The Largest Minority

July 3rd, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Alan Woods, editor of marxist.com, speaks to a meeting in London on June 25, 2009.

June 21st, 2009 by Manila Ryce

When you combine two legends in their respective genres - Communist rapper Boots Riley and anarchist guitarist Tom Morello - you’ve got a dangerous mixture of passion and creativity poised to reclaim American youth culture from the bourgeois entertainment industry and their one dimensional focus group creations. Get Breckin Meyer to play the antagonist for your video and things are guaranteed to get awesomely weird.

After following up his role in Rage Against the Machine with the more mellow Audioslave and a subsequent solo career, Morello once again takes up his beloved role in Street Sweeper as the front and center DJ who uses a guitar rather than turntables. To compliment that foundation, Boots delivers the ammunition like only a genuine rapper who’s perfected his craft can, spitting thoughtfully condensed imagery with every line.

This is the soundtrack of the revolution. Bump it loud enough for the walls of capitalism to come crashing down (lyrics available below the fold).
Read the rest of this entry »

June 19th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Delivering a sermon during Friday prayers at Tehran University, Khamenei backed the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the president after the June 12 election.

“Candidates were put forward into public eye, everyone could judge for themselves … they have identified the person they wanted,” he said.

Khamenei refuted accusations of vote rigging, and insisted the poll was an “absolute and definitive victory”.

Ruling out fraud behind Ahmadinejad’s victory, he said “the Islamic establishment will never manipulate people’s votes and commit treason.

“The legal structures and electoral regulations of this country do not allow vote rigging.”

He said that any doubts concerning the results must be investigated through legal channels and called on supporters of defeated candidates to cease street protests, adding, “otherwise they will be responsible for its consequences, and consequences of any chaos”.

Farzad Agha, an Iranian analyst, told Al Jazeera: “This clearly is a threat to the demonstrators and supporters of the opposition candidates … He is saying that if you continue we will deal with you.”

read more…

June 16th, 2009 by Guest

originally posted at Lenin’s Tomb

I think it’s a consensus on the liberal-left in the US and UK that the Iranian elections were fixed. If they are right, we are watching a bloodless coup turn into a bloody one, as protesters have been beaten and are now being shot at and killed by cops. One of Mousavi’s supporters alleges he was told that a coup was coming. If they are not right, we are still faced with a state busily beating and killing the opposition. The Iranian state is still detaining ‘reformist’ MPs, censoring newspapers, shutting down access to social networking sites (although people are still finding ways to Twitter), and behaving as if for all the world it had every reason to act guiltily. It is not inherently implausible that Ahmadinejad got 63% of the vote, and it has to be shown that there was a fix. The fact that Ahmadinejad used state oil revenues to fund programmes for the poor can be approved or derided, but it arguably gave large numbers of people an interest in voting for Ahmadinejad against his more explicitly neoliberal rival. It gave him a base among some of the working class and bazaaris. Still, it is hardly implausible either that some vote-rigging went on, if only to make the win decisive enough to avoid a run-off.

So, the first question that occurs is, why should the ballots be rigged? This is skated over in a lot of the commentary as if the answer were obvious - Mousavi advocated reform, duh! However, Mousavi is hardly a dangerous candidate for the Iranian ruling class: rather, he represents a powerful faction of it. True, he was once on the ‘Islamic Left’ back in the 1980s, and it was due to the support of the left-leaning majles that he was made prime minister against Khomeini’s preferences. Today, however, he is a centrist allied to the ‘Modern Right’. His solutions to Iran’s problems of accumulation and development are impeccably neoliberal. This is why he got the backing of the old crook, cynic, capitalist and Iran-Contra arms dealer, Hashem Rafsanjani. He supports privatization, and wants to reform Article 44 to assist the process. He supports strong counter-inflationary policies. Of course, he would like to take a slightly less ‘hard line’ with respect to the US. Indeed, like other would-be ‘reform’ candidates, his campaign tried to channel Obama - with some success since his wife, who spearheaded some important reforms in the late 1980s, was cast as the Michelle Obama of the campaign. Still, he isn’t an outsider by any means. His candidacy wasn’t struck off, while those that offend the Council of Guardians usually are. He wasn’t excluded from the debates, as far as I can find out. He wasn’t excluded from the polls, some of which put him ahead, and some behind. Why should he have suddenly become so dangerous that the Iranian state, or powerful sectors within it, would risk a stupid fix? The answer could only be that by tapping a popular demands for reforms, the candidacy might have unleashed a movement that seriously frightened some factions in the ruling class.

The next question is, what can come of the protests? Whatever the motivations of Mousavi, we have an enormous number of people on the streets, with a clear demand for political reform. They took to those streets, reportedly ignoring warnings that the police were carrying live ammunition. This means they are brave, certainly, and also confident in their numbers. Already, Khamenei has ceded the question of investigating the elections, which it seems clear he didn’t want to do. The Iranian state may kill people, but these protesters are already starting to win. They can make gains far beyond the very limited promises that Mousavi made in order to excite progressive layers. (As far as I can tell, Mousavi was mildly critical of some state repression of television channels, and promised to ‘review’ legislation that could be harmful to women - hardly a tribune of the oppressed). So, whatever the truth about the claims of a fix, these protests can do nothing but good. They may, in addition to getting rid of some particularly onerous forms of oppression, open up a space in which the left can operate more freely, and in which the labour movement can assert itself more forcefully.

source

June 14th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

June 4th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Perhaps it’s time to cut funding to Israel.

Obama is undeniably pro-Israeli, so you may be asking, “What more do the Jews in this video want?” Nothing short of complete eradication of all Muslims. Ironic isn’t it? Despite the overuse of Goldwin’s Law these days, comparisons between Zionists and Nazis are frighteningly valid.

Zionists frankly don’t want peace. They want all the land they think they’re entitled to (which extends far beyond Israel) and think any negotiation is unacceptable. Putting Libertarian conspiracy theories about 9/11 aside, Zionists actually do pose a huge threat to the President’s life and US security. If I were Obama I’d be keeping a close eye on Rahm Emanuel’s father, a former Irgun terrorist, and I’m only half-joking when I say that.

A militant Israeli state served our imperial interests for decades, but now that we can no longer sustain our empire we face perhaps the largest example of “blowback” we have ever seen. So how do we quell a Zionist monster we’ve been feeding for decades? Backing international law regarding Israel would be a good start. Supporting the Palestinian Right of Return would turn Israel from a right-wing “Jewish State” which breeds extremism into a democratic one which respects human rights.

h/t Allison Kilkenny who also has a great piece on why Obama’s Cairo speech was a failure.

June 1st, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Being the superpower that it is, the United States has a way of turning populist movements militant. Anything that poses a threat to US hegemony is spun as a threat to freedom which must be destroyed. Campaigns for human rights and social justice are easily turned into militant resistance campaigns in order to defend themselves against Uncle Sam and his big stick.

Nevertheless, resistance groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have managed to keep social services a central role in their party’s programs, outdoing their US-backed opponents of the March 14th bloc and Fatah Party respectively in providing both welfare and security to their people. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have constructed hospitals and schools, and run news services, orphanages, soup kitchens, libraries, and relief programs - everything Western critics say the Lebanese and Palestinian governments should be doing to raise the standard of living of their people.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah remains the only real defense the Lebanese have against Israel, and observers say they’re going to win the June 7th elections. That should be good news for anyone who really supports democracy, yet our current US administration is less than thrilled.

Despite hopes that someone with the name Barack Hussein Obama would actually have a more nuanced approach to the Muslim world, our current president has shown no better an understanding of Islamic political movements than his illiterate, flag-waving predecessor. The Bush Administration lumped all Muslims together. Legitimate political parties like Hamas and Hezbollah, which represented resistance against foreign aggression within their homelands, were considered a threat equal to borderless terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, which had no interest in politics and little support in the Muslim world. By continuing to exclude groups like Hezbollah and Hamas from the democratic process, the US government is creating all the conditions necessary to turn pragmatic political parties into militant forces.

In his most recent visit to Lebanon, Joe Biden stated that Washington was committed to meeting the needs of the Lebanese army, but that US aid was completely dependent on the outcome of the election. In other words, vote the right way or we will allow Israel to destroy you. You’d think a true beacon of democracy would support the outcome of any democratic election regardless of who the winner was.

This is exactly the same policy Washington had for the Palestinian elections in 2006 between Fatah and Hamas. When Palestinians actually voted for the party that addressed their concerns about security and social services, US and European aid was cut off and a coup was set into motion. Even now, President Obama is working with Fatah as if it’s the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people while ostracizing Hamas from talks concerning the future of Palestine.

Resistance parties address legitimate concerns that our US-backed puppets do not. Simply throwing more money their way so that they can maintain control will not lessen the tension that decades of US imperialism have built. We can either support democracy by letting go of our colonies or be destroyed in trying to maintain our hold on them. To quote JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

May 26th, 2009 by Guest

Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can’t say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.

There’s hope.

When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody’s boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it’s remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.

As Billy Bragg exhorts us in his update of the socialist anthem “The Internationale”: “Stand up, all victims of oppression/for tyrants fear your might/Don’t cling so hard to your possessions/For you have nothing if you have no rights.”

No less a “capitalist tool” than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States’, ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.

The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours.

Nice dream, but how do we get there? Most of these countries dumped capitalist exploitation long ago and instituted mixed economies with socialist ideals. More contemporary models are the 11 Latin America countries pursuing “Socialism in the 21st Century.” They too reject top-down Leninism for a system based on participatory democracy and solidarity.

In Ecuador, a land I have studied and worked in, a broad coalition of indigenous, environmentalists, trade unions, professional organizations, feminists, gay activists, left parties, and students laid the groundwork for transformation. They just re-elected Rafael Correa, their leftist standard-bearer, as president. They fought racism, oligarchs, oil companies, and corrupt politicians for decades.

Read the rest of this entry »