Becuase Everything Else Sucks

Archive for the 'This Week in Capitalism' Category

This Week in Capitalism: October 16th 1859

October 20th, 2006 by Manila Ryce

It was during this week in capitalism that John Brown, a white northern abolitionist, led a raid on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia as the town slept. An original draft called for 4,500 men to carry out the raid, but the arrival of these recruits never materialized. Brown only had 21 willing followers (16 white and 5 black), yet decided to continue anyway. Brown’s team cut the telegraph wires and easily captured the town’s armory. They took sixty prominent locals hostage, including George Washington’s great-grand nephew, and spread the news of the rebellion to local slaves.

The captured armory contained 100,000 muskets and rifles, which Brown would use to arm local slaves. His band would then head south, freeing more slaves and recruiting them to his growing “army of emancipation”. Frederick Douglass, a close friend of Brown, had known about the plan previous to its execution and testified that Brown’s strategy was to essentially deplete Virginia of its slaves, causing an institutional collapse of the southern counties left in his wake. Brown hoped to minimize bloodshed by fighting only in self-defense as he wreaked havoc on the economic viability of slavery.

However, things took a turn for the worse as an eastbound train stopped in Harper’s Ferry. The train’s baggage master tried to warn the passengers of the raid. Brown’s men ordered him to halt and then opened fire. The baggage master, Hayward Shepherd, was ironically a free black man and the first casualty of John Brown’s war against slavery. For some unknown reason, Brown allowed the train to continue after Shepherd’s shooting. News of the raid reached Washington the next day. Meanwhile, locals fired upon the armory and blocked the only escape route from town. Brown moved his hostages to a small brick engine house near the armory, only to be barraged by local militia forces. Brown’s two sons, along with other supporters, were killed in the shoot-out, the first while under a white flag.

By the morning of October 18th, a company of US Marines, under the command of Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee, surrounded the engine house. Brown still refused to surrender, and so Marines used sledge hammers and a battering ram to break down the engine room door. Brown was struck several times, receiving a head wound in the process, as he and six other men were captured. During the battle, ten of his followers were killed and five managed to escape.

Brown was to stand trial in Virginia, although his attack occurred on Federal property. He was charged for murder, conspiring to commit a slave insurrection, and treason against the state. One of Brown’s defense lawyers argued Brown could not be guilty of treason in a state to which he owed no loyalty, that Brown had not killed anyone personally, and that the failure of the raid was evidence that Brown had not conspired with slaves. Still, Brown was found guilty on all three charges and sentenced to death. His wife joined him for his final meal, but was denied permission to stay the night with him. Brown was hanged on December 2nd at 11:15 am and pronounced dead at 11:50 am. His body was dumped into a cheap wooden coffin with the noose still around his neck.

“Did John Brown fail? He certainly did fail to get out of Harper’s Ferry before being beaten down by United States soldiers; he did fail to save his own life, and to lead a liberating army into the mountains of Virginia. But he did not go to Harper’s Ferry to save his life. The true question is, Did John Brown draw his sword against slavery and thereby lose his life in vain? And to this I answer ten thousand times, No! No man fails, or can fail who so grandly gives himself and all he has to a righteous cause.”

“…That a man might do something very audacious and desperate for money, power or fame, was to the general apprehension quite possible; but…that nineteen men could invade a great State to liberate a despised and hated race, was to the average intellect and conscience, too monstrous for belief.”
- Frederick Douglass

source 1
source 2

This Week in Capitalism: October 9th 1967

October 13th, 2006 by Manila Ryce

The man, the myth, the legend. No Marxist in history has been quite as successful as Che Guevara in becoming a trademark icon for capitalist consumers the world over. While his dream of revolution may have been commercialized, I’m sure Che would take comfort in the fact that his image has sold a huge amount of t-shirts. Looking back, it’s hard to imagine who Che was to the oppressed people of the world. What we can grasp is that Che was a charismatic idealist who stood in solidarity with those who struggled. He sought nothing less than to change the world. Guevara carried the promise of a better future upon his shoulders. It is during this week in capitalism when that shining promise was desecrated.

Ernesto “Che” Guevara de la Serna left Cuba in 1966 with the intention of promoting revolutions throughout Latin America and Africa. One year later he was leading guerilla forces in Bolivia against the country’s military government and poorly trained army. However, what Che didn’t know is that after the US government had learned of his location, and sent US Green Beret advisors and CIA operatives to supply and train Bolivia’s inadequate soldiers. Che also expected the assistance of Bolivia’s Communist Party, which promised to aid him but did not. Despite the US backing Bolivian troops, Che’s small group of 50 men scored some early victories. The guerillas were well equipped in the mountainous terrain of the Camiri region. Che even gave medical attention to all Bolivian soldiers his guerillas took prisoner, and released them.

Upon being wounded in battle, Che himself was captured and taken to a dilapidated schoolhouse in the nearby village of La Higuera. There he saw a number of Bolivian soldiers wounded in the fighting, of which he offered to give medical care. One CIA official, Félix Rodríguez, was present and actually informed Guevara that he would be executed. Che was held overnight. The next afternoon Guevara met his Bolivian executioner, saying, “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man”. To avoid maiming his face for identification purposes, the executioner brutally shot Guevara multiple times in the legs.

It was later declassified that Rodríguez, the CIA official at Che’s execution, not only allowed Che to be killed, but personally handed down the order from Bolivian High Command. During this time, the CIA was the focus of a major Congressional investigation into its assassination operations in foreign countries (Today, the CIA is still involved in plots to take out foreign leaders). It was also Rodríguez who directed the executioner on where to shoot Guevara. After the execution, Rodríguez stole Che’s Rolex watch and several other personal items to proudly show off to reporters in the following years. Today, some of these items are still on display at the CIA.

Guevara’s body was put on display for photographers. CIA agents then ordered his hands be amputated and sent to authorities to confirm his identity with fingerprint analysis. Walt Rostow, adviser on national security affairs during the time, commented that Che’s death “shows the soundness of our ‘preventive medicine’ assistance to countries facing incipient insurgency–it was the Bolivian 2nd Ranger Battalion, trained by our Green Berets from June-September of this year, that cornered him and got him.”

Guevara’s handless body was buried under an airstrip in Bolivia. After acknowledging Che’s death, Fidel Castro proclaimed three days of public mourning in Cuba. On the third day, Fidel delivered a eulogy, denouncing those “who sing victory” over Che’s death. Castro said, “They are mistaken who believe that his death is the defeat of his ideas, the defeat of his tactics, the defeat of his guerrilla concepts. If we want to know how we want our children to be,” Castro concludes, “we should say, with all our revolutionary mind and heart: We want them to be like Che.”

In 1997 Che’s remains were exhumed and laid to rest with full military honors in a specially built mausoleum in Santa Clara, Cuba.

source 1
source 2
source 3

This Week in Capitalism: October 5th 1877

October 7th, 2006 by Manila Ryce

Chief Joseph was a Nez Perce Indian, born in what is northeastern Oregon. His father was a defiant chief who refused to participate in the selling of land. In 1855, he refused a deal to segregate the land of Washington Territory into areas for Natives and areas for settlers, and in 1863 he boycotted the seizure of six million acres of Nez Perce land by refusing to move to the Nez Perce reservation in Idaho. Chief Joseph’s father died in 1871, but he communicated his wishes to his succeeding son before his death. He said, “Always remember that your father never sold his country. You must stop your ears whenever you are asked to sign a treaty selling your home. A few years more, and white men will be all around you. They have their eyes on this land. My son, never forget my dying words. This country holds your father’s body. Never sell the bones of your father and your mother.” Chief Joseph clasped his father’s hand and promised to defend his grave.

Joseph never allowed for violent acts against the Americans, fearing reprisals from their military superiority. Nonetheless, the Nez Perce suffered many injustices at the hands of white settlers, prospectors, and generals. In 1873, Chief Joseph had secured a negotiation in which the US federal government promised that his people could remain where they were. However, in 1877 General Howard held a council to Joseph that him and his people should relocate. Joseph gave an address to the general on human equality, stating that he did not believe “the Great Spirit Chief gave one kind of men the right to tell another kind of men what they must do.” General Howard interpreted the statement as a challenge to his authority. After being unsuccessful in persuading the Nez Perce to leave their land, the general threatened to attack them in 30 days if they did not relocate. Chief Joseph reluctantly agreed and called a council over the possibility of abandoning his father’s grave.

Several Nez Perce advocated war, but Joseph favored peace. As the council was underway, a young brave came with news that he and several others had killed four white men in an act to initiate war. Hoping to avoid more bloodshed, Joseph further led his people north to the reservation. However, they were attacked before getting there and retreated towards the Canadian border. Joseph led 800 Nez Perce with 2000 US soldiers close behind. For over 3 months, Joseph and his people fought and outmaneuvered their pursuers for 1,700 miles across Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The Nez Perce used advance and rear guards, skirmish lines, and field fortifications against the much impressed General Howard. Freezing weather, non-stop battle, lack of food, and lack of blankets forced Joseph to eventually surrender during this week in capitalism, 1877. Years later in 1881, the great chief Sitting Bull would also grow wary of fighting and surrender to federal troops. The following words are attributed to Chief Joseph at his formal surrender just 40 miles south of Canada.

“I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ He who led the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.”

source

This Week in Capitalism: September 26th 1984

October 1st, 2006 by Manila Ryce

During the Tang and Song dynasties, Hong Kong was an important trading region. During the Qing dynasty, Europe increased its world trade, and China’s huge population offered limitless products which were in high demand. However, China had a one-way trading policy with the West. Europeans bought silk, porcelain, spices, and tea from China, but were not allowed to sell their goods in return. China would only accept silver as payment, fearing that a flood of European goods would contaminate and damage their culture.

Great Britain and France became worrisome over the depletion of their stockpiles of precious metals. They had to find a product Chinese merchants would accept other than silver, and that product was opium. Opium had been used in traditional Chinese medicine earlier in history, but was eventually banned because of its addictive qualities. Between 1821 and 1837, drug trade to China increased fivefold, with an estimated 2 million Chinese being addicted to opium. In 1838, the Qing government tried to ban the opium trade, so Great Britain declared war.

China’s longstanding policy of alienation proved detrimental against the world’s leading technological power. China’s navy of wooden junks was no match for the steam-powered ironclads of the Royal Navy, nor were its ground forces prepared for the modern rifles and artillery of the British. In 1842 the Qing surrendered, signing the Treaty of Nanking. Europe now had unrestricted access to Chinese ports and Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain. The following year, Hong Kong became a crown colony of the United Kingdom.

This week in capitalism marks the day in 1984 when Britain and China finally agreed on a declaration to end 150 years of European rule in Hong Kong. Chinese authorities agreed to take over Hong Kong’s defense and foreign affairs in 13 years while allowing the city to maintain its local autonomy. The agreement also insisted that the mainland Chinese government would leave Hong Kong untouched for 50 years after it was handed back to its people. The UK ambassador to China, Sir Richard Evans, said the joint declaration was “the practical embodiment of the imaginative concept of one country, two systems”.

Hong Kong still has an unrestricted laissez-faire system imposed by the British. Only one quarter of the city is considered developed with around one third of its children living below the poverty level. In 1997, control of the economically lucrative colony was handed back over to the Chinese as promised. Had Great Britain continued to hold on to Hong Kong, as many suggested they should, they may not have emerged this time as successful as they did after the opium wars.

source 1
source 2
source 3

This Week in Capitalism: September 22nd 1980

September 23rd, 2006 by Manila Ryce

The Iran-Iraq War officially began on September 22nd when Iraq invaded Iran. The war resulted in 1 million casualties and cost $1.19 trillion in USD. Although there had been border disputes between Iraq and Iran since they were called Mesopotamia and Persia, the hostilities between the nations grew intense as oil was discovered under the disputed territory of Khuzestan. Other territories, such as the Shatt al-Arab waterway, were also called into question. Iraq encouraged Arabs in Iran to rebel against their government, while Iran encouraged Kurds in Iraq to do the same against Iraq’s leadership.

Saddam had entertained the idea of successfully invading Iran since before he was president. Such a takeover would strengthen his oil trade and elevate Iraq as a great regional power. In 1979, the pro-western Shah of Iran was ousted in the Iranian Revolution, and replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Ayatollah despised the secularism of Saddam and the Ba’ath Party, and threatened to spread Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East. However, due to the degenerating state of Iran’s army and the destabilization of the country, Saddam saw this as the perfect time to strike.

After the Iran-Iraq War had been raging for two years, the US started to make its backing of Iraq more public and normalized relations with its government. The US began to openly supply Iraq with intelligence, economic aid, and weapons. President Reagan declared that the United States “could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran”, and that we “would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.” This policy was formalized by Reagan in the National Security Decision Directive in June of 1982.

In 1987, the US itself started to actively attack Iran by destroying its oil platforms and gunboats. In 1988, while in Iranian waters, a US cruiser shot down Iran Air Flight 655, resulting in the death of all 290 passengers. Because of the bad press, the US eventually paid compensation but never apologized. In 1984 Iraq started to use chemical weapons against Iran. Nonetheless, from 1985–1989, US companies sent numerous fatal biological cultures, including anthrax, to Saddam. These transactions were all done with the approval of the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. Eight shipments of cultures, which were later classified by the Centers for Disease Control as having “biological warfare significance”, were approved by the Department of Commerce. Iraq received at least seventy-two shipments of clones, chemicals, and germs, all with chemical and biological warfare potential. The Saddam Regime further used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988, yet the U.S. continued to ship them deadly substances.

However, America was not only supplying Iraq with weaponry. According to a report put out by the US Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, “the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan.” These covert sales to Iran included over 2,000 anti-tank missiles, 235 parts kits for surface-to-air missiles, 18 F-4 fighter-bombers, 46 A-4 Skyhawk fighter-bombers, and almost 4,000 missiles. Additionally, “unverified reports alleged that Israel agreed to sell Iran AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar equipment, mortar and machinegun ammunition, field telephones, M-60 tank engines and artillery shells, and spare parts for C-130 transport planes.” The London Observer estimated that Israel’s arms sales to Iran totaled $500 million USD a year while Time Magazine reported that the Israelis had set up Swiss bank accounts for obvious reasons.

What is widely known, but seldom discussed is that in 1980 Saddam was not only an ally of America, but encouraged to invade Iran (a country three times that of Iraq) with US support. The US was weary of the Iranian Revolution, for good reason, and wanted to prevent Iran becoming the regional superpower. However, the US did not want Iraq to dominate either. Therefore, the US decided to conduct a policy of duel containment. Henry Kissinger made the policy clear when he said, “The ultimate American interest in the war is that both sides should lose”. After eight years of bloodshed and tremendous debt, with none of the issues that started the war being resolved, neither country emerged victorious except for America.

source 1
source 2
source 3

This Week in Capitalism: September 11th 1973

September 17th, 2006 by Manila Ryce

In 1964 Chile, Salvador Allende was a Marxist presidential candidate. Because of his anti-capitalist stance, the CIA spent millions to defeat him. Due to radio and print propaganda funded by the US, Allende lost the election that year. Allende ran again in the 1970 presidential election, and again the US funded his opponents’ campaigns to ensure his defeat. Much to the dismay of the US, Allende won the majority vote that time, which would make him the first democratically elected Marxist president in the world.

President Nixon expressed his fears that Chile would become “another Cuba”, so formal instructions were sent to the CIA base in Chile to prevent Allende from taking office after he was declared the winner of the presidential elections. Part of the instructions said, “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hand be well hidden…”

General Rene Schneider was the Chief Commander of the Army at the time. Because he was a constitutionalist, Schneider would not support a coup. Twelve days before Allende assumed the presidency on November 3rd 1970, two groups, who were funded and armed by the CIA, attempted to kidnap Schneider for opposing Allende’s removal. During the operation Schneider was killed inside his car. This incident rallied even more support behind Allende.

Upon assuming power, Allende began to carry out his platform of implementing socialist programs in Chile, called La vía chilena al socialismo (”the Chilean Way to Socialism”). This included nationalization of large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking), and government administration of the health care system, educational system, a program of free milk for children, and a greatly expanded plan of land seizure and redistribution (already begun under his predecessor Eduardo Frei Montalva, who had expropriated between one-fifth and one-quarter of all properties liable to takeover). The Allende government’s intention was to seize all holdings of more than eighty basic irrigated hectares. Allende also intended to improve the socio-economic welfare of Chile’s poorest citizens; a key element was to provide employment, either in the new nationalized enterprises or on public works projects.

Allende’s government also froze all prices while raising salaries, and announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Between 1970 and 1973, the CIA spent 8 million dollars to destabilize Chile. Despite a decline in the Chilean economy, Allende’s Popular Unity coalition increased its vote to 43 percent in the parliamentary elections of 1973. This week in capitalism, under the orders of Allende’s political opponents, the military staged the Chilean coup on 9/11/73. With gunfire and explosions in the background, president Allende gave a final speech to Chileans on live radio, speaking from the Presidential Palace and referring to himself in the past tense. He stated that his commitment to Chile did not allow for an easy way out and that he intended to fight until the end. After the speech it is thought that Allende committed suicide with an AK-47 given to him as a gift from Fidel Castro. An engraving on the rifle read, “To my good friend Salvador from Fidel, whom by different means try to achieve the same goals.”

Augusto Pinochet, the Commander-in-chief of the Army, established a military dictatorship immediately following the coup. Pinochet (who closely resembles M. Bison in the picture) proclaimed himself president and took economic policy advice from American laissez-faire economist, Milton Friedman. He deregulated business, encouraged privatization, abolished minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on income and profits. Pinochet was in power for 17 years, ruthlessly persecuting critics and political opponents. His dictatorship was well supported by the US government. The CIA later put many of Pinochet’s officers on their payroll as contacts, even though many of them were known to be involved in human rights abuses. To this day, Pinochet has not been prosecuted for his human rights violations in Chile and neighboring countries.
source 1
source 2
source 3

This Week in Capitalism: September 7th 1992

September 9th, 2006 by Manila Ryce

One long-term goal of apartheid in South Africa was to move blacks into independent “homelands”. A small percentage of South African land (13 percent) was divided into ten homeland states. Each state was destined to gradually self-govern and gain its independence from South Africa. Once a homeland gained its independence, the residents of that state would have their South African citizenship revoked, and replaced with a homeland citizenship. Blacks would no longer be citizens of South Africa, but “guest laborers” who merely worked in South Africa. In short, whites would be citizens, while a black person in South Africa would legally be considered a foreigner. This system allowed for whites, who were a shrinking minority, to retain control over the remaining 87 percent of South African land.

Ciskei was a “homeland” state for Xhosa-speaking people. In 1981 it became the fourth homeland to be declared independent by the South African government. In 1990, Joshua Oupa Gqozo ruled over Ciskei as a harsh dictator. In 1992, many of the legal foundations of apartheid in South Africa were being removed, and so the African National Congress (ANC) pressed for Ciskei to return to South Africa. Gqozo and other homeland leaders, content with their power, refused.

On this week in capitalism, the ANC organized a march to demand that Gqozo and his government step down and allow Ciskei to be re-absorbed into South Africa. There were around 50,000 people at the protest which was scheduled to march to the capital of Ciskei. However, when demonstrators started to cross the border into Ciskei they were indiscriminately fired upon by soldiers. 28 people were killed and hundreds more injured as two machine gun volleys and grenades caused demonstrators to run for their lives. Four men were shot in the back as they attempted to flee. The ANC released a statement saying that “No warning was issued, and no attempts were made to disperse the crowd using non-lethal means.”

Despite the massacre at the Ciskeian border, negotiations continued between the ANC and the president of South Africa. Gqozo refused to participate in the multiracial negotiations for a post-apartheid constitution. In 1994 Nelson Mandela, head of the ANC, became the first black President of South Africa. After the election, Ciskei and all other homeland states were re-absorbed.

source 1
source 2

This Week in Capitalism: August 29th 2005

September 2nd, 2006 by Manila Ryce

Many were lead to believe that the global “War on Terror” was being waged to keep Americans safe. That the lives and safety of the American public was the top priority to the American ruling class. As the administration was defending its war as a safeguard for the American public, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

The scenes of intense human suffering, hopelessness, squalor, and neglect amidst the wreckage of what was once New Orleans have exposed the rotten core of American capitalist society before the eyes of the entire world-and, most significantly, before those of its own stunned people.

The reactionary mythology of America as the “Greatest Country in the World” has suffered a shattering blow.

Hurricane Katrina has laid bare the awful truths of contemporary America-a country torn by the most intense class divisions, ruled by a corrupt plutocracy that possesses no sense either of social reality or public responsibility, in which millions of its citizens are deemed expendable and cannot depend on any social safety net or public assistance if disaster, in whatever form, strikes.

The storm knocked out power and submerged up to 80 percent of New Orleans in 6ft of water. This devastation was not due solely to a natural disaster, as the Republicans claim, but to the neglect of the infrastructure which kept New Orleans livable. The breach of the levees was the direct result of essential social services being cut and government agencies, in charge of alleviating poverty and coping with disasters, being dismantled. The needs of society and the actions of the government ran contradictory, with the latter defeating the former.

Evacuees were told to seek shelter in the superdome. Tens of thousands gathered there only to find a lack of food, water, and sanitary facilities. Two days after the hurricane struck, a public health emergency was finally declared. FEMA director, Mike Brown, was profoundly unqualified to deal with the situation. He was appointed to his position by Bush in January of 2003. Hurricane damage to oil facilities also gave multi-million oil companies another excuse to raise gas prices and profit from the disaster.

The United States government showed the world just how little they care about the American people by failing the people of New Orleans. Rather than address the concerns and outrage of the public, they resorted to finger-pointing to save their jobs rather than our lives. On Good Morning America, the president declared that there would be “zero tolerance” for looters. When Dianne Sawyer suggested that the oil companies, who had reported record profits, should cede a share of their earnings to disaster relief, President Bush instead called on the American people to “send cash”. Over seventy countries donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the victims of Katrina before our own government made any real attempt to help. In some cases, aid was actually turned down by the US government. Meanwhile, American politicians patted each other on the back for the most minimal of gestures while people in New Orleans literally died of starvation and disease in the streets. At least 1,836 people died from the Hurricane and subsequent mayhem left in its wake.

In a televised event to raise money for victims of the hurricane, rapper Kanye West attacked the media for its unbalanced portrayal of blacks. “If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family; it says they’re looking for food.” Kanye then attacked the president for his inept response by saying “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”. While that statement may be true, West would’ve been more accurate if he would’ve said “George Bush doesn’t care about poor people”. His Afro-centric remark neglected the fact that non-blacks were also suffering in New Orleans. Kanye was brainwashed by the age old diversion set forth by rulers to keep the masses fighting amongst themselves. Kanye believed that racial discrimination was the real issue rather than social discrimination. This mentality pits poor blacks against poor whites, creating a never-ending struggle to nowhere. One year later, many parts of New Orleans are still without water and power while the majority of politicians who failed the American people during Katrina sit comfortably.
source 1
source 2