People Before Profit blog

Statement of FELIPE PÉREZ ROQUE to the UN

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:25:00 +0000

STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. FELIPE PÉREZ ROQUE, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, AT THE 59TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. NEW YORK, 24 SEPTEMBER 2004.

Mr. President:

Every year at the United Nations we go through the same ritual. We attend the general debate knowing beforehand that the clamor for justice and peace by our underdeveloped countries will be ignored once again. However, we persist. We know that we are right. We know that one day we will accomplish social justice and development. We also know that such assets will not be given away to us. We know that the peoples will have to seize them from those who deny us justice today, because they underpin their wealth and arrogance on the disdain for our grief. But it will not be always like this. We say so today with more conviction than ever before.

Having said this and knowing – as we do – that some powerful ones, just a few, present here will be chagrined, and also knowing that they are shared by many, Cuba will now tell some truths:

First: After the aggression on Iraq, there is no United Nations Organization, understood as a useful and diverse forum, based on the respect for the rights of all and also with guarantees for the small States.

It is living through the worst moment of its already forthcoming 60 years. It pales, it pants, it feigns, but it does not work.

Who handcuffed the United Nations named by President Roosevelt? President Bush.

Second: US troops will have to be withdrawn from Iraq.

After the life of over 1,000 American youths was uselessly sacrificed to serve the spurious interests of a clique of cronies and buddies, and following the death of more than 12,000 Iraqis, it is clear that the only way out for the occupying power faced with a revolting people is to recognize the impossibility of subduing them and to withdraw. In spite of the imperial monopoly over information, the peoples always get to the truth. Someday, those responsible and their accomplices will have to deal with the consequences of their actions in the face of History and their own peoples.

Third: For the time being, there will be no valid, real and useful reform to the United Nations.

It would take the superpower, which inherited the immense prerogative of governing an order conceived for a bipolar world, to relinquish its privileges. And it will not do so.

Since now, we know that the anachronistic privilege of the veto will remain; that the Security Council will not be democratized as it should or expanded to include Third World countries; that the General Assembly will continue to stand ignored and that at the United Nations there will be more actions driven by the interests imposed by the superpower and its allies. We, as non-aligned countries, will have to entrench ourselves in defending the United Nations Charter – because, otherwise, it will be redrafted with the deletion of every trace of principles such as the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and the non-use or the threat to use force.

Fourth: The powerful collude to divide us.

The over 130 underdeveloped countries must build a common front for the defense of the sacred interests of our peoples, of our right to development and peace. Let us revitalize the Non-Aligned Movement. Let us strengthen the G-77.

Fifth: The modest objectives of the Millennium Declaration will not be accomplished. We will reach the fifth anniversary of the Summit in a worse situation.

· We endeavored to halve by 2015 the 1.276 billion human beings in abject poverty that existed in 1990. There had to be a yearly reduction of 46 million poor people. However, excluding China, between 1990 and 2000 extreme poverty rose by 28 million people. Impoverishment does not decline, it grows.

· We wanted to halve by 2015 the 842 million starving people recorded in the world. There had to be a yearly reduction of 28 million. However, there has barely been a reduction of 2.1 million hungry people per year. At this rate, the goal would be attained by 2215, two hundred years after what was envisaged – and only if our species survives the destruction of its environment.

· We proclaimed the aspiration to achieve universal primary education by 2015. However, more than 120 million children, 1 in every 5 in that school age, do not attend primary school. According to UNICEF, at the current rate the goal will be accomplished after 2100.

· We endeavored to reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate in children under five years of age. The reduction is symbolic: out of 86 children who died per 1,000 live births in 1998, now the figure is 82. Every year, 11 million children continue to die of diseases that can be prevented or cured, whose parents will rightfully wonder what our meetings are for.

· We said that we would pay attention to Africa’s special needs. However, very little has been done. African nations do not need foreign advice or models, but financial resources and access to both markets and technologies. Assisting Africa would not be an act of charity, but an act of justice; it would be tantamount to settling the historical debt resulting from centuries of exploitation and pillage.

· We undertook to put a halt to and start reverting the AIDS pandemic by 2015. However, in 2003 it claimed nearly 3 million lives. At this rate, by 2015 some 36 million people will have died of this cause.

Sixth: Creditor countries and the international financial agencies will not seek a just and lasting solution to the foreign debt.

They prefer to keep us in debt; that is, vulnerable. Therefore, even though we have paid off US$ 4.1 trillion in debt service over the last 13 years, our debt increased from US$ 1.4 trillion to US$ 2.6 trillion. It means that we have paid three times what we owed and now our debt is twice as much.

Seventh: We, as underdeveloped countries, are the ones that finance the squandering and the opulence of developed countries.

While in 2003 they gave us US$ 68.400 billion in ODA, we delivered to them US$ 436 billion as payment for the foreign debt. Who is helping who?

Eighth: The fight against terrorism can only be won through cooperation among all nations and with respect for International Law, and not through massive bombings or pre-emptive wars against 'dark corners of the world.'

Hypocrisy and double standards must cease. Sheltering three Cuban-born terrorists in the United States is an act of complicity to terrorism. Punishing five Cuban youths who were fighting terrorism, and punishing their families, is a crime.

Ninth: General and complete disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, is impossible today. It is the responsibility of a group of developed countries that are the ones that most sell and buy weapons.

However, we must continue to strive for it. We must demand that the over US$ 900 billion set aside every year for military expenditures be used on development; and

Tenth: The financial resources to guarantee the sustainable development for all the peoples on the planet are available, but what is lacking is the political will of those who rule the world.

A development tax of merely 0.1% on international financial transactions would generate resources amounting to almost US$ 400 billion per annum.

The cancellation of the foreign debt incurred by underdeveloped countries would allow these to have available for their development no less than US$ 436 billion on a yearly basis – money which is currently used to pay off the debt.

If developed countries complied with their commitment to set aside 0.7% of their Gross National Product as ODA, their contribution would increase from the current US$ 68.400 billion to US$ 160 billion per annum.

Finally, Excellencies, I want to clearly express Cuba’s profound conviction that the 6.4 billion human beings on this planet – who have equal rights according to the United Nations Charter – urgently need a new order in which the world is not left in suspense, as is the case now, awaiting the outcome of the elections in a new Rome in which only half the voters will participate and nearly US$ 1.5 billion will be spent.

There is no discouragement in our words, I must say so clearly. We are optimistic because we are revolutionaries. We have faith in the struggle of the peoples and we are certain that we will accomplish a new world order based on the respect for the rights of all; an order based on solidarity, justice and peace, resulting from the best of universal culture and not from mediocrity or gross force.

About Cuba, which cannot be detoured from its course by blockades, threats, hurricanes, droughts or human or natural force, I will not say anything.

Next 28 October, for the 13th time, this General Assembly will debate and vote on a resolution about the blockade imposed against the Cuban people. Once again, morality and principles will defeat arrogance and force.

I would like to conclude by recalling the words spoken right here 25 years ago by President Fidel Castro:

'The noise of weapons, of the menacing language, of the haughtiness on the international scene must cease. Enough of the illusion that the problems of the world can be solved by nuclear weapons. Bombs may kill the hungry, the sick and the ignorant, but bombs cannot kill hunger, disease and ignorance. Nor can bombs kill the righteous rebellion of the people…'

Thank you very much.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Bush, Iraq, and Demonstration Elections

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:21:00 +0000

From Empire Notes

Last October, when Vladimir Putin engineered the election of his hand-picked subordinate Ahmad Kadyrov as president of Chechnya through tactics such as pressuring candidates to withdraw, forcing the leading candidate, Malik Saidullayev, out with a court injunction, and appointing another candidate to his staff to remove him from the election, Western punditry was not slow to condemn the election as a farce and a sham. It did so again when he interfered as blatantly in the recent August elections in Chechnya.

Ever since 9/11, however, the Bush administration has been treating us to a series of equally farcical 'elections' with minimal or no comment from the same sources. The matter has now come to what should be a crisis point over plans to engineer the upcoming U.N. Security Council-mandated elections in Iraq.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was once again in the news regarding his concerns that the main U.S.-affiliated political parties (the ones that formed the Governing Council and that now dominate the transitional assembly) are negotiating on a 'consensus slate' of candidates for the elections. While his main reported concern is that the Shi’a majority of Iraq will be underrepresented, based on an estimate from the early 90’s that 55% of the Iraqi population is Shi’a Arab compared to his estimate of 65% today, there is a much more serious question at stake – the legitimacy of the elections.

In some countries, with a well-established parliamentary system and a history of active political parties and an inclusive public discourse, slates like this are not necessarily a problem. In systems like India’s, with numerous parties and a first-past-the-post voting system (no matter how many candidates there are, the candidate with the most votes wins, with no runoffs), such electoral alliances may be necessary to get smaller parties some degree of parliamentary representation.

In Iraq, however, the situation is different. According to a recent New York Times editorial (9/26/04), such a slate could create 'essentially a one-party election unless Iraq's fragmented independents manage to organize themselves into an effective new political force.' And, said the Times, in an uncharacteristically direct criticism, 'Otherwise, Iraq's first free election may look uncomfortably like the plebiscites choreographed to produce 98 percent majorities for Saddam Hussein.'

What the Times neglected to mention is the Bush administration’s well-documented history of 'managed' elections set up directly under its auspices in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the June 2002 Afghan loya jirga, roughly 1500 delegates assembled to pick the interim president of the country. Although all delegates were under a great degree of pressure by U.S.-backed warlords (who did everything from killing delegates before the assembly to controlling the floor at the assembly), over 800 signed a statement in support of Zahir Shah, the exiled monarch. According to Omar Zakhilwal and Adeena Niazi, delegates to the loya jirga, the United States then stepped in and 'the entire loya jirga was postponed for almost two days while the former king was strong-armed into renouncing any meaningful role in the government.' (NYT, 6/21/02) When the assembly resumed, delegates were given a choice between Hamid Karzai and two unknown candidates running for symbolic value (one of them was a woman) – essentially, as in the Chechnya elections, they were presented with a fait accompli.

More recently, the Bush administration pushed to have Afghan elections before the U.S. elections, then switched around and pressured the Afghan Electoral Commission to delay the parliamentary elections until next April (CSM, 7/13/04) while going ahead with presidential elections in October. The notion was pretty clear that there would be no time for anyone to emerge as a national-level alternative to Karzai, thus making the presidential elections effectively one-candidate. There are 18 candidates, one of whom, Yunus Qanooni, is known to many – although no one considers him a rival to Karzai, who should have no trouble prevailing against such a divided field. Even so, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (closely linked with neoconservatives like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) has been pressuring candidates from Qanooni all the way to Mohammed Mohaqiq, who represents the minority Hazaras, to resign with some combination of coercion and bribery. In fact, Qanooni and 13 other candidates actually met to discuss how to deal with Khalilzad’s election tampering (LAT, 9/23/04).

In Iraq, the U.S. record is similar. Much propaganda has been made of the local 'elections' instituted by U.S. forces, but to believe it calls for a willing disjunction from reality. In some places, the 'election' was an appointment of mayor and/or city council members by the local U.S. commander, sometimes disastrously, as when U.S. forces appointed a Sunni from Baghdad to be mayor of the mostly Shi’a Najaf, cancelled an election he would surely have lost, and later had to remove him anyway because of charges of corruption and Ba’athist links (WP, 6/28/03, and others). In Basra, British and U.S. forces appointed local officials and then removed them and decided explicitly that Iraqis would only serve in a technocratic capacity, not a political one (WP, 5/29/03). In other places, like Kirkuk, the 'election' was one conducted by 300 delegates all hand-picked and vetted by U.S. forces, not by the people of Kirkuk.

In late June, U.S. commanders had ordered a halt to all local elections, because they had determined that in many places people and groups they didn’t like were too popular and might win (WP, 6/28/03). That is unfortunately one of the problems with democracy. A few days later, Paul Bremer approved resumption of elections (WP, 7/1/03), but allowed local commanders to choose between appointment, election by specially vetted caucuses, and actual elections; unstated was the conclusion that U.S. commanders should choose the form of 'election' based on the likelihood of getting the result they wanted.

All of these experiments in 'democracy' were, of course, in a context where U.S. commanders could countermand any city council decision and dissolve any council as they so chose.

At the national level, things have been similarly manipulated. Of course, elections have been postponed repeatedly, even though the difficulties that exist in Afghanistan did not exist in Iraq (for example, the ubiquitous ration cards could have been used as a basis for voter identification and registration); even the January elections are mandated only because other countries on the Security Council insisted on the setting of a date as a condition for approving Resolution 1546, on the so-called 'transfer of sovereignty.'

Furthermore, numerous other ostensibly national political processes have been cancelled or manipulated as well. An assembly planned for June 2003, that would have involved mostly the U.S.-designated exile-dominated 'Iraqi opposition' was cancelled by Paul Bremer. He said it was because the 'opposition' was not representative of the country; then, a month later he chose, entirely on his own authority, 25 people, 16 of them exiles, to form the Governing Council.

In August, as the center of Najaf was ceaselessly bombarded, a national conference of roughly 1300 delegates met to select the interim national assembly, a body of 100 people whose formation was mandated by the 'transfer of sovereignty' process (actually, 81 delegates were to be selected, the other 19 coming from the old Governing Council). Ostensibly picked by democratic processes in their locality, the delegates certainly did represent a wide variety of parties and views, although major groups opposed to the occupation were under-represented (Moqtada al-Sadr, whose organization was under military assault at the time, boycotted the conference).

However, the delegates at the conference learned that there would be no nomination of candidates, campaigning, or elections but instead, a pre-selected slate of 81 candidates, picked by back-room negotiations between the major U.S.-affiliated parties. Attempts by small parties to form an alternative slate fell through; at the end, the U.S.-backed slate was not even presented to the delegates for formal approval.

This last was a sham that would likely embarrass even Vladimir Putin. Apparently, the Bush administration is happy with elections in places it controls, like Afghanistan or Iraq, as long as there are no choices (when there are, as in Florida, strange things can happen). There is not a shred of a reason to doubt that this is precisely what is planned for the January elections in Iraq – collusion by the U.S.-backed political parties to pick Iraqi figures who will continue to collaborate with the occupation and to shut out all other Iraqi voices. Now that the New York Times has weighed in on this particular election engineering scheme, it may well be traded in for another, but the recent history of U.S. foreign policy suggests that, no matter what, a free election will not be allowed.

There is a deplorable tendency in this country to use words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' in a purely talismanic manner, without attaching any actual meaning to them – only thus could the coups in Guatemala in 1954 or in Haiti in 2004 be hailed as advances for democracy. But the current administration takes this to heretofore undreamed of extremes, as could be seen clearly at the Republican National Convention this year. For Bush, apparently, democracy means any kind of election at all – a definition that would make dictators from Ngo Dinh Diem to Saddam Hussein, all of whom engineered electoral 'victories,' perfectly happy.

In fact, to Bush, democracy and freedom mean simply 'anything the United States does' or, indeed, 'anything I do.' The implications for the United States and its internal affairs ought to be as clear as the implications for Iraq. Mobilize to ensure that the elections in Iraq in January are real elections; the freedom you save may be your own.

--Rahul Mahajan is publisher of the blog Empire Notes and teaches at New York University. He has been to Iraq twice and reported from Fallujah while it was under siege in April. His latest book, 'Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond,' covers U.S. policy on Iraq, deceptions about weapons of mass destruction, the plans of the neoconservatives, and the face of the new Bush imperial policies, as well as continuities between Democratic and Republican policies on Iraq. He can be reached at rahul@empirenotes.org.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Slavoj Zizek and Perverse Christianity

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:51:00 +0000

In a recent book, The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek puts forth the view that Marxists can no longer make a frontal attack on the institutions of imperialism, thus a feint under the cover of Christianity is necessary. Zizek calls himself 'a materialist through and through' and believes that Christianity has a 'subversive kernel' which can only be demonstrated by a materialist analysis. But he also holds that the relationship is so intimate that 'to become a true dialectical materialist, one should go through the Christian experience.'

Zizek maintains that for 'intelligent Marxists' the most interesting questions are not those about change and development – but about permanence and stability. Why has Christianity persevered from ancient times? We 'find it in feudalism, capitalism, socialism...' etc. The clue is to be found in the writings of the Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton who wrote that despite the rigid ethical and moral demands of the Church and its priests, an inhuman 'outer ring' it actually protected the masses of people where one would find 'the old human life dancing like children and drinking wine like men; for Christianity is the only frame for pagan freedom.' Pagan freedom is here another term for joy in living.

This may explain the persistence of Christianity, but why must Marxists have the Christian experience? This is too unrealistic a claim. Do Asian Marxists from non-Christian cultural backgrounds have to convert to Christianity in order to have the 'Christian experience' before fully understanding dialectical materialism?

Other religions have also been persistent. Hinduism, for example, is older than Christianity, as is Buddhism, and has adapted to the modern world. Zizek does discuss some of these other religions but is on shaky ground. He seems to think, for instance, that 'Bodhisattva' is the name of a person rather than being a title used to describe Mahayana Buddhist deities.

Zizek’s 'materialism' or at least his 'Marxism' is also all mixed up with categories borrowed from Lacanian psychoanalysis. And here a digression based on W.L. Reese’s work. Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) was a French psychoanalyst who thought the unconscious Id expresses itself in language because it is structured like a language. The Ego should recognize the depth and plurality of meanings of the Id. This is hard to do as the Ego = our personal identity, our conscious self which is only composed of the info allowed through by the Censor. Lacan wants to subvert not strengthen the Ego. The Ego is a mess due to problems in infancy and it is this screwed up infantile Ego, surviving into adulthood, that must be subverted by the usual psychoanalytic methods.

Using this Lacanian world view plus 'Marxism,' Zizek decides that by using a 'perverse' version of Christianity leftists can smuggle in, as it were, progressive ideas and put them into play in our society. Having concluded that Marxism cannot get a hearing in our culture this is really the only way that we can advance the revolutionary cause. Marxists in Christian clothing.

No doubt that because Christianity originated among oppressed national minorities and slaves there are many features of progressive social justice that can be deduced from it. The battle against the Christian right could be more easily waged by showing that its political and social formulations are contrary to Christian teachings and the logic of Christianity.

In this respect Zizek has a point. But it is not necessary for Marxists to go through a Christian moment themselves. By the way, the 'puppet' in the book’s title is Christian theology – we will use theology to forward our secular ends – the dwarf will use the puppet.

People interested in philosophy and religion will want to read this book. I have only scratched the surface in this brief article. At the end, Zizek says the point of his book is to show that Christianity at its core reveals the secret of the passion of the Christ (one that Mel Gibson missed).

When Christ dies after asking his Heavenly Father why He has abandoned him, the historical secret is that there is no Heavenly Father. There is no 'Other' to judge us. We are responsible. This is the perverse core of Christianity and Zizek takes us on an interesting tour of the history of Western thought to get there. You might not like all of the stops along the way, or even the final destination, but you will enjoy the trip.

--Thomas Riggins is book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Book Review – Bush on the Couch, by Justin Frank

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:34:00 +0000

Jim Hightower, the populist Texan author and politico, has often said that he has drawn one conclusion while crisscrossing America seeking to expose the George W. Bush cabal—THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS! Justin Frank, MD, a Washington- based practicing psychiatrist and colleague, has put George W on his proverbial couch and proven it. Doctor Frank readily admits that he, as do none of us psychoanalysists and therapists, have any way of actually evaluating psychologically any patient without that couch being actual. But then again, if it were, those sessions automatically become privileged and confidential and none of us would ever know about it. So Frank’s disclaimers are well taken.

On the other hand, he as well demonstrates that with his research into the Bush family’s public lives, the president’s public actions and his now well-documented history since childhood, Frank’s insight, diagnosis and denouement are certainly valid. Besides, Frank also admits that psychoanalysis has its limitations, in that we are all Foucaultian to a degree and inbred prejudices play a role. Author Frank does get too detailed on occasion and sounds a bit repetitive, but on the whole, allowing for all that, the readers will be treated to a juicy and sagacious knowledge of what is psychologically behind W’s actions.

Doctor Frank does not stay only with the president as such. He spends some pages getting into his upbringing as a youngster and student at Yale. How mother Barbara was a real ballaboost and ran the Bush household from the getgo—and maybe still does. Frank indicates that George pere was something of a Casper Milquetoast and perhaps, looking at Freudian and Masters teachings, with so absent a father image, can account in a meaningful way how and why George fils has become what he has—a man driven by hedonism, self importance and general inadequacy who seems hell bent on showing his father how macho he can be. It is not a pretty picture of a man who is admittedly the most powerful on earth, with the power to destroy us all.

Frank doesn’t seem to miss a trick. The president’s striking adolescence with his in mouth silver spoon, the family’s handling of the tragic death of the second born daughter Robin who was early on struck down by a cancer and how that affected the family dynamics. We read of Bush’s silly speech patterns, his inability to extemporize, his serious bouts with alcohol and recreation drugs, his acceptance of religion as a mechanism to combat his fears of that inadequacy and how none of these things have ever been overcome. That all spells more and more bad news for all of us.

Frank gets into the defense mechanisms that are in all of us—but to a safe and healthy degree. In the president, his regression, denial and rationalization become manifest in his acting out. Among the many cited examples, there is Bush’s living continually outside the law, on his own elitist island. How he explains away Iranagate, his drug habits while a student, his drunk driving convictions, his constant misrepresentation of the truth (read: liar), his smirks and thoughtlessness (read: those seven minutes of ceiling searching as the Twin Towers were being destroyed and thousands were dying as we were under attack).

Frank ties in many of he president’s patterns of behavior over the years with his actions of today. Robin’s death was 'swept …under the rug' early on and when Bush finally took to the public forum to address the people in the wake of 9/11, he told us to go shopping. Laughable if it were not tragic.

Frank shows more of his credibility as a member of our trade in trying to avoid the trap of making a tacit diagnosis that often is used to codify and categorize a patient and theoretically makes it easier to treat, like those of us who are also in the business of organic medicine. Frank adds that if we need one, the best working diagnosis for the president would be that of a megalomaniac—a person who was 'born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.' That accounts for all of his self-righteousness.

As Frank anecdotally writes, there is the story of the disturbed patient who insisted that he was dead. After making great efforts to logically convince the patient otherwise, the doctor asked him if dead people bleed. No, of course not, was the reply. The doctor then proceeded to stickpin himself and the patient on the finger and drew a drop of blood in each. See, said the doctor, we are bleeding. The patient turned to the therapist and said, 'Well Doc, I guess I was wrong. Dead people do bleed.'

That vignette says it all about George W. Bush. No matter what happens in the coming the coming time in Iraq and elsewhere, we will always be given a seemingly rational excuse and virtuous reason for more policies that are driving the world toward Armageddon. That is why Frank’s final words are the key: 'Our sole treatment option – for his benefit and for ours – is to remove President from office. It up to all of us – Congress, the media, and voters – to do so, before it is too late.' Read Bush on the Couch. You will feel as though you went through a psychiatry residency, but it will have been worth the effort.

Bush on the Couch. Inside The Mind of the President By Justin Frank, MD Regan Publishers, New York 2004

--Don Sloan is assistant editor of Political Affairs.

» Find more of the online edition.

Chinese president calls for developing socialist democracy

Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:31:00 +0000

From People’s Daily Online

Hu Jintao delivers a keynote speech at a celebration rally marking the 55th founding anniversary of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing, Capital of China, Sept. 21, 2004. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chinese President Hu Jintao said Tuesday that China would give full play to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), China's top advisory body, for injecting impetus to the causes of the people and the Party.

Hu made the remarks when addressing a rally marking the 55th founding anniversary of CPPCC, the country's most influential and broad-based advisory institution.

Hu, also general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), pledged to give full play to CPPCC as a patriotic united front organization for the united front has always been a treasure for pushing forward the causes of the Party and the people.

'It is a natural requirement to develop the most broad-based patriotic united front and realize a great solidarity among all political parties, communities, ethnic groups, social groups and all China-loving people under the leadership of CPC,' Hu said.

China would make better use of CPPCC as an important form of carrying out socialist democracy in the country's political life, and constantly develop socialist democratic politics and promote socialist political civilization, said the president.

He urged to firmly grasp the two major themes of solidarity and democracy in the future to strive relentlessly for the realization of the central task of the Party and the state.

The president said CPPCC shoulders significant responsibility and occupies important position as the country is working hard to build itself into a well-off society.

China has managed to establish its socialist political system that adapts to its actual conditions during its long-term experience. The core of China's political system consists of the people's congress system, the CPC-led multi-party cooperation and political consultation system, and the system of regional autonomy for ethnic minority groups, he said.

The key to the development of China's socialist democratic politics is to well adhere to and develop all these systems, he said.

Hu Jintao urged the CPPCC to constantly improve its advisory and supervisory capacity to meet the demands in the new century.

Hu said that CPPCC should constantly improve its performance in political consultation, democratic supervision, participation in and discussion of the government and political affairs.

Hu urged the people's political consultative conference to adhere to Deng Xiaoping Theory and the Important Thought of 'Three Represents' and be creative in its undertakings.

He asked the national top political advisory body to conduct work in line with the requirements of centering round economic construction and serving the overall situation of reform and development.

He urged the organization to make more efforts in uniting various parties and further strengthen the broadest patriotic united front.

He urged to push forward construction of the system, standardization and procedure of political consultation, democratic supervision and participation in and discussion of the government and political affairs and give further play to the characteristics and advantages of the people's political consultative conference.

He urged the Communist Party of China (CPC) committees and the governments at all levels to follow the important democratic procedure of consultations before making any major decision and policy while giving full play to the CPPCC's supervision over the implementation of laws, regulations and major policies and the performances of the governments and officials.

He called on the people's political consultative conference to pay great attention to self-improvement and asked members of the organization to keep close to the masses, collect and convey public opinions.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

NBA's Etan Thomas: 'I am Totally Against This War'

Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:28:00 +0000

Howard Cosell once said, 'Rule Number One of the 'Jockocracy' is that pro-athletes and politics should never mix.' But in these times of war and resistance, a new wave of sports stars are demanding to be heard. In Major League Baseball, Blue Jays slugger Carlos Delgado has come out against the occupation of Iraq. At the Olympics, the Iraqi Soccer Team publicly refused to be a symbol for a war they opposed. In the NBA, all-star guard Steve Nash and forward Josh Howard have said that they were 'for shooting jumpers not people.' Now we can add NBA center/power forward Etan Thomas to the list of those athletic anti-war rebels who are rewriting the rules of the 'Jockocracy'.

An outspoken opponent of racism and the death penalty, Thomas is a poet who puts his ideas to verse at rallies and panel discussions throughout the DC Metro area.

Now, in an 'Edge of Sports' exclusive, the Washington Wizards' fifth year player turns his attention and anger toward George W. Bush's war against Iraq. This story is breaking here only because, according to Thomas, the Washington Times was preparing to profile his views until the story was killed by 'higher ups' at the right-leaning paper.

'I am totally against this war,' Thomas says adamantly. 'But at the same time, I am completely for the troops. Republicans tried to paint the picture that if you were against the war, you were somehow unpatriotic, and that couldn't be further from the truth. What's truly unpatriotic is misleading an entire nation into war under false pretenses.'

Thomas shakes his head at Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of John Kerry's call for a more 'sensitive' war in the Middle East. '[Bush and Cheney] missed the entire point. They should have been more sensitive to the 1000+ American soldiers that lost their lives because of the ignorance of the White House. They should have been more sensitive to the fact that these were human lives they were ruining. I wonder what they would say to the mothers who will never see their sons again, or the children who will never see their fathers again.. He has sent so many young children, who only signed up for the Army as a way to go to college, into a war that didn't need to happen. And people wonder why the casualties are so high. 18 year-old babies are over there losing their lives everyday, and he has the audacity to say that 'we are turning the corner.''

Bush's arrogance has been a factor compelling the burly rebounder to speak out. He sees a quagmire developing because of Bush’s oft-criticized 'go it alone' style. 'He was so insistent about going against the U.N. and now we are bearing the burden alone. He said that he didn't need the help of any other country. Now, we need help and no other country wants to help us because of his unwillingness to allow the U.N. to do their job. The U.N. said that they didn't have enough evidence to invade Iraq, but Bush insisted that they had these weapons of mass destruction, and come to find out, that was untrue. Now we are in way over our heads and progress is moving at a snail's pace.'

Thomas also expresses frustration at the media's role in not questioning the drive to war. Fox News’ role in particular leaves him both astounded and annoyed. 'It amazes me that know-it-alls like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity can actually defend him. O'Reilly said that he was simply given bad info, and he thought he was doing the right thing. Well, it's his job to know. That excuse -- 'I didn't know any better' -- might work when you are seven years-old, but not when you are the President of the United States.'

As with the death penalty, Thomas is putting his feelings into poetry.

Below is an excerpt from Thomas' poem on the Iraq War:

Out of the ashes of Iraq come soldiers dressed in fatigues of fire Wearing helmets secured in smoke They've choked off the lies spewed out of the mouth of a burning bush The true warrior's existing wake Who's flames burned them at the stake Cremated their bodies And stuffed them in an urn wrapped in red, white, and blue....

Rummaging through a forest set ablaze by one lethal match With witty catch phrases forever attached to the side of their kingdom Operation Iraqi Freedom Links to Al Qaeda Eminent threats And weapons of mass destruction.....

They've been skillfully thrown into the lion's den Out of the frying pan and into the furnace Their courage exceeds any measuring stick But they can hear the footsteps of death creeping around the corner For they've been led into the eye of the storm Transformed into peacekeepers Lending a helping hand for the poorly planned post-war strategy......

Thomas knows he may feel some heat for speaking out against Bush’s war but feels an obligation to do so. 'I have never had a problem standing up for what I believe in. I admire the athletes of the past, like Bill Russell, Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, John Carlos and Tommie Smith, Kareem [Abdul-Jabbar]. Athletes that used their position as a platform to speak out on social issues and stand up for a cause. Basketball is not my life. To quote Bill Russell, 'You're not going to reduce me to an entertainer. I'm a man who stands up for what I believe in and you're going to respect me for it.' A quote I live by is, 'I speak my mind because biting my tongue would make my pride bleed.''

When athletes like Etan Thomas step forward and make their voices heard, they do more than rewrite the rules of Cosell's 'Jockocracy'. They reclaim the humanity of all athletes normally presented as having muscles and tattoos but not minds. They also provide an outlet for the millions of people who oppose the priorities of this government yet embattled and embittered, feel they stand alone. When 6' 10' Etan Thomas stands up, you feel like you can straighten your back and walk tall by his side.

Dave Zirin’s book What's My Name, Fool: sports and resistance in the United States (Haymarket Books) comes out in spring 2005. To have his column sent to you every week, just e-mail edgeofsports-subscribe@zirin.com. Contact the author at

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Exchange, Cooperation and Development

Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:45:00 +0000

Exchange, Cooperation and Development Beijing Declaration 2004 From People’s Democracy

Following is the full text of Beijing Declaration issued in Beijing on September 5, 2004 at the closing ceremony of the Third International Conference of Asian Political Parties (ICAPP):

1. We, the leaders and representatives of 81 political parties from 35 countries attended the Third International Conference of Asian Political Parties (ICAPP) hosted by the Communist Party of China in Beijing China, September 3-5, 2004.

2. The ICAPP, established in September 2000, is a great undertaking in which Asian political parties adjust to the contemporary trend of peace and development, adapt to the rapid development of regional cooperation and expand international exchanges and cooperation among themselves. The ICAPP has become an important forum where legal political parties of sovereign Asian countries can exchange political ideas, seek political consensus and increase understanding and trust. It has also become a new channel and new mechanism through which political parties can play their unique role in promoting regional cooperation and mutual development. The Third ICAPP has injected new vigour into international exchanges among political parties of Asian countries.

3. 'Exchange, Cooperation and Development' is not only the explicit theme of the Third ICAPP but also the unshirkable historical duty of Asia’s political parties and politicians. The leaders and representatives of the Asian political parties at this conference have carried out extensive discussion and exchanges of ideas on the three topics of regional security and multilateral cooperation, economic development and social progress, and party building and national development. The conference has been productive, and it has met the objectives of further strengthening mutual friendship, exchanges and cooperation, increasing mutual understanding, trust and consensus, and jointly safeguarding regional peace, stability and unity.

4. It has already become the common desire of the political parties, politicians and ordinary people of all Asian countries to adapt to the trend of the times, increase regional exchanges and cooperation and promote common development. Cooperation in Asia is not exclusive, nor is it directed at any third party. Asia should develop itself by opening up to the whole world and advance through contacts all over the world. We advocate resolving differences through dialogue and negotiation in accordance with the intent and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the ten principles of Bandung. We advocate gradually reforming the inequitable and unjust aspects of the current international order through mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation, energetically carrying forward the process of democratisation in international relations and cooperatively promoting Asia’s peace, stability, harmony and prosperity.

5. The rapid development of Asia has been aided by a peaceful environment. Maintaining the momentum of development requires the region’s security and stability. In recent years, the overall situation in Asia has been stable and its main trend has been toward peace, development and cooperation. However, traditional and non-traditional security issues have become intertwined, and both new and old hot spots are still affecting the peace and tranquillity of some countries and regions. The question of how to ensure the long-term peace and stability of Asia is a major issue that all Asian political parties and politicians should ponder deeply. We affirm refusing wars, aggressions and hegemony. We are committed to multilateral cooperation and believe that justice will ensure peace. We applaud the efforts Asian countries and political parties have made to peacefully resolve regional conflicts and crises, and advocate turning areas of disputes into areas of cooperation.

6. Terrorism, splittism and extremism have already become plagues that do harm to human society. We strongly condemn and oppose all forms of terrorism. We advocate strengthening cooperation among sovereign countries and between regional organisations against terrorism, taking steps to eliminate the root causes of terrorism while giving full play to the role of the United Nations. Double standards should not be practiced and the fight against terrorism must not be linked with any particular ethnic group or religion.

7. Asia is one of the most vigorously developing regions in the world and one of the most important areas for trade growth. We have great confidence in the development potential of the Asian economy. At the same time we fully recognise that the world’s globalisation trend has brought about opportunities and challenges to every country and the people. Asian countries can take advantage of their opportunities only by strengthening their cooperation, overcome their difficulties only by recognising that they are all in the same boat, and thrive in the face of fierce global competition only by working together to make themselves stronger. It is a sacred obligation of all countries and political parties as well as the international community to eliminate poverty and achieve prosperity. We encourage governments of all countries to draw up anti-poverty strategies, reinforce international cooperation and implement diversified measures to alleviate poverty in an effort to create a better world of common prosperity without destitution.

8. Energy issues are central to the economic security and sustainable development of all countries, and the safety of energy resources is a problem facing the entire international community. Cooperation in energy can become an important component of Asian regional cooperation. Countries in the region should expand dialogue and cooperation on the basis of the principles of mutual benefits and win-win solutions and jointly promote sustainable development in Asia.

9. We believe that all Asian countries should choose their own development path and development model in accordance with local conditions, strengthen coordination, exchanges and cooperation in the areas of economic and social development, and work to create an environment beneficial for development. They should work together to develop a new concept of development, explore new ways of thinking about development, expand the connotation of development, and work hard to promote coordinated and sustainable economic and social development, urban and rural development, and development of both human beings and nature throughout the region. They should take advantage of the favourable opportunities in the region that arise from the overall political stability, the continual economic growth and the deepening regional cooperation to increase economic cooperation, progressively open up markets to each other, resolve trade disputes through negotiation and promote the sound development of a multilateral trade system.

10. Asian countries have a radiant splendour of historical and cultural traditions, diverse social and political systems and different levels of economic development. We advocate strengthening dialogue among different civilisations, seeking common development through interactions and realizing a win-win situation by maximising the consensus and setting aside the differences on the basis of fully respecting each other’s historical traditions, cultural differences and diversified development paths.

11. Asian political parties bear a historic responsibility for developing their national economies, safeguarding social stability and promoting the development of democracy and legal systems. As all the countries in Asia progress toward modernisation, their political parties should constantly adjust to the requirements of the development of the times. In order to achieve social and political stability and contribute to their country’s modernisation, political parties should promote clean and efficient government through vigorous measures of party building, and effectively integrate all the country’s internal relationships by strengthening ties with the parliament, the government and the civil society.

12. Asian political parties, large or small, old or new, should be entirely equal, respect other’s independence and self-determination, respect other’s choices and practices, respect others internal and external policies established on the basis of conditions in their respective countries, and refrain from interfering in other’s internal affairs. Ideological differences should not be a barrier to contacts and cooperation among Asian political parties. Concerning differences and conflicts between parties, Asia’s political parties should adopt the spirit of seeking common ground and reserving differences, resolving differences through dialogue and negotiation or temporarily setting them aside so that they do not affect the normal development of bilateral relations. We believe that Asian political parties should promote the sound and stable development of state-to-state relations through positive contacts and cooperation. They should continuously enrich the connotation and develop the potential for cooperation and make full use of their unique role in promoting economic development, advancing social progress and safeguarding regional security.

Finally, we wish to extend our heartfelt thanks to the distinguished Communist Party of China and its leaders for their energetic efforts and outstanding contributions that led to the successful convocation of the Third International Conference of Asian Political Parties.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Open Letter to Bush

Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:41:00 +0000

From

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!

Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:

I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000 2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said: Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001

Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. --July 29, 2001 2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!

2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a 'catastrophic success.' That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words 'flip' and 'flop,' so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the 'intelligence' they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the 'many positions' he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can't take another minute of it.

Yours,

Michael Moore www.michaelmoore.com

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

'Victims of Communism'

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:27:00 +0000

From The Guardian

I feel sorry for them, as I am sure you do, too. I mean, there they are, swarming all over the former Soviet Union, expending great efforts to teach the people there the ways of capitalism and it seems the people are not grateful.

I am talking about the US and EU-trained 'aid workers' who are trying to 'help' the people of the various former Soviet Republics to set up small businesses and establish cottage industries as a remedy for the economic disaster that came with the overthrow of socialism.

The European parts of the former USSR are overrun with (mainly US) evangelical Christians. For their part, the former Soviet Central Asian republics are inundated with Islamic proselytisers.

Islamic or Christian, however, they are equally determined to help the victims of 'Godless Communism.' Pumped up with propaganda about capitalism being the necessary concomitant of freedom and democracy, they must be peeved indeed to discover that the people in the former USSR do not fit their stereotyped ideas of what 'victims of Communism' should be like.

The Far Eastern Economic Review recently ran a very revealing article on this subject, as it applies in Khorog, a mountain town of 25,000 people in Tajikistan near the Afghan border.

The writer of the article, one John Bonaccolta, tries his best to give a positive spin to the present situation there, but he cannot disguise the fact that what he’s describing is pretty dire.

However, he is clearly so committed to the idea that any form of capitalism, no matter how bad, must be preferable to socialism, that he seems oblivious to the fact that his article is full of inadvertent admissions of how much better things were under the Soviet system.

He tells us that, 'thanks to the centralised Soviet education system,' over 99 percent of the population is literate. Of course, he prefaces this with the daft comment 'no doubt the Soviets were more concerned with creating a subservient local population than with fuelling local culture.'

Yeah, that’s how you keep people subservient: teach ‘em to read and write so they can have access to information and ideas!

Without noticing the contradiction, Bonaccolta then tells us that 'the legacy of Soviet education is striking — in this part of Badakhshan in the Pamir mountains, almost everyone, it seems, is an artist, a writer or a musician,'

It would be difficult, in any case, for them to be much else. Bonaccolta notes that after the overthrow of socialism in the USSR, financial support for the sciences in Tajikistan fell to one twenty-fifth of what it had been.

He also quotes a European Commission aid worker: 'I don’t know of any colonial power that brought such cultural opportunity to the far corners of its empire, to the smallest villages.' Perhaps that is because the Soviet Union was not in fact a 'colonial Empire.'

Bonaccolta quotes a local artist, Yorali: 'Life was very good here during Soviet times. Now the only people who live above subsistence [level] work for aid organisations or traffic drugs, and that’s only about ten percent of the population'.

Religious people in this region tend to be Shia Ismaili Muslims, whose spiritual leader is the Aga Khan. Most aid workers in the region seem to work for the Aga Khan Development Network which is trying to win back for Islam the ground it lost in Soviet times.by 'coming to the rescue' now.

As a local university student tells Bonaccolta: 'Without the Aga Khan we would all be dead. There would be nothing to eat'. But our journalist has to admit that the Aga Khan’s pockets are not very deep when compared with 'the old Soviet machine'.

Nothing daunted, the helpful Aga has set up the Mountain Societies Development Support Program (MSDSP) to, typically, show the locals how to earn a living in the new circumstances.

One of the MSDSP’s workers, with the suspiciously non-Islamic name of Sarah Robinson, complains that 'teaching such cultured, highly educated people that they need to work to live is a challenge'.

This remark, incidentally, gives a very interesting spin on what life must have been like in Soviet times: apparently, under socialism, you did not have to work in order to live.

In dealing with the Soviet era, Bonaccolta typically refers to Tajikistan as 'this distant corner of Moscow’s empire.' He cannot hide his dismay, however, at the way the inhabitants of this 'distant corner' are today appalled by the type of jobs the MSDSP is trying to persuade them are the way of the future.

People trained as doctors, engineers and artists are understandably not impressed by suggestions that in the capitalist future they can drive a cab or try to scratch a living by tilling Tajikistan’s wretched soil (only five percent of the country’s land is actually arable)!

Sarah Robinson bemoans the locals’ unwillingness to embrace opening a business: 'They view commerce as dirty.' This too is probably a Soviet hangover!

Bonaccolta concludes his study of people in one part of the former Soviet Union 'struggling to cope with life in the real world' by quoting one of those whose present work is demeaning to him. He is Hazim, an architect 'reduced to driving jeeps for the few visitors to the area.'

Referring to Soviet times, Hazim says: 'At least then we could study in Moscow or St Petersburg [Leningrad]. We could wake up in the morning and just go — none of these borders and checkpoints.

'And we always had enough to eat.'

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Book Review – Heaven on Earth, by Joshua Muravchik

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:55:00 +0000

When I was a student at City College, I took a course in the history of Russia with a likeable anti-Soviet historian who was so extreme that regular Kremlinologists considered him an embarrassment. In his writings on Lenin, for example, he attributed Lenin’s role in the Russian revolution to a desire for personal wealth, among other things. Years later I came across works written for secondary students which called Karl Marx a bad father because he spent all of his time in the British Museum writing subversive books instead of supporting his family.

Reading Joshua Muravchik’s dull, dense and sometimes unintentionally comical history, Heaven on Earth I thought of these examples, of old HUAC hearings, and also an old Communist garment worker song: 'The right-wing cloak makers and the social Democratic fakers, are making by the workers double-crosses. They preach socialism, but they practice fascism, to preserve capitalism, by the bosses.'

Muravchik, a former National chair of the Young Peoples Socialist League (1968-1973) a sort of knot hole gang for right-wing social Democracy in the United States, and a long-time resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (well funded interference runners for big business), has produced a melodramatic history of socialism that would make my old anti-Soviet City College teacher quite happy, along with readers of the National Review and Fox News viewers. His very trite thesis, which begins with the confession that 'Socialism is the faith in which I was raised. It was the faith of my father and my father before him...' is that socialism has been an expansionist, destructive theology which sought 'heaven on earth,' a 'God that failed' and committed crimes far greater than other theologies or secular movements.

The narrative is based on selected secondary sources and selected quotations interpreted in the most negative light. Although I am no psychologist, I can see that Muravchik does exactly what he accuses socialists of doing (the term, which I remember from another City College course, is 'projection'). He starts out with an explanation, searches for materials to support that explanation, discards everything that doesn’t support that explanation, and then supports his original explanation.

In the chapter on the development of Marxism cutely titled Scientific Socialism: Engels Confronts the Oracle, Muravchik quotes Engels to the effect that most German Social Democratic party leaders hadn’t really mastered Capital at the time that Otto Von Bismarck outlawed the SPD in the early 1880s, but had read the Communist Manifesto and other works providing education in class struggle. For Muravchik this matter of fact statement is interpreted thus: 'If few read or understood Capital, what was its importance....Unlike the Torah, New Testament or Koran, all of which are studied assiduously by believers, Capital fulfilled its purpose just by existing. Believers could assure themselves that it contained profound evidence that their world-view was more correct than any other.' To support that interpretation Muravchik quotes the serious English Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm to the effect that Capital was more bought than read and some did keep it on their book shelves as evidence of the scientific nature of socialism.

Neither Engels nor Hobsbawm’s comments support in any serious way Muravchik’s religious interpretation, but he sandwiches their statements around his own to create the impression that they do. Of course the voluminous theoretical debates concerning Marxist theory in the Second and Third International, the conventions and congresses of Socialist and Communist parties, and journals of the socialist movement throughout the world don’t quite fit in with this picture, so they aren’t mentioned.

Muravchik then writes a predictable narrative in which the Russian revolution produces a regime horrors. The revolution is expansionist, producing not only Communism but also Fascism, under the leadership of the former Socialist, Benito Mussolini, whom Muravchik, with tongue somewhat in cheek, calls 'the original ‘red diaper baby’ '

The Nazis are thrown in with the comment that ' what distinguished Nazism from traditional forms of socialism was its febrile nationalism, although not its virulence against despised peoples'(some nasty remarks by Marx against Croats and Czechs are used to support this point). A quote from Hitler is even dredged up to create the impression that Hitler, even through he sought to destroy the Marxism, also saw himself as an heir to the Marxist tradition (even Hannah Arendt would turn over in her grave at stuff like this)

Muravchik sometimes acknowledges socio-economic causes of socialism the way Ronald Reagan acknowledged homelessness, as something that may exist but has nothing to do with the real story of history. For Reagan that story was the upward march of unregulated capitalism; for Muravchik the immoral implementation of an amoral 'theology.'

Heaven on Earth is very much in the tradition of Bush administration reports and right-wing media commentaries – instead of lies, damned lies, and statistics, there is a narrative of distortions and very false impressions. Those who read it will be initiated into the Gospel of anti-Socialism according to St. Muravchik, where Adam Smith and his heirs defend the ethical science of capitalism against a socialist theology without morality.

There is a vast scholarly literature, both philosophical and historical, both Marxist and non-Marxist, based on serious cannons of scholarship and the use of both primary sources and diverse research paradigms that challenges and surpasses pretty much everything Muravchik says. That won’t mean much to him or his employers at the Heritage Foundation. Unlike the Hillquits, Dubinskys and the Thomas,' in the old Communist garment worker song, Muravchik isn’t 'making by the workers false promises.' He is telling them by inference to bow their heads to their capitalist masters and find their rewards either in an afterlife or in higher deficits and lower taxes in this one (the contemporary version of Republican Heaven on Earth) because the alternative, socialism, is evil, even if it has deluded people into believing that they can live without exploitation and oppression.

I wouldn’t recommend you read this book if you don’t have to. Don’t even steal it. Read John Somerville’s Philosophy of Marxism (Marxist Educational Press), Phil Foner’s histories of American workers, Herb Aptheker on the American Revolution, American Negro Slave Revolts, indeed pretty much anything International Publishers list. Then, if you pick up Muravchik in a library or a Heritage Foundation reading room, you will really know how much more you know than he does.

Heaven on Earth:The Rise and Fall of Socialism By Joshua Muravchik San Francisco: Encounter Books: 2002

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Letters

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 04:15:00 +0000

Send your letter to the editor to pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.

Meat and Global Warming New York, NY

It boggles the mind that in all the articles, including “Clean and Green” and all the discussions of how to conquer global warming and protect the ozone layer, everyone ignores perhaps the most crucial issue in the equation, the meat industry. Meat eaters in the US are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year. This is a well known fact published in a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Yet politicians, Gore, and “concerned environmentalists” talk about hybrid cars, more efficient light bulbs, solar panels and so on. Anything not to face the real issue and give up their steaks, which, in the long run will no doubt kill them with cancer and high blood pressure/strokes. It would be interesting to know why David Zink did not address the agribusiness in his article. It is said by many in the know, you cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist.

When will the public accept this fact and make the supreme sacrifice by going veg, better yet, vegan? In truth, it’s not much of a sacrifice. It’s a healthier, more humane way to live and to save the planet.

Sincerely, Elaine Sloan

Zink Replies

It’s true that meat makes up too much of the average US diet. The topic of the article I wrote was about transportation and energy, not meat-eating. Yes, indeed, corporate agribusiness is related, but if I was to try to address all the related issues, my article would have been much longer.

I won’t get into the morality and physiology (Homo sapiens has canine teeth, indicating that we evolved to have an omnivorous diet) but, Ms. Sloan is right: yes, eat less (or no) meat and more veggies, for health and environmental reasons if nothing else. And certainly never eat an endangered species, whether it’s plant or animal! David Zink

No Comparison New York, NY

A brief comment on Rémy Herrera’s article “War and Crisis” (April 2007) about his statement on the building of the new walls, comparing (the Rio Grande wall, the Israeli separation wall and the Schengen wall made up of 13 countries of the European Union), when he states that “these walls are much more deadly than the old Berlin one, which they replaced.” This implies that the Berlin Wall of East Germany was an evil deed, comparable to the walls of imperial Israel, the US, and the European Schengen group. This indicates a lack of historical understanding of the struggle that East Germany had to defend itself against the unrelenting aggression of the US, against their communist homeland. The East Germans found it necessary to erect a wall to thwart the attempts by the US to overthrow them. It was certainly not the deadly wall of Herrera’s imagination but a wall to protect a Communist society.

Philip Stein

Attack on Religion? via e-mail

I was very disappointed to find Ms. Bates article posted here on the PA website. It is somewhat offensive to Believers, Christians and Roman Catholics in particular.

Ms. Bates aparently fails to see that the problem is not the Roman Catholic Church or Christians. Rather it is capitalism. The capitalist system has failed, miserably, to meet the health care needs of US citizens. Rather than disparaging the Roman Catholic Church (and by extension Catholic people and other Christians) we should thank them for helping to meet American’s health care needs in the face of an uncaring system of greed. (BTW: Most Christians who are pro-life are not anti-woman. But that discussion is beyond the scope of this space and comment).

To implicitly demand that anyone, Believer or atheist, provide anything to others at their own personal expense (in this case the US Catholic community’s support of its hospital system) without respect to their personal core beliefs is not right. To my way of thinking this article smacks of the old “League of Militant Atheists” mentality (which greatly undermined the Socialist Cause) and fails to point out that the real problem is not any of the Christian Churches but rather a system (capitalism) that has outlived its usefulness.

Ed Ortiz

Bates Replies

I think you misunderstood the spirit of my article. I am, first of all, a Christian. I am a United Methodist, and mine is one of forty denominations associated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. There are, believe it or not, many pro-choice Christians. My article was not intended to disparage the Roman Catholic Church. If individual Catholics, and privately owned religious health care facilities, want to proscribe or avoid certain medical procedures, I have no problem with that. However, when state-supported public institutions are forced to abide by religious doctrine, that is quite another thing. You are, of course, correct in saying that capitalism is a failed system. If we had adequate state-supported health care, we would not need private hospitals. No argument there. However, if we had a Socialist system (dream on!), I would hope that all health care facilities would offer a full range of services to people who need them. That would include reproductive health choices, right-to-die choices, and many other things. And I would be the first person in line to protest anyone being forced to receive a service that they did not want or need. I hope this clears things up.

Anna Bates

November 2004 - Table of Contents (print edition)

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 04:01:00 +0000

Features

22 Why Latinos Want to Dump Bush By Rosalio Muñoz With about seven million votes projected for the 2004 election, Latino voters will play a large role in deciding who will be president and who will control Congress.

28 Class Stars: 50th Anniversary of Salt of the Earth By Lorenzo Torrez The classic labor film Salt of the Earth still inspires unity in struggle as the main path to democracy, equality and worker rights.

30 Nowhere Else To Go: Latino Youth and the Poverty Draft By Jorge Mariscal Discrimination and eroding job and education opportunities leave Latino youth open to the wiles of military recruiters.

36 Book Review Essay Book for Bigots: Review of Who are We? by Huntington By John Bachtell

40 HIP HOP Roots: Interview with Raquel Rivera Noted writer Raquel Rivera discusses the role of HIP HOP among Puerto Rican youth.

44 Puerto Rico Libre By José A. Cruz

Departments

04 Letters

09 Marxist IQ

10 Commentary Union on Demand By Scott Marshall

12 Right to Vote By Debbie Bell

14 Advancing a Socialist Agenda By R. K. Sharma

15 Nobody Asked Me, But… By Don Sloan

16 Book Reviews Peoples Power: Cuba’s Experience with Representative Government Reviewed by Thomas Riggins

Our Word Is Our Weapon: Selected Writings Reviewed by Amadeo Velez

18 Poetry #17 By Clemente Soto Vélez

The Seamstress By Daisy Zamora

At the New Mexico Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial By Leroy V. Quintana

Union on Demand (print edition)

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:51:00 +0000

The right of workers to organize into unions is a cornerstone of modern democracy. In the United States the fight for this basic right has been a central thread of class and democratic struggles for well over a hundred years. It has also been a constant struggle.

Today the movement to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 1925 and HR. 3619) is the latest and most critical fight in this long conflict between labor and capital.

The Act itself is a very modest proposition. It does three basic things. First it says that when a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards saying they want to form a union, the company or employer must recognize their union. Secondly, since employers often resort to stalling tactics in negotiating a first union contract (in some cases months and even years of stalling), the Act mandates binding arbitration to reach a first contract if one is not negotiated in a timely way. And lastly the legislation increases the penalties for companies and employers who use illegal tactics to stop workers from organizing. Many people are probably amazed that when a majority sign union cards they don’t already automatically get their union. After all wasn’t this most simple and basic of rights won in the labor upsurge of the 1930s, when the CIO transformed the labor movement and organized millions in the basic manufacturing industries into industrial unions?

The answer is yes. In 1935 Congress passed, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Wagner Act. In essence the Wagner Act established workers rights to organize unions, bargain collectively and engage in 'concerted activity.' And it protected those rights against unfair labor practices and company tactics to interfere with or limit the use of those rights.

Then, in the late 1940s and in the 1950s, the McCarthy red scare attacks heralded a wide corporate offensive against labor. In 1947 a Republican-dominated Congress, steeped in anti-Communist hysteria, with a sharp anti-labor bent, passed the Taft-Hartley Act to weaken the Wagner Act. Taft-Hartley began an attack on labor rights that continues to this day.

At its heart, Taft-Hartley was to do away with union recognition based on a majority signing union cards. It established the right of companies to call for National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) supervised elections instead. This allowed legal company interference in the democratic process of establishing a union. It gave the company time and a mechanism to use intimidation and scare tactics to discourage union votes. Instead of workers self-organizing and taking the democratic decision to form a union, now the company was allowed to be a part of that decision making process. Now the employer could effectively use the NLRB process of supervised elections to help determine when the vote is taken and under what circumstances favorable to the company. And it started a whole industry of anti-labor lawyer consultants and organizations ready to intervene for the employers.

Further modification to the Wagner Act in the 1950s chipped away more and gave the employers even greater latitude. For example limiting union shop agreements in 1951 and heavily curtailing union solidarity in 1959 by banning (secondary) union boycotts of non-union goods and services and limiting picketing in strikes.

Today, labor is once again in upsurge mode. Not since the CIO days has labor been more mobilized and more militant in its electoral efforts. Under the 'Beat Bush' banner, labor, in alliance with African American, Latino and women, is at the heart of a powerful all-people’s movement. Central to this labor upsurge is the question of organizing the unorganized and how best to increase the size, influence and political clout of labor. At the very center of its electoral work to defeat Bush, the AFL-CIO has placed the question of the Employee Free Choice Act.

In a recent speech to the Service Employee’s International Union Convention, John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said there were three main obstacles to progress for labor – one is improving the racial, national and gender diversity of the leadership of labor at all levels, two is passing the Employee Free Choice Act, and three is defeating George W. Bush.

In addition to the critical importance of organizing to all of labor’s program and efforts, the Employee Free Choice Act provides a stark contrast in the battle for the White House. John Kerry and John Edwards are both original sponsors of the legislation and have pledged to give it high priority in their administration. (The bill now has 33 sponsors in the Senate and 106 in the House.) Meanwhile the Bush administration is taking steps to outlaw card check as a method of union organizing. (Current law allows a card check if the employer doesn’t ask for an NLRB election instead.)

While by no means a complete solution to labor rights, the Employee Free Choice Act has the potential, similar to the Wagner Act, as a turning point in labor’s upsurge.

--Scott Marshall is a vice chair of the Communist Party USA and the chair of the Party's labor commission.

Hip Hop Roots: Interview with Raquel Rivera (print edition)

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:45:00 +0000

Editors note: Raquel Rivera’s groundbreaking book New York Ricans from the Hip Hop Zone is of the first works that seriously studies the impact of Latinos on hip hop music and culture and conversely of hip hop on Latinos.

The book is currently being translated to Spanish by Laura Pérez, who previously translated some of Rivera’s earlier work on rap music and cultural politics in Puerto Rico. The Spanish translation will be published by next year.

She is currently working with writer and visual artist Tanya Torres on a collection of essays inspired by New York Puerto Rican artists and cultural workers, tentatively titled De un Pájaro Las Dos Patas y Otros Ensayos or Two Feet of the Same Bird and Other Essays. The aim is to do a version in Spanish and one in English.

Rivera is a professor at Hunter College in New York. She recently received a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship to research and write about women in traditional Puerto Rican and Dominican music, and is a performer with Yaya, a NYC-based collective of women dedicated to cultivating Puerto Rican bomba and Dominican salves.

PA: In your groundbreaking study, New York Ricans from the Hip Hop Zone, you look at the underestimated influence of Puerto Ricans on Hip Hop music and culture. What is the biggest influence Nuyoricans had on the origins of hip hop?

RR: In terms of the artforms, New York Puerto Ricans were particularly influential in the dance aspect of hip hop. But they were also influential in its musical and visual art aspects, not to mention the overall cultural scene. Without New York Puerto Ricans, hip hop as we know it simply would not exist. The same goes for other ethnic groups present in large numbers in hip hop throughout its initial decade. Without African Americans or Jamaicans, hip hop as we know it would also not exist. (By the way, salsa without African American musical and cultural influences would not be salsa. And Puerto Rican bomba, hailed by purists as one of the most 'authentically' Puerto Rican music genres, would not be bomba as we know it without the influx of Haitians into 19th Century Puerto Rico.)

The majority of South Bronx residents in the 1970s were Puerto Rican (back then the New York Latino population was overwhelmingly Puerto Rican). And young Puerto Ricans, especially, interacted closely with other people from the Caribbean and African Americans. So its no surprise that, in ethnic terms, hip hop is a shared space. All throughout the city, there was a climate of close interaction between these groups.

And hip hop was not the first cultural scene where this was the case. These groups had been cultural collaborators all throughout the earlier 20th Century, as manifested in music genres like boogaloo, Latin Soul, doo wop, R & B and jazz, in other artistic realms, in political struggles and in sports, just to mention a few examples. Hip hop is heir to all those shared cultural and political spaces between Puerto Ricans, other Latinos, other people from the Caribbean and African Americans.

PA: Who are some of the early Puerto Rican artists and musicians in hip hop?

RR: Just to mention a few of the better-known ones of the 70s and early 80s: DJ Charlie Chase of The Cold Crush Brothers; Rubie Dee and Prince Whipper Whip of the Fantastic Five; OC and Tito of the Fearless Four; most of the Rock Steady Crew and the New York City Breakers.

A few important Puerto Rican artists clearly had a key role in the formation and development of hip hop. To what extent has hip hop been embraced by Puerto Rican public? Will hip hop ever compete with salsa let’s say as a popular music of Puerto Ricans?

Hip hop is (and has long been) the music of choice for huge sectors of the Puerto Rican population, particularly young people. Hip hop is an important cultural source for the rap/reggae hybrid known as reggaetón, which rose to fame in the 1990s and is currently the most popular music among young Puerto Ricans inside and outside of Puerto Rico. Salsa has already been overshadowed by reggaetón in terms of its popularity among young Puerto Ricans.

PA: Why has the influence of Puerto Ricans on hip hop been so often overlooked and overshadowed in the public eye by the African American role in hip hop?

RR: The reasons are interrelated and there have been many. But there is one overriding reason above all others: We are all so used to accepting myths of cultural purity and ethnic separation, that its hard to see the truth even when its standing right in front of you. Ethnic groups have a history of struggle over 'cultural property' and this is no different. Take for example the longstanding argument among those that proclaim salsa to be 'really' Puerto Rican, or 'really' Cuban, or 'really' Latin American, or 'really' US Latino.

PA: Is there a difference in hip hop made by Blacks and Latinos or are Latin (specifically Puerto Rican) hip hoppers simply making 'standard' hip hop?

RR: Sometimes there is a difference, sometimes there isn’t. Puerto Ricans make all kinds of hip hop, sometimes in English, sometimes in Spanish, sometimes in both, from the most musically 'standard' to the kind that incorporates plena, salsa and bomba.

PA: Has there been a reciprocal impact of hip hop on Latin music in the US or in Puerto Rico? In other words, has hip hop had an impact on Salsa, merengue, etc.?

RR: Absolutely. Even before rap music was commercially recorded in 1979, it was already having an impact on the music produced by Latinos. Cuban legend La Lupe recorded a song called 'SoulSalsa' where she raps, and that was before 1979. She was living in the South Bronx back then (what a surprise). Sunshine Logroño was rapping on Puerto Rican TV in the 1980s. Some of the most popular Puerto Rican salsa, merengue and pop artists have recorded songs with rap artists or incorporated elements of hip hop into their music.

PA: What ways do Latin stereotypes permeate hip hop? Are Latin women reduced to video ho 'mamis'? How do Fat Joe and Big Pun and others play into these stereotypes and crass multiculturalism?

RR: Stereotypes permeate commercial hip hop music, generally speaking. African American men and women get stereotyped. Its no surprise that the same thing gets done to Latinas as 'video ho mamis.' Its also no surprise that Latino artists have it done to them and/or do it to themselves. The market in general (since this goes way beyond hip hop) usually thrives on selling stereotypes.

PA: You note that Puerto Ricans and Blacks in New York often faced the same socio-economic conditions in which hip hop emerged. How have New York’s resource and political struggles between Blacks and Puerto Ricans shaped or been played out in hip hop (if the have)?

RR: Hip hop has been a space of both cooperation and conflict between African Americans and Puerto Ricans. Some of the conflicts between both groups have been played out within hip hop, but some of the points of commonalty and solidarity have been proposed from within hip hop and then spread out to the larger cultural and political realm. So it has gone both ways.

Finding Freedom: Puerto Rico's Struggle for Independence (print edition)

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:37:00 +0000

The struggle to get rid of the US Navy in Vieques gripped the Puerto Rican communities in the US as well as in Puerto Rico like no other issue has in recent times.This struggle showed the connections of the Puerto Rican communities in the United States with the Puerto Rican nation in Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, the struggle around Vieques involved people from all sectors, classes and political viewpoints except for the most sold-out right-wing annexationist elements who deny the reality of a Puerto Rican nation and bend over backwards for US imperialism.
Let me remind the reader that that struggle came on the heels of mass actions affirming Puerto Rican nationality, Spanish as the national language, and one of the first fights against neoliberalism in Latin America – the fight (which included a two-day general strike) against the privatization of the phone company. The struggle to rid Vieques of the US Navy had its reflection in the US. It was a fight for the people’s health, for peace, objectively against imperialism and, most importantly, for the national aspirations of the Puerto Rican people, both in Puerto Rico and in the US. Unfortunately, too few forces within the US who are active in the fight for peace and against imperialism saw the fight for Vieques as their fight too.

The unity around Vieques brought together many in the US Puerto Rican communities together. That struggle formed the impetus to develop a national progressive Puerto Rican agenda in the US. Oftentimes, the struggle for Vieques in the US Puerto Rican communities was led, as had been the case in Puerto Rico for decades, by the patriotic, pro-independence forces, albeit, it included Puerto Ricans from almost the whole spectrum of political thought.

The new movement for a new progressive Puerto Rican national agenda, which came out of the movement around Vieques, is also led by this political tendency. In many ways the progressive Puerto Rican national agenda also counters the movement of the Puerto Rican annexationists, which seeks to build support among US Latin Americans to make Puerto Rico part of the US as a state. The leadership of this sector denies that Puerto Ricans constitute a nation, separate and apart from the US nation. They regard Puerto Ricans as just one more ethnicity within the US nation. This runs counter to the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans, both in Puerto Rico and the US.

As Ida Castro, former head of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Clinton administration said 'For 100 years they have tried to make us something we are not,' that is to say, of US nationality and not Puerto Rican. The Puerto Rican annexationists (or statehooders as they like to be called) have been rebuffed time and time again when they have proposed formulas which deny Puerto Rican nationality.

When the annexationist New Progressive Party Governor Pedro Rosselló changed the official language of Puerto Rico from Spanish to Spanish and English, this led to massive demonstrations in defense of Spanish. The previous government had changed the official language from Spanish and English to Spanish only. A poll taken a few years ago in Puerto Rico found that 66 percent would not use English even if it was for communicating with federal government agencies, while another 14 percent would use it grudgingly. Only about 25 percent of Puerto Ricans claim to speak English fluently.

When that same colonial governor Rosselló stated publicly that Puerto Ricans don’t constitute a nation, at least 100,000 took part in two demonstrations 'In Defence of the Nation' during the annual meeting of the US Southern Governors Association, to which the heads of state of the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Honduras were invited. Then there was the 48-hour general strike, which included a march of 100,000, against the privatization of the telephone company, one of the first fights against neoliberal economic policies in Latin America, which shut down the whole country and was seen as a fight 'for our national patrimony.'

The annexationist forces are attempting to build a consensus in the US within the Democratic Party (most of the annexationist leaders in Puerto Rico identify with the GOP, something which is not the case with the grassroots annexationists) and other US Latin Americans, especially Mexican-Americans. According to Northeastern University professor, Amílcar Barreto, and Puerto Rican Legal Defence and Educational Fund leader, Ángelo Falcón, the Roselló government began 'initiatives to reach out to Mexican Americans and Cuban organizations'in the US. This was done without involving Puerto Ricans in the US. One of the organizations which the annexationists have used for this purpose is the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a mostly Mexican-American grouping. The Roselló government organized 116 LULAC chapters illegally using government funds and employees for the purpose of influencing the Mexican American people.

The annexationists have stolen the language of the left and progressive forces and frame their anti-Puerto Rican positions in terms of self-determination and civil rights 'for the four million American citizens in Puerto Rico.' The Roselló government has been 'attacking the Puerto Rican leadership' in the US, even going to the extent of threathening representatives Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) and Nydia Velásquez (D-NY), both opponents of statehood for Puerto Rico.

This program and actions of the Puerto Rican right makes it imperative that the left, including Communists, in the US Puerto Rican communities take an active part in the development of, and fighting for, what was stressed as the building of a progessive Puerto Rican agenda. It is also imperative that the Puerto Rican left reach out to other sections, not just Latinos, of the US population on its agenda.

The developing of 'a progressive Puerto Rican national agenda to inject into the national debate' at this particular point, when we are in the midst of election campaigns with a people’s movement to oust the right, could be seen with continuous calls to get the Puerto Rican vote out. The left character – a left character that is not out of the mainstream thinking – could be seen in having a demand to end the war and occupation in Iraq as one of the three main demands.

The Boricua Roundtable presenting a left-of-center agenda, with the participation of Puerto Rican elected officials including the three members of Congress, is all the more important taking into account the demographic changes in the US Puerto Rican population. This Puerto Rican agenda has the purpose, not only of putting forth issues that relate only to the Puerto Rican communities, but it is designed 'to provide a framework for stateside Boricuas to participate in a broader Latino Agenda.' Congressman Gutiérrez spoke to this when he called on all Puerto Rican elected officials and activists to be known by their work as champion of immigrants.

While Puerto Ricans are concentrated mainly in the northeast with other areas and cities, the 2000 census shows a shifting in where Puerto Ricans live, making them a more powerful force to reckon with politically. First of all the Puerto Rican population grew by 25 percent between the 1990 and the 2000 censuses. Because of immigration from other Latin Americans, the relative size of the Puerto Rican community shrunk from 12 percent to just under 10 percent. All other Latin American groups grew faster than the Puerto Rican population, except for Cubans.

The number of Puerto Ricans in the US is almost equal to those in Puerto Rico (3.4 million to 3.6 million).

New York, especially New York City, is still the most important area of Puerto Rican concentration, movement and political power. It is there were they have made an impact in the trade union movement, in the fight for bilingual education, and political power generally. It is worth noting that Puerto Ricans were a powerful component of the forces that elected Vito Marcantonio, progressive congressman from New York, two years before the election of NY state Assembly member Oscar García Rivera, the first Puerto Rican elected to a public office in the US.

New York City, which once could boast having 80 percent of the US Puerto Rican population, now has 30 percent, a smaller amount but, the largest of any city in the country. Every borough in the city has had a decline in its Puerto Rican population, except for Staten Island and Queens. The state of New York, however, is the only state with a decline in the absolute number of Puerto Ricans.

Of the top 11 cities with the highest Puerto Rican population, five had less Puerto Ricans now than 10 years earlier. These are New York, Chicago, and in New Jersey, Newark, Paterson and Jersey City. While a good number of these have resettled in other areas of the country, many have also returned to Puerto Rico. For example, it is estimated that 38 percent of Puerto Ricans have left New York City to return to the island.

New Jersey, where many Puerto Ricans moved to from New York City in search of better conditions was for a long time the state with the second highest Puerto Rican population. That place is now occupied by Florida with New Jersey losing Puerto Ricans. Nevertheless, the New Jersey Puerto Rican population grew by 14 percent. Florida is the state with the highest relative growth of Puerto Ricans (95 percent). Other states with high relative growth among Puerto Ricans are Texas with 62 percent, and Pennsylvania with 53 percent.

For the people’s movement the Puerto Rican growth in Florida is very important, especially in elections for public office. The 2000 census shows 833,000 Cubans in Florida and 482,000 Puerto Ricans. All the Puerto Ricans are US citizens while not all the Cubans are citizens. Over 300,000 are in the Orlando area alone.

The Puerto Rican Federal Affairs Admnistration, which represents the government of Puerto Rico and has 12 regional offices throughout the US has registered 250,000 new Latino voters, mostly Puerto Ricans. Of these the bulk (100,000) were in New York state. In Florida they registered about 12,000, mostly in the Orlando and Tampa areas.

A major problem is that Puerto Ricans, like many groups of immigrants, come into the US but don’t neccessarily get involved in electoral politics. While in Puerto Rico 95 percent of eligible voters are registered and up to 85 percent participate in the electoral process, in the US, both the voter registration rate and the voter participation rate fall to 40 percent. This means that only 16 percent of voting-age Puerto Ricans make use of the franchise in the US. This is a challenge to the left and progressive forces in the US seeing that Puerto Ricans when mobilized come out on the side of social progress. This challenge is even more important in the election year 2004, when the people’s forces are mobilizing to defeat the right-wing Republicans in the White House and Congress.

--Jose Cruz is editor of Nuestro Mundo.

No Where Else to Go: Latino Youth and the Poverty Draft (print edition)

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:09:00 +0000

Military recruiters are well aware that the economic situation for Latino youth is relatively bleak and have targeted Latino communities as one of the primary objectives for their efforts in coming decades. In the document 'Strategic Partnership Plan for 2002-2007' written by the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, the architects of what we might call 'niche recruiting' state: 'The Hispanic population is the fastest growing demographic in the United States and is projected to become 25% of the U.S. population by the year 2025.' The Plan goes on to explain: 'Priority areas [for recruitment] are designated primarily as the cross section of weak labor opportunities and college-age population as determined by both [the] general and Hispanic population.' Not surprisingly, the top two recruiting batallion areas according to the Plan are Los Angeles and San Antonio.
The targeting of Latino youth for military recruitment was initiated by former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera (now president of the University of New Mexico) who once declared that 'Hispanics have a natural inclination for military service' and that the Army could 'provide the best education in the world.' The very notion that 'Hispanics' constitute an ethnicity-based military caste would seem to belong to an earlier century, yet it is sustained by comments such as these made by Caldera and reiterated by the Mexican American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who told Hispanic magazine: 'When I became a soldier the ethics and the value system of the military profession fit almost perfectly with my own heritage. It made it very easy for me to adapt to the military value system.' Given the overall economic context and the military’s interest in Latino youth, we can be sure that the enlisted ranks will fill up with increasing numbers of Latinos and Latinas. In 2002, a Pentagon spokesman told a San Antonio newspaper: 'Hispanics represent approximately 22% of our recruiting market' (Express-News, 10/10/02). That means Latino youth are being targeted at about twice their rate in the general population. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Puerto Rico where high unemployment rates facilitate military recruitment efforts. In 2002, the Army initiated the Foreign Language Recruitment Initiative designed to give recent immigrants crash courses in English.

What is not generally known is that very few Latinos make it into the officer’s ranks. Among all Latinos in today’s Marine Corps, for example, only 3% are officers. Over 80% of the officer corps (in all branches of the service) is white. According to an article in the Army Times, the vast majority of Latinos and Latinas are bunched together in the private and corporal ranks (or lowest ranks) and therefore are among the most likely to receive hazardous duty assignments.

According to 2001 Department of Defense statistics, Latinos made up 17.7% of the 'Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship' occupations in all the service branches. Of those Latinos and Latinas in the Army, 24.7% occupy such jobs and in the Marine Corps, 19.7%. It is important to remember that Latinos make up only 13.5% of the general population. (Although women do not serve in the 'Infantry,' they can be found on gun crews and in other forms of hazardous duty). In other words, Latinos and Latinas are over-represented in positions directly related to combat. In the elite and most highly romaticized military special operations units such as the Navy Seals, however, people of color are virtually non-existent given stricter educational admissions criteria.

Visit any high school with a large Latino population, and you will find JROTC units, Army-sponsored computer games, and an overabundance of recruiters, often more numerous than career counselors. One of the Army’s newest recruitment programs targeting Latinos was designed by Latino Sports Marketing of San Diego, California. Marketed as the 'Hispanic H2 Tour' it consists of a customized Hummer described as: 'a mobile branded platform. While maintaining brand integrity; the vehicle is custom painted to effectively appeal to custom car enthusiast. The interior is customized, emphasizing high end craftsmanship and branding opportunities. The audio package is of competition quality. Multiple video screens are installed and capable of supporting the Army Game interactive.'

The Hispanic H2 Tour is similar to the Army’s 'Takin’ it to the Streets' Tour designed to accelerate recruitment in the African American community where recruiters are particularly hard-pressed and faced with declining interest in the military as a career. According to the Army website, the goal of the tour is to 'Build, confidence, trust, and preference of the Army within the Hispanic community.' In Latino neighborhoods around the country, the H2 tour visits baseball games, custom car shows, and other events where young Latino and Latinas congregate. Latino Sports Marketing claims the tour has 'surpassed its initial goal of qualified leads [potential recruits] by 57%.'

The centerpiece of the agenda to militarize the public school system is the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps or JROTC. Although the Pentagon periodically claims that JROTC is not used for recruiting purposes, the Army’s own literature states: 'Junior ROTC is a strategic initiative that allows us to present the idea of the military lifestyle to High School students. By mission JROTC attempts to create better citizens, but also emphasizes military values, and presents the idea of the military lifestyle.'

Two lesser known Pentagon-sponsored programs merit our attention. The increased presence of military recruitment programs in the nation’s public schools is a little known consequence of the Department of Defense’s plans for maintaining manpower levels in coming decades. By targeting teachers, counselors, coaches, principals, and other school personnel known in Pentagon jargon as 'influencers,' each branch of the armed forces seeks to create a pool of unofficial recruiters who are in daily contact with young people and who can guide them towards military careers.

The foundation for the increasingly wide array of stealth-recruiting strategies is the Educator Workshop Program (EWP). According to the Marine Corps EWP website, teachers and others who participate in the program: 'Get a basic understanding of the Marine Corps and are better equipped to advise their students about our career opportunities. These workshops dispel the myths about recruit training and the Marine Corps’ mission by providing you with a first hand experience that is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.'

After being bussed to boot camp, EWP participants are given a week-long glimpse of military life in a kind of ersatz 'shock and awe' designed to instill enhanced respect for recruits. Experiences range from the initial harangues delivered by drill instructors to visits to weapons training activities as well as the final act of the 'Crucible,' the 72-hour ordeal that pushes recruits to the limits of their endurance and concludes with a patriotic spectacle complete with amplified anthems at the foot of a mock Iwo Jima Memorial. The approximately 40 educators from each recruiting area who participate every year are flown to either San Diego or Parris Island, lodged in nearby hotels, and reimbursed upon their return with a $225 per diem.

'Influencers' are expected to communicate their excitement about their well-controlled and sanitized 'experience' of boot camp to their young charges.

Not all 'influencers,' however, are welcome in the workshops. In an article written by a recruiter in Lansing, Michigan, EWP organizers were told to eliminate as workshop participants anyone with prior military experience. Because one of the goals of EWP is to 'dispel all misconceptions about the Marine Corps that infiltrate the American society,' military veterans are considered to be potentially disruptive given their first hand knowledge of military values and practices.

On the one hand, then, the Pentagon courts professional educators in order to exploit their influence over young people. In a complementary move designed to achieve the same result, military veterans are moved into school systems through the so-called 'Troops to Teachers' program (TTT). Initiated as a Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Education (DOE) collaboration in 1994, TTT seeks to place veterans in teaching positions across the country with an emphasis on districts in poor and underserved areas. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provides funding for TTT through Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. To date over 6,000 teachers have been placed and another 6,000 are currently in training or seeking employment. In California where cash-strapped school systems such as Los Angeles and San Diego serve large African American and Latino communities, military veterans are given a six-week crash course and placed directly into the classroom.

Given the crisis in educational budgets and on-going teacher shortages, it would seem that there is nothing inherently wrong with a program that attempts to help veterans transition into careers in education. But the long-term impact of exposing children to 'military values' and experiences coincides well with the recruiters’ goal of 'getting them while they’re young.' A recent Washington Post article on TTT captured the agendas of some of the veterans turned teachers: Such teachers also can make good ambassadors for the military. When [George] Hartman [a former gunnery sergeant in the Marine Corps] took over his business education classroom from a former Navy man, he put in a call to his local Marine recruiter. 'I said, ‘I want calendars. I want pens. I want all this Navy stuff out of my classroom, and I want to put Marine junk in here,’' he said… Both the EWP and TTT programs are key elements in the on-going effort to instill military values as a collective common sense. The debacle of the American war in Southeast Asia produced a generation of young people wary of warrior masculinities, cheap patriotism, and foreign policy adventurism. The Bush administration’s manipulation of September 11, exaggerated claims about the threat of Saddam’s Iraq, and media complicity allowed many to wrap themselves in the flag once more. If the United States was to conduct itself as a missionary for free markets and 'democracy' in coming decades, a reserve force of foot soldiers for its legions would have to be continually replenished. What better institutional site to conduct such a campaign than the nation’s dysfunctional public schools systems that have been thrown into chaos by massive budget cuts, overcrowding, and neglect?

Recently, at historic Roosevelt High School in East Los Angeles, a group of students was so appalled at the intrusive behavior of military recruiters that they formed an organization called 'Students not Soldiers' and demanded that real career counselors be hired. At Cal State Northridge just north of Los Angeles, students and faculty have protested the university’s contract with Army ROTC, a contract that brings Pentagon funding on campus and unlimited access to students for recruiters. In Puerto Rico, student members of the Frente Universitario por la Desmilitarización y la Educación (FUDE) recently established a civil disobedience camp at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez in order to block the construction of a ROTC building.

These acts of resistance to the on-going militarization of public education are rarely reported and not well known. Most Latino students and their parents, therefore, will fall prey to a limited range of opportunity (the 'economic draft' or 'economic conscription') and the Pentagon’s propaganda blitz about free money for college and travel. For working-class youth with limited horizons, these are powerfully seductive messages.

With the nation engaged in protracted military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic crises in education and health care, Latino communities are slowly awakening to the fact that a permanently militarized economy and culture will not benefit them or their children. We can only hope that, in the great tradition of radical social movements and militancy that mark Mexican, Latin American, and Chicano histories, Latinos in the United States will continue to add their voices to the international chorus demanding a different future than the one envisioned by the oligarchs of the new imperialism.

On Militarism and Capital

In his classic 1907 study of European militarism, Karl Liebknecht argued that the primary purpose of any standing army was to protect the interests of the capitalist elites or, in modern parlence, the corporate class. 'The task of militarism,' Liebknecht wrote, 'is above all to secure for a minority, at whatever cost, even against the enlightened will of the majority of the people, domination of the state and freedom to exploit.'

Focusing his activism on the youth of his day, Liebknecht argued that the struggle against militarism must begin with the young workers in both the urban and rural areas of the nation. He emphasized: 'We must not overlook the question of the education of young people, which is the most essential part of anti-militarist propaganda.' But the counterdiscourse of antimilitarism must reach beyond individuals: 'We have to consider the question not only of the youths liable to military service, but also the parents, especially the mothers, who should be specially mobilized for educating the young people in anti-militarism.'

Almost one hundred years after Liebknecht delivered the lectures that would become his book Militarism and Anti-Militarism, we have much to learn from his insights. Updated with only a few changes of language for the new context, the book offers us a precedent with which to analyze our own moment, an analysis that would expose the cynicism and greed of those who would govern the world in the name of free markets and corporate democracy.

The first lesson of militarism is that it must not be thought of as the domain of a particular group or caste. Modern militarism is to be found at every level of culture and, if it is to be successful, resides at the core of every state-sponsored institution. Liebknecht writes: 'Militarism makes its appearance as a system which saturates the whole public and private life of our people with the militarist spirit.' Liebknecht was one of the first thinkers to point beyond the standing army towards a wide range of social practices and discourses that prepares the general population for military action as both a logical and acceptable part of everyday life.

He reminds us that the children of working families bear the brunt of militarism. It is not that working people are completely deceived by the flag waving and the patriotic rhetoric. On the contrary, they are painfully aware of the losses they must endure. He writes: 'The proletariat knows that the wars which are waged by the ruling classes impose on it heavy sacrifice of life and property for which it is rewarded with miserable pensions for the disabled, funds in aid of veterans, street organs and kicks of all kinds after it has done the work. The proletariat knows that in every war brutality and baseness are rampant amongst the peoples participating in it and culture is set back for years.'

At the economic and cultural levels, military expenditures eventually undercut the development of other institutions even when those other institutions are more necessary to the long-term prosperity of a nation. According to Liebknecht: 'The school, art and science, public hygiene, the system of communications: all these are treated in the most niggardly way because, to use a well-known phrase, moloch’s greed leaves nothing over for the tasks of culture.'

Liebknecht reserved especially harsh criticism for military adventures within a broader imperialist project. 'The essence of colonial policy,' he writes, 'under the cloak of spreading Christianity and civilization or of defending the national honor, exploits and deceives with eyes raised to heaven, for the benefit of the capitalists with colonial interests.' He added: 'Militarism is not only a means of defense against the external enemy; it has a second task, which comes more and more to the fore as class contradictions become more marked… to uphold the prevailing order of society, to prop up capitalism and all reaction against the struggle of the working class for freedom.'

The struggle against militarism, he boldly stated, is 'the source which invigorates the revolutionary spirit.'

Parable of the 9 doors and the Wall of Glass

In a vast assembly hall were gathered all the youth of the nation. Some had arrived in their family car, others had taken public transportation, others had walked. Dividing the room was a high glass wall that separated a small fraction of the young people from the rest.

The individuals in the small group had arrived in expensive cars and seemed to have nicer clothes and straighter teeth. The large group was ethnically mixed but a closer look revealed that it was made up of poor whites from primarily rural areas and young people of color from the cities. The smaller group was not quite as diverse. A handful of black and brown faces were scattered throughout its ranks but they were few and far between.

The glass wall had only one opening. The opening allowed the youth from the small group to move to the other side but guards carefully monitored the traffic and blocked those from the large group from entering the more privileged group’s space.

At the front of the hall were nine doors, each representing different career paths and economic opportunities. The young people in the small group had access to all nine doors. Those in the large group could see all nine doors but the glass wall stopped them from entering all but three. The largest of the three was marked low-paying jobs. Another was marked military service and another was marked prison.

Those entering the military service door did so for a variety of reasons—patriotism, defending our freedom, serving one’s country, helping other countries get on their feet but also paying for an education because my parents can’t afford it or I just had to get out of my parents’ house. Even young people who were not US citizens could be heard giving some or all of these reasons but for that group it was mainly the one about money for college. It was never clear to the hundreds of families who lost their child to an illegal invasion and occupation why their son or daughter had to die trying to become a student.

Why Latinos Want to Dump Bush (print edition)

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:50:00 +0000

As the November 2 election comes closer it is clear that Latino voters will be a critical element of the growing forces opposing the Bush administration and Republican control of Congress. At the beginning of 2004 anti-Bush forces were worried about the Latino vote because of support for Bush reported by opinion polls in the wake of 9/11. A larger than expected Latino vote for Schwarzenegger in the California recall election in 2003, Bush’s base in Texas and his brother Jeb’s power in Florida (the second and fourth highest concentration of Latinos) and a big publicity splash for Bush’s immigration 'reform' package in January gave the appearance of strong support for Bush among Latinos. The corporate media made much of the possibility of an historic shift in Latino voting patterns in favor of Bush and the Republicans. It projected an image of invincibility for Bush and the right-wing Republicans on a national scale.
By the summer, however, this projected change in Latino voting patterns began to be dispelled as Latinos, along with the American people, began to look more seriously at the national elections. The Bush and right wing shifted their tactics into a more anti-Latino gear.

Signs now point to a strong anti-Bush sentiment among Latino voters. The Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project (SVREP), one of the key organizations responsible for the phenomenal growth of the Latino electorate since the 1970s , published a report, 'Latino Vote For Beginners – Key facts about the US Latino Vote,' indicating long-term and recent Latino voting trends that point to a large anti-Bush turnout. The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest Latino civil rights organization, published a survey showing that Latinos hold decidedly progressive views on major issues like jobs, health care, education and immigration, with little support for Bush campaign issues like cutting taxes and services, law and order and anti-immigrant polices. In the Spanish-speaking corporate media, pundits changed from speaking of a pro-Republican shift among Latinos to talk of an independent trend because both parties were taking Latinos for granted. They said the Latino vote wouldn’t affect the outcome of the election. While the obvious intent was to discourage Latinos from voting, a Gallup poll showed that post-9/11 Latino support for Bush’s policies – as high as 71percent – had dropped to 40 percent last June. In the presidential race, Senator Kerry led Bush 57 percent to 38 percent among Latino voters.

The Basic Truths

A key part of Bush’s campaign strategy is to try define the issues with the support of the corporate media. With regard to Latinos, the right-wing strategy is to incite ignorant, racist, nativist and nationalist stereotypes to whip up an anti-Latino backlash and discourage anti-Bush Latino voters and allies. The best antidote to this is the truth, a powerful tool in building unity in action. A discussion of living conditions and ideological developments is important to uncovering the truth.

Population

Latinos make up nearly about 14 percent of the total US population. In the 2000 census they made up 25 percent of the Western region of the country, 12 percent of the South, 10 percent of the Northeast and 5 percent of the Midwest. From 1990 to 2000 Latino numbers increased by 50 percent. Between 2000 and July 2003 their numbers grew from just over 35 million to nearly 40 million, a rate nearly four times that of the country as a whole. The Latino population is growing noticeably in virtually every state. In 11 states they make up 10 percent or more of the population: New Mexico, California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Connecticut. About 45 percent of Latinos reside in these states.

Working Class

Latinos are predominantly working class. According to the NCLR, Latinos have the highest rate of participation in the labor force at 68.1 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the Latino unemployment rate is 7.0 percent compared to 5.0 percent for whites and 10.1 percent for African Americans. About 96 percent of undocumented immigrant males work. The median income for Latino workers in 2001 was $19, 651 compared to $23,453 for African Americans and $30,622 for whites. In the blue collar/service job categories the Latino rate is 44 percent, compared to African Americans at 41 percent and whites at 28 percent. Income disparity for Latinos is relatively smaller for different levels of education and union membership. Latino full-time non-union workers had median weekly earnings in 2002 of $408. Union members earned $623. The difference is roughly $212 for African American workers and $135 for white workers. About 10.5 percent of Latino workers are union members compared to 12.8 percent of white workers and 16.9 percent of African American workers.

Unequal Conditions

Discrimination has created disparities in living conditions and quality of life. The 2000 Census reported 23percent of Latinos lived in poverty compared to 24 percent of African Americans and 8 percent of whites. Only 57 percent of Latinos are high school graduates compared to 79 percent of African Americans and 88 percent of whites. The NCLR reports that only half of Mexican Americans had completed high school. Forty percent of Latinos spend over the national standard of one third of household income for housing. Sixteen percent spend over half their incomes for housing. Forty-eight percent of Latino families own a home compared to three-fourths of whites. The average net worth of Latino households was $3100 compared to $81,700 for whites in 1998. One-third of Latinos are have no health insurance compared to 22 percent of African Americans and 12 percent of whites. Latino men are almost four times as likely as non-Hispanic white males to go to prison.

Thought Patterns on Issues

A recent poll released this summer by the NCLR shows that the Bush program of cutting taxes for the rich and social programs for working people, tough law and order policies, emphasis on the 'war on terror' and a 'war presidency' is far out of step with mainstream Latinos. It reports that 62 percent of Latinos 'would pay higher taxes to support a government that provides more services,' and only 28 percent support lower taxes and fewer services.

Specifically, about three in four Latinos say too little is spent on education, want more for preschool education and services and say more health care programs are needed. The survey showed education is the number one priority for one-third of Latinos, the economy and jobs for 22 percent, followed closely by issues such as immigration, civil rights, and health care. Issues such was war, terrorism, national security and taxes barely register.

Overwhelming majorities of Latinos regard discrimination as a problem in the workplace, schools and housing. On criminal justice, 74 percent want a tougher approach on the causes of crime, while only 22 percent prioritize stricter punishment. On immigration, 82 percent favor providing a clear path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have lived, worked and paid taxes for five years. Support for legal status for undocumented children who have lived here five years enabling them to attend college and work without fear of deportation is nearly unanimous.

Electoral Factors and History

While Latinos make up about 13 percent of the population projections indicate that they will make up between six and seven percent of votes cast for president. This is largely due to the large proportions of Latinos under voting age and the large numbers of non-citizens. The SVREP estimates that 6.8 million Latinos will vote for president in 2004 more than tripling the 1975 vote. SVREP and other Latino organizations are working to make the vote much larger. With 60 percent or more of these votes going to Democrats, their net gain should range from 1.5 to 2 million. The Latino vote has been an important reason the Republicans have lost the popular vote in the last three elections.

Latino empowerment on state, county and municipal levels has been even more dramatic. Overall in 2003 there were 4,624 Latino elected officials nationwide. In positions elected by party 1,477 were Democrats and 118 were Republicans. In Congress there are 20 Latino Democrats and 4 Republicans. These elected officials and their supporters know how to turn out the vote in their constituencies.

Significant electoral efforts among Latinos began with League of United Latin American Citizens in the 1920s. Latino participation in the labor upsurge and civil rights struggles of the 1930s and World War II was a giant step of empowerment. Independent Latino political formations like the Mexican American Political Association in California in the 1960s and the short-lived drives of La Raza Unida Party in the Chicano movement also sparked independent grass roots developments. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw the beginnings of national Latino civil rights groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the NCLR, the SVREP, the campus-based Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the AFL-CIO’s Labor Committee for Latin American Advancement.

Latinos emerged as an important part of national politics in democratic and progressive struggles against the Reagan Revolution. Latino leaders marched in the front line of the giant Solidarity Day rally against Reaganomics in 1981. New allies, growing grass roots efforts, and Voting Rights Act legal victories against gerrymandering led to more representation from Capitol Hill to City Hall. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus became more and more important. These developments accelerated in the 1990s especially with changes in leadership in the AFL-CIO and its policies like immigration.

Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Charlie González (D-TX) embody the historical traditions having succeeded their fathers Edward Roybal and Henry B. González whose political careers began in the New Deal era. Representative Raúl Grijalva is the son of a former worker in the Bracero Program. Latino political representatives in general have emerged from backgrounds of labor and community struggles and broader movements for social justice.

National Progressive Importance

These sections of the Latino equality movement have a growing voice in the movements for democracy and social justice. The labor, women’s, environmental, civil rights and liberties groups, immigration reform, health, education and other movements are taking affirmative action to win support and move in coalition. They are very conscious of the vote of Latinos in Congress, state houses and local government. For example five of the seven California Latina congresspersons won their seats with support from national women’s groups.

Latino participation in the progressive movements is shown by recent developments. No Latino Democrat voted for the authorization for use of force in Iraq in October 2002. Fernando Suarez del Solar, a Mexican immigrant whose immigrant son died in action of early in the Iraq war, has become a major peace movement figure organizing Latino military families to oppose the war and to show solidarity with the Iraqi people. Representative Luís Gutiérrez (D-IL) is the primary author of the SOLVE act for immigration law reform supported by the AFL-CIO and civil rights groups. Linda Chávez-Thompson is one of the three top officers of the AFL-CIO. The Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony D. Romero is an openly gay Puerto Rican. Representative Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is the third highest official of Democrats in the House of Representatives as chair of the Democratic Caucus. Rookie Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) is emerging as a key activist in the Congressional Progressive Caucus joining with co-chairs Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich and others on people before profit legislation in the House.

Anti-Latino Backlash

A major stereotype of Mexicans and other Latinos in the United States has been that they are foreigners. When the quota system was debated in Congress and the press in the early 20th century, the consensus reached is that Mexicans should have quotas because 'they did not want to be US citizens.' In the 1930s when Mexican Americans along other American people began demanding more economic and political rights the first mass deportation sweeps were organized which the government called repatriation.

When Latinos and progressives protested the lack of political representation after World War II, the politicians and pundits drowned them out saying 'those people do not want to vote.' This lie was meant to cover up, poll taxes, gross gerrymandering, urban renewal (poor people removal) and racist immigration and naturalization policies, as well as liberal policies of 'benign neglect.'

In the 1980s, as Latino power emerged nationally, the English-only attack on multilingualism emerged as a counter. In the 1990s the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in California became a cover for cuts in social services. A growing network of racist, nativist, anti-immigrant think tanks, lobbying and outright hate groups emerged as a significant part of the ultra right.

Today with the Latino empowerment movement emerging as a part of the foundation for progressive politics nationally this ultra-right network has honed these historic anti-Latino application in the November elections. The attack is not only aimed at Latinos, but at the unity of Latinos with other democratic sectors and against the forces of democracy as a whole. Central to this attack is the construction of a backlash movement to the growth of Latino political clout.

The backlash ideology was lent putative academic cover with the publication of Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington’s recent book Who Are We?. Huntington insists that immigrants, especially Latinos, want 'the demographic reconquista of areas Americans took from Mexico,' and that they will undermine the American 'core culture' of Anglo Protestantism. Huntington’s concocted propaganda provides academic cover for the rantings of extremist hate groups that link the anti-immigrant movement to the religious right, the political base of the Bush campaign.

The new ideological attack was used successfully in the California gubernatorial recall election last fall. In the race to succeed Governor Gray Davis should the recall succeed last fall, Democrat candidate Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante was viciously attacked for having been a member of MEChA as a college student in the 1970s. The attack asserted that MEChA, which uses the mythic term Aztlan for the 'lands to the north' from whence the Aztecs migrated before settling in the Mexico City area, was a group seeking 'reconquista' and was anti-American.

The Republicans called on Bustamante to renounce MEChA and was joined by right-wing radio talk show hosts, then conservative newspapers in smaller cities and agricultural areas. Major newspapers and television news picked it up as a major election development. The coverage dovetailed with the issue of drivers licenses for undocumented workers and with Schwarzenegger’s pledge to roll back raises in motor vehicle registration fees. A huge backlash vote was whipped up against Bustamante and Davis.

Last spring, right-wing forces on the UCLA campus raised funds via media talk shows to buy $40,000 worth of ads in the campus newspaper attacking MEChA and demanding they renounce their name and history. Later in the spring, Republican campus forces at Stanford University won a narrow student body wide referendum to deny student funds to MEChA.

In the past year-right wing groups have put the drivers license issue forward in many states and Republicans have led a drive in Congress and state houses to deputize local police forces to enforce immigration laws. The legislative sponsors of these efforts are Republican, but they include Democrats. All over the country there are large and small efforts by local police officials, state and local elected official on cutting immigrants for services, anti-soliciting laws aimed at day laborers – just about anything the right-wing anti-Latino network can win.

Half of the congressional co-sponsors of the CLEAR Act on enabling local police to enforce federal immigration policy are from states formerly of the Confederacy. Most of these states have small but growing populations of Latinos and of immigrants. The electorates have little knowledge of Latino people and will be targeted for anti-Latino backlash tactics. The anti-Latino themes will reinforce subtle and not so subtle anti-African American tactics.

In the battleground state of Arizona an anti-immigrant initiative, the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, will likely be on the November ballot. The Arizona-based but national anti-immigrant hate group, American Patrol, has stepped up its attack on progressive Latinos who were members of MEChA like Representative Grijalva and Los Angels City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa. They have established a website attacking Representaitve Grijalva entitled 'Grijalva Watch – MEChA Boy in the Beltway.' The site features several photos of Grijalva with a red line across it. The site also includes similar photos of Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates Senators Kerry and Edwards.

This summer the Bush administration unleashed vicious Border Patrol raids more than a hundred miles from the border in California, with reports of similar tactics as far away as North Carolina and New York. Administration moves also include well- publicized policies of deporting immigrant workers by jet hundreds of miles inland in Mexico, and the use of military 'drone' aircraft for border surveillance.

What is to be done?

The Bush strategy of discouraging a big Latino vote and whipping up a big anti-Latino backlash must be countered with a drive to increase Latino turnout and reduce the backlash. This will not be successful by making concessions to the right wing. Success will come by building unity in action against Bush on issues based on government action to improve the living standards, quality of life and the expansion democracy and equality for all the people.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign theme of the politics of hope, with proposals to raise the minimum wage, support stronger laws for unionization, ending some corporate tax loopholes, increased funding for education and health care, support for greater actual rights for undocumented students and workers, defense of civil rights and liberties are an important starting point.

More advanced demands by independent groups in labor, civil rights, women’s, senior, youth and other movements for cuts in the military budget, US troops out of Iraq and Haiti, voting rights for immigrants are also called for. Equally important is taking on the right-wing ideological attack on Latinos and immigrants by leaders and groups beyond the Latino and Asian American communities.

For more information see: Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project: National Council of La Raza: Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride: AFL-CIO:

--Rosalio Muñoz is chair of the Southern California district of the Communist Party USA.

This article is available in pdf format in English or Spanish.

Al-Tijani Al-Tayeb: A revolutionary path in Sudan

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:57:00 +0000

From Al’Ahram

'Nothing prepares you for the actual moment you step into jail!'

Al-Tijani Al-Tayeb, leader of the Sudanese Communist Party, cocks an ear towards the kitchen of his Nasr City apartment, as his wife, Fatheya, emerges bearing cups of delicious Kenyan tea.

A shy and retiring woman of few words, Fatheya has stood by her husband through thick and thin. She has borne the brunt of the family's checkered history in private. She raised their only daughter, Azza, practically single-handed. Still to this day, she is actively involved with the women's wing of the Sudanese Communist Party.

Married in 1954, the couple have endured long periods of angst and separation. During Al-Tijani's extended stays in prison, it was left to Fatheya to hold the fort.

'The first time I was jailed, it was very difficult for Fatheya,' her husband remembers. 'But as it became a more frequent occurrence, she eventually got used to it...'

Locked up with one's demons, grappling alone with serious moral questions, prison is never an easy experience. Al-Tijani spent a total of 12 years in prison. But even worse than that were the 10 years he spent underground, as a fugitive from Sudanese justice, a runaway revolutionary. To be the object of a manhunt by the State was the most testing experience of his life, yet also deeply illuminating. He learned a great deal about his country and its long-suffering people during his years on the run.

Al-Tijani leans forward a fraction, and with what in his case passes for a grin, crowns his thought with a long drawn-out sigh of affirmation: 'Yeah!'

'It was a painful period,' he adds. In this, as in everything, his manner is direct and unaffected.

Though Al-Tijani was underground for 10 years, he managed to remain in Khartoum throughout that time, moving from one safe house to another.

Though in hiding, he still managed to see his mother, father, brothers and sisters every month or two. He also saw his wife and daughter whenever conditions were not unreasonably dangerous. He exchanged letters with them on a regular basis, and everything was arranged in the utmost secrecy. 'One never knew in advance where the secret meetings would be scheduled, one never knew when one was going to see them next -- but there always was a next time,' he explains. As always, he seems to be choosing his words carefully. In more ways than one, Al-Tijani's manners epitomise the suavity that is characteristic of a certain class of cultured Sudanese.

He then proceeds to recite a list of do's and don'ts for political runaways. 'You must never forget that you are wanted -- not for one second. Don't walk for long distances, and change the direction of your path regularly. Don't raise your voice in conversation. Don't laugh loudly. Don't look out of the window. Shut windows. The most important survival strategy for fugitives is to become invisible: not to the people, but to the authorities.'

Al-Tijani stresses how kind and generous ordinary people were to him. But he also warns that even the people's goodwill and compassion cannot be taken for granted. In this connection, he has an illuminating story to tell.

'In November 1980, I was underground, staying in a 'safe house', when the security forces came to arrest someone in that house.'

Little did they realise that there was an even bigger fish hiding there alongside the object of their quest.

'They caught the man they wanted, and as they were leaving they spotted some Communist literature. So they decided to search the entire house more thoroughly.' He giggles, as if in hindsight the whole incident appeared as just a game.

That's when the security men stumbled across Al-Tijani. 'I didn't have the necessary papers, and the security men didn't recognise me, so they took me to the police station for questioning. I gave them a false name, but the following day one of the police officers recognised me. I was summarily tried and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.'

Living the life of a fugitive is hard enough, but a prison sentence is no picnic either. Yet Al-Tijani is quick to add that he was able to do a great deal of political work in gaol.

As he points out, the political platform of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), Sudan's umbrella opposition grouping, was itself conceived and drafted in Khartoum's notorious Cooper Prison.

The Sudanese Communist Party was a founding member of the NDA, an organisation that Al-Tijani considers to be the most regionally representative in Sudanese politics.

Indeed, Al-Tijani, who has been living in Egypt since 1990 as a political exile, sees the NDA's agenda as Sudan's best hope of political salvation, thanks to a platform which stresses democracy, human rights and radical political reform. It is this platform which has brought together parties from right across the political spectrum, with differing ideological orientations and widely varied regional power bases -- from the east, west, south and north of the country. 'All working together for the good of Sudan and of all Sudanese.'

As Al-Tijani also points out, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) headed by John Garang was not a founding member of the NDA. 'Garang was not imprisoned in Cooper jail, like the leaders of the other founding parties, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Communist Party and the Umma Party,' he explains. Not having been admitted to this exclusive 'club', the SPLA only negotiated its admission to the NDA in Cairo in March 1990. Imprisonment can therefore sometimes prove conducive to constructive political action.

Al-Tijani also insists that he was never physically tortured while in gaol.

Ironically, Al-Tijani's first taste of prison was not in Sudan, but in Egypt. He won his spurs many years ago at the time of the first Arab-Israeli war in Hike-step, a concentration camp on the Cairo-Suez highway, that housed suspected Communists, along with other political dissenters who were perceived as posing a security risk to the Egyptian monarchy and the British colonial forces. There he spent the year 1948-49, before being deported to Sudan.

At this point, the conversation veers away from personal trials, to focus instead on the unspeakable poverty and degradation of Al-Tijani's people. 'The Sudanese are angry and frustrated,' he insists. 'Some 90-95 per cent of them live below the poverty line.'

Unfortunately, those in power in Khartoum prefer to evade this issue, using nationalist frustrations and humiliations to resist the demand for change.

'Sudan has always been a poor country. I myself was born into abject poverty,' Al-Tijani adds, nonchalantly.

But despite the fact that he, his family and his entire village lived pretty much on the breadline, he retains a deep emotional attachment to his home village. He is fiercely proud of his roots.

Al-Tijani was born deep in the rural backwaters of northern Sudan, in the village of Al-Shaghalwa, three kilometres from Shendi, itself a sleepy provincial town 170 kilometres north of the Sudanese capital Khartoum.

'I remember the destitution, the lack of amenities,' he recalls. 'There was no fresh meat: most villagers could not afford to slaughter their animals.' Only on major feasts and celebrations, such as weddings and the Eid Al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice), did the wealthier villagers indulge in the traditional Islamic ritual.

Al-Tijani's neighbours were Jaialiyin, and considered themselves Arabs, unlike their Nubian neighbours. They even claimed descent from Al-Abbas, the Prophet Mohamed's paternal uncle.

Traditionally, they would shun fish, though it is an important source of animal protein. Al-Tijani's father was perhaps the only man in the village who encouraged his family to eat fish. His mother, Batool, hated cleaning and cooking fish. She did not understand why of all the village's women she was forced to cook the 'stinking stuff', as she contemptuously called it.

As children, Al-Tijani and his 11 siblings were forbidden to drink water from the well in the village. The water was brackish, and the father insisted, much to the consternation of the women of the household, on using distilled and purified Nile water instead.

Al-Tijani's mother was a distant relative of his father. She came from Serdiya, a small island in the middle of the river in the vicinity of Shendi. Today, Al-Tijani remembers Serdiya as a rural idyll. 'After the flood waters receded, we would go there to spend the winter. It was a season of plenty. Corn was plentiful, the livestock fattened and healthy, and the grass so green,' he reminisces.

Talk of Al-Shaghalwa evoke nostalgic images of groves of date palms; but it also brings back painful memories.

Al-Tijani's father, who was born in Omdurman, emigrated from Khartoum to Shendi in the aftermath of the 1924 Revolution and the rise of the so-called White Flag League. His father participated in the 1924 Revolution and his children were well aware of political activism.

His father, Al-Tayeb, 'was an enlightened man for his time. But despite that, he still had three wives: one in Omdurman, who died giving birth to a sister; Al-Tijani's mother; and another younger and more beautiful woman.'

One of Al-Tijani's most deeply etched memories is of his mother and his step-mother constantly bickering over trivia. His step-mother only bore her husband daughters; as a result, she found herself unceremoniously divorced, and had to leave Shendi.

With his easy sense of self-deprecation and casual wit, Al-Tijani speaks at length and without hesitation about his humble origins. The passion in his voice is palpable. But such story-telling is not enough: he also needs to show how the deprivations of his people can be explained in terms of historical materialism.

Al-Shaghalwa was not simply blissful and idyllic. Poverty, disease and death were painful reminders of the terrible underdevelopment that afflicted Khartoum's immense hinterlands.

'And I remember the deaths.' Al-Tijani suddenly seems to jolt out of his reverie. 'The deaths of many, many children. I remember the numerous little graves in the village cementry. Hundreds of tiny graves. Rows and rows of them.'

'Children then were susceptible to all kinds of disease. Medical care was very limited, if not completely unavailable. There were no clinics or hospitals. Children who ran a fever died within days, sometimes hours. Measles, chicken pox, meningitis and cholera were fatal diseases in those days. They still are,' he laments, 'but the scale then was horrendous in its magnitude, and the repercussions heart-wrenching.' Winter was the season of elimination: 'If children survived their fourth year, then the hopes that they would survive into manhood, or womanhood, were greatly enhanced.'

Al-Tijani left Al-Shaghalwa when he was eight to attend school in Khartoum, and the entire family moved with him. But he remembers his native village vividly, and he still has a few friends there. 'Those that are still alive,' he chuckles.

'Our generation is a unique one,' he muses. 'We were witness to the worst atrocities and repression of the colonial administration. We witnessed how our country was milked dry by the colonial authorities.'

Al-Tijani recounts how the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, the British company that monopolised Sudan's sugar trade, creamed off the country's wealth. 'In 1953, after 54 years of British rule, Sudan only had 3,000 secondary school graduates,' he points out. 'There were no secondary schools in the whole of southern Sudan. Neither was there a single secondary school in Darfur. In the far north of Sudan, north of Khartoum, there was only one secondary school.'

Al-Tijani is none too enthusiastic about the colonial legacy in Sudan, but he still gives credit where credit is due. For he learnt his Marxism essentially from British Marxist teachers in Sudan and Egypt.

The Sudanese Communist Party itself was a spin-off from the British Communist Party and from the main Egyptian Communist groups of the 1940s, such as the Democratic Movement for National Liberation.

Strangely enough, when the Sudanese Communist Party was established, there was no Egyptian Communist party as such. But many Sudanese, like Al-Tijani, were members of Egyptian Communist groups. And when they returned to Sudan, they propagated Marxist ideas and modes of political organisation. 'Even non-Communist groups in Sudan, including the National Islamic Front (NIF), were organised along Leninist lines. We started the ball rolling!' Al-Tijani proclaims, with a gleeful laugh.

'We organised the students and workers, including farm workers, and women. We started the professional associations, too.'

A number of factors account for the spread of Marxist ideology among Sudan's educated elite. Some, like Al-Tijani, were all the more acutely aware of the deplorable conditions of their people, as they themselves hailed from impoverished backgrounds. Most were indignant about the injustice committed against their people by the colonial authorities. They therefore called for the evacuation of British forces from both Egypt and Sudan, and insisted on the right for national self-determination for Sudan.

The culmination of the Sudanese intelligentsia's attempts at organisation came with the founding in 1938 of the Graduates' Congress, which succeeded the Omdurman Graduates Club, established in 1919. Through its agitation, the colonial authorities were obliged to grant limited civic freedoms to the educated Sudanese in the hope of curtailing the rapid rise in the popularity and influence of the traditional religious orders -- the Khatimiya and the Ansar Al-Mahdi.

Yet the tide of nationalism soon cut across all religious and political affiliations.

Sudanese troops had fought for the British during World War II, and for the first time their horizons expanded to encompass distant realms far beyond Sudan's borders. New ideas began to circulate among the Sudanese intelligentsia.

Egypt wanted Sudan and Egypt to be united as one country under the Egyptian crown. Britain, however, in line with its policy of divide-and-rule, insisted that Sudan should remain a separate political entity.

In January 1954, the country's first parliament was thus inaugurated, and Ismail Al-Azhari was elected as Sudan's first prime minister. Full independence from Britain followed in 1956.

Yet the promise of independence was soon to be dashed. Over the following years, the Sudanese people would be bitterly disappointed and let down.

'Out of 48 years of Sudanese independence, we have spent 36 under military dictatorship,' says Al-Tijani. 'We only had 12 years of shaky multi-party democracy. Worse, under British colonial rule detainees could only be held for 72 hours, after which they had to stand trial. Today, people are detained indefinitely without trial.'

There is no bitterness in his voice, but his pupils dilate as he speaks. 'Our generation did not live life to the full,' he says. 'Our youth was dashed. We were in and out of prison.'

On 25 May 1969, a bloodless coup was staged by a group of junior officers led by Colonel Jaafar Al-Numeiri. The rightist forces combined efforts to malign and undermine the Communists. At that time, the right included the Umma Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Numeiri and his Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) turned on the Communists. Thousands were imprisoned. Three leading Communists were summarily executed: Abdel-Khaleq Mahjoub, a close personal friend of Al-Tijani; Al-Shafie Ahmed Al-Sheikh; and Joseph Garang. Mahjoub had been secretary-general of the party, while Al-Shafie was deputy president of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), and Garang was the leading Communist figure in the South.

Numeiri promulgated the Islamic Shariaa laws in September 1983. He then removed food subsidies, sparking off a series of bread riots, and executed the septuagenarian Ustaz Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, leader of the Republic Brothers, for heresy in January 1985. Communists were rounded up and Al-Tijani languished in jail, including a long period of solitary confinement.

Then on 6 April 1985, a popular uprising erupted and Numeiri's repressive rule came to an abrupt and violent end. In this moment, it was the ordinary Sudanese people who proved themselves the heroes of their own liberation.

Al-Tijani was released from prison by the demonstrators, 'who literally carried us home on their shoulders!' It was an exhilarating moment. 'It was thrilling, quite unlike anything I'd ever experienced in my life.'

But Al-Tijani's moment of triumph was short-lived. Soon the country was to fall once again under military dictatorship. In 1989, General Omar Hassan Al-Beshir seized power in a military coup. The Communists were once again thrown into prison. The cycle of kangaroo courts, incarcerations and executions returned with a vengeance. Al-Beshir aligned himself with the National Islamic Front (NIF) led by Hassan Al-Turabi. Al-Tijani's judgement on the Islamist regime is uncompromising. 'They systematically dismantled our work, and we have never fully recovered from the blow.'

Sudan was now caught up in a downward spiral that was to drag it into economic bankruptcy.

Yet for any Sudanese, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. 'The Numeiri regime detained 40,000 Communists and Communist sympathisers in 1971, on the pretext of a Communist plot to topple his military junta,' Al-Tijani recalls. 'But the NIF regime has butchered many more. I personally know of at least 20 Communists who were tortured to death under the NIF.'

Al-Tijani looks me straight in the eye, just as he looks straight into the eyes of history.

'The people of Sudan deserve better.'

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

The Coming Economic Crises

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:50:00 +0000

Recently Louis Uchitelle presented an economic analysis of the US deficit (NYT 'Business Day' 9-18-04). Marxists should take note of a possible sudden collapse of the US economy that may well threaten the existence of the international capitalist system.

Uchitelle talked with C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics, who thinks the deficit is a 'disaster in the making.'

The deficit results from the trade imbalance whereby we borrow and import more than we sell or lend abroad. The deficit has almost doubled under the Bush administration and now stands at about 4.4 trillion dollars – that’s a big debt.

What’s happening is that we are buying and consuming more goodies than we produce. The extra goodies are coming from China, Japan and other high export countries, and we are getting them on credit since we insist on living in consumer oriented society yet don’t produce the goodies we want ourselves.

Can we pay off the 4.4 (and growing) trillion we have run up? Think of it as a giant credit card debt – a credit card without a spending limit. Bergsten thinks the whole trading system 'could unravel abruptly' with the dollar crashing and run away inflation breaking out – in other words, a big crisis.

But capitalism is supposed to have matured beyond the days of crisis – no more 1929s please!

Uchitelle points out that Bergsten’s view is not accepted by everyone at the Institute, Others hold that this is only what Marx would call a tendency. Uchitelle quotes Robert Blecker (American University) who says the deficit spending is 'unsustainable' – it can’t keep going – but maybe a crisis can be avoided if 'Americans slow their consumption' and other countries stop lending us so much in credit.

But wait a minute! Slowing down our consumption seems like voluntarism. Will we voluntarily give up our goodies to prevent a crisis? Did the capitalists 'voluntarily' quit buying on margin in 1929? Not likely.

Here are some speculations about a way out. The Chinese grow their home market so don’t need to sell their products to the US anymore so they don’t sell to us on credit. No credit means faith in the dollar is gone and so down it goes in value making goodies more expensive. Americans have to become self-reliant. But will the 'juche principle' really catch on in the US?

Meanwhile, the 'global economic status' of the US is getting worse and worse with each passing day. This is how Uchitelle explains it. Other countries now own 40 percent of US Treasury bonds which they bought with the profits they made selling their goodies over here. Treasury bonds put us in debt to the holders.

But there still isn’t enough money to let us fulfill our desires for more goodies – so the government engages in deficit spending – putting more money in circulation so we can buy things. It also has to borrow to spend – so more Treasury bonds are offered and the debt goes up and up.

Not only that, the economies of China and Japan (and the Asian Tigers) are fueled by the American market so they eagerly buy these bonds (over $1.3 trillion held by China and Japan alone) and they strive to keep the dollar up so Americans won’t be tempted to make more of their own goodies.

However, to do this the Asians must 'defy market forces' and like Mother Nature, you better not try to fool market forces or you risk the economic equivalent of Hurricane Ivan!

The winds of change are evident in the tendency towards decline in the net income flow (i.e., with all the problems more money still comes in than goes out of the US) it was $64 billion in the last quarter of 2003 but it has currently declined to only $10 billion. If this keeps up a serious crisis may be impossible to avoid.

Bourgeois analysts generally think this can be a chronic unsustainable problem (?) but Marxists who remember the dialectical principle that quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes should not be surprised if the current capitalist globalization enterprise finds itself sharing the dust bin of history with the former USSR.

--Thomas Riggins is book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at pabooks@politicalaffairs.net.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.

Bush's 'Job-friendly' Economy isn't Worker Friendly

Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:32:00 +0000

Tens of millions of workers have fought to survive over the last 3 1/2 years of the anti-worker extremism of the Bush administration. They suffered under rich tax cuts, budget cuts, stripped safety and health protections, gutted wage protections and union organizing rights, severe repression of civil liberties, attacks on civil rights, dangerous environmental policies, and an endless illegal war that has seen hundreds of thousands of working families torn apart.

They will go to the polls on November 2 and pull the lever to replace Bush. Election analysts predict a turnout of about 60 percent, the highest since the mid-1960s. This means that as many as 115 million to 120 million people may be at the polls this November. Such a high rate doesn’t bode well for the Republican Party, which since 1994 has depended on very low turnouts and cynical, dirty politics to turn voters off and convince them to stay home in order to win elections. Bush henchman Karl Rove cut his political teeth on this style in the Nixon years.

This year something is different. Workers are tired of being stripped of their rights and they want to use their democratic power to point the country in a new direction. To them George W. Bush represents the most backward forces and the worst trends driving down the living standards of working families in the US.

Bush’s class politics were made clear as the country sank into recession in late 2001 and his main strategy for turning things around was to urge people to get out and buy more stuff. Remember that? He then immediately handed over hundreds of billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, promoting the failed trickle down theory of economics and claiming it as a patriotic duty.

Instead of seeing the benefits trickle down, workers got trickled on.

Since the 1980s and the 'Reagan Revolution' workers have seen their wages fall flat, while their productivity has risen tremendously. If workers are more efficient and produce more shouldn’t they get more of an economic benefit? Why then have their wages remained relatively stagnant? Why have more of them seen their health care benefits withdrawn? Why have the higher paying manufacturing jobs disappeared to be replaced by low-paying retail and service industry jobs? Why have their unions, which are the only organizations that exist to protect workers rights, pay and benefits, been harassed and fought by Republican-led corporate lawyers’ organizations such as the National Right to Work Committee?

In the last three years, according to the Labor Research Association, 'The 2001 recession and jobless recovery have accelerated the shift to low-wage work.' About one in five US workers have been laid off at least once since the beginning of Bush’s administration. Also, 'while 71 percent of these workers have found new jobs, half of them are earning less than they were before they were laid off.' Some estimates show that workers returning from layoff since Bush became president are earning an average of $9,000 less annually. Along with pay cuts, workers see corporations moving plant facilities and outsourcing jobs overseas. Bush regards this trend as beneficial to working people. The net effect throughout the economy is that workers are less willing to demand more from their employers.

The Bush administration has created a climate in which workers are confronted on all sides. While working they see their living standards reduced to nothing to make larger profit margins and bigger executive salaries. When they lose their work through outsourcing or layoffs, they find that Bush administration cuts to unemployment benefits, health care coverage and retraining programs leave them in the lurch. This is Bush's version of a 'job-friendly economy.'

This is not a compassionate administration. It is a cruel presidency that finds compassion only for the already wealthy and powerful.

Bush’s refusal to even regard the bread and butter issues as worthy of discussion disgusts the vast majority of working people. Bush’s anti-worker policy goals have helped to forge the greatest sense of unity and purpose among working people in decades. In just about every state with a sizeable union presence, workers are hitting the streets to talk other workers about what Bush’s policies have meant and why we need to move in a new direction.

10,000 union members in key swing states talked to several hundred thousand people on the night of Bush’s speech to his party’s well-staged national convention alone. Efforts such as this will continue up until November 2. Unions are also working to safeguard the vote against fraud. The AFL-CIO’s campaign 'My Vote, My Right' will educate voters on how to protect themselves from election fraud perpetrated by the right and organize 'advocate teams' to investigate and expose problems well in advance of election day. Community organizations such as the NAACP, Americans Coming Together, People for the American Way and numerous local committees are also committed to these types of activities.

Will we need to keep fighting for a better life for working families after Bush is defeated? You bet. If the current mood of workers is any indication of the willingness of workers to take that fight to the bosses and to the far right, we can expect great things in the year ahead.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

» Click to find more of PA's online edition.