore, as can be seen, the central thrust of Venezuela's constitutional reform proposal is to set the legal framework for the political and social reorganization of the country, giving direct power to organized communities as a prerequisite for the development of a new economic system: a socialist system with the means of production under communal control.

The text of the reform states that national laws will be passed to transfer control of public services, state companies, and productive units to the communes, with the objective of constructing a socialist economy.

These changes in the constitution, and in the nation's laws, are essential to the other revolutionary motors, such as the reorganization of the political geography of the country (motor 4) and the increased role of communal power (motor 5). The changes in the constitution will allow the Venezuelan government to move forward with the reorganization of the country into the basic units of communes, and later promote the power and influence of these structures.

Another important reform in the proposal would allow the federal government to designate different regions of the country as federal districts to focus on and accelerate their socio-economic development. In a post-colonial country with very uneven development in different regions of the country, the reason for this addition makes sense as the government wants to intensify their focus on certain regions of the country to ensure their quick and balanced economic and social development.

'These changes are going to allow us to free ourselves from a territory that is chained by a structure of political and territorial division that goes back centuries,' said Chavez. 'We are going to break the chains of the old conservative, imperial, and colonial geography.'

While the reform also includes many other secondary changes, some very progressive but also a few regressive ones, the clear focus of the reform is the economic and political reorganization of the country along the lines explained above. A clear majority of the Venezuelan people understand that the heart of this reform is simply a continuation of the Chavez project; a process of wealth redistribution, national development, and expansion of popular power that has made significant gains in recent years. Chavez' proposal plans to make advances in all of these areas, expanding on the current initiatives to develop national productive capacity and increasing communal power; something that the Venezuelan people are seeing with their own eyes in their own communities. It is for these reasons, as well as the high level of confidence that they have in President Hugo Chavez, that the majority of Venezuelans will come out for December's national referendum to vote 'Si.'

[1] President Chavez explained the 'motors' of the revolution for the first time in his inaugural speech on January 10th, 2007. The full text translated to English can be seen here: http://archivos.minci.gob.ve/doc/nada_detendrainglesweb.pdf

[2] Translated from the original Spanish text of the inaugural speech: http://archivos.minci.gob.ve/doc/folleto_jurametacion_presidente.pdf

[3] Prensa Presidencial / Prensa Web YVKE, 'Gobierno Nacional proyecta construir 208 fábricas socialistas nuevas,' Wednesday, September 5th, 2007. http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?102

[4] Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias (ABN), 'Primeras 66 fábricas socialistas estarán funcionando en julio de 2008,' October 5th, 2007. http://portal.gobiernoenlinea.ve/noticias-view/ver_detalles.pag?idNoticia=72965

[5] For more on the many different joint projects to bring in foreign technology, see my last article, 'The Struggle To Industrialize Venezuela': http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2689

[6] Translated from the final text of the reform proposal: http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ve/uploads/biblio/Reforma-%20Constitucional-%20final.doc

[7] From President Chavez' speech during the presentation of his reform proposal, August 15, 2007: http://www.abn.info.ve/reforma_constitucional.php

[8] Prensa Web RNV / Prensa Presidencial, 'Comisión Central de Planificación evaluó el plan estratégico de desarrollo,' September 5th, 2007. http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=52455

[9] President Chavez explained this idea in detail in an interview on live television last week during a 'Yes' campaign in the state of Carabobo.

[10] From President Chavez' speech during the presentation of his reform proposal, August 15, 2007: http://www.abn.info.ve/reforma_constitucional.php

[11] Translated from the final text of the reform proposal: http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ve/uploads/biblio/Reforma-%20Constitucional-%20final.doc

From

Police Tackle State Sen. Fort, Others before Grady Privatization Vote

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:20:00 +0000

11-27-07, 9:24 am

(APN) ATLANTA – Atlanta Police officers physically wrangled with State Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), former Atlanta City Councilman Derrick Boazman, and two other activists, during a confrontation with protesters shortly before the 10-member Fulton-Dekalb Hospital Authority unanimously approved a resolution to privatize Grady Hospital.

Officers pushed Fort up against a wall and handcuffed him. They tackled Boazman to the ground and dragged him down a hallway. Boazman’s arm and wrist were hurt in the incident.

'We literally were in hand and hand combat. You had a female officer just grabbing my arm and snatching me and I told her that was not even necessary. People literally went berserk when they saw me in handcuffs and them taking me down some back hallway,' Boazman told Atlanta Progressive News.

Boazman said he watched as a third activist, Fort’s niece-in-law, was attacked by one officer. As he was being tackled to the ground, he saw 'them trying to put this... baton around this girl's neck, and I said take that baton from off her neck. I told her take her damn hands off the girl. And none of the officers were trying to restrain her. When I said that everyone just froze up,' Boazman said.

A fourth person was escorted out by police, Fort said.

'They beat me down, cussed me down. It's a police state. What they were doing is using brute force to keep people from the meeting. It was a public meeting, and they were willing to use brute force. The question is, what did they have to hide?” Fort told Atlanta Progressive News.

'It's kind of a fascist move. I'm not surprised at what people will do to keep power. I'm not surprised of the evil men will do,' Fort said.

The Hospital Authority’s resolution will, among other actions, create a nonprofit corporation to take over the Hospital, much to the dismay of hundreds of citizens present for the vote.

But even angry public denunciations and demonstrations could not stem the Chamber of Commerce’s push, which–with the support of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial board, Emory University, and Morehouse Colleges–created the appearance of an inevitable tide towards privatization.

Yet Authority Members sought to deflect responsibility for their votes.

'In three weeks, our cash position would have been zero,' Vice Chairman Christopher Edwards said. 'You have to make the best decisions you can.'

'It may not be the best resolution but this is the only thing that can keep the doors open,' Member Thomas Dortch said. 'Don’t blame us. If folks don’t put money on the table, it’s not going to happen. Don’t convict us.'

The Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation would be a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation with a 17-member Board to govern Grady Memorial Hospital.

The Corporation will consist of at least four members from the current Authority. The Authority Chairperson will appoint the other members. It is unclear whom those other members will be or from what professions or circumstances they will come.

The Authority will still exist to retain ownership of the real estate and the Authority must give its consent 'for any significant curtailment of the current major service lines or historic mission of Grady Hospital.'

Creation of a nonprofit corporation comes with other special conditions. Members of the business, charitable, and philanthropic community must provide a written commitment to deliver at least $200 million in capital funds.

Unnamed members of the business community are said to have already promised to deliver $200 million to Grady upon the change to a 501(c)(3), as well as to engage in a fundraising campaign to raise an additional $100 million, which must also be confirmed in writing.

The Authority and Corporation must also prepare, execute, and deliver a lease agreement 'in order to lease certain assets of the [Grady Health] System to the Corporation, which will assume certain liabilities of the System.'

The resolution goes on to say, 'The lease agreement would only be executed after completion of the statutorily required public hearings scheduled for Dec. 27, 2007, and no later than Dec. 31, 2007.'

The business community would make a payment of no less than $50 million in cash or in escrow on or before the execution of the lease agreement. This would mark the first installment of a four-year payment plan for the $200 million.

The resolution urges the State of Georgia to enact legislation that would appropriate $30 million annually to Grady and to take measures to fund the Statewide Trauma Network.

Emory and Morehouse medical schools must provide written confirmation to the Authority of their commitment to continue training doctors at Grady, willingness to negotiate with the Authority to restructure all outstanding obligations owed by Grady, and willingness to renegotiate current contracts between the parties.

The Authority wants this confirmation no later than the execution and delivery of the lease agreement.

A DRAMATIC AFTERNOON

Several dozen protestors with the Grady Coalition, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and other groups rallied in front of Grady earlier in the day to denounce any move to create a nonprofit corporation.

When these protestors moved into the hospital with the intent of letting their voice be heard at the Authority meeting, security did not allow them in.

Grady security officers informed those gathered that the Authority was holding its Executive Session and that the public was not allowed in.

Protestors were forced to wait over an hour and a half in two separate corridors until 3:30 p.m., the scheduled start time.

When that time passed and protestors had still not gained access, tempers began to boil over.

Fort and Boazman apparently tried to barge into the Authority’s session and that’s when they were subsequently physically handled by security. Protestors howled their disapproval.

After prolonged shouting matches and more waiting, word came around 4 p.m. the meeting would be moved to the Steiner Auditorium across the street so that everyone could attend.

Forty-five minutes after the meeting should have started, Chairwoman Pam Stephenson brought the session to order.

Members dealt with other business before Lewis Horne, an attorney with the Troutman Sanders law firm, read the resolution.

When no member had anything to say, the Authority was ready to vote. The audience shouted in disgust and demanded the public be allowed to speak before the vote.

Just when it seemed a riot might break out, Stephenson finally allowed a comment period and for the next hour and a half, citizens peppered the Authority with harsh criticisms.

'We didn’t come this far to have Uncle Toms sell out the least of these,' Boazman, who in addition to Fort was allowed back in for the hearing, said.

'The State of Georgia created this problem,' Rev. Tim McDonald, of the First Iconium Baptist Church, said. 'This is extortion. The Chamber of Commerce is guilty of extortion. You didn’t create this problem.'

'Who are they?' Nancy Lenk, deputy director of AFSCME Local 1644, asked. 'We don’t even know the names of the people we’re signing the hospital away to.'

From Atlanta Progressive News

About the author: Jonathan Springston is a Senior Staff Writer for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at

Latin America Heads For Socialism

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:13:00 +0000

11-27-07, 9:18 am

Latin American heads of state signed a solemn “declaration” to commit themselves to promoting policies to reduce poverty at a three day summit in Santiago de Chile.

The Chilean capital hosted the 17th Ibero-American summit, which has been taking place every year since 1991. From 8 until 10 November, the 22 heads of state from Latin-America, Spain and Portugal gathered to deal with the region’s future, whose economic growth has dramatically increased, though it remains one of the most inegalitarian places in the world. Despite last-minute rumours of cancellation, all the invited key figures attended the summit such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Bolivian president Evo Morales, Brazilian president Lula Da Silva, the Spanish prime minister José Luis Zapatero and Chilean president Michelle Bachelet. The new Argentinean President, Cristina Fernandez, elected on 28 October and taking office in December, came with her husband Nestor Kirchner. Finally, the Cuban leader Fidel Castro was represented by his vice-president Carlos Lage.

Debates on the Chilean government initiative revolved around the theme of “social cohesion.” Opening the summit, President Michelle Bachelet appealed to her colleagues to provide “tangible results for Latin-American citizens”, anticipating the usual criticisms aimed at these kinds of international meetings. “We cannot content ourselves with a series of broad declarations,” said Alejandro Foxley, the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations. “We need clear and measurable objectives,” he added. His appeal seems to have been understood as the 22 participating delegations quickly agreed on an a social security accord. “This would enable migrant workers to retire in any country of the Ibero-American community,” announced Alejandro Foxley in a press conference on Thursday 8 November. The initiatives approved during the summit have been gathered in that Saturday’s “Santiago’s declaration,” read by Michelle Bachelet who will commit the signatory countries. The document highlights in particular the need to promote social policies to progressively reduce poverty and guarantee access to equal education and health care.

The general assembly of the heads of state was eagerly expected since it enables each delegation to show its political position. The first interventions confirmed the Latin American move towards the Left over the last few years. One of the first to speak was the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who was elected last year, was also one of the most appreciated. “Latin America, the most unequal region of the world, has never been an example of cohesion,” he said. “The poor here are sometimes poorer than in Africa and the rich richer than the Swiss... Yet during the long neo-liberal night our continent experienced, the social fabric kept being torn apart” he added, inviting his colleagues to turn their backs on 1990s policies. “Governments are now representative of their people and we are determined to find alternatives,” Rafael Correa concluded to great applause.

Earlier, Michelle Bachelet asked her counterparts to “create a social pact” to improve the situation of those left out from the growth. “We must acknowledge the fact that, over the last several years, social issues did not receive as much attention as political democratisation or economic modernisation,” said the Chilean President. “This reality not only accounts for the huge injustices, but it could also undermine the legitimacy of our societies which we have struggled to build,” she reminded to the audience.

The last comment of the morning was made by Hugo Chavez: “When I took office, about ten years ago, the Ibero-American summit was a genuine song [1] in favour of neoliberalism and Washington’s consensus. At one of those summits, Fidel Castro passed me a piece of paper with the message ‘Chavez, I feel like I’m no longer the only devil at these meetings.’” Comparing that time with the current situation, the Venezuelan President concluded: “Our Latin America now has a great opportunity to make a fresh start. We want to head for a fairer society.”

[1] Referring to the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda

--Translated by Jonathan Pierrel. From l'Humanite