Video: Secrets of the CIA on Mobutu Sese Seko

Jonas Savimbi: Our Own Terrorist

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 05, 2002

If we want to fathom how countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan could possibly support terrorists, we might peek into a mirror.

Jonas Savimbi, the Angolan rebel who was killed 10 days ago, murdered and tortured countless civilians over the years; the Angolan civil war that he sustained may be responsible for more than 500,000 deaths since 1975. But he was our warlord, not the other side’s, and so we were as blind to his brutality as the Saudis and Pakistanis are to the sins of their terrorists.

As we engage in a new struggle today — against terrorism, not Communism — it’s worth grappling with the lessons of our mistakes in Angola, so that we do not repeat them in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is embarrassing to look back to see how we hailed Mr. Savimbi during the cold war. Jeane Kirkpatrick toasted him as ”one of the few authentic heroes of our time.” President Reagan described him as Angola’s Abraham Lincoln. Oh?

Mr. Savimbi personally beat to death a rival’s wife and children. He also shelled civilians, sowed land mines and then bombed a Red Cross-run factory making artificial legs for victims of mines.

”We have to call him Africa’s classical terrorist,” said Makau Mutua, a professor of law and Africa specialist. ”In the history of the continent, I think he’s unique because of the degree of suffering he caused without showing any remorse.”

We were oblivious to Mr. Savimbi’s faults because we were locked in a cold-war rivalry in which ideology trumped all else. And in any case, the Angolan government was wretched and brutal as well as pink.

Mark Huband, the author of a book about the cold-war legacy in Africa, says about American involvement in countries like Angola, Zaire and Liberia: ”In all cases, the results have been disastrous, creating decades of region-wide conflicts.”

As I see it, there are three key lessons to learn from our mistakes:

Lesson No. 1: Be wary of warlords who parrot back our own lines.

Mr. Savimbi was a chameleon who started off as a pro-Soviet Marxist, became a Maoist to get Chinese support, then proclaimed himself an anti-Communist to get American support in the cold war, and after the collapse of Communism declared himself a supporter of free markets. He was expert at saying what we wanted to hear, but in retrospect it’s clear that he never believed in anything but power.

It’s a useful caution these days, as foreign leaders jostle to whisper sweet nothings about terrorism in our ear. The Philippines has cleverly wangled $100 million from us by exaggerating the links between a gang of kidnappers and Al Qaeda. In the Horn of Africa, every faction insists that its enemies are tied to Al Qaeda and must be destroyed.

Likewise, every commander in Afghanistan these days seems to regard himself as a secular humanist. [...]

Lesson No. 2: Support democracy as a whole, not simply elections.

Angola held elections in 1992, and there’s general agreement that they were held hurriedly — before rival armies could be tamed, before democratic institutions could be nurtured, before enough observers could be found — and so they solved nothing and perhaps made problems worse.

As Afghanistan moves ahead, it’s worth remembering that elections are not a panacea. What is needed is not just a plebiscite but a process, ranging from demobilization of combatants to freedom of speech, that creates democracy and stability.

Lesson No. 3: Land mines often last longer than our alliances.

The Bush administration is now conducting a review to determine its policy on antipersonnel mines. The policy makers might visit Angola, where thousands of maimed children will be one of the longest-lasting legacies of our support for Mr. Savimbi.

Now that he is gone, Angola has another chance. And so do we. We should be twisting arms to try to bring about peace in Angola.

And in the new battlegrounds, like Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq, let’s be doubly careful about picking our next Lincoln. [....]

Source

Video

Resolution in support of the PCMLE and the revolutionary forces in Ecuador

[Update Jan. 15, 2011: "The Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE) was born in August, 1964 in rebellion against the revisionist leadership of the Communist Party of Ecuador (PCE) and its endorsement of the then Soviet-line of peaceful transition to socialism, the parliamentary road and peaceful coexistence with imperialism. Over the years the PCMLE, though still an underground organisation, has built mass organizations among students, workers, peasants and the general public and participates in elections at various levels to promote its vision of a new democratic and anti-imperialist revolution in Ecuador."]

Translated from Spanish

For years the working class, peasants, youth and indigenous peoples of Ecuador have been involved in the fight against imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism, for social progress and for their national emancipation.

It is this fight, they have always been able to count on the militant commitment of the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, of the MPD and of all the social and trade union forces that form the Popular Front.

These forces that are fighting for revolutionary change, against imperialism, for democracy, the revolution and socialism, have been at the forefront of the great popular movements that have developed in Ecuador; they have faced the harshest repression and never hesitated in supporting the policies and, at times even the governments, when these were in accord with the interests and aspirations of the peoples of Ecuador. These forces have called on the working class, the popular masses and the peoples to stand up whenever their interests have been harmed.

It is this policy that these forces have continued with a revolutionary spirit, contributing to the election to the Presidency of the Republic of R. Correa, in the drafting of the present Constitution with a progressive and anti-imperialist character. They have also always fought all the attempts of reaction, supported by imperialism, to corner political power and promote neoliberal policies, as they have always done.

The ink on the Constitution had not yet dried when President Correa and his allies began to impose a policy, by decrees and laws, contrary to its spirit and content.

This immediately developed a process of struggle and resistance, involving different sectors struck by the unpopular measures of the president and his government.

Obviously, the revolutionary forces have not only supported, but have been at the forefront of this resistance and have called on the president to change his policy, to respect his commitments and the Constitution and to meet the legitimate demands of the social sectors hardest hit by the neoliberal measures imposed in an authoritarian manner, with pressure, blackmail and arrogance by the president himself.

The rebellion of the troops of the police and the military on September 30 took place in that context of social confrontation, which is spreading and deepening among the people, the popular sectors, the teachers, youth, indigenous peoples, the trade union movement and the organized forces for the revolution, on the one hand, and the very regime that is making concessions to the oligarchy and imperialism, on the other.

Correa, resorting to provocations, to lies on a large scale, has described this rebellion as an attempted coup.

At no time was this a matter of bringing down the government; instead there was a large scale manipulation, nationally and internationally, by Correa and his allies.

One of the objectives of this maneuver is the criminalization of all social and political protest, especially when it comes from sectors of the revolutionary left.

Today the repression is focused against leaders of popular organizations, student unions, teachers and indigenous people such as Mery Zamora, William Pazmiño, David Tenesaca, Marlon Santi, Galo Mindiola and Luordes Tiban, whom Correa is trying to silence.

But Correa is mistaken if he thinks he can silence the workers’ and popular movement, the indigenous organizations, the social and political forces that have never ceased in their struggle for social progress, democracy and national sovereignty.

The ICMLPO and its parties and organizations present here:

1. Express our solidarity with the PCMLE, the MPD and all the trade union, social and political forces that are struggling for democracy, for social and national emancipation in Ecuador.

2. We strongly condemn the wave of repression unleashed by President Correa and his regime against those very forces that have always been on the side of the people, against reaction and imperialism.

3. We demand the immediate release of the imprisoned popular militants and an end to their harassment, and in particular we demand the freedom of comrade Marcelo Rivera, president of the FEUE [Federation of University Students of Ecuador], sentenced to 3 years in prison on the totally illegal charges of “terrorism”, who has been on a hunger strike in his defense and that of freedom of organization and expression. This is a blatant case of political repression under a completely false charge, and a subjection of judicial power to the control of the executive power, to the arrogance and authoritarianism of President Rafael Correa.

4. We call on the workers and the peoples of our countries, and on an international level, on organizations in defense of democratic freedoms and for solidarity with the struggles of the peoples, especially the peoples of Latin America, to expose and denounce the manipulation and maneuvers of the government of Rafael Correa, and express their solidarity with the forces fighting for social and national emancipation in Ecuador.

5. We commit ourselves to expand the solidarity with the anti-imperialist struggles of the peoples of Latin America.

6. We commit ourselves to develop an informational campaign confronting the disinformation, to clarify the true events that have occurred in Ecuador.

International Conference of Marxist Leninist Parties and Organizations

Hayat TV Will NOT Be Silenced!

From 2008:

On July 17th 2008 the Turkish government shut down the Hayat TV satellite channel run by the Turkish Labour Party. The television station begun last year under the slogan “Life’s all colours”. The official reasoning for the sudden cut is charges of “separatism” and for supplying the pro-kurdish RojTV with images from a Newroz celebration. General Director Çubukçu rebuffs the charges as a political move, and has vowed to resume broadcast through an arduous legal struggle. Çubukçu went on to say “we did not receive any legal warning. We learned about the decision when they cut our broadcasting. But, the letter to the company from which we rent our frequency band was clearly threatening.” Türksat general manager Özkan Dalbay’s letter to Turkovizyon, from which Hayat TV rents its frequency band, states that the demand to cut Hayat TV’s broadcasting came from the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK):

“In order that Turkovizyon’s broadcasting activities are not shut down completely by our company, we request that you cut Hayat TV’s broadcasting immediately and be more sensitive about the channels you will include in your digital platform.”

“This is an indication of the impatience of the Justice and Development Party. However, since we experienced similar experiences in the past, we are still on our job. They cannot shut us up, we will not shut up”, says Çubukçu. Hayat TV broadcasting policy is to be on the side of labor, democracy and class struggle. This is the reasoning for the action taken by the right-wing Turkish government.

Sevda Karaca, who is the producer and narrator of the women’s program “Bread and Rose”, says the action means the voices of the women who are constantly exploited because of their social, sexual and national identities and who resist sexual discrimination in the media.

Karaca’s audience is getting ready to give a press release.
“The opponents of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) should act together”

According Kara, who finds it rather interesting that right after Hayat TV, National Channel was shut down as well, the Justice and Development Party is trying to shut the voices of those who are against it. The progressive forces in Turkey and Kurdistan must unite to meet this force which seeks to serve American imperialism by smothering the class struggle and keeping the Turkish people in bondage!

Support

To demand the cessation of persecution of the Turkish people by AKP please email the following recipients:

RTÜK
Email: rtuk@rtuk.gov.tr

Tel: 0090 312 297 50 00
Fax: 0090 312 266 20 38

İçişleri Bakanlığı
Sayın Beşir ATALAY (İçişleri Bakanı)
besir.atalay@icisleri.gov.tr

Email: basin@icisleri.gov.tr
Tel: 0090 312 425 72 14
Fax: 0090 312 418 17 95

Türksat
Email: info@turksat.com.tr
Tel: 0090 312 615 3000
Fax: 0090 312 499 5115

What Is Hayat TV?

Hayat TV, the pro-people and pro-workers television is, as an alternative to the existing mass media, broadcasting on Turksat 2A Satellite. In addition to Turkey, it can also be viewed all over Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus.

Hayat TV is also a different alternative in terms of its organisational formation within the field of television broadcasting where monopolies dominate. Announced to the public with a declaration signed by hundreds of people, among whom were trade unionists, representatives of the mass organisations and many workers and labourers; Hayat TV aims to carry the ignored sections of the society to the screen with its participatory organisational model.

Hayat TV follows an increasingly enhanced broadcasting line with various documentaries, news programmes, street interviews as well as music and entertainment.

Hayat TV, setting out with the principle of “revealing the genuine colours of life”, claims to be a television channel through which life, truth, objective broadcasting and everything non-alien to people will be reflected. It is stated in the organisation manifesto of the channel that; “There are a lot of voices and images but when all of these come together, they do not constitute multi-vocality and they appear to be mono-vocal. We, the millions of workers and labourers, are obliged to watch whatever is presented on the television that we put in the key place of our homes. We are either alienated to ourselves, our problems and culture or identified with a different world which by no means resembles us. Let us be neither alienated nor identified with phenomena outside of ourselves. Let us be ourselves, protect our own existence.”

Hayat TV is a channel in which all sections whose existence has been ignored until now will not only find themselves but also call themselves into being. Hayat TV is the channel of the Kurds, the Laz people, the Arabs, the Circassians, the Armenians and the Surianis as well as of the workers, labourers and the impoverished masses.

Hayat TV had set up its cameras just in the midst of life and catch its visual richness in the rhythm of life flowing. Hayat TV calls itself into being as the channel of women whose lives have been caught between the kitchen and the bedroom, children targeted in advertisements as future “consumers”, the handicapped people, the environmentalists, the defenders of human rights and of course the art and artists.

Hayat TV is the voice of all sections struggling for a more liberated and more democratic world around the world. It conveys all lives and struggles from all corners of the world via broadcast to be viewed in the Middle East, the Caucasians and North Africa besides all Europe.

ICMLPO: No to the Imperialist Intervention in Libya – Solidarity with the People

The reactionary coalition of imperialist forces that is attacking Libya militarily, under the pretext of defending the civilian population and hiding behind a resolution of the UN Security Council, is carrying out one more aggression against the peoples, now of Libya, yesterday of the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, who were brutally attacked under the same false pretext. The coalition of France, Great Britain and the U.S., with the active complicity of the reactionary governments of Italy, Spain, Denmark… and the passive complicity of Russia and China, since both countries by NOT exercising their right to veto hypocritically gave approval to the aggression, this reactionary coalition has shown by deeds its true nature. Its objective is not the security of the civilian population, but the oil and the strategic position of Libya and to threaten the rebellion and revolutionary struggles of the Arab peoples.

By approving the aggression against Libya, basing itself on the UN resolution, imperialism is once again making clear that it makes no difference whether the UN resolutions are just or not; what matters are their interests, as is shown by the fact that they have always vetoed the numerous resolutions in favor of the peoples of Palestine and the Sahara.

The rebels who are fighting against the reactionary government of Muamar Qaddafi will soon discover that these are not their “protectors,” but they are cruel looters and exploiters, who will replace Qaddafi, if they manage to overthrow him, by another pawn in the service of imperialism. One must remember that the members of the coalition, and other imperialist and capitalist countries, in the past courted Qaddafi, as they also did with their satrap Ben Ali in Tunisia, and the no less reactionary Hosni Mubarak (a member of the Socialist International!) in Egypt, both of whom were overthrown by popular revolts.

The revolts that are shaking the Maghreb and the Next East (Morocco, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, possibly Algeria)… are endangering the strategic interests of the imperialist powers. This is leading to the sharpening of their own contradictions, as with the aggression against Libya, between French imperialism, headed by the arch-reactionary Sarkozy, and German imperialism with the also reactionary Merkel. The deep shocks in this part of the world, carried out by the peoples against authoritarian or dictatorial regimes, and against the great social injustices, are making the positions of the imperialist powers and their allies tremble.

The International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations energetically condemns the brutal aggression against Libya. We support the just struggle of its people against the reaction of the Qaddafi Government, to win democracy, freedom and their own dignity. We also denounced the double standard that the UN applies, and the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of all countries with supposedly democratic governments, in supporting aggression in some cases and remaining silent in others. We call for showing solidarity with the Libyan people and other peoples in struggle by all means.

Coordination Committee of the ICMLPO
March, 2011

Two Things About Harry Potter

For the most part, I stopped reading the Harry Potter series at the sixth book. I should’ve stopped at the fifth. The middle and the last part of the “Half-Blood Prince” was utter garbage (except the chapter where he takes the good luck potion) and the ending was just an excuse to kill off a main character (and a lame death too, amirite?). I started reading “Deathly Hallows” but sadly never finished it. Thankfully, I stopped watching the films at the fourth one, since I knew it could only go downhill. “Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire” tops both lists. I saw the movie version of the “Prisoner of Azkaban” and it was atrociously bad indeed. They even cut out the famous scene where Sirius Black gives a speech to Peter Pettigrew, telling him he should’ve died for a cause rather than betray his friends. That scene is the main reason that “Prisoner” is one of the most consistently high-rated books of the series.

They also managed to make the revelation that Ron’s pet rat was a man in disguise all along dreadfully ho-hum, and I don’t think I was the only person in the theater who was disappointed they both castrated the grit out of Harry’s “Snape’s abnormally large nose” line and made the final revelation a noisy, incoherent scene of chaos rather than the medium-paced, deliberately plot-heavy conversation it originally was.

After that experience, I almost couldn’t bear to go back to see the other movies, but I dragged myself to “Goblet of Fire” because it was also my favorite book. Again, they completely ruined the slow drama of the final scenes in exchange for loud noises and flashes that made it almost incomprehensible, but overall it got my stamp of approval, and upon giving it, I decided barring insanely convenient circumstances where it would be easy to do so (which rarely come, I’ve noticed) I wouldn’t see the other films. I am certainly not going to tolerate Dumbledore not being Richard Harris.

I Am Anti-Liberal

I am not a Maoist, but one of my favorite pamphlets is written by Mao, entitled “Combat Liberalism.” It defined the very essence of liberalism as a manifestation of opportunism. As a communist, defending liberalism is in no way, shape or form on my agenda. I despise liberalism as the essential face of imperialism. I would go so far as to say I seek a liberal-free world.

Liberalism is what Americans learn in elementary school classes. Its chief tenets include the belief that capitalism is the best system possible, that the USA is a “free country” and that everyone—every person existing, regardless of context or class content—should have the “equal” right to express their opinions without fear of repression. This highlights two excellent examples of liberal drivel already. One is the denial of class analysis in favor of terms like “the people,” and the other is idealism and denial of actually existing conditions in favor of one’s own personal opinions.

Liberalism also discourages confrontation and violence of any sort and demands one not try to “control” the thoughts of others. In this manner liberalism discourages violence of the oppressed and thus prolongs violence of the oppressors. Communists say that “control” is not a crime, particularly in a world filled with starvation, imperialist war and homelessness. In a word such as this, there needs to be much more control than there is, a control of the peace-creating kind. After there is no such massive preventable suffering, then perhaps we can discuss the merits of this “freedom” you speak of.

Expanding on this, liberalism says “everyone has a right to be wrong.” Communists say no, and certainly say no when it comes to questions of life-and-death that may literally affect the entire planet and the future of the human race. There is no place for “opinion” in light of science.

For a liberal, what happened in this country or that country, such as what happened in Chile under Augusto Pinochet or Indonesia under Suharto, needs no explanation whatsoever. It was just pure evil, plain and simple. Yes, evil happened, and figuring out the material causes of why it happened is just being a hopeless ideologue (not to mention insulting all those poor people who died). According to liberals, people like Lenin and Stalin didn’t actually care about the proletariat, it was all just one big ploy for power. They were just pure evil and that’s all there is to it, defying material conditions and any kind of logic.

Marxist-Leninists define “progressive” as that tending to abolish gender, nation and class oppression. This is based on nothing but objective science—it would be difficult to argue that to provide the most livable life for the greatest amount of people would not represent a qualitatively higher stage in the development of humans.

One must always be sure what one is about when one approaches a particular task. Marxists have their priorities straight and urge liberals to give up their postmodernism and subjectivism for science. Repressive measures, even up to violence and the banning of reactionary works, are completely necessary. If liberals want their people to be “free” so badly then they should give up liberalism and become communists, as the sooner we reach a socialist world, the sooner repressive organs like the state will become outdated. The sooner we arrive at a world with little or no preventable deaths from imperialist war, starvation, disease, homelessness etc., the sooner we can begin yapping about equality and freedom for all under the law. Until then, it is pure idealism.

Communists have sometimes united with liberals over fascists, since the existence of liberalism presupposes limits on the repressive powers of the bourgeois dictatorship, whereas fascism places no such limits and resorts to the most blatant reactionary terrorism. We therefore recognize the differences in the particular form of bourgeois governments, while recognizing at the end of the day they all come from the same class origin. Fascism is merely another form of imperialism and capitalism, much the same way liberalism is. It would be easy to take a Comintern/ George Orwell line on this question and end up in the “they are exactly the same thing” camp, which would be suicidal. This unity strategy lead to the Soviet official Dimitrov’s famous “United Front Against Fascism” strategy during World War II. In these dark times, unity can be a positive, but this is not the same as communists turning into liberals ourselves. Now that the rule of the bourgeoisie is threatened internationally, the threat of fascism comes from the continued existence of liberalism. The liberals of today are the fascists of tomorrow.

Disturbing Revelation

As a kid, one of my favorite games was Contra for the original Nintendo NES. As an adult, I now know this game was a propaganda effort to raise support for the reactionary Contras in Nicaragua fighting against the Sandinista government.

• The ending theme of the original game was titled “Sandinista” (サンディニスタ^?).
• You’re known as a “Contra” and you fight against evil aliens called “Red Falcon.”
• The two main characters were modeled after reactionary action actors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone.
• They are on a mission from the U.S. imperialists to kill all Red Falcons that are planning “an invasion” of Earth (the U.S.).
• To make matters worse, in the Japanese version you fight on the fictional Oceania archipelago of “Galuga.”
• The American NES version takes place in the present (1980′s at the release of the game), in South America. Yes, they were that ballsy.

History

“Contra” literally meant counterrevolutionary for those in Nicaragua. They were fighting against the democratic socialist Sandinistas with help from Ronald Reagan’s cronies. Congress was so horrified by the Contras they even cut off funding in 1985, which led Reagan and the CIA to start covert illegal funding, ergo, the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Contras committed atrocities:

“But despite the efforts of the White House PR machine, the Contras increasingly appeared to be a particularly ruthless and bloodthirsty bunch. Stories of atrocities against civilian noncombatants certainly didn’t help. In the words of human rights group Americas Watch, ‘the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses … so prevalent that these may be said to be their principle means of waging war.’ Another NGO compiled a year’s worth of Contra atrocities, which included murder, rape, torture, maiming children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, and amputating genitals.”

Good stuff, eh?

Imagine all the people who donated 53¢ to see people…kill people. For democracy.

President Ronald Reagan explains who is fighting to overthrow the current Nicaraguan regime:

“Thousands who fought with the Sandinistas have taken up arms against them and are now called the Contras. They are freedom fighters.”

President Ronald Reagan attempts to drum up public support for the Contras:

“They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I’ve spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they’re fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance.”

Try saying video games are “class neutral” now, liberals.

Jack Shulman on William Z. Foster

Section 3) MEETING FOSTER AND WORKING AS HIS SECRETARY

INTERVIEWER: So, you’re back in New York. What year are we up to?
JS: Um. Maybe About ….About ’56 or ’57……………..

INTERVIEWER: And when you got back to New York, is that when you met William Z ???
JS: Um, yeah. Subsequently. ….. It wasn’t a year, when this friend of ours in the party, who was related indirectly to Foster, got hold of me for lunch and propositioned me — if I would go to work as Foster’s secretary & driver.

INTERVIEWER: Was he head of the party at this time?
JS: Who?

INTERVIEWER: Foster.
JS: Nominally, yes, but it is questionable how much authority he had in the party. Actually revisionism was very strong. He advised against the party leaders going underground. They didn’t listen to him. The Russians were making deep inroads into the party and winning over one after another to the Khruschev line.

INTERVIEWER: Where were you — were you in the South when the speech was made by Khrushchev attacking Stalin? ………..

JS: ….. That was about the time when I was either in the South or just coming out of the South.

INTERVIEWER: What did you think about that, when you heard those attacks?
JS: Bullshit. I didn’t fall for that at all. First of all I knew he was a revisionist clown.

No War on Libya! Hands off Libya!

Decline of Empire

According to the “royalist” camp of reactionaries, populated by the likes of Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Kelsey Grammar, all cultures perish sooner or later due to “moral decay,” which they interpret as collective senility, as opposed to their perfect world of Spartan discipline and imperialist-fascist militarism ala the film “Starship Troopers.”

The more dynamic they are, according to this bogus “crisis theory,” the quicker they go. This is what is happening to the American culture, they say with such glee.

Comparing the life of the ancient Greek, Roman, Spanish, Persian and Carthaginian civilizations to America will certainly produce likenesses, but not in the way they intend. Rather, what we see is indeed the collapse of moral fiber not due to decadence per se, but due to the crumbling of the racist-imperialist and settler ideology that gave rise to those empires (including the American one) in the first place. Since the decline of the ideology, the decline of the empire soon follows.

Empires were always unstable things, even back to the tribal, slavery and feudal days. What we are seeing today is no mere “moral decline” because of the hedonistic joys of imperial plunder we as Americans all enjoy, but more like the natural ideological readjustment to a new set of living and working conditions. The ideological superstructure follows the economic base, and the base has been in up-and-down mode since the Great Depression and especially since Reaganomics. The same thing happened during the beginnings of the fall of Rome and leading up to the French Revolution.

In many ways a crisis in this rotten imperial civilization will be positive—a changing of the tides is necessary after 400 years of violence. It will eliminate a great deal of the absurd belief in bourgeois democracy as the bourgeoisie gets more desperate and terrorist in its methods, and it will wash away illusions of religious and economic obscurantism. Regarding current political and social change, I don’t believe there is anything happening that hasn’t already been predicted since the wide application of industrialization and machinery. Certain causes produce determinate effects, and the current outcome has been inevitable since the mid-19^th century.

Once upon a time, Marx and Engels were confident in the victory of socialism—nowadays after the triumph of revisionism and counterrevolution in the USSR and Albania, the movement is hanging by a thread and nothing seems certain except the very collapse of capitalism which was to originally bring socialism to the rise. While the former “straight line” development of socialism has been a setback, the latter formula of crisis remains completely unaffected and charges ever onwards with suicidal temper. The crisis inherent in capitalism is astounding. Since the workers are not paid the full value of their labor and thus cannot buy back the products that they themselves produce, it becomes a giant pyramid scheme.

The CPUSA a Revolutionary Party?

From the FAQ on the official website of the CPUSA:

Why does the Communist Party oppose Violence?

Communists believe that social change can only be accomplished through the united action of mass movements which express the majority will of the people. Peaceful methods of change are not only the right thing to do, they are the most effective way to unite and mobilize the greatest majorities.

Violence, on the other hand, is a tool of the big corporations and the governments they control. To preserve their power, they use violence against workers’ and people’s movements.

In contrast, Communists seek to change society peacefully. We work to expand every democratic and electoral avenue as part of our fight for working class political and economic power.

Our party believes that it is possible to make fundamental transformations using the electoral process, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Marx on the dictatorship of the proletariat:

“Political power … is merely the organized power of one [socio-economic] class for oppressing the other.”

“[The working class] must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples’ sake.”

“Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions (e.g. bourgeois democracy).”

“The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must … organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. … [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. …As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. In order that this party (i.e., the democrats) whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat.”

Engels:

“But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”

Lenin:

“It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: ‘for what class?’ Everyone knows, for instance (and Kautsky the ‘historian’ knows it too), that rebellions, or even strong ferment, among the slaves in ancient times at once revealed the fact that the ancient state was essentially a dictatorship of the slave owners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slaveowners? Everyhody knows that it did not.”

“Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.”

Rationalizing Capitalism

Capitalism can only be justified with preconceived assumptions and not objective facts. Looking at the fundamentals of the system, one cannot rationalize that capitalism is beneficial, so the mind rationalizes that it is necessary.

For example, one simply cannot rationalize the existence of classes on the basis that they deserve what they have, or that the owning classes play any sort of role vital to the process of production. So instead, the human rationalizes the existence of classes on the flimsy basis that without them, without that position to strive for, without the final reward of completely removing yourself from productive work, productivity would plummet in all production.

You cannot rationalize that capitalism is good based on any evidence, because there is none. Instead it is rationalized by its supporters as a necessary evil. The dominant ideas of any epoch are the ideas of its ruling class.

This is the harder struggle to win—the struggle most people go through. That and blatent individualism. “Yeah, no one would be starving or homeless, but would everyone have the opportunity to direct their own films?”

Marx said that capitalism broke apart the feudal ties between families and bloodlines or “pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’”

but then “…left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’”

Ultra-Leftism & Right-Opportunism

The most common mistake among Marxists in our cultural review work is right-opportunism, which means that they fall into liberalism and subjectivism, tolerating artistic works which promote reactionary politics. Right-opportunism can be summed up as the liberal outlook of denying a particular judgement of a work due to relativism, such as the old line, “You can attach any political reading to any book, movie, music or what have you, that you wish. It all depends on the reader.”

This is reactionary capitalist thought that insists that art remain “neutral,” magically standing above society as something pure and detached from classes and modes of production. In a word, they sell out to Hollywood and cling to a nonexistant “indepedance” of art as though art could, or even should be, seperated from the class struggle. As Marx said, the fact that “the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of its ruling class” is a structural fact of society and cannot be denied because the liberal artist wishes it so.

Right-opportunist deviationists fail to recognize how much a peoples’ ideology may change at any given moment. As such, they allow the existence and wide spreading of all works, essentially offering the masses’ minds as a sacrifice to the alter of “open debate” and “freedom of speech.” This amounts to taking weapons out of the hands of the people and enables the blackest reaction and the most backward politics to spread.

Another form of this, besides run-of-the-mill liberalism, is the “ignore it” approach. This encourages leftist people to simply “ignore” reactionary works in the hopes that they will go away. History has proven this approach idealistic. It also does not allow the proletariat to teach themselves how to analyze works, which means communists then fail at leadership.

Another deviation within ourselves is ultra-leftism. Though it is not the larger danger of the two, it is still clear and present within our ranks. In this camp, Marxist reviewers will tear apart a work with progressive tendancies because of small traces of bourgeois ideology. Ultra-lefts fail to see the slightest progress even under the most radical bourgeois-made films, since they have departed from materialism and expect a capitalist film to essentially be socialist.

The sad reality is that most culture is controlled by the bourgeosie. To have any popular culture and be cut off from the masses, we will have to accept some flaws. The vast majority of films will be “submerged” with the dominant idealogy in one way or another, but it is not deterministic. Base does not determine superstructure 100% of the time, just as proletarians do not always take a bourgeois line and sometimes bourgeois may even take a correct stance. A minority of any class may be advanced, as shown by Lenin’s petty-bourgeois position as a lawyer who nonetheless took the proletarian line and put it into action for the first time in history.

Ultra-leftism and right-opportunism are both threats to be combated within the political situation at the time. Marxist criticism is especially important today when there is a definite risk that the audience will identify with and glorify the reactionary characters of a work, no matter how crudely depicted they are.

y of any class may be advanced, as shown by Lenin’s petty-bourgeois position as a lawyer who nonetheless took the proletarian line and put it into action for the first time in history.

Ultra-leftism and right-opportunism are both threats to be combated within the political situation at the time. There is the definite risk that the audience will identify with and glorify the reactionary characters, no matter how bluntly depicted.

Capitalist Terms Glossary

Freedom - the ability to exploit others if you have the money, and the ability to starve to death if you do not.

Capitalism – global oil-burning economic system that centralizes economic power in the hands of a few thousand landowners and business owners. Prone to periodic crashes, poverty, imperialist wars that kill millions, starvation and general psychological disease.

Free Press – privately-owned press.

Free Market – privately-owned production.

Free Trade – capitalist trade between financial robber barons.

Free Speech – the ability of the KKK to call for mass murder of blacks; freedom of talk, not freedom of action; the ability to play a “loyal opposition” to the government.

Privatization – the selling by puppet US governments of egalitarian state-owned enterprises to private corporate bosses for 1% of their worth; the appropriation of land, resources and production by oligarchs.

The Economy – the bourgeoisie’s profit margin.

Economic Growth - the rich getting richer, thereby raising the GDP; increased corporate profits.

Economic Development - the dedication of Third World country’s resources to invading foreign capital.

Industrialization – the growth of monopoly capitalism and the destruction of small, independent businesses.

Fighting For Freedom – being financed by the CIA, FBI, MI6 or US Military.

Dictator – a leader that is not the head of a corporate puppet regime installed by invasion and occupation or the CIA; a leader with redistributive economic policies, lacking World Bank and IMF loans or an export-based economy; a leader that copies the United States too closely.

Anti-Semites – those not in favor of the genocide of Palestinians by the use of cluster-bombing and white phosphorous by the IDF.

Economic Freedom – the extent to which private ownership and capital dominates the society entirely; the ability for less then 1% of the population to control 80% of the wealth; economic gangsterism. The freedom to buy from corporations and work for corporations.

Job Creation – increase in plantations, underage labor and sweatshops.

Diversity of Opinion – the promotion of reactionary ideas drowning progressive ones.

Relativism – postmodern wishy-washiness.

Free Competition – the curbing of rights, environmental regulations, safety rules, child labor laws, work hour limits, et al.

Stabilize the Region – bombing the region back to the Stone Age.

Terrorism – oppressed people striking back at colonial occupiers through every possible means to express themselves.

Terrorist – a person who does not submit to global genocide.

Peacekeepers – occupation army.

Coalition Forces – occupation army.

US Soldiers – occupation army.

Military Intervention – bombing campaigns followed by on-the-ground occupation and stealing of resources.

Building Infrastructure – US-subsidized freeway system forcing dependence on automobiles instead of public transit; see also: Iraq.

Protectorate – colony.

Economic Stimulus – promotion and manufacture of wasteful and unnecessary products.

Economic Advisors – capitalist spies.

Insurgents – armed civilian fighters against foreign occupation armies; failed napalm targets.

Something to Remember when Analyzing Bandera Roja

Alejandro Silva front of Bandera Roja

Bandera Roja is considered a disgrace, a stain on history that is used to attack Marxist-Leninists or to attack the legacy of Enver Hoxha. Bandera Roja openly supported right-wing opponents of Chavez in their native Venezuela (including Manuel Rosales in 2006) and have since lost much political credibility and most of their members, some of whom formed the new ICMLPO party, the PCMLV or Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela.

Even though BR does deserve strong criticism for their treacherous actions, it is important to realize that not all blame rests with them in this equation, particularly given the group’s personal history with Hugo Chavez.

Here is a little-talked-about incident in which Hugo Chavez’s first assignment in the army was a counter-insurgency force against leftist guerrillas from BR ala “Plan Columbia.”

Read an external article from a few years ago here:

Bandera Roja, La Masacre de Cantaura and last Sunday’s Elections in Venezuela

Explaining what has happened in Venezuela in the last decade can sometimes be quite a task. People talk about the “opposition” as if it were a homogeneous group with a common ideology. Besides the social-democrats, social christians and socialists, people always stare at me when I describe Bandera Roja, a Marxist/socialist organization that is part of Venezuela’s opposition and a member of the Mesa de Unidad (MUD) which fielded unified candidates in Sunday’s election.

Bandera Roja began as a Maoist guerrilla group. They were in fact, the last guerrilla group to abandon the armed fight and become a political party in 1992, to become the extreme far left [sic] in Venezuela. Despite this, Bandera Roja never backed Hugo Chavez, arguing he was no socialist or marxist, but an opportunist whose only project is his own self-promotion.

In 1982, what was then the Alejandro Silva front of Bandera Roja (picture above), held a meeting in a farm in Cantaura, inviting students that were simpathetic to the movement, many of whom were unarmed. The military somehow found out about it and started a military operation which began by bombing from airplanes in order to disperse those on the ground. As they dispersed, they were met by military ground forces which proceeded to capture many of those present. Reportedly, most were originally captured alive, but were later found dead.

The case was revived during the last few years, as Venezuela’s General Prosecutor’s office exhumed the bodies and began an investigation of the massacre in which a total of 23 people died. In early September, Human Rights organization Provea, denounced the fact that one of those being investigated, was retired General Roger Cordero Lara, one of the leaders of the massacre, who piloted one of the Broncos that led the attack. Provea asked Chavez’ party PSUV to withdraw the candidacy in order to stop the impunity on these cases.

Last Sunday, Roger Cordero Lara was elected as a Deputy for Circuit 2 of Guarico State under the PSUV party and now has immunity from Prosecution, unless the National Assembly and the Venezuelan Supreme Court removes it. This led Proeva to send this letter to Hugo Chavez and his party, noting the incoherence of backing Cordero Lara, as well as the precedent of impunity that this constitutes. Chavista groups have also raised their voices to protest, to no avail.

In the case of the Cantaura massacre, much like in other similar cases, military courts exonerated those involved, including General Cordero Lara in the Cantaura case, but the General Prosecutor has reopened the cases with the Cantaura case, being opened at the request of Hugo Chavez, but has yet to rule on any of them, which Provea suggests is due to the fact that many of those exonerated are pro-Chavez retired high ranking military like Cordero Lara. So much for the caring revolution!

But given that Chavez and PSUV did nothing when they could remove him as a candidate, it is highly unlikely that they would go through the complicated process of removing Cordero Lara’s immunity and impunity on the case will continue to prevail.

So much for the revolution…

Article on “Bandera Roja” translated into English:

Bandera Roja (BR) was a guerrilla group and later a political party in Venezuela. Was led by Gabriel Puerta Aponte. Initially known as Red Flag Movement (MBR), in later years was known as “Red Flag – Front Américo Silva (BR-FAS).” In its early was a Maoist guerrilla movement farmer of revolutionary violence, the main range were among public universities and high schools (secondary education centers) Venezuela.

Red Flag was formed on January 20, 1970 by a breakaway group of anti-revisionist wing of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), which in turn was a splinter of the Democratic Action party (AD). The latter was the biggest game in votes, which along with COPEI, formed a bipartisan pact of institutional form created through the so-called Pact of Punto Fijo, and the PCV with the MIR were first outlawed and firmly pursued, then the Rafael Caldera’s government were allowed to participate in elections.

In the ideological red flag represents, in its origins, the strongest line of Marxism-Leninism, initially with a common ideology with the Albanian Party of Labor of Enver Hoxha, close to the policies of the late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. His theories and practices after they were placed closer to other groups of extreme left residual Venezuelan armed struggle, as Revolutionary Organization (OR) led by Jorge Rodríguez, Julio Escalona and Marcos Gómez and legal front: the Socialist League and others .

Early career as a guerrilla organization

Red Flag starred in several guerrilla actions against the Army in the East of the country by Guerrilla Front “Antonio José de Sucre” which was a group of about 60 men and women under arms in the mountains and plains of eastern Venezuela (states Monagas and Anzoategui). Its top leaders were Carlos Betancourt, Tito Heredia González, Américo Silva and Gabriel Puerta Aponte.

On January 18, 1975 took place near the PRV-FALN an operation in which through a tunnel of 70 meters and 60 centimeters wide, 23 prisoners escaped politicians from both guerrilla groups that were held at the San Carlos in North Caracas. These accounts included: William José Álvarez Blanco (FALN) Leonardo Araque Carlos Carcamo (BR); Betancourt, Argenis (BR), Carlos Efrain Betancourt (BR), Vicente Antonio Contreras Duque (BR), Marco Tulio Croquer Horace ( BR), Antonio López Chang (BR), Jose Asdrubal Guzman Cordero (BR), Marco Antonio Ludeña Arocha (BR), Jesus Arnaldo Romero Marrero (BR), Ramon Morales Elías Rossi (FALN), Quentin Ramón Sánchez Moya (FALN); among others.

First Division

The Organization had a first division in March 1976 and losing the Guerrilla Front Command was divided leaving Puerta Aponte and Tito Gonzalez with the game itself and the neighborhood and labor fronts and Carlos Betancourt exclusively with the armed wing and created a parallel movement called Red Flag – Marxist-Leninist “whose initials were BR-ML and was short-lived as it dissolved itself following the partial dismantling suffered by Venezuela’s intelligence police, DISIP.

BR rebuilt the military and founded the guerrilla “Americo Silva” whose first operation was the release of several military cadres prisoners in the jail of La Pica in August 1977.

Slaughter of Cantaura

In early 1982, the Guerrilla Front was in a state of euphoria, came to get several military victories, including the taking of San Antonio de Maturin, San Félix de Caicara, the Excise of Santa Maria de Ipire (January 1982). At that time, FAS, he gave to the armed struggle eminently violent. For example, in dealing with barbecues where it caused several casualties to the army killed and wounded and a DISIP agent who was captured and later released. Making the people of Santa Ines and Brig sample was available for the control of that group.

By the end of September 1982, the guerrillas set out in the camp where the confrontation occurred later, was the same site used years ago as a refuge for escapees from the San Carlos headquarters.

The action began at 5:45 am on October 4, 1982. The State Security Forces were operating a classic purse in action combined land and air. Once located the guerrillas placed in strategic sites around, ambushes distributed in a semi-moon, forming several rings, then began the attack with the air force with planes bombing and strafing with Canberra aircraft OV-10 Bronco observation intensively. In this first assault, suffered six wounded face death without any fighter.

During two days of fighting guerrilla ambushes in ten falls, leaving 23 dead and several minor injuries and is permanently divided into three groups, each of which tries to break the siege by different routes. The group that breaks the siege led by Alirio Quintero Paredes and another group led by Alejandro Velasquez Guerra succeed.

Escaped nearly a dozen guerrillas, of which very few wanted to rebuild the Guerrilla Front later. All the bulk of the Front Command was killed in the clash. The commanders and fighters were killed in Cantaura: Roberto Antonio Rincon Cabrera (aka Sergio and The Catire, first commander), Enrique Jose Marquez Velasquez (aka Florencio, Deputy Commander); Empress Cordero Guzman (alias Sonia, or hump, Third Commander) ; Sister Fanny Alfonzo Salazar (aka Patricia and Pat, a member of the Command), Carlos Jesus Arzola Hernández, José Miguel Nunez (aka Rivas and Spaniard), Mauricio Tejada Carmen Rosa Garcia, (aka Rosie); Ildemar Lawrence Morillo, Carlos Sambrano Alberto Mira, María Luisa Arranz Estevez (aka Natalia) Antonio Maria Echegarreta Hernandez, Beatriz del Carmen Jimenez (alias Maira); Baudilio Veracierto Valdemar Herrera, Jorge Luis Becerra Navarro (aka Gilbert); Eumennedis Ysoida Gutiérrez Rojas (alias Heydy), Diego Alfredo Alfonso Carrasquel, José Luis Gómez, Eusebio Martel Daza (aka Sunday), Ruben Castro Alfredo Batista, Nelson Antonio Pacin Collaso, Julio César Farías Zerpa Ysidro Mejias and José Colina.

Recent years as a guerrilla

In the years after Red Flag was a self-truce, its existence being limited to universities and colleges of Education Media, rebuilding the Front “Americo Silva” only to provide training to its members, no other post operative function, and concentrating pro organizations forces the freedom of political prisoners, legal and facades dissolve the Committees of Popular Struggle (CLP) and professional bodies such as the Regional Federation of Secondary Education (FREM) from Caracas.

Finally in May 1994, the National Red Flag decided to disband the guerrilla fronts and a score of former guerrillas came down from the mountain as a symbolic surrender their weapons and pacified despite not having carried out armed actions in more than ten years . At this time, Red Flag emphasizes its political work in its two legal fronts, which used to attract cadres and members, were these the Revolutionary Youth Union (UJR) and the Movement for Popular Democracy (MDP). Of these walls came the second division of Red Flag 1992 when a lot of his paintings defected to the Revolutionary National Coordinator (CNR), whose student wing, the Youth Movement Ezequiel Zamora (MJEZ) Red Flag came to represent the high schools middle school and was totally lost. The people who comprise this division are the principal subsequently joined the Movimiento V Republica (MVR) and support the government of Hugo Chávez, unlike the Red Flag which is opposite to that government.

Red Flag supported both coups occurred in 1992 against then President Carlos Andrés Pérez and the coup of 11 April 2002 against President Hugo Chávez.

Conformation as a legal political party

His first record as a legal party is its emergence as Democratic Movement in the 1993 presidential election, when the candidacy of Gabriel Puerta Aponte by MDP card received 3,746 votes (0.07%).

In the 1989 election takes the form of legal political group and decide to participate with your card supporting the candidate Gabriel Puerta Aponte. Red flag while maintaining its socialist ideology, opposed from the outset the Chavez government (which has consistently held to be socialist), joined the opposition coalition called the Democratic Coordinator, participating in political actions opposing the party of Hugo Chávez. In this sense, the organization said that the drive to social sectors is due to consider Chavez a communist false and misleading the people of Venezuela.

In August 2006, the organization announced for the presidential elections on 3 December his apoyo1 Manuel Rosales (Social Democratic Party leader Un Nuevo Tiempo, and Zulia state governor) who was the candidate for much of the opposition parties, but not could prevent the reelection of Chávez.

Most of the historical ex-members organized around a new organization called the Popular Vanguard detached from the Venezuelan opposition trying to recover political presence in the capital and the east.

In the last parliamentary elections, held in September 2010, Red Flag, won 67,563 votes, representing 0.60% of the vote and it the fifteenth most votes Venezuelan party, yet it the eleventh game of the MUD opposition coalition, to grab the 1.26% of the votes of misma.

Bandera Roja says Chavez Frias has dragged left-wing banners into the mire

Celebrating 34 years of existence, Bandera Roja (BR) leader, Gabriel Puerta Aponte comments that Venezuela’s last guerrilla group is fighting the damage and mud-raking that the Chavez Frias administration has thrown over the traditional banners of the Left through the President’s demagogy … “what’s required now is not a left-wing, radical or revolutionary government ( that will come later) but a government that can get us out the crisis as soon as possible.”

In the company of BR general secretariat members, Armando Diaz, Rafael Venegas and Pedro Veliz Acuna, Puerta rejects accusations that BR is sharing policies with its traditional adversaries: Accion Democratica (AD) and the Christian Socialists (COPEI) as a compliment and says it shows political maturity … “if we speak about reconciliation, this is the best way to show that BR is not full of hatred … if we don’t show our sincerity, we would be like those taking about plurality, integration, unity but who want to hog everything when it comes to electoral processes.”

BR considers the unity factor as the Coordinadora Democratica’s biggest challenge and calls on would-be breakaway parties, Primero Justicia (PJ), Proyecto Venezuela (PV) and Causa R to sit down and discuss matters inside CD with transparency and responsibility.

There can be no return to the past, Puerto points out … ” the past is represented by a practice and conduct vis-a-vis power … before it was AD and COPEI … now it’s Movimiento Quinta Republica (MVR) and allies … Chavez Frias represents the past and continues the old practices of political cronyism, corruption, political segregation and treating the country like a feudal lord.”

“Chavez Frias has not approved a single measure that has annoyed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and foreign capital has been the greatest beneficiary with this government.”

BR now sees itself as attempting to consolidate a center-left tendency in Venezuela along with other parties, preparing for any pendulum political movement that could produce a right-wing government, unwilling to facilitate change in Venezuela.

Provide the PSUV and the slaughter of Cantaura

The NGO reports that an official candidate to the NA is one of the perpetrators of the deadly incident in 1982

The NGO Venezuelan Program of Action and Education (Give), reported on Thursday Queuña National Assembly candidate for the State of Guarico, Lara Roger Lamb is an author known for the slaughter of Cantaura. Here Provide the full statement:

One of the authors recognized the Slaughter of Cantaura today is PSUV candidate for Guarico. His name is Roger Cordero Lara. It will be recalled 28 years ago was an attack by armed forces against a concentration of guerrillas of Americo Silva, armed against the Red Flag Party, which was planning a military operation Cantaura policy, Anzoátegui state. Such an event happened to the pages of the Venezuelan political history as “The Slaughter of Cantaura.” 23 guerrillas were killed, 14 of them captured alive and finished by officials of the DISIP, the DIM and the elite troops of the battalions of hunters, constituting a severe violation of human rights at the time.

The then Lieutenant Roger Cordero Lara piloting one of the Broncos who bombed in Cantaura, as websites even claim near the Venezuelan government (http://www.revolucionbolivariana.es.tl/REVOLUCION-AL-DIA/index-1. htm). 24 years later became Major General and Commander in Chief of Aviation of the Bolivarian government, praised by President Chavez as a “true revolutionary general.” The day of his nomination as candidate for the State of Guarico, which was held on 03.05.1910, Cordero Lara said: “I constituted loyal supporter of the National Simon Bolivar Project. All must be loyal to this project that is beneficial to the group, which is why I show my full willingness and I become the basis for instrument approaches lead to the National Assembly. ” The nomination was accepted by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), so that the perpetrator of the Slaughter of Cantaura is running for circuit 2 of the entity, with Altuve Lidice, Oscar Figuera, General Secretary of Communist Party Venezuela-Jesus Cepeda and Alfredo Ureña.

Cordero Lara’s bid for the PSUV is inconsistent with the Government’s words against impunity in the so-called massacres of the Fourth Republic. ” The tolerance in this situation is an incentive to abuse of power and in fact dismisses the plight of the family to achieve justice in the case, and is an example of the inefficiency of the Attorney General’s Office, Luisa Ortega Diaz, who on October 27, 2009 reaffirmed its “commitment to solving the case”

Bandera Roja & Venezuela

Red Flag Party (in Spanish: Partido Bandera Roja) is a communist party in Venezuela. It was formed in 1970 by anti-revisionist members of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR). The Red Flag Party initially supported the ideology of Enver Hoxha and the Albanian Party of Labour following the Sino-Albanian Split, though in later years it has gravitated back towards Maoism.

In the 1970′s up until the 1990′s it was engaged in guerrilla warfare against the government. A young Hugo Chávez’s first assignment in the Army was as commander of a communications platoon attached to a counter-insurgency force—the Manuel Cedeño Mountain Infantry Battalion, headquartered in Barinas and Cumaná. In 1976, it was tasked with suppressing the guerilla insurgency staged by the Party.

The party is currently led by Gabriel Rafael Puerta Aponte. After the electoral victory of Hugo Chávez in 1998, the party started aligning itself with the right-wing and social democratic opponents of Chávez, labeling him as a social-fascist. This has led to desertions from the party, as many cadres instead joined the Chávez camp.

The party was suspended from the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle) in 2005. It was succeeded within the organization by the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela.

In the 2006 presidential election, the party supported the candidature of Manuel Rosales. The party got (as one of several parties backing Rosales) 18,468 votes (0.16% of the nationwide vote) in that election.

As of 2009 its popularity has rapidly diminished from its prior years and is reported to have less than 100 militant members.

Molotov’s Final Days

Shortly before his death, as he was failing in mind and body, Molotov, who was cared for by his grandchildren, was watching TV one day when Soviet Foreign Minister, Edvard Shevardnadze came on the news making some statement. Molotov rose from chair in a rage, shouting “What the hell is he saying! That’s revisionism! Pure revisionism! Worse than revisionism! Has he gone off his head? I hope Stalin hasn’t gotten wind of this yet, or there’ll be hell to pay. Tell Shevardnadze I want to see him in my office TODAY at 4:00 pm SHARP. And he better have a good explanation for this garbage!”

When they heard the shouting, his grandchildren rushed into the room and tried to calm him, saying “Grandpa relax! It’s just the news. You’re not Foreign Minister anymore. It’s 1986. Stalin’s been dead for 30 years.” Molotov calmed down and muttered “I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I just got so worked up. My memory isn’t all it used to be anymore.”

However, later that afternoon, at about 3:45, his grandchildren saw that the old man had put on a suit and was busy knotting his tie. His grandchildren laughed and asked “Grandpa, are you thinking of going somewhere/” Molotov replied “Go somewhere? I wish I could go somewhere! I’m getting ready for Shevardnadze. I should put in a call to Stalin and let know that I’ll handle this.”

Once again, Molotov’s grandchildren had to intervene and tell the old man that he was no longer a party leader, that Stalin was long gone, and that the world had changed.

Stalin Wasn’t Stallin’ (Golden Gate Jubilee Quartet)

Stalin wasn’t stallin’
When he told the beast of berlin
That they’d never rest contented
Till they had driven him from the land
So he called the yanks and english
And proceeded to extinguish
The fuhrer and its vermin
This is how it all began

Now, the devil, he was reading
In the good book one day
How that lord created adam
To walk the righteous way
And it made the devil jealous
He turned green onto his????
And he swore by things unholy
And he made one of his own

So he packed two suitcases
Full of greed and misery
And he caught the midnight special
Going down to germany
Then he mixed his lies and hatred
With fire and grim stones
Then the devil sat upon it
That’s how adolf was born

Now adolf got the notion
That he was the master race
And he swore he’d bring new order
And put mankind in a place
So he set his scheme in motion
And was winning everywhere
Until he??? and got the notion
For to kick that russian bear

Stalin wasn’t stallin’
When she told the beast of berlin
That they’d never rest contented
Till they had driven him from the land
So he called the yanks and english
And proceeded to extinguish
The fuhrer and its vermin
This is how it all began

Yes he kicked that noble russian
But it wasn’t very long
Before adolf got suspicious
That he had done something wrong
Cause that bear grabbed the fuhrer
And gave him an awful fight
Seventeen months he grabbed the fuhrer
Tooth and claws, day and night

Then that bear smacked the fuhrer
With a mighty armored??
And adolf broke all records
Running backwards to krakow
Then goebbels sent a message
To the people everywhere
That if they couldn’t hit the fuhrer
God, then hit that russian bear

Stalin wasn’t stallin’
When he told the beast of berlin
That they’d never rest contented
Till they had driven him from the land
So he called the yanks and english
And proceeded to extinguish
The fuhrer and its vermin
This is how it all began

Then this bear called on his buddy
The noble fighting yank
And they sent the fuhrer running
With their ships and planes and tanks
Now the fuhrer’s having nightmares
Cause the fuhrer knows damn well
That the devil’s done roast welcome
On his residence in hell

Good and Bad Genocide: Suharto and Pol Pot

Good and Bad Genocide

Double standards in coverage of Suharto and Pol Pot

By Edward S. Herman

Coverage of the fall of Suharto reveals with startling clarity the ideological biases and propaganda role of the mainstream media. Suharto was a ruthless dictator, a grand larcenist and a mass killer with as many victims as Cambodia’s Pol Pot. But he served U.S. economic and geopolitical interests, was helped into power by Washington, and his dictatorial rule was warmly supported for 32 years by the U.S. economic and political establishment. The U.S. was still training the most repressive elements of Indonesia’s security forces as Suharto’s rule was collapsing in 1998, and the Clinton administration had established especially close relations with the dictator (“our kind of guy,” according to a senior administration official quoted in the New York Times, 10/31/95).

Suharto’s overthrow of the Sukarno government in 1965-66 turned Indonesia from Cold War “neutralism” to fervent anti-Communism, and wiped out the Indonesian Communist Party–exterminating a sizable part of its mass base in the process, in widespread massacres that claimed at least 500,000 and perhaps more than a million victims. The U.S. establishment’s enthusiasm for the coup-cum-mass murder was ecstatic (see Chomsky and Herman, Washington Connection and Third World Fascism); “almost everyone is pleased by the changes being wrought,” New York Times columnist C.L. Sulzberger commented (4/8/66).

Suharto quickly transformed Indonesia into an “investors’ paradise,” only slightly qualified by the steep bribery charge for entry. Investors flocked in to exploit the timber, mineral and oil resources, as well as the cheap, repressed labor, often in joint ventures with Suharto family members and cronies. Investor enthusiasm for this favorable climate of investment was expressed in political support and even in public advertisements; e.g., the full page ad in the New York Times (9/24/92) by Chevron and Texaco entitled “Indonesia: A Model for Economic Development.”

The U.S. support and investment did not slacken when Suharto’s army invaded and occupied East Timor in 1975, which resulted in an estimated 200,000 deaths in a population of only 700,000. Combined with the 500,000-1,000,000+ slaughtered within Indonesia in 1965-66, the double genocide would seem to put Suharto in at least the same class of mass murderer as Pol Pot.

Good and bad genocidists

But Suharto’s killings of 1965-66 were what Noam Chomsky and I, in The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, called “constructive terror,” with results viewed as favorable to Western interests. His mass killings in East Timor were “benign terror,” carried out by a valued client and therefore tolerable. Pol Pot’s were “nefarious terror,” done by an enemy, therefore appalling and to be severely condemned. Pol Pot’s victims were “worthy,” Suharto’s “unworthy.”

This politicized classification system was unfailingly employed by the media in the period of Suharto’s decline and fall (1997-98). When Pol Pot died in April 1998, the media were unstinting in condemnation, calling him “wicked,” “loathsome” and “monumentally evil” (Chicago Tribune, 4/18/98), a “lethal mass killer” and “war criminal” (L.A. Times, 4/17/98), “blood-soaked” and an “egregious mass murderer” (Washington Post, 4/17/98, 4/18/98). His rule was repeatedly described as a “reign of terror” and he was guilty of “genocide.” Although he inherited a devastated country with starvation rampant, all excess deaths during his rule were attributed to him, and he was evaluated on the basis of those deaths.

Although Suharto’s regime was responsible for a comparable number of deaths in Indonesia, along with more than a quarter of the population of East Timor, the word “genocide” is virtually never used in mainstream accounts of his rule. A Nexis search of major papers for the first half of 1998 turned up no news articles and only a handful of letters and opinion pieces that used the term in connection with Suharto.

Earlier, in a rare case where the word came up in a discussion of East Timor (New York Times, 2/15/81), reporter Henry Kamm referred to it as “hyperbole–accusations of ‘genocide’ rather than mass deaths from cruel warfare and the starvation that accompanies it on this historically food-short island.” No such “hyperbole” was applied to the long-useful Suharto; one looks in vain for editorial descriptions of him as “blood-soaked” or a “murderer.”

In the months of his exit, he was referred to as Indonesia’s “soft-spoken, enigmatic president” (USA Today, 5/14/98), a “profoundly spiritual man” (New York Times, 5/17/98), a “reforming autocrat” (New York Times, 5/22/98). His motives were benign: “It was not simply personal ambition that led Mr. Suharto to clamp down so hard for so long; it was a fear, shared by many in this country of 210 million people, of chaos” (New York Times, 6/2/98); he “failed to comprehend the intensity of his people’s discontent” (New York Times, 5/21/98), otherwise he undoubtedly would have stepped down earlier. He was sometimes described as “authoritarian,” occasionally as a “dictator,” but never as a mass murderer. Suharto’s mass killings were referred to–if at all–in a brief and antiseptic paragraph.

It is interesting to see how the same reporters move between Pol Pot and Suharto, indignant at the former’s killings, somehow unconcerned by the killings of the good genocidist. Seth Mydans, the New York Times principal reporter on the two leaders during the past two years, called Pol Pot (4/19/98) “one of the century’s great mass killers…who drove Cambodia to ruin, causing the deaths of more than a million people,” and who “launched one of the world’s most terrifying attempts at utopia.” (4/13/98) But in reference to Suharto, this same Mydans said (4/8/98) that “more than 500,000 Indonesians are estimated to have died in a purge of leftists in 1965, the year Mr. Suharto came to power.” Note that Suharto is not even the killer, let alone a “great mass killer,” and this “purge”–not “murder” or “slaughter”–was not “terrifying,” and was not allocated to any particular agent.

The use of the passive voice is common in dealing with Suharto’s victims: They “died” instead of being killed (“the violence left a reported 500,000 people dead”–New York Times, 1/15/98), or “were killed” without reference to the author of the killings (e.g., Washington Post, 2/23/98, 5/26/98). In referring to East Timor, Mydans (New York Times, 7/28/96) spoke of protesters shouting grievances about “the suppression of opposition in East Timor and Irian Jaya.” Is “suppression of opposition” the proper description of an invasion and occupation that eliminated 200,000 out of 700,000 people?

The good and bad genocidists are handled differently in other ways. For Suharto, the numbers killed always tend to the 500,000 official Indonesian estimate or below, although independent estimates run from 700,000 to well over a million. For Pol Pot, the media numbers usually range from 1 million-2 million, although the best estimates of numbers executed run from 100,000-400,000, with excess deaths from all causes (including residual effects of the prior devastation) ranging upward from 750,000 (Michael Vickery, Cambodia; Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent).

Pol Pot’s killings are always attributed to him personally–the New York Times’ Philip Shenon (4/18/98) refers to him as “the man responsible for the deaths of more than a million Cambodians.” Although some analysts of the Khmer Rouge have claimed that the suffering of Cambodia under the intense U.S. bombing made them vengeful, and although the conditions they inherited were disastrous, for the media nothing mitigates Pol Pot’s responsibility. The only “context” allowed explaining his killing is his “crazed Maoist-inspiration” (New York Times, 4/18/98), his Marxist ideological training in France and his desire to create a “utopia of equality” (Boston Globe editorial, 4/17/98).

With Suharto, by contrast, not only is he not responsible for the mass killings, there was a mitigating circumstance: namely, a failed leftist or Communist coup, or “leftist onslaught” (New York Times, 6/17/79), which “touched off a wave of violence” (New York Times, 8/7/96). In the New York Times’ historical summary (5/21/98): “General Suharto routs communist forces who killed six senior generals in an alleged coup attempt. Estimated 500,000 people killed in backlash against Communists.”

This formula is repeated in most mainstream media accounts of the 1965-66 slaughter. Some mention that the “communist plot” was “alleged,” but none try to examine its truth or falsehood. What’s interesting is that the six deaths are seen as a plausible catalyst for the Indonesian massacres, while the 450,000 killed and maimed in the U.S. bombing of Cambodia (the Washington Post‘s estimate, 4/24/75) are virtually never mentioned in connection with the Khmer Rouge’s violence. By suggesting a provocation, and using words like “backlash” and “touching off a wave of violence,” the media justify and diffuse responsibility for the good genocide.

The good genocidist is also repeatedly allowed credit for having encouraged economic growth, which provides the regular offset for his repression and undemocratic rule as well as mass killing. In virtually every article Mydans wrote on Indonesia, the fact that Suharto brought rising incomes is featured, with the mass killings and other negatives relegated to side issues that qualify the good. Joseph Stalin also presided over a remarkable development and growth process, but the mainstream media have never been inclined to overlook his crimes on that basis. Only constructive terror deserves such contextualization.

A New York Times editorial declared (4/10/98): “Time cannot erase the criminal responsibility of Pol Pot, whose murderous rule of Cambodia in the late 1970s brought death to about a million people, or one out of seven Cambodians. Trying him before an international tribunal would advance justice, promote healing in Cambodia and give pause to any fanatic tempted to follow his example.”

But for the New York Times and its media cohorts, Suharto’s killings in East Timor–and the huge slaughter of 1965-66–are not crimes and do not call for retribution or any kind of justice to the victims. Reporter David Sanger (New York Times, 3/8/98) differentiated Suharto from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, saying that “Mr. Suharto is not hoarding anthrax or threatening to invade Australia.” The fact that he killed 500,000+ at home and killed another 200,000 in an invasion of East Timor has disappeared from view. This was constructive and benign terror carried out by a good genocidist.

Source

Enver Hoxha’s “Reflections on the Middle East”

Click to download PDF of Enver Hoxha’s “Reflections on the Middle East”

FOREWORD of the book:”Reflections on the Middle East”

FOREWORD

The book «Reflections on the Middle East» by Comrade Enver Hoxha, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania, deals with political and social events which are linked with the Arab and non-Arab peoples of two continents, Africa and Asia, and with what is called the «Middle East crisis» in the international arena. Like the two volumes of the book «Reflections on China», published in 1979, it is part of the series of books of extracts from «The Political Diary on International Issues». The materials included in the book are some of the notes, outlines for articles, analyses and general reviews about the Middle East drawn from the «Political Diary» and refer only to events which belong to the period from 1958 to the end of 1983. These materials reflect some of the most important moments and events from the inhuman imperialist activities of the superpowers and Israel as well as aspects of the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people and other Arab peoples, the Afghan and Iranian peoples against the plots of the two superpowers.

From time to time the author has recorded some of his personal ideas and feelings, the grief which he has felt over the misfortunes and injustices which have been inflicted on these peoples as well as his great joy over their exemplary struggle for their freedom and national independence against the savage Israeli, imperialist and social-imperialist occupiers and enemies.

* * *

For more than three decades the Middle East has been an arena of repeated acts of intervention and war.

From 1948 to 1983 a number of wars, the one bloodier than the other, have been waged there. In the materials which are published in this new book by Comrade Enver Hoxha the reader will find correct answers to why so many wars have been waged in that region of the world during this relatively short period; why the Middle East crisis has assumed today such large proportions as to the dangers and consequences inherent in it that it influences the entire world situation; what has transformed the Middle East into an extremely dangerous hotbed of endless conflicts; who are the open and secret enemies of the Arab peoples; and a series of other acute political issues.

While following the events as they have developed in the Middle East and writing about them at the moments when they have occurred, the author makes an all-round analysis of them, based on historical materialism and the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, discloses their internal and external causes, their complexity and interconnection, and makes assessments and predictions the accuracy of which has been fully confirmed by the development of events in subsequent periods.

Although these analyses, assessments and predictions were made and written some years ago, many of them are of value for the present day. They include, for example, the notes analyzing the content and true aims of the global strategy of American imperialism in the Middle East pursued by all the American presidents before, during, and after the Second World War down to President Ronald Reagan, the unprecedented arrogance of the United States of America which has proclaimed the Middle East a sphere of its national interests and treats it as its domain. Proceeding from this strategy and this policy, time after time the United States of America has dispatched thousands of marines and hundreds of warships to the waters of the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, etc., in order to subjugate the peoples of the countries of the Middle East by military force.

Passing from one article to the other, the reader will also see what place Israel occupies and the role it has played and is playing in the context of the anti- Arab general strategy of American imperialism, what efforts the United States of America has made and is still making to ensure «secure borders», that is, borders which include all the Arab territories occupied by armed force, for its «pistol» in this region. The basis of the American-Israeli friendship and the political, economic and military alliances between them has always been and still is their common hostility and wars against the Arab peoples.

Also of great current value are the articles in which, through many facts and arguments, the policy of the Soviet social-imperialists in the Middle East is unmasked. They present themselves as friends and saviours of the Arab peoples but at the most critical moments have betrayed these peoples and left them in the lurch.

Many materials show what features the policy of the Soviet social-imperialists has in common with the policy of the American imperialists, what brings these two superpowers together, and what has impelled them to collide in fierce open clashes, before the eyes of the world or behind the scenes for many years, and to trample on the freedom, independence and national and social interests of the impoverished and hard-working peoples of the countries of the Middle East.

In the book «Reflections on the Middle East» a prominent place is given to materials which assess the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist uprisings of the peoples of the Middle East, for instance the heroic struggle of the martyred Palestinian people, the Iranian popular revolution, the struggle of the Afghan people against the Soviet social-imperialist occupiers, etc. A special place in the book is devoted to the problem of the energy crisis and, in this context, to the role of the Middle-East countries which are some of the biggest oil producers in the world, in this crisis which has gripped all the capitalist and revisionist countries, and to stressing the power of oil as a weapon to defend the freedom and independence and assets of the Arab peoples from the imperialist powers.

In the materials included in this book the attitudes of the Party of Labour and of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania to all the problems which have to do with the Middle East crisis are expressed frankly; the firm principled stands of our country and people in favour of the struggle of the Palestinian people and other Arab peoples against Israel and the two imperialist superpowers, in favour of the Iranian people, the Afghan people and the freedom-loving African peoples are outlined. These stands have also been expressed in many other important documents of our Party and state as well as at various international forums such as UNO, etc., where our representatives have defended the struggle and the just cause of the fraternal Arab peoples. The esteem and assessments which are contained in this book are further proof of that warm and sincere friendship which has always linked the Albanian people with the Arab peoples and with all the freedom-loving and peace-loving peoplesof the world.