---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/syria-no-war-for-imperialist-interests-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Syria: No War for Imperialist Interests!

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

As we write elsewhere in this issue of Revolution: There is growing danger of a direct U.S. military attack on Syria using planes and/or cruise missiles.

This is a very serious move—one that is fraught with real danger for masses of people in that region and worldwide. We are told that this must be done because the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons, and this must be stopped. So, first, we must ask the question: if it were to be actually proven that Assad committed the cold-blooded crime of using chemical weapons as charged, would such an attack be justified?

NO!! As we say in “Only Worse Suffering and Horrors Can Result from a U.S. Attack on Syria”, “The U.S. in Syria (and everywhere else) does not proceed from human rights. The rulers of the U.S. have never been, and are not now, motivated by a desire to act against atrocity, or to ‘prevent genocide.’ At this moment they are giving at least passive approval to the torture and slaughter of opponents of the pro-U.S. regimes in Egypt and Bahrain.”

In the Middle East, as in other parts of the world, the U.S. attempts to dominate the resources and the people of the region. They build up the armies of reactionary powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; they utilize Israel as a sort of attack dog to keep other countries in line; they prop up hated governments so long as they serve their purpose; and they periodically rain down military terror to enforce their way. The fact is that in just the past decade, the U.S. has attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, and other countries, and has continually threatened Iran. They have caused the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people, and sent millions more into squalid refugee camps. Humanitarians? This country is rightly hated by tens of millions of people all over the region, in no small part because of the shit they do and why they do it.

This article further states that, “The Middle East is a pivotal region for the whole world—economically and geopolitically—and the U.S. has dominated it since World War 2. Everything it has done and continues to do is based on maintaining and deepening that domination. Right now the region is in tremendous upheaval—the old arrangements that ‘held things together’ (for the imperialists and local butchers) have come under increasing strain and in some cases begun to disintegrate, and there is a massive scramble by all kinds of forces. These include rivals like the Russians, who back Assad; ‘friendly’ imperialists like the French, who back the rebels; all kinds of local butchers; etc. And, painfully, there is no coherent progressive force acting within this mix.... This is a bloodletting which at this point is driven by a reactionary scramble for influence.”

So, if it’s not “humanitarianism,” what IS driving this? A lot of commentators talk about “U.S. credibility”—well, what IS that credibility? It is the ability of the U.S. to force the masses of people AND other powers in the area to bend to its will. This includes not just, or even mainly, Assad, but adversaries like Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, as well as global rivals like Russia. The interests of strengthening and protecting Israel’s position in the Middle East also enters into this mix. This is nothing more than the “credibility” of a gangster in a turf war over who will dominate the dope traffic, prostitution, etc.—why should ANYONE want to defend that? These are NOT the interests of the masses of people, around the world and right here.

Why Is There Conflict and Controversy Over Whether to Go to War?

As we go to press, there is tremendous controversy—in the Congress, on the talk shows, in the papers—over whether this attack should be launched. What is behind this? First, the debate is not over what is in the interests of humanity the world over or what is the road to end the suffering of the Syrian people in their vast majority, but what will best serve the global interests of the U.S. and its hold on the Middle East. Nor is this “democracy at work, the will of the people,” and so on.

What is really causing the controversy is mainly that some powerful forces think that this move may be too risky—that the blowback, or negative response, from both predictable and unpredictable sources, may end up undermining American domination of the people and resources of the Middle East. But Obama and the forces around him think that if America does not attack, too many forces might be emboldened to defy this domination. Obama, or some of the forces uniting with him, may also be aiming to do something even more bloodthirsty than they are talking about now, or they feel they may end up having to do something like that, depending on how things go. So Obama decided to go to Congress to politically strengthen his hand before attacking Syria—while making clear that he may attack no matter what Congress does. It is not clear how all this will turn out—which strategy will prevail, how all this will unfold, and what will result from whatever does happen. But in any case, it is very important that masses of people take political action against the possibility of this war.

Does this debate mean that “the people are getting a voice”? No—and any action must not be reduced to lining up behind one or another politician. The Senators and Congressmen do not “represent their constituents.” Above all, they represent the interests of the capitalist-imperialist system and the class that sits atop it. The current tension and conflict within the ruling class is not a situation where one side or the other in the “debate” is “more progressive.” Different sides in the debate represent different sections and trends within this ruling class, struggling over what will best serve continued U.S. domination of the region and the world.

These different forces (Congressmen, talk show guests, etc.) are attempting to do several things through this debate: one, they really are trying to maneuver to get their way (in other words, real arguments are being aired to forge consensus among themselves, that is, the rulers). Another aim is to win ordinary people, many of whom oppose this war for basically good reasons, to view and put their opposition within the framework of what will best defend this horrific imperialist system and extend its worldwide domination, including through military action. Getting people to think in these terms and within this framework ultimately serves to prepare them to go along with whatever course of action is finally taken. The fact that the rulers are even having such a debate shows how risky these stakes are; it lays bare some of the real divisions among them; and it also shows that some of these forces may be anticipating that this could develop into something really horrible and they feel the need to prepare people for something on a whole other level. The point, again, is this: people must act, but they must not allow themselves to be reduced to rooting for or lining up behind one or another section of these politicians.

(For a fuller description and analysis of this moment, see “In the Senate and at the G-20: Obama’s Agenda: Push the Syrians to Slaughter Each Other,” by Larry Everest.)

This Is an Important “Teachable Moment”

People are now following important global events in a way that they usually do not. What does this mean for the movement for revolution? It means that we have to show people that this whole planned attack is about defending the interests of the capitalist-imperialist class that actually rules the U.S. We have to show people how they are, in fact, being mobilized AGAINST the interests of the vast majority of people on this planet, who have no interest in supporting ANY imperialist power. We have to help people see—and, yes, we are going to have to struggle with them—that lining up with the Democrats is not just a dead-end, it is a setup and a trap to keep people locked within an outlook and framework that blinds them to the imperialist character of this whole setup and could easily lead them back into supporting it.

Most important, it means this: this is a moment when the right of these imperialists to rule and to impose horrific suffering on tens and hundreds of thousands of people half way across the world can and should be called into question. It means that we must bring to people the fact that THERE IS ACTUALLY A WAY OUT OF THIS MADNESS—the new synthesis of communism developed by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, which could actually bring into being a world without the kind of horror we now see concentrated in Syria, or in countries like Iraq, which was the previous recipient of “U.S. imperialist freedom.” And yes, this is a moment when the revolutionaries need to dive in, uniting with the sentiments of thousands who oppose this assault, and joining in the resistance to that, while struggling to lead people and build the movement for revolution.

Thoughts on the Significance and Stakes of this Moment

In writing this editorial, Revolution is drawing on correspondence we received from a young revolutionary. This correspondent identified critical questions for revolutionaries to be thinking about and acting on, listing some key points:

“Point 1—It is important not to lose sight of what it would mean if the ruling class does go ahead and attack Syria. It would indeed be an outrageous crime that would rain down horrors, suffering, death, and destruction on the people of Syria. And no one could say exactly what further chain of events it might set in motion in that country and in the region as a whole that could mean still further horrors, on an even greater scale, for the people of Syria and the Middle East.

“Point 2—My sense is that it may actually not be a settled question whether the U.S. attacks Syria.”

The letter then goes on to examine different paths which the imperialists could take with regard to Syria and then concludes: “There is both an urgent need for anyone with a conscience to act politically now to oppose a U.S. attack on Syria and a possibility of contributing to creating the political conditions that [could] stop such an attack from happening. The former holds true whether or not the latter ends up coming to fruition.”

“Point 3: This moment is one that holds great significance in terms of building a movement for revolution.

“Right now, there is a great need to apply the overall, ongoing strategy of Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution to this specific situation—and a political opening to have a significant impact and make significant advances in the course of doing so...”

What are the implications?

First, this is a moment to spread the influence of revcom.us. We cannot and should not underestimate the importance and impact of revcom.us and Revolution newspaper in bringing the truth to people. Each month tens of thousands of people come to revcom.us, and in times like these the numbers are higher. It is here that people from all corners of society will not only be able to find out what this war and controversy are really all about, but they will also be exposed to the full picture of what this revolution is all about and the better world we could bring into being. Take the word of revcom.us to demonstrations and bring banners with the slogan: “NO WAR FOR IMPERIALIST INTERESTS” and the name of revcom.us.

Second, get BA Everywhere out everywhere! This enables people to know about the whole other way embodied in revolution, to think differently and act differently on that basis. The letter from a reader emphasizes the need to:

“Make a big, concentrated push to really get BAsics 1:28 and BAsics 1:3 out in society in a big way over the next few days.

“I think it would be really good to get these quotes out and stir engagement around them in a big way on the campuses, neighborhoods, at demonstrations/rallies, political and cultural events/movies, and wherever else the movement for revolution goes/is doing work... and also, very importantly, to get these quotes out on the Internet/social media—in the appropriate ways, the quotes could be posted on Twitter, Facebook, forwarded to email lists asking people to write back with a response to these quotes, etc., and sent to prominent/influential voices as well ASKING THEM to TWEET OUT and FORWARD THE QUOTE/LINK. Imagine the impact if some prominent people posted/tweeted/sent around BAsics 1:28 or BAsics 1:3.”

In thinking over the letter, the editors of Revolution felt that, in addition, BAsics 3:8 is also extremely important to emphasize and distribute broadly. The reader goes on to explain:

“First, these quotes speak in a more overall sense to fundamental truths about the nature and essence of the U.S. and this whole system and what they are doing to the people of the world; about the relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world and what is really motivating this country/the rulers of this system to do what they do. Second, these quotes really cut through all the bullshit and confusion that people’s heads have been fed and which demobilizes and paralyzes people, and keeps them from confronting reality and acting: ‘Well, doesn’t the U.S. have to do something?’ ‘Things in Syria are already really bad—if the U.S. doesn’t act, really bad forces there will take over and win out’.... ‘Just because the U.S. has done a lot of really bad shit in the past doesn’t mean it is incapable of doing something good in this case,’ etc. Third, and by no means last in order of importance: Getting these quotes out there is not at all separate from, and in fact should be seen as very much a part of, the BA Everywhere campaign: When these quotes get out there in society in a big way, and people know that it is Bob Avakian (BA), the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party and leader of the revolution who is saying these things; this in itself is part of spreading the work and vision of BA Everywhere and creates a basis to unleash people to imagine the difference it would mean for these quotes, and BA’s whole vision and work, to really be out in society in a huge way.”

So, right now, let’s get revcom.us, these quotes from BAsics, and the print issue of this paper out all over society. And as we do this, let’s ask for contributions to finance all this on the scale it needs to be.

All this should provide a basic orientation from which revolutionaries can unite with protests against any U.S. attack. Since Obama announced his intention to strike at Syria, there have been over 200 protests and demonstrations, big and small, around the country. The movement for revolution needs to be in the midst of these actions wherever possible!

Of course, this is not the only thing that the movement for revolution must be doing. In addition to other important struggles going on, there is the overarching need to build the campaign to get BA Everywhere in its own right. To return to the letter we received, “In my view, a concentrated push to get these quotes out should not mean either that other critical/leading edge elements of the BA Everywhere campaign and the movement we are building for revolution—including, importantly, getting the film BA Speaks: REVOLUTION— NOTHING LESS! out, getting the BAsics Special Edition (Revolution #244) out on the campuses—are pushed to the background during that time... we do have to be able to do more than one thing at a time.

“Acting in relation to major developments in the objective situation should be seen as intertwined with/part of, rather than divorced from, building the movement for revolution and the BA Everywhere campaign as the leading edge of that movement.

“Moments like this, if anything, only underscore to an even greater degree the urgency of getting BA, his vision and work everywhere, because moments like this concentrate the need and possibility for the world to be radically different and BA represents the leadership, vision, strategy and method needed to make revolution to get to that world.”

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/315/only-worse-suffering-and-horror-can-result-from-US-attack-on-Syria-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Only Worse Suffering and Horrors Can Result from a U.S. Attack on Syria

August 27, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

As we go to press, there is growing danger of a direct U.S. military attack on Syria—which is being framed as a “surgical strike”—using planes and/or Cruise missiles. U.S. Secretary of “Defense” Hagel announced that “the U.S. military is 'ready to go'” if ordered to attack Syria.

These attacks must be opposed with determined political protest and clear-eyed understanding of how they would make the situation worse.

Atrocities and War Crimes

The threats come in the wake of reports of hundreds of civilian deaths, apparently from chemical weapons, in a rebel-held suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus on Wednesday, August 21. Whether the deaths were the result of chemical weapons and, if so, whether the attack was launched by the Syrian government or by rebel forces, has not been independently verified. U.S. Secretary of State Kerry initially demanded that the Syrian government allow UN investigators into the area, but then when the Syrian regime responded that it would give inspectors unlimited access, Reuters reported that: “[A] U.S. official said such an offer was ‘too late to be credible’ and Washington was all but certain that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had gassed its own people.”

But the driving force behind escalated U.S. threats against Syria has little to do with this incident. And it has absolutely nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. It is essential people understand what is behind U.S. moves and not be duped into passive complicity with a U.S. attack on Syria that would make the situation much worse for the people of Syria, and the world.

The rulers of the U.S. view atrocities and war crimes—real, or invented—through a warped and twisted lens of “how does this work for us.” Shelling hospitals, like Israel did in the 2008-9 massacre in Gaza is ignored. Staged, fake human rights outrages, like false testimony in the U.S. Congress that Iraqi troops disconnected incubators killing babies in Kuwait are concocted and then invoked to justify all kinds of U.S. crimes. The incubator hoax was invoked to justify the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, “Operation Desert Storm,” that killed 100,000 Iraqis and created great suffering for millions, including babies who died as a result of cutbacks in medical care resulting from U.S. sanctions that followed that war.

So, nobody should take assertions by U.S. officials at face value. Further, the U.S. appears to be moving to attack even in advance of an ongoing UN investigation.

But this is not to say that the Syrian government could not actually have launched a chemical attack. Two years ago, in the context of uprisings throughout the Arab world, a range of forces in Syria took to the streets in protest against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The regime responded to the protests and uprisings with a mix of political overtures to opposition forces and violent repression.

The situation was seized on by the U.S. imperialists and their allies to move to replace Assad with a regime aligned and compliant with their interests in the region, and in particular in opposition to Iranian influence. The result has been a civil war that has devastated the country, with both sides—the Assad regime, and the motley collection of Jihadist and pro-Western forces on the other—offering nothing but oppression to the people of Syria.

According to human rights agencies, both sides in the conflict—including the forces the U.S. is seeking to cohere and shape into a new regime—have carried out kidnapping, torture, and summary assassinations of their opponents and civilians. Tens of thousands in Syria have died, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced, with many living in desperate conditions in refugee camps or worse.

So it is quite possible the Assad regime did launch a toxic gas attack to press forward with military advances they have been making against the opposition. If indeed it turns out that the Assad regime did this, and if the scale of horror is close to what is being reported—and that is possible—this is indeed a horrific crime.

But even if that is the case, U.S. military attacks on Syria would themselves be compounding a crime with another crime. They would not be intended to end the terrible suffering in Syria, nor would they have that impact.

What Is Driving the U.S.?

The U.S. in Syria (and everywhere else) does not proceed from human rights. The rulers of the U.S. have never been, and are not now, motivated by a desire to act against atrocity, or to “prevent genocide.” At this moment they are giving at least passive approval to the torture and slaughter of opponents of the pro-U.S. regimes in Egypt and Bahrain.

Nor is the U.S. moving into what all understand to be a risk-fraught situation (for them) because “our presidents like nothing more than to flip a few cruise missiles at other countries, combined with a few bombing sorties for good measure, because it’s a hell of a lot easier than actual statecraft.” Or because “if we pull the trigger on Syria, someone will get paid handsomely.” (See “War on Syria: Twenty Pounds of Stupid in a Ten-Pound Bag” by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout August 27, 2013.) As if the never-ending wars, oppression, suffering, and death the U.S.  has brought to every corner of the planet—on the basis of which it has “risen” to be the world’s sole superpower—were caused by politicians who were too lazy to engage in “statecraft,” or politicians corrupted by the arms industry. Such “analysis” leaves people utterly in the dark as to what is behind the U.S. moves to attack Syria, and unable to see or act in the interests of the people of the world.

The Middle East is a pivotal region for the whole world—economically and geopolitically—and the U.S. has dominated it since WW2. Everything it has done and continues to do is based on maintaining and deepening that domination. Right now the region is in tremendous upheaval—the old arrangements that “held things together” (for the imperialists and local butchers) have come under increasing strain and in some cases begun to disintegrate, and there is a massive scramble by all kinds of forces. These include rivals like the Russians, who back Assad; “friendly” imperialists like the French, who back the rebels; all kinds of local butchers; etc. And, painfully, there is no coherent progressive force acting within this mix.

This is a bloodletting which at this point is driven by a reactionary scramble for influence. In this, it seems increasingly apparent that the U.S. calculation is that they MUST project force in this situation lest they lose credibility. At the same time, there are indications that the U.S., or some within the ruling class, is arguing that, as one ruling class analyst, Edward N. Luttwak put it, “In Syria, America loses if either side wins.” Luttwak wrote:

“Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy—posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

“But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquility on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.” (New York Times August 23, 2013).

In this situation, the U.S. may be pulling a page from the bloody playbook it used in the Iran-Iraq War. In that war, the U.S. aimed for both sides to devastate each other, and the result was a million deaths.

Only Worse Suffering and Horrors Can Result from a U.S. Attack on Syria

Many people will see this as a situation in which “something must be done.” Even people who have some sense that the U.S. is driven by anything but humanitarian motives will argue that at least U.S. intervention will stop the horror right now.

But reality doesn’t work that way. It matters—in fact it is decisive—to understand the nature of a U.S. attack on Syria, and what would be driving it. It would be an attack driven by the needs of a global capitalist-imperialist superpower intent on maintaining its domination of the planet. How is any move on that basis going to contribute anything positive to a humanitarian nightmare in Syria?

A U.S. attack on Syria will push things in a worse direction. It will bring death and suffering in its own right. And it will further polarize the terms of things whereby the reactionary Assad regime can pose as standing up to imperialism, where Iran and the forces it influences may well respond, and where a whole range of reactionary forces, including Israel, might step up their involvement in the war in Syria, or launch other attacks elsewhere in the region. Any U.S. attack on Syria is bound to intensify the whole terrible spiral in the country and the region.

And the situation will be all the worse to the extent people buy into the logic of who cares what’s behind it, any intervention can’t be a bad thing right now. Here a painful but critical lesson can be drawn from recent events in Egypt: many people supported the army’s move against the Muslim Brotherhood due to the Brotherhood’s repression, without analyzing WHY the army was moving. Then, when the consequences of that support became clear, including the political freedom that this gave the army to carry out slaughters and try to nail down an even tighter version of Mubarak-ism, oppositional forces and the people in general found themselves either unable to act effectively or so far gone ideologically that they were now in the army’s pocket ideologically as well as politically.

The only way for something positive to emerge in Syria is for people to oppose both sides in this conflict—actively. And for people in the U.S., which has brought such great misery to the planet, the challenge is to oppose “our own” empire.

The U.S. has brought nothing but exploitation, environmental ruin, impoverishment, and oppression to the whole Middle East. Any military assault by the US on Syria, no matter the pretext, must be OPPOSED with determined political protest in the US. And to the extent that happens, it can contribute to creating a pathway breaking out of the whole terrible set of “choices” confronting the people of Syria and beyond and to bringing forward a whole other way—a real revolutionary alternative.

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/obamas-agenda-push-the-syrians-to-slaughter-each-other-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

In the Senate and at the G-20:

Obama’s Agenda: Push the Syrians to Slaughter Each Other

by Larry Everest | September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

September 6, 2013. Over the past week, the Obama administration has aggressively stepped up its public campaign in the U.S. and abroad to attack Syria, as the debate and struggle within the ruling class and among the population broadly has intensified.

Three days after announcing, on Saturday, August 31, that he would not attack Syria before consulting with Congress (even though he claimed the right to do so without authorization), he met with Senate leaders. Later that day a resolution in favor of attacking Syria narrowly passed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The next day, Obama departed for the G-20 Summit^* in Moscow where he vigorously lobbied world leaders—and world public opinion. This coming a week before the debate is expected to sharpen further: the full U.S. Congress will take up the issue when it returns to session on Monday, September 9. Obama is scheduled to give a nationwide address about Syria on Tuesday night, and the full Senate is expected to vote on Wednesday on attacking Syria.

But in the arguments Obama made to the Senate, and to the rulers of other global powers at the G-20, the real agenda of U.S. imperialism (and its allies, including Israel) is coming more into focus. It seems to involve encouraging the horrific slaughter of Syrians by both sides in the civil war until both sides are decimated, the population is crushed, and all leading to better conditions—from the perspective of U.S. imperialism—to install a regime that will be subservient to its agenda in the region. But as we have seen over and over in the past few decades, what the rulers of the U.S. intend to accomplish with their invasions, interventions, covert actions and wars has frequently unraveled with unintended results for the imperialists themselves and ongoing horrors for millions.

Obama argues that attacking Syria is necessary as a matter of conscience, international law, and concern for humanity. The U.S. claims it has definitive intelligence that the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad murdered 1,400 Syrians on August 21 in a chemical attack, therefore military action is demanded to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again, and to make sure international agreements banning chemical weapons are enforced. “...[in] the face of such barbarism the international community cannot be silent.”

Many doubts and questions have already been raised about the accuracy of U.S. claims, from a number of quarters. But whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not, the history of U.S. actions in Syria and the Middle East in particular shows that U.S. actions are not dictated by an iron-clad adherence to international law and conventions; in fact, this history is littered with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed when it has served U.S. imperialist interests—including facilitating or directing the use of chemical weapons.

A few examples among scores that could be cited: the U.S. facilitated the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war (by helping to supply Iraq with the technology and materials needed for making chemical weapons, and by directly providing Iraq with targeting intelligence). The U.S. has used chemical weapons repeatedly in Iraq—including depleted uranium ordinance (massively in southern Iraq in 1991) and white phosphorous (in Falluja in 2004). The U.S. has not only repeatedly violated its own system’s international law, human rights agreements, conventions, and norms (think torture from Guantánamo to Baghram to Pelican Bay, drone strikes, and massive spying), it is doing so again in this very instance by declaring it has the right to wage war on a country which poses no threat to it, and without UN authorization.

What Has Been Revealed About the U.S.’s Real Motives and Objectives

The Obama team’s own need to win over other elements of the ruling class (and to train the population to see things through the lens of the U.S. empire) has forced them to spell out some of their actual motives amidst the fog of pre-war rhetoric and propaganda—and it’s not about humanity, it’s about imperialism and U.S. control of the Middle East.

For example, on September 3, when Obama met with Congressional leaders, he stated that attacking Syria “gives us the ability to degrade Assad’s capabilities when it comes to chemical weapons. It also fits into a broader strategy that we have to make sure that we can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic and economic and political pressure required so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability not only to Syria but to the region.” (emphasis added) .These are imperialist geopolitical objectives—not humanitarian objectives.

The resolution passed later that day in the Senate stated: “It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.” (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/read-revised-text-of-senate-resolution-for-military)

Here, it is worth turning to the trenchant point Bob Avakian makes about what the U.S. really brings to the world when it talks about “democratic” government:

“The essence of what exists in the U.S. is not democracy but capitalism-imperialism and political structures to enforce that capitalism-imperialism. What the U.S. spreads around the world is not democracy, but imperialism and political structures to enforce that imperialism.” (BAsics 1:3)

Obama’s words and the Senate resolution point to the real reason war is being prepared NOW, and it's not about chemical weapons. It’s because the momentum in Syria’s civil war has shifted in favor of the Assad regime and against the “rebel” forces—out of which the U.S. has been working over the past several months  to bring forward a regime. So the U.S. is facing the prospect that the Assad regime could prevail, and since the Assad regime is aligned closely with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a victory or significant advance of the Assad forces would be a significant setback for U.S. moves to isolate, weaken and perhaps attack Iran—which it sees as a major challenge to its domination of the strategic Middle East.

And if the U.S. is perceived as unable to respond forcefully to Assad’s defiance, that damages the U.S. imperialists’ global “credibility”—the U.S.’s ability to impose its will by force or in other ways, and it would strengthen the regional position of the U.S.’s principal adversaries—Iran, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, as well as global rivals like Russia.

Of particular concern is the U.S. fear that not attacking Syria after a real or purported use of weapons of mass destruction, would signal Iran that the U.S. and its allies are not serious about preventing it from attaining nuclear weapons capabilities. The issue for the U.S. here is not eliminating all nuclear weapons, but preserving the U.S.-Israeli regional nuclear monopoly and military predominance, which would be undercut if Iran was even seen as having the ability to build a bomb.

The Necessities Driving the Global Imperialist Superpower

Overall dominance over the Middle East region, home to 60 percent of the world’s energy reserves and the geographical crossroads between three continents, has been a central pillar of U.S. global predominance for over six decades. As imperialist strategists have stated in moments of candor over these decades, dominating the Middle East means dominating the global oil market, which means having a whip hand over all powers dependent on that market or that oil, as well as the global economy; and it means controlling key trade routes and choke-points, as well as prized military-strategic real estate.

When the U.S. grip on the region seemed to be in danger of eroding, George W. Bush seized on the September 11, 2001 attacks to launch a war—in the name of “combating terror”—to recast the whole area and solidify the U.S. imperial position. This recasting / reshaping has not gone as planned. Afghanistan turned into a quagmire. Iraq did not become the hoped-for springboard for U.S. ambitions. Both wars and other U.S. crimes savaged millions of lives, fueled regional rage, strengthened reactionary Islamic fundamentalism, and destabilized the region. The Arab Spring erupted in early 2011 and further shook the state structure and Middle East order. Over this decade-plus, the reactionary Islamic Republic of Iran, with its ambitions of being a regional power and its mission of Islamization, has become a particular nemesis for the U.S.

In this context, Syria’s complex civil war has drawn in contending regional powers: the U.S. and its allies including Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah—all with backing by Russia—on the other. The U.S. rulers view any strengthening of Iran and its allies as dangerous and unacceptable.

Compare the U.S. silence and inaction to a thousand-plus civilians being massacred by Egypt’s brutal military dictatorship to its hyped-up outrage in response to roughly the same number reportedly being killed in Syria. The point is the U.S. is determined to shape the course of the “Arab Spring” in accordance with the needs and imperatives of its empire.

What Responsibility Does the U.S. Bear for the 100,000 Syrian Deaths So Far ... and What Will Obama’s War Lead to Now?

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, imperialist strategist Edward Luttwak wrote:

“At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests. ... There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw. By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies. Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning. This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far.”

Luttwak is speaking truth here—it does seem that the U.S. strategy in Syria to date has been to give encouragement and political support to the anti-Assad forces and to politically and economically weaken the Assad government, while not intervening decisively and aiding the victory of either side. U.S. actions have helped draw out the Syrian civil war and thus contributed to its horrific human toll—an estimated 100,000 dead and two million refugees. So the U.S. already has Syrian blood on its hands.

Obama’s apparent plans to degrade Assad’s capabilities, while gradually strengthening the rebels so that Assad could eventually be forced from power (without Syria imploding), would be simply a further “recalibration” and continuation of that heinous policy. This is akin to the U.S. strategy in the Iran-Iraq war: working for the weakening and mutual destruction of both sides, a strategy that contributed to the war’s toll of some one million dead and wounded.

So the U.S. rulers’ own words and own plans make clear: any U.S. attack on Syria will inflict even more horrors on the Syrian people. Nothing good can come from it. Anyone with a conscience and a shred of humanity should oppose such a criminal action.

 

*  At the G-20 Summit, those opposing a military strike without UN authorization included Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Germany and South Africa, while only Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey supported the U.S. [back]

 

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/315/the-battle-over-the-truth-about-the-african-american-experience-and-present-day-reality-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

On Obama's August 28 Speech

The Battle over the Truth About the African-American Experience and Present-Day Reality

September 2, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

A profound struggle over the truth has been raging in America. For the past few months, this struggle has focused on the real position of African-American people in U.S. society. And it has taken shape in the past few weeks around the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The question here is what is the actual TRUTH of the matter—not what is anyone's "narrative," but the actual character of reality. In other words, what has actually happened and is continuing to happen... what dynamics have driven and continue to drive forward the oppression of Black people as a people, and the struggle against that oppression... and what must be done about it.

George Zimmerman's cold-blooded murder of Trayvon Martin, and his subsequent acquittal, forced this question to the forefront of American consciousness. Millions, tens of millions, were asking WHY. Why did George Zimmerman feel empowered to murder Trayvon Martin, and why did the police not even initially charge him, test him for drugs, etc.—but instead treated Trayvon as trash, as less than nothing, not even telling his father until the next day? Why was Trayvon slandered in the media? Why did the jury acquit Zimmerman? Why did people feel this as such a punch in the gut? What did this have to do with how Black people, and other minority people, have to manage and navigate every single day of their lives? And what did it have to do with other controversial issues—like the New York Police Department's apartheid-style stop-and-frisk assaults on Black and Latino males of all ages, or the closing of ghetto schools in Chicago and Philadelphia, or the fact that prisoners in California were driven to undertake a massive hunger strike to protest their conditions? What about the foreclosures unequally visited on people of color, the predatory lending (legal loan-sharking, really), the massive evictions of Black women? Is this even going to be recognized? And if it is, how is it to be understood... and acted on? Where does it come from? What must be done about it?

This struggle has been and is three-sided.

On one side are the unapologetic and unrepentant white supremacists, puffed up and on the offensive. At the beginning of the summer, the Supreme Court issued a number of reactionary, racist decisions. These included a decision overturning the heart of the Voting Rights Act. This law, which was forced from the system in 1965 as a result of the blood and sacrifice of thousands of people, required the federal government to make sure that Black people, especially in the South, would be guaranteed the right to vote. This basic right had been denied people for decades long after the Civil War had supposedly settled this; those who attempted to exercise this right were hounded, fired from work, beaten and often lynched. But now, claimed the Court, this was no longer needed; one justice, Antonin Scalia, went so far as to say this amounted to a special "entitlement" for Black people. No sooner had the Court overturned this part of the Voting Rights Act than a number of states—North and South—passed laws which will have the effect of in fact denying the right to vote to African-Americans, Latinos, and other oppressed nationalities.

We've already spoken about the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. And it was not only the verdict, but the way in which the rulers of this country unleashed the braying pack of white supremacist wolves who howled through the course of, and after, the trial. These weren't just a few people off in the sticks somewhere; we're talking about many of the major "expert commentators" on CNN and, of course, Fox News. In the huge debate that this trial set off about the whole history of this country, Rush Limbaugh said that "If any race of people should not have guilt about slavery, it's Caucasians." This is the analysis, if you want to call it that, that is being proffered by the fascist wing of the ruling class. It has no connection to the truth whatsoever, and it is justification for the worst horrors and oppression.

The fact that no prominent Republicans attended the commemoration of the March on Washington—and this includes the "moderate" and "sensible" ones like George Bush I and II, who along with Jeb Bush, John McCain, and House Speaker John Boehner were all invited—also speaks volumes as to how this wing of the ruling class sees Black people.

As Bob Avakian pointed out in "Unresolved Contradictions, Driving Forces for Revolution," one of the essential elements that these (mainly Republican) politicians are building up and unleashing is "the sense of white male American entitlement." These forces see that, in the face of major global changes and challenges, and major upheavals in the ways in which people have lived in this country for many decades, the social fabric and belief of people in the "American way of life" is fraying; and this open celebration of white male entitlement is a critical part of their program for knitting American society back together. They are on a mission around this, and they are unapologetic.

The World According to Barack Obama

Then there is what is represented by those affiliated with the Democratic Party. In a number of speeches, rallies, commemorations, and cultural works, these forces have set forth a different analysis. In their view, there may remain problems; but the answer to those problems is to be found within the workings of this system.

This was laid out in Barack Obama's August 28 speech celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. While there may be shades of difference between how Obama put things forward and how others holding this view do, none of them fundamentally disagree with the viewpoint Obama put forward on that occasion. So let's dig into Obama's speech.

In Obama's analysis, the "injustice" (the strongest word he used) of Black people's condition in America flowed out of a failure to live up to the "truths" set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Further, he argued, the essential character of the movement that won civil rights for Black people was its nonviolent character—its refusal to "lash out in anger," its reliance on "[prayer] for their tormentors," and "willingly [going to] jail to protest unjust laws." In Obama's analysis, the international influence of this struggle was limited to "the other side of the Iron Curtain" and South Africa. And anyone who dismisses "the magnitude of this progress," or suggests, "as some sometimes do, that little has changed ... dishonors the courage and the sacrifice of those who paid the price to march in those years."

Obama also has harsh words for a different trend in that struggle for freedom. He stated:

[I]f we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way. The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots. Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support—as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

All of that history is how progress stalled. That's how hope was diverted. It's how our country remained divided.

Obama then went on to discuss remaining problems—but principally in the economic sphere. But what about the massive incarceration of Black people (nearly 10 times greater now than it was 50 years ago!) and everything that has meant to millions and millions of African-American, Latino, Native American Indian, and other oppressed-nationality people? What about the outrageous vindication of racial profiling and lynch-style racial murder concentrated in the verdict on Trayvon Martin and the police abuse and brutality concentrated in stop-and-frisk and other forms of racial profiling, and the outright police murder that goes on over and over again? What about the ways in which the whole criminal justice system is saturated with white supremacy? And what about the New Jim Crow that is concentrated in all this—that is, the way in which this is just as systematic as the 100-year reign of segregation and Ku Klux Klan terror in the South?

In the world laid out in this speech, these horrors barely even merit the most glancing mention. In fact, the only times these are even obliquely referred to is when Obama says that we must ensure "that the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails." As if everything is basically okay, but we just have to work a little harder to ensure things are working right—the way they're supposed to. When, in fact, these institutions have worked the way they've always worked and the way they have been designed to work. The real state of Black America today was not confronted; it was in effect papered over. And the fact that Black people are still an oppressed people, after all these decades and centuries—this was not even papered over: it was outright denied (as we will show).

But let's go on. Obama mentions the need for "vigilance" but not struggle. He ends his speech in a call for people to have empathy for others, "to join together with others in a spirit of brotherhood," and to continue to work hard to scrape by. Rather than fight against the devastating cutbacks in education in cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, now wreaking further havoc on Black and Latino children, Obama cites the teacher who works overtime and pays for the school supplies; rather than fight against mass incarceration, Obama cites the "successful businessman who ... offers a shot to a man, maybe an ex-con who is down on his luck." And so on. In other words: this is a very passive, very individual, and non-collective, form of "vigilance."

The analysis expressed in this speech of Obama's has been pounded out far more broadly than Obama himself. This has run through most of the coverage of the anniversary in the mainstream press. It has found expression in the culture (and we will continue to speak to all of this in depth in the weeks to come).

It is profoundly wrong and it is deeply dangerous.

The Real Truth

In this situation, there are some who are in fact fighting against the lies. There is the statement released by Carl Dix, on the very night of the speech, telling the truth about this speech, and pointing people toward revolution. And there have been other voices as well, insisting on important truths, including Cornel West, who has called out Obama's worldwide marauding and criminality and taken this to every venue he can find.

This trend of truth-telling in the face of the outright lies of the Antonin Scalias and Rush Limbaughs of the world, and narcotic lies being pushed by Obama and the Democrats, must continue. This is not to say that there is total unity among all these forces—there are differences over the source of the problem, and the solution, among other things. But there is a very important point at the same time of insisting on a) the historic and systemic character to the oppression of Black people, and b) the fact that Obama is covering this over, in the service of a very ugly program. In that light, and in the spirit of digging down to the most basic bedrock truths, a few further points must be made on this speech.^*

First, in continuing to locate—and confine—the struggle of Black people in the framework of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Obama once again conveniently omits that that Declaration cited as one of its chief grievances its allegation that King George III had incited slave rebellions! Obama conveniently ignores that the fundamental bargain of the Constitution was to enable the continued flourishing and expansion of slavery, which was at that point the foundation and bulwark of the wealth and power of the American state that was coming into being. And it was only when that expansion ran into the interests of the rising capitalists of the North that the Civil War erupted—with the objective of Lincoln and the North not, at first, being the abolition of slavery, but its confinement to the slave states. Only when it became clear that the South would settle for nothing less than slavery's expansion and that the North would need to both strike at the heart of Southern strength (the enslavement of Black people) and mobilize the entire population for total war in order to win... only then did Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation. This is not a "narrative"—this is the actual truth of the matter, the actual essence of the situation, and we invite any who insist otherwise to send us your argument. (And if you agree, and want to add to this point, you should also send your contributions!) But by framing the struggle against the oppression of (oh, sorry, the "injustice" against) the African-American people in the context of "realizing the American dream," Obama leads people back into the same killing confines of the past 240 years.

Second, Obama would have us believe that the gains that were won in the struggle for the rights of Black people were totally due to nonviolent action. In fact, there was a whole section of the movement, including in the South, which fully understood the need for self-defense. This included Robert Williams, in Monroe, N.C., who organized armed defense of the Black community against the KKK in the late '50s; the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Louisiana; as well as many other individual organizers who gave as good as they got against the cowardly night-riding terrorists of the Klan throughout the South. It is true that up through early 1965, the mainstream of the movement agreed to utilize nonviolent tactics in demonstrations and other actions, but by the latter part of that year increasing numbers had broken with that approach.

Moreover, contrary to Obama, the urban rebellions—which he calls "riots"—that broke out in hundreds of American cities, beginning in the early '60s and then picking up tremendous momentum in the late '60s, were tremendously liberating. Let's be clear: fighting back is not bad; fighting back is good, very good, and fighting back is a very necessary part of emancipation. The fact that many forces—including Malcolm X, the Student Nonviolent  Coordinating Committee (which essentially broke with nonviolence in the mid-'60s after paying a tremendous cost with their own lives), and in particular the Black Panther Party—not only upheld fighting back but (even more essentially) began to see the American system itself NOT as the potential savior of Black people but as the chief obstacle to liberation and, in the case of the Panthers, began to actively promote the goal of revolution—this was GOOD. The fact that these forces looked to and promoted revolutions all over the world—revolutions aimed against U.S., European, and Japanese imperialism—this was GOOD.

This leads to a telling omission on Obama's part. He notes that this movement influenced the masses of Black people in South Africa, and claims that it played a role in the struggle against oppressive phony communist regimes of Eastern Europe... but he fails to note how the rest of the world, most of which saw U.S. imperialism as their enemy, welcomed and drew inspiration from the powerful uprisings that rocked America—from Latin America and Africa to the Middle East, from Vietnam to Europe, reaching into China itself, where the leader of the Chinese revolution and the (at that time) socialist state of China embraced this struggle and issued powerful statements in support! (See "Statement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression" [April 16, 1968].)

In fact, the whole way in which the Black liberation struggle arose was very deeply connected to what was going on all over the world. On the one hand, the glaring outrages being committed against Black people in the South petitioning for the most basic of rights gave the lie to the American attempt to posture all over the world as the promoter of freedom. This need for America not to "look bad in front of the rest of the world" created openings that people fighting against the oppression of Black people were able to seize. On the other hand, the wave of national liberation struggles all over the world—peoples rising up in Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, and elsewhere against the system of colonialism and neo-colonialism—inspired people all over the world AND in this country. Very important in that was the example of China—where the Communist Party of China, led by Mao Tsetung, had led the Chinese people to not only win liberation but begin constructing socialism. All this was part of the emergence of a revolutionary trend in this struggle, beginning in the early '60s and reaching its peak with the Black Panther Party in the latter half of that decade.

In refuting this part of Obama's speech, Carl Dix trenchantly points out that:

People didn't lose their way in the '60s: In fact, they were beginning to find their way, coming to see that the horrors they were up against were built into the very fabric of this set-up and couldn't be reformed away. But they were met with vicious repression—leaders assassinated, activists dragged into court on trumped-up charges, and railroaded off to prison and more. In the face of all that, the movement of that period wasn't able to develop the understanding needed to do what was needed: make revolution and end the horrors Amerikkka enforced on humanity then and continues to enforce today.

Again, this is not "our narrative," nor just one opinion among many—either what is said is true or it is not. If you think it is not, we challenge you—we invite you—to tell us where we're wrong. And, again, if you agree or have more to add—let us know that too!

The Current Conditions and the Current Challenges

Then there is Obama's reading of history since the 1960s. Obama cannot outright or entirely deny the grossly unequal conditions of Black people and, in a more general sense, the tremendous inequality that has exploded in America over the past four decades, affecting people of all nationalities. And he focuses much of his speech on this.

Obama mentions the basic economic inequality that continues to dog Black people 50 years after the March for Jobs and Justice—he even brings in some important facts on this at one point—but he obscures the essence of this, and he locates the solution to this inequality exactly where it should not be: within the framework of capitalism itself. While we cannot in this article go deeply into this, and we have spoken to this elsewhere in much more depth, it is the capitalist system itself—its needs and demands—which at every stage has conditioned the different forms of exploitation of Black people.

First there was slavery—the original reason that the African-American people were kidnapped and dragged to these shores, often being murdered in the process. Then there was the century of open Jim Crow segregation, denial of fundamental rights, and lynch-mob terror—built up on the foundation of share-cropping in the South (a form of primitive agriculture in which farmers were tied to the land and constantly in debt, while landlords exploited and plundered their labor). The accumulation on the backs of these farmers was part of enabling the U.S. to spread its tentacles all over the world. Then there was the Great Migration—the massive influx of Black people into the cities to fill the capitalists' need for industrial labor, in the dirtiest, most dangerous and worst-paying jobs. And now we are in a place where capital can no longer profitably exploit the masses of Black people in the same way and, in a very real sense, "has no place and no future" for the millions and millions of African-American, Latino, and other oppressed-nationality youths trapped in the decaying inner cities. This change in the basic economic relations in the society, along with political and cultural steps taken by the rulers of America to deal with and turn back the ways in which revolution had gotten a real following in the '60s, all fed into and helped give rise to the spread of the drug trade, the criminalization of whole generations, the degradation of people, and the incarceration of literally millions of people.

THIS basic fact—the foundational, bred-in-the-bone connection between capitalism and white supremacy—is why the oppression of the African-American people is so knitted into the workings of this society and so fundamental to the system itself. That is, it is deeply embedded not only in the politics and culture and thinking of the people in this country, but also and fundamentally in the bedrock foundational economic relations as well, and this is the root of the problem. And for just this reason it will take a thorough-going revolution, a communist revolution, to get rid of it.

THIS fact of white supremacy being so deeply embedded in the economic, political, and cultural fabric of the USA is the principal cause that has given rise to what Michelle Alexander has very insightfully analyzed as the NEW JIM CROW: the cynical use of the "war on drugs" to develop a whole system of mass criminalization, mass imprisonment, massive denial of rights to those who have been imprisoned, a school-to-prison pipeline. This is now so pervasive that there are more Black men in prison in U.S. prisons today than were held in slavery in 1850. This is now so pervasive that it is right to equate this, as Alexander does, with the whole 100-year regime of segregation and naked lynch-mob terror, which stretched into and dominated every sphere of African-American life. And, again, anyone who wishes to dispute this: write to us and make your argument; or, if you agree, share your thinking.

Yes, Obama mentions in his speech the need to ensure that "the scales of justice work equally for all and the criminal justice system and is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails"—but a) this hardly even begins to capture the massive, pervasive phenomenon we are describing, b) does not mention that it will take a titanic struggle to even begin to reverse this New Jim Crow, and c) thus serves to minimize this.

Obama describes how the "twin forces of technology and global competition"—that is to say, breakneck, profit-above-all capitalist expansion—have eroded and in many cases destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people in this country, of all nationalities. But this fact, and the measures he describes that accompanied it, did not "violate sound economic principles" (as he claims)—these measures were implementations of capitalist economic requirements, and that is why every president, Republican or Democrat, including Obama himself, has done everything they could to speed all this along! Obama calls on people to "stand together" for good jobs and wages, health care, better education, and so on—but these are feel-good phrases devoid of content. In actual fact, it will take tremendous struggle—tremendous upheaval, with great sacrifice—AGAINST the powers-that-be in order to even begin to reverse this disaster and prevent an even worse calamity: the transformation of this slow genocide into a fast one.

And it will take communist revolution—against this whole economic and political system—to actually rid the world of American white supremacy, and bring in a new day of genuine emancipation for all of humanity.

Obama's Outright Disgusting Pandering to Racism

There is particular importance to one part of Obama's speech that we quoted above, so we'll quote it again here:

The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots. Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination. And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support—as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

All of that history is how progress stalled. That's how hope was diverted. It's how our country remained divided.

We've already spoken about the so-called "self-defeating riots," which were actually righteous rebellions against centuries of injustice and abuse. But let's look at the rest of this, which in some ways is the most mendacious, lying, and disgusting part of the whole speech, and let's break it down—because it's full of signifying and slipperiness.

First, what is "language of recrimination" being referred to here? Is he talking about Black people and other oppressed nationalities speaking bitterness about the real lived experience of America, and radical and revolutionary intellectuals analyzing the systematic character of white supremacy in America? Or is he talking about people like Bill Cosby—and like Obama himself—who claim that the main problem facing Black people in this country is that they make too many excuses? Or is it the racism of not just the Tea Party mob, but revered figures like Ronald Reagan—whom Obama himself consistently upholds and praises and who began his 1980 campaign for president by visiting the Mississippi town where the civil rights organizers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman were murdered, saying not a word about that crime and upholding "States' rights"—the code word, then and now, for outright racist terror?

From the context of the speech and the whole thrust of this very key paragraph within it, the answer is clear. Obama is once again equating truth-telling about America with "recriminations"—and blaming those who have been subjugated by America for their own oppression.

Then let's look at this: "what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support—as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself." We'll speak shortly to Obama's equation of liberation with the chance to "work hard and get ahead." But again, who is Obama talking about here? And what planet is he on? He presumably knows from his much-ballyhooed experience as a "community organizer" the constant exhausting battles that people in poverty must wage to stay above water. He must know how they must choose between paying for heat or paying for food, how they are hassled and insulted and hung up for hours in waiting rooms and station-houses, how they are abused at every turn, and how they all too often face the choice between leaving your kids at home with no supervision or losing your job—and then losing your kids when the agencies claim you're not a fit parent, and all the rest. If Obama is talking about Black and other oppressed peoples here—and it is clear from the context that he is, even if he doesn't come right out and make it clear—this is not only the worst kind of bullshit lie; it is a vicious racist myth being given voice and legitimacy by the highest-ranking Black politician in the country.

And what about the other racist myth here that Obama lends credence to: that Black people somehow get or at least demand special treatment ("mere desire for government support")? On even a basic level, the reverse is true. In fact, not only does the state dedicate its whole being to serving the economic and political interests of major blocs of capital in this country, the major industries, big agribusiness, and all the other major monopolies, many of these forces also get all kinds of direct subsidies to boot. More fundamentally, though, let's ask this question: who owes whom? If America ever were to "pay back" for the centuries of plunder, exploitation and horror that Black and other oppressed-nationality peoples were subjected to—there would not be a bill large enough to comprehend the level of restitution that would be anything close to "fair."

And then the conclusion: "All of that history is how progress stalled. That's how hope was diverted. It's how our country remained divided." To be fair here, directly before these paragraphs Obama also cites a few other reasons (growing income inequality, divisions among the politicians, etc.) for "the stalling of progress," etc. But this comes as the punch line to the whole preceding paragraph, which is nothing but "red meat" tossed out to the racists.

What's the truth about "how progress stalled"? First of all, the whole way this is framed is wrong and it gets you thinking in the wrong terms. It's as if there was this steady, peaceful progress and then suddenly... uh oh, it stalled. NO! "Progress" didn't "stall"—the struggle of the people, which had grown increasingly powerful and more revolutionary, overcoming tremendous vicious repression, ran up against a vicious, all-sided program of counter-revolutionary suppression that it was not able to overcome. The truth is that this government had a special program (COINTELPRO), carried out by the FBI, designed to suppress the Black liberation movement, planting informers and agents, spying on them, carrying out slander campaigns, fomenting violence between groups, and much more—including the outright assassinations of a number of important leaders. And while the movement of the time was confronting and grappling with real limitations in understanding and strategy, as well as other problems, this government program of assassinations, intrigue and deception played no small part in its ebbing. The truth is that simultaneously a narrow slice of African-American people were given some opportunities formerly denied them, but that this was then used to spread illusions and to build up a "buffer." The truth is that beginning with Richard Nixon, and picking up tremendous momentum with Reagan and Bill Clinton, the program of massive incarceration earlier described was designed and carried out to contain those in the ghettos and barrios for whom there would be no "ladder" out—so that today one out of nine Black men between 20 and 34 is in prison. In short, the truth is that the revolutionary movement of the late '60s and early '70s, despite heroic struggle and tremendous achievements, was not able to go all the way, and because it didn't, the system adjusted and came back even more vengeful than before.

Why Did Obama Even Say Anything?

Barack Obama famously hates to say anything about the oppression of Black people. Yet this summer he has begun to say a few things—this has included his second set of remarks on Trayvon Martin (nearly a week after the verdict), some proposals by his attorney general that may mitigate some of the worst excesses of the war on drugs, and now this speech. It is very likely that he would have made some sort of remarks in any case, but it is not at all clear that it would have been given anything like the emphasis he gave it before the events of this summer.

Why is this so? NOT because his second term is now letting him show his "true colors," NOT because of "his legacy," or any other such stuff. The fact is that the two events we began with—the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act—rocked millions of people, Black and white. Many who expected the Zimmerman verdict were nevertheless deeply hurt and in some ways stunned by it. These millions who were rocked by the verdict began to raise very basic and huge, huge questions as to what America is really all about. How could this happen? What did this say about our society, and about our system of government? People went into the streets around justice for Trayvon, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. People in their millions awoke—they began to raise questions; they began to talk; they began to become open to different ideas. And all the while, the silence from the first Black president—the man whose election we are told was the "crowning achievement" of the struggles of the 1960s—was deafening. Obama had to speak out, lest he risk losing the allegiance of a whole section of people who otherwise look to him and whom he is in charge of keeping penned into the killing confines of this Democrat-Republican game.

Here it's important to return to the analysis of Bob Avakian, concentrated in "Elections, Resistance, and Revolution: The Pyramid of Power and the Struggle to Turn This Whole Thing Upside Down," from a question/answer session in 2003, and returned to over the years, including in the piece we cited at the beginning of this article [Unresolved Contradictions, Driving Forces for Revolution]. This analysis draws an analogy to a pyramid; as Avakian says,

At the top of this pyramid are the people that rule this society and in particular you've got those that are represented by the Democratic Party on the one hand and the Republican Party on the other. And there is struggle between them...

And BA follows this with a very careful analysis of all the ways in which the basically fascist side of this pyramid, as concentrated in the Republican Party, has gone about cultivating power in all the key institutions of U.S. society and developing, to go with this, a fascist social base—people organized, in their millions, around white supremacy, male supremacy, a hatred of science, etc.

BA goes on to discuss the Democrats:

On the other hand, here are the Democrats at the top of this pyramid (on the so-called "left"). Who are the people that they try to appeal to—not that the Democrats represent their interests, but who are the people that the Democrats try to appeal to at the base, on the other side of this pyramid, so to speak? All the people who stand for progressive kinds of things, all the people who are oppressed in this society. For the Democrats, a big part of their role is to keep all those people confined within the bourgeois, the mainstream, electoral process...and to get them back into it when they have drifted away from—or broken out of—that framework. Because those people at the base are always alienated and angry at what happens with the elections, for the reason I was talking about earlier: they are always betrayed by the Democratic Party, which talks about "the little man" and poor people and the people who are discriminated against, and so on. And at times they'll even use the word oppression. But then they just sell out these people every time—because they don't represent their interests. They represent the interests of the system and of its ruling class. But they have a certain role of always trying to get people who are oppressed, alienated and angry back into the elections. You know: "Come on in, come on in- -it's not as bad as you think, you can vote, it's OK." This is one of the main roles they play. But the thing about them is that they are very afraid of calling into the streets this base of people that they appeal to, to vote for them. The last thing in the world they want to do is to call these masses of people into the streets to protest or to battle against this right-wing force that's being built up.

With Obama, this has reached an important point. Obama did in fact do what is described above—his election served to pacify people who should have been, and still should be, out in the streets. Obama implemented very much the same program as George W. Bush had—and in some cases, worse—and essentially escaped any protest whatsoever. But with the mounting outrages of the spring and summer—as concentrated in the Zimmerman verdict, but not in that alone—there was a tremendous restiveness and questioning among people. Obama's role is to both recognize this—and to redefine and derail it, to take people out of the streets and back into the confines of the elections and everything that represents.

The Real Liberating Thing? This Shit Is Not All There Is

The question before us is why we should allow ourselves to be confined within the mental prison bars of this political and economic system. We showed above how it is capitalism and its requirements that has driven the different stages of white supremacy and oppression in this country. But this is not necessary. There is a different way that is possible.

The RCP, USA has published the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (Draft Proposal) for a revolutionary state that would set about uprooting the sources of this oppression and put in place institutions through which the centuries of that oppression could be overcome. More than that, this is part of a whole liberating vision—and concrete structure—that could enable masses of people to set about uprooting oppression and inequality in every sphere of life, and bringing into being a vibrant, sustainable society in which people could at last, in their millions and billions, begin to flourish. We have written about this elsewhere, but even beyond those articles, if you really care about getting out of this madness you need to get into this. We challenge anyone to compare and contrast this with the U.S. Constitution, and tell us which one can serve as a framework for liberation; and, again, we challenge those who have been moved by this Constitution to also write us, and to get this out to others.

The RCP, USA has published a statement, "On the Strategy for Revolution," which shows how we can get from the situation today—where revolution does not have many followers and a revolution is not possible—into one where it would be... and what we need to be doing today to get there. It shows exactly how major events like the outrage around the murder of Trayvon Martin can serve a whole process of bringing about a situation in which there IS a revolutionary people numbering in their millions, and in which a revolution COULD be made... and it lays out how to prepare for, and bring closer, that situation.

The RCP, USA has a leader, Bob Avakian, who has led in developing this strategy and this vision of a whole new society, as part of summing up the whole first stage of communist revolution, as well as developments in other spheres, and who as part of all this has developed a body of work and method and approach on all this for people to get into. It has a leader who grew up in and came out of the massive struggles of the 1960s and has not only refused to give up but has drawn deeply on the lessons of that period—where the movement had made great accomplishments, and where it had run into problems it couldn't solve and limitations that it didn't overcome—and he's taken things further. This not about hope as an empty slogan, but hope on a solid scientific foundation.

There is a movement for revolution, which this Party is building. And there is the possibility of real upheaval coming—neither wing of this ruling class has real answers that will mean anything but misery and madness on a scale not yet seen the longer this drags on. We do not have to choose—we MUST not choose—between them. In fact, as BA says toward the conclusion of the 2003 "Pyramid of Power" article, "There is going to be a tremendous tug and pull on this huge body of people [those whom the Democrats, and today Obama, attempt to appeal to and mislead]—literally, already, tens of millions of people—who feel this deep gut hatred for what's going on." We need to wage that struggle. We need, right now, to all fearlessly fight for the truth about this system and its history; and we need, right now, to dig into the truth about what it will take to get to the whole new world that people urgently need. And we need to do it on the most liberating basis there is: communist revolution, as re-envisioned in Bob Avakian's new synthesis of communism.

 

* There may be nuances of difference between Obama and someone like Al Sharpton. Sharpton may sound a little more militant in some of what he says. But Sharpton, and others like him, did not criticize Obama's speech and everything they do is designed to build support for Obama. The militance is designed to suck people in. [back]

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/taking-on-the-anti-abortion-siege-in-alburquerque-NM-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Taking On the Anti-Abortion Siege in Albuquerque, New Mexico

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

Albuquerque, New Mexico has become a national focal point in the struggle over abortion rights in this country because it is the city where two out of the four doctors left in the country who perform later abortions practice. As described in the piece below, this city was targeted for threatening and woman-hating protest by the fascist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue during mid-August and it will remain the focus of the anti-abortion movement as they work to close these abortion providers down. Albuquerque was also one of the final stops on the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride, a month-long caravan that traveled from both coasts and down the middle of the country to stand up for abortion rights this past summer. The following was written by a member of a Revolution Club and Abortion Rights Freedom Rider.

 

The Abortion Rights Freedom Ride was happy to be invited to a rally on August 20 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to denounce the anti-abortion organization "Operation Rescue" as terrorists. The organizers put this rally together in six days, after Operation Rescue descended on their town: circulating "Wanted Poster"-style postcards complete with abortion doctors' faces and home addresses, terrorizing the Holocaust and Intolerance Museum and demanding they install an exhibit on the "abortion holocaust," hanging baby dolls from lampposts, and screaming "murderer!" outside the clinic, the homes of providers, and other local pro-choice medical facilities. This nightmare week was part of a push led by Operation Rescue to pass a bill to ban abortion in Albuquerque after a woman reaches 20 weeks of pregnancy. Albuquerque is the only city in the state with abortion clinics, and is home to two of the four doctors in the whole nation who openly provide late-term abortions to women who need them.

Here is some important history about Operation Rescue, and their murderous intentions when it comes to the targeting of late-term abortion providers. In 2006, Troy Newman, leader of Operation Rescue, said about their focus on passing restrictions in Kansas, "We also want to give the women driving up from Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma about 2½ hours to think about what they're doing, and maybe change their minds." Then, in 2009, the murder of Dr. George Tiller in his church in Wichita, Kansas sent a clear and chilling message to abortion providers that provide women with the opportunity to end their pregnancy at any point (a.k.a. "late term" abortion). Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion gunman who murdered Dr. Tiller, had gotten Tiller's home address as well as the address of his church from Cheryl Sullenger, the Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue. Sullenger served two years in prison for attempting to bomb an abortion clinic!

The anti-abortion siege on Albuquerque, and the targeting of late-term abortion providers, is part of a long-term and nationwide strategy for Operation Rescue to create "States of Refuge," meaning states with absolutely no access to abortion: where no woman can decide when and whether she becomes a mother, without great cost, traveling long distances, being subjected to threats and harassment and stigma, or resorting to dangerous illegal methods. This is nothing short of a misogynist, fascist, and patriarchal program. This returns women to where they were for thousands of years, until only very recently: in a subordinate position, enslaved to their reproductive organs, and locked into subhuman status, as incubators who don't even dare to dream or aspire to be the leaders, fighters, or thinkers they could be if they lived in a society that upheld and reinforced their full humanity.

Many of the organizers of the protest against Operation Rescue were thrilled to hear we were coming and asked us to bring all our "Abortion On Demand and Without Apology!" signs. But when we arrived, there were other ideas from different pro-choice forces about what could and should be said out loud.

At the protest, we were immediately met by two women wearing purple shirts that said, "Pro-child, Pro-family, Pro-choice." They told us sternly that we needed to take down the beautiful and bold banner which read "Abortion On Demand and Without Apology!" because it was not "on message." They explained to us, with a rigid condescension, that they had conducted polls, and done research, and concluded that the people of Albuquerque were "not ready" to hear "Abortion On Demand and Without Apology!" These women insisted instead that the message "Respect Albuquerque Women" was most likely to get people to vote against the 20-week ban on abortion. They invited us to hold signs that said, "Pro-family, Pro-child, Pro-choice" explaining that many voters did not believe in abortion, so they were focusing on Operation Rescue's tactics instead of their goals, calling them "outsider extremists" (instead of, for example, Christian fascists or woman-haters), and leaving the word "abortion" out of the picture!

We asked them bluntly: "If you don't agree with 'Abortion On Demand and Without Apology', then which women do you feel should be denied abortions and forced to have children against their will and which women do you think should be made to feel ashamed for their abortions?" They insisted they personally agreed with the slogan, but were sure that nobody else in Albuquerque would.

This is wrong on many levels, as we explained on the spot.

First, it is wrong to refuse to say out loud, stand behind, and fight for a just demand.

Second, people are always wrong when they start talking about what "everybody but them" is able to understand. Many people have not even heard this argument, and need to. And yes, many will think—as these women did—that this is "too extreme," but it is not too extreme. There really are two choices, forced motherhood or women's liberation which requires abortion on demand, and de-stigmatized. What is actually needed to win this fight is to change backward and defensive thinking, not accommodate to it. If you want abortion to be de-stigmatized, you have to stop stigmatizing it yourself! It is not "murder" as the anti-abortion movement says, it is not "a tragic choice" as the Clintons insisted, it is not a dirty word. So let's say it out loud!

Third, this is not just something that is needed in Albuquerque, but across the nation.

Compare and contrast with "Pro-child, Pro-family, Pro-choice." That slogan actually accepts the terms of the anti-abortion movement, accepting that somehow this fight is about babies and that we have to prove that we love babies and we love families. In reality, this has never been about babies, it has always been about control over women and this slogan leaves the woman out of it. Abortion rights are essential because without them women cannot act as full human beings with control over their bodies and their destinies. This is why this right is under attack and this is why we must defend it. But the slogan "Pro-child, Pro-family, Pro-choice" actively reinforces the same horrible notion that women and women's rights should be valued only in order to benefit children and families—once again keeping women's worth and value locked within, and subjugated to, their role as breeders and domestics. Having children and being part of a family—if that family is forged on the basis of mutual respect and equality, which in this society requires continuous struggle and active desire on all parts—can be wonderful parts of being fully human, which women and men should both be able to experience and have responsibility for fostering. However, being stripped of the rest of your humanity and reduced to these roles (or having your rights defended only to the degree that they strengthen these roles) is enslaving and dehumanizing to women. It's not that everyone who raises this "Pro-child, Pro-family, Pro-choice" slogan feels this way, but this is the logic of the slogan and as such it does not set the needed terms for people to understand what this fight is all about, and it doesn't challenge or change decades of wrong thinking in such a way that people can take conscious initiative in fighting for these rights.

But, after we explained these arguments, these two women responded in a way that has happened far too often, and is very revealing: rather than either making an argument as to why they disagreed with putting this message out and challenging people's thinking, or coming around to uphold this—these two women changed the subject to something that is completely irrelevant, and actually totally contrary to what is needed. In other words, they fell back on petty localism: "WE are the ones that live here," they said. "WE are the ones that will be affected by this 20-week ban, WE know what the locals want, and YOU are outsiders too," implying that we are like Operation Rescue! We told them sharply, "Operation Rescue is about the enslavement of women, and we are about the liberation of women, what are you about?" Further, we posed the stark reality that the reason Albuquerque was being targeted by Operation Rescue in the first place is because the anti-abortion movement is working on a national strategy. When the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride visited Operation Rescue's national office in Wichita, they had a map of the whole country, and had pinpointed clinics and providers who they were focusing their attacks on. They targeted this city in order to shut down 50 percent of the late term abortion providers that women all over the country have to rely on. Even on that level—this is definitely NOT of only local concern!

Furthermore, what kind of logic says that women in Albuquerque are incapable of or are not "ready" for liberation? Arguing to shelter your town from the truth, to hide the full humanity of women from your town, and to cover over the fact that abortion is moral, responsible, and the ability to get one is essential, in fear of shaking things up too much? There are modes of thinking and being that desperately need to be shaken up, and actually the oppression of women needs to be shattered to its core. Don't tell women anywhere that's "not for you"!

The truth is, there is a real need for everyone who cares about the liberation of women to throw off these watered down slogans and these apologetic approaches. The anti-abortion movement is a national movement with a national strategy. What happens on the national stage, who is on the political and moral offensive and who is on the defensive nationally as a movement, affects what happens in your town, too. Not only do these organizational leaders have an obligation to confront this reality—really grapple with what it will take to end the attacks on abortion, and to stop leading people into a dead end with their losing strategies—but actually, the responsibility is on every single one of us, whether this or that leader casts off these wrong approaches or not. We all must resist the pulls to "lay low" and wait for these horrendous attacks to "blow over," or be satisfied with "small victories."

We all must confront reality: abortion rights are at a crossroads, right now. Down one path is forced motherhood and female enslavement, and down the other, is abortion on demand and without apology. It is possible to wage a fierce struggle and win this whole battle, but if we do nothing, the future is clear. The wrong side is winning. The anti-abortion movement is uncompromising, unapologetic, and they claim the moral high ground. All of us who are fighting for reproductive rights are the ones who stand for women's lives, women's futures, and women's liberation. We are the ones that have right on our side—and we must reclaim the moral high ground!

The response of these "pro-choice organizers," who we were later told were with Planned Parenthood locally, was that they plan to set a legal precedent nationally, that if the pro-choice community in Albuquerque stays "on message" (because directly talking about abortion was "distracting") it will set a precedent and make it impossible for Operation Rescue to do this anywhere else. We called bullshit! We responded, you know they did this in Wichita, right? They moved their missionaries and their national office out there, held their "Summers of Mercy," terrorized the town, circulated home addresses of providers, isolated and threatened and demonized the clinic, until Dr. Tiller was murdered!

Beating back this one restriction is important, but doing it on such a morally flimsy basis is going to do absolutely nothing on the national level! If you cede the moral high ground, you basically concede to the very untrue notion that this is a debate about babies, that childbearing is the most important and essential aspect of a woman's existence; by refusing to even use the word "abortion," you bury the whole issue deeper into the stigma that has been laid on top of it! We need to rip that stigma off like a dirty old Band-Aid that is holding in a festering infection.

The anti-abortion movement has spent a lot of time, energy, and money setting the terms in this way: Operation Rescue and others wrongly claim that women who decide not to be mothers are irresponsible. As if a woman's mandated duty and highest aspiration in life should be to bear and raise children. Ultimately, this reduces women to objects, denying the possibility of women being multi-dimensional, complex, and capable—the way men are perceived and represented. In this framework, "male" is human (if you are the right nationality and religion, that is), and "woman" is incubator and housekeeper: slave. Rejecting this whole anti-abortion and ultimately anti-woman framework is necessary if we are going to get to another kind of society, where women are actually liberated, or even to defeat the attacks on abortion rights!

Perhaps in the short term it is true that Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro-choicers in Albuquerque can defeat this initiative and get people "to the polls" without mentioning abortion... and then where do you end up? In Wichita they recently re-opened Dr. Tiller's clinic, but the decades of Operation Rescue's propaganda campaign has taken the option of abortion off the table in the hearts and minds of many. When the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride was in Wichita, we learned about pregnant teens throwing themselves down flights of stairs, or looking to get into a fistfight in the hopes that this would make them miscarry—that is how big the stigma and guilt associated with abortion already is! If people have become convinced that abortion is murder (which it just isn't), then many who do not want to identify as murderers won't even consider it. If those are the terms on which women are "choosing," then "pro-choice" is a very confusing thing to be, and impossible to fight for unapologetically till victory. While opening the new abortion clinic there is tremendously important, there is still no voice that is loudly telling the whole truth about abortion: fetuses are not babies, women are not incubators, and abortion is not murder. What does the absence of that basic truth do for millions of women?

Take as another example of a political move that fails to set different, honest, and liberating terms, or a moral precedent, nation-wide: the situation in Virginia last year with the ultrasound laws. First, a bill was going to be passed that required women considering abortion to go through a mandatory, invasive vaginal ultrasound (nothing short of state-mandated rape), saying that women have the "right to know" what the fetus looks like. Any kind of forced ultrasound under the title "right to know"—this is like saying you have the "right to move" out of your residence, but actually that means you are evicted. After a national uproar, the bill was modified so that the ultra-sound would still happen but not inside the woman's vagina. This new bill passed. This is still horrible—women should not be required to go through an ultrasound if they don't want to! But changing the method by which they are now required to look at the fetus (while whoever is administering the ultrasound is free to narrate and embellish however they please), was considered by many pro-choice people as a great victory precedent! How low are our standards? This is indeed a national precedent, but it is one of shaving off the edge of the latest assault as the bulk of that assault gets hammered into place, and we are all further demobilized as the next even more powerful assault comes... then pro-choice organizations step back and call it progress or victory!

Returning to the rally in Albuquerque: In the end, and still without a solid argument against it, these Planned Parenthood reps took down our banner that said "Abortion On Demand and Without Apology!," hiding this message from the people at the rally and the cameras that projected this rally out to people who weren't there. This action and those like it actually disarm people, in all the ways spoken to already, and contribute to the shame and confusion and defensiveness and passivity of the very broad sections of people that are needed urgently, right now, to have clarity, certitude, and be stirred and organized into the political fight!

The reason why this interaction in Albuquerque is so important to expose and dissect, is that this exact same dynamic, and the pull of the wrong approach, exists in every single area in the nation that is the most under siege. We encountered it all along the route of the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride, and it is the daily reality for people across the nation who are waking up to the larger situation we are in.

Abortion rights are in an utter state of emergency.

1. In 2012 alone, 43 abortion restrictions were enacted in 19 states.
2. In 2013, almost 300 new "TRAP" (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws have flooded the legislatures.
3. Unnecessary ultrasounds, medically unnecessary waiting periods, dangerous parental consent and notification requirements, insurance bans, and state-required biased counseling mandates continue to be advocated for and passed state by state.
4. A growing movement for "Personhood" (giving a zygote—the cell that is formed from a fertilized egg—full constitutional rights) would dehumanize women on the constitutional level and ban abortion federally.
5. 97 percent of rural counties have no abortion provider, and vast stretches of this country are saturated in anti-abortion propaganda, where the question of the woman's life has been completely erased, and three-story high pictures of babies loom on billboards.
6. Right now, five states have only one abortion clinic in the entire state. That is not including some states with more than one provider but only one that offers a payment plan, or states like New Mexico with more than one provider, that are all located in the same city.

This is the reality, and most people have no idea this is even going on. Among those who support the right to abortion, there is a huge amount of defensiveness about it, and this has contributed enormously to people being passive, and often not even recognizing the significance of the many attacks that are coming right now. Among those who are outraged and who have clarity, there is a tremendous amount of isolation and suffocation—people told the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride over and over again that they are really with us but "could never say so" to their friends, family, or co-workers. And then, among those who do have more of the national picture, there is the repeated and widespread desire to duck from the full scope of this, to lay low, to find linguistic or other "common ground" with the opposition, to think only in the short term, to accept the terms that have been set by the likes of Operation Rescue as well as very powerful forces within the halls of power, and to actively suppress—as happened here in Albuquerque—the message and voices of those who will get out there and fight unapologetically for abortion on demand and rally forth a nation-wide movement to rely on ourselves through mass, independent, political resistance.

This whole situation is one we must take the responsibility to change. Every person reading this article—whether you have been an active part of carrying out the wrong approach, whether you have felt stifled and impatient with the kinds of wrong approaches described but haven't seen a way to forge another path that can win, or whether you've been tuned out of this struggle completely until now...

Right now, if you consider yourself a person who stands for what is right, for the rights and lives of women in a world where they are systemically used and abused, it is time to take a stand. It is time to declare boldly to the world that women must have Abortion On Demand and Without Apology and that Forced Motherhood Is Female Enslavement. And it is time to fight for others to come to see this as well, and to act on it through massive resistance in many different ways. Take a stand at your job, at your school, at the clinics, and in the streets. Argue it out with anyone and everyone. Refuse to cede the moral high ground to a movement that promotes slavery in its oldest form, and refuse to follow along even as some remain paralyzed and willing to look the other way as we return to the times when 8,000 women died every year of illegal abortions, and many more didn't ever dream of themselves as anything other than a house slave. Everyone has a responsibility to deal with reality and act accordingly. Otherwise, are we who we say we are? You are not alone, and together we can win. Reach out to StopPatriarchy.org with your stories, ideas, and questions. If we who know or have a hunch that laying low is leading nowhere—and that right now, as you read this, women are being slammed backwards into a codified position of subjugation—do nothing, we will soon awake to a world that is defined by the likes of Operation Rescue and the Old Testament. That is unacceptable, and what's more, it is totally unnecessary! The future is unwritten. Which one we get is up to us.

Abortion On Demand and Without Apology!

StopPatriarchy.org

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/315/celebrating-ba-everywhere-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Celebrating BA Everywhere

September 2, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

Remarks from Sunsara Taylor at a celebration in New York City of a summer of taking out "BA Everywhere—Imagine the Difference It Could Make," and big plans to take the work and leadership of Bob Avakian—a real revolutionary alternative to capitalism—out even further into society. These remarks were made following the viewing of a segment of BA Speaks: REVOLUTION – NOTHING LESS! Bob Avakian Live on August 31st

 

That was BA—the leader of the revolution and the man who has, through many decades of rigorous and tireless work, developed a new synthesis of revolution and communism so that it really is possible in the world today to make revolution, to lift the beast of capitalism-imperialism off the backs of humanity, and to bring into being a socialist society, fighting and contributing to a world where all of humanity is truly emancipated and can fully flourish—that is, genuine communism.

We gather at a time of great peril, tremendous suffering, and great dangers. Just this summer, we have witnessed the vicious and murderous verdict in the George Zimmerman trial—giving a green light to racist vigilantes and police to murder our youth if they are Black or brown, resurrecting and whipping up that deep current in American political life and culture of open and genocidal white supremacy, and reinforcing the whole crushing reality of mass incarceration. Many, in their anger and anguish, have lamented that this really is no different than the murder of Emmett Till some 50+ years ago... or even all that different from the enslavement of Black people for hundreds of years before that. And they are right. So, what is there to celebrate?

Just this summer, we have seen major assaults on women's right to abortion, laws which will close 37 out of 42 abortion clinics in Texas, laws designed to close down the only clinics left in Mississippi and North Dakota, terror and stalking rained down on abortion providers, stigma and hardship piling up on women who seek this right. Abortion is necessary for women to be free; forced motherhood is female enslavement. Yet, women are being slammed back towards the days before Roe v. Wade, when 8,000 women a year died from botched abortions, where all women lived under the terror of having their lives foreclosed by children they didn't want. This, pushing women back into the position they held for centuries—that of breeders of children and property of men. So, what is there to celebrate?

We gather at a time when every day, new studies tell us that the destruction of the environment is happening more rapidly, with bigger repercussions and greater stakes than even the worst predictions had understood. The destruction of the environment, the drilling in the oceans, the fracking of the earth, the poisoning of the water, the melting of the glaciers, all this is happening at an increased pace—even as the denial of this problem and the attacks on science itself are also getting worse. So, what is there to celebrate?

And we gather at a time when the drums of war are beating once again, with the U.S. poised to launch a military attack on Syria any minute—and all this coming on top of the drones and the troops stationed and still carrying out crimes against humanity throughout the Middle East and North Africa. All this after a decade of war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and generations before that of wars and coups and plunder that the U.S. has carried out around the globe. So, what is there to celebrate?

Well, I will tell you.

As opposed to 300 years ago, 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago—today,we actually have what we need to really put an end to this madness. Not just to fight back, not just to complain, not just to tune out or drop out or seek some little space in the corner while all this horror continues. Today, we have the leadership to make the revolution we need. Today, because of the work of BA over decades, the tireless and rigorous work of sifting through the great accomplishments of previous revolutions as well as their shortcomings, of bringing this together with what has been learned and brought forward by others in many other spheres, there is a new synthesis of communism. There is a viable and desirable alternative to the existing world order with all its unending suffering and destruction and degradation and ways it drags people themselves down.

That is something to celebrate!

As you have seen in this film, there is a strategy for making and WINNING a revolution in a country like this—for the masses in their millions to be led to go up against and to defeat the armed enforcers of the old order with all of their might, the most destructive machinery of death and destruction known in history in order to bring into being a new, revolutionary society and state—just think about how tremendously significant that is!

That is something to celebrate!

As you have gotten a taste of this through the excerpt from his memoir [From Ike to Mao and Beyond] and from the segments you have just watched, this is a leader who has given all of his heart, all of his understanding and commitment and creativity and intellectual capacity to the masses of people and to the cause of really breaking through to emancipate humanity. And through this, he not only has forged answers and is actively leading a Party to take up and carry out this strategy; he has set an example to many others of a whole different morality and method and approach to understanding and changing this world.

That is something to celebrate!

As everyone here should dig much more deeply into—he has developed in new and world-historic ways the framework and understanding for how to lead a new revolutionary society so that it is at one and the same time a world that meets the needs of humanity, that serves and advances the world revolution, that prioritizes repairing and caring for the environment, while at the same time bringing forward the most radical transformations in the relations between people—overcoming the long legacy of white supremacy and national oppression, unleashing the ongoing and deepening struggle against every remnant of the oppression of women and the restrictive notions of gender themselves, bringing everyone who has been locked out of the realm of working with ideas and the arts and sciences—and, at the same time, unleashing widespread debate, ferment, and dissent that breaks out in many directions. On the foundation of BA's new synthesis, how this will be concretely carried out starting day one and going forward after a successful revolution is laid out in the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (Draft Proposal)—and all this is something to celebrate!

The truth is, this is what humanity needs more than anything else. All the suffering, all the heartache and heartbreak caused by people's lives cut short or lived in unspeakable hardship and suffering, or from all the ways that this system sets people against each other and gets into the thinking and morality of the people themselves so that they hurt and degrade themselves and each other—all this is completely unnecessary. Further, as BA himself has put it so powerfully, "Those this system has cast off, those it has treated as less than human, can be the backbone and driving force of a fight not only to end their own oppression, but to finally end all oppression, and emancipate all of humanity."

This, and the leadership to make this so, is something to celebrate!

Still, some will hear all this and still get discouraged. They say, "Nice idea, but people are too fucked up." Or people won't even let themselves think about this new synthesis of communism and all its liberatory potential because they think no one else will be into it. I heard this from a woman in North Dakota; after getting into this a bit, I asked her what she thought and she said, "I can't talk about communism, no one is going to listen to me if I do that." She wouldn't even let herself evaluate whether this is true or not because she was so preoccupied with what everyone else will think.

But this is wrong. As BA has put it, "What people think is part of objective reality, but objective reality is not determined by what people think." And both parts of that are very true and very important.

The fact is, BA's new synthesis represents the way out of this madness whether or not anyone agrees with it or even if most people right now aren't even thinking about it. It objectively corresponds to, it correctly diagnoses how the great suffering that I have been describing is rooted in the system of capitalism-imperialism and the kind of revolution that is objectively needed to dig all this up and overcome it once and for all. If you go through the full talk, BA Speaks: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! Bob Avakian Live, or through BAsics, from the talks and writings of Bob Avakian, or through the rest of BA's body of work, which you can find large parts of at revcom.us—you begin to see this. And, just as a scientific approach proved that it was true that the earth went around the sun even when most people still believed that the sun went around the earth, a truly scientific approach will demonstrate that this new synthesis of revolution and communism is what is objectively needed and possible to emancipate humanity. So, regardless of what anyone else thinks just now, this is a tremendous thing and it is truly something to celebrate.

But it's also important to return to the first part of that quote, that what people think is part of objective reality. This thinking of people is also important, because it is the main part of reality that we are fighting to transform—in order to bring people to understand and act on what they are currently ignorant of or even opposed to.

This is what we are doing with the campaign to raise big money to get BA known everywhere, or BA Everywhere—Imagine the Difference It Could Make!

We are actively and aggressively working to transform this situation—so that more and more people who have been lifting their heads to struggle, who so desperately and urgently want change, or those who have kept their heads down because until now they've never seen a possibility for that struggle to go anywhere good, come to understand and relate to and take up the way out of all this madness.

We are doing this through the pages of Revolution newspaper and on the website revcom.us. We have done this through two major van tours which took off from several major cities around the country this summer—connecting people up with BA in the ghettos as well as to some more well-off suburbs and vacation areas. We have done this through showings of the film BA Speaks: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! Bob Avakian Live, in theaters and libraries, on street corners and cafes, in living rooms and homeless shelters and campuses, which thousands of people have watched all or parts of this year. We have taken BA and his Three Strikes quote into the outpourings around Trayvon Martin and at the March on Washington, where thousands have taken them up. We have brought together hundreds of people from all walks of life to contribute funds—and to join in raising funds—to make all of this possible. In the process we have spread BA to thousands and thousands more, and brought together and forged communities that are taking up and grappling with his work and taking part in changing the world.

All this, too, is something to celebrate.

And because the work BA has done and is doing, and the life that he has led and is leading, deals so deeply with the biggest and most pressing problems humanity is facing—questions about human nature, religion, philosophy, science, the arts, as well as politics and revolution and human emancipation—people can relate to this and get into it and be part of spreading it on many different levels.

We have seen this in the artists who see a place for themselves in this revolutionary process and in the revolutionary society—engaging with his concept of solid core with a lot of elasticity. We have seen this in the high school student who explained that after watching BA Speaks: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! she went from thinking that people were just all messed up to seeing that it is a system and the relations between people that this system fosters that keeps people doing each other wrong.

We have seen this in the folks, including Black folks and others on the bottom of society, who get excited that BA is taking on the enslaving role of religion. We see it in the way that some folks, including very oppressed folks, walk off after hearing BA challenge their religious beliefs—knowing this is bringing them something very challenging, something that will continue to circulate in their minds. And we see this in the engagement between folks of the religious tradition—like Cornel West and others—who share a commitment to the wretched of the earth and are willing to go back and forth over where all this comes from and where it must go.

We see this in the way that conversations get serious when people learn that there really is a strategy for revolution and they want to know more.

We see this—and I saw this a lot this summer as I traveled the country with the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride—in the broad smiles and new conversations that open up when people first hear BA's quote about how you cannot break all the chains but one, about the need to fully liberate women and for women to be a driving force in this revolution.

We have seen the way that people's thinking expands, their sights are raised, their deepest questions come out, and new, even bigger questions and ideas get opened up for the first time when they encounter BA. We have seen how not just individuals, but whole groups of people and communities of people start to think about and relate in different ways with each other, and see different things as possible when BA is in the mix.

And we have seen, over and over again, how those who have engaged BA, especially those who engage him and Revolution/revcom.us regularly, act differently and more defiantly and with greater direction and with greater influence when things do sharpen up and struggle breaks out—around the kinds of outrages we have seen this summer, around Trayvon, around abortion, around the environment, wars, and the horrific treatment of immigrants. And we have seen how, in the midst of these struggles, people are especially hungry for and open to BA and everything he represents and how this can help people take things further in the direction they need to go.

All this—and much, much more that still must be summed up and learned from, popularized, and built off of from this summer—is a glimpse of the difference BA Everywhere can make.

And all this is something to celebrate.

Further, I say it is right to celebrate because we are here today with each other, all of us people who refuse to accept that this is the best of all possible worlds, with others who share a commitment—whether it has been deepened over years or whether this is your first time at an event like this—to doing our part to open up a whole new and far better world. Such company and community is worth celebrating. As is the fact that celebrations like this are happening in cities around the country—and we are part of something together with all of them, something that carries the hopes of humanity everywhere.

And, finally, I call for celebration because we have big plans to build on all of this and to take it even further. To draw in the many hundreds we met over the summer, to find ways to involve everyone—big and small—to bring BA and the whole world that he opens up to many thousands, tens of thousands, and millions more. The BA Everywhere local committee has big plans—for a showing of REVOLUTION— NOTHING LESS! up here in Harlem at the Maysles Cinema on September 29, out in New Jersey soon, and other big plans. Check with the BA Everywhere table for the full calendar and to get involved. Find out about and join with big plans to bring this to the campuses, starting this Tuesday and continuing from there. There is something that everyone here can do—whether you have an hour a week or whether you can throw in for days at a time, or something in between. All of us have ideas and understanding to contribute, all of us can get into the content of this more deeply ourselves and share and spread what we are thinking about, all of us know how to reach somebody, or could be part of a team together with others taking this into places we've never been.

At a time when humanity so urgently cries out for fundamental, truly radical, actually revolutionary change—at a time when so many are struggling in the dark and taking up "solutions" that only land them back in the same situation they were yearning to break free from, at a time when the contradictions and crimes of this system are mounting every day with great cost for humanity, let us truly celebrate BA, the revolutionary leader, let us celebrate the campaign to raise big funds to get BA Everywhere and the huge difference this can make, and let us celebrate this gathering as we share in each other's company, step back and more deeply appreciate the truly liberating and uplifting campaign we have come together around, and as we make plans to take this forward and further—and not stop until all of humanity is free.

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/taking-BA-Everywhere-out-to-national-poetry-slam-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Taking BA Everywhere Out to National Poetry Slam

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

I was part of a team of people taking BAE out to the annual National Poetry Slam Competition. It was an intense and engaging week that left us both exhilarated and exhausted, and people on the team felt it worth sharing.

First off, everyone agreed that the poetry itself was just awesome—intense and, at its best, insightful and inspiring. Dozens of teams from around the U.S.—hundreds of poets, women and men of all nationalities, sexual orientations, backgrounds and ages (though overwhelmingly young) coming together to compete but also to share their ideas and embrace a certain sense of community all day long and deep into the night.

And while there is a strong underlying spirit of “friendship first, competition second,” there is also some very significant struggle over the purpose of the art—is it mainly an expression of personal self-realization and empowerment, or does it serve a larger role in challenging conventional norms or unacceptable conditions; is the energy, passion, anguish, anger, and even humor on the stage simply part of the “esthetic” of the art form or an expression of deeper sentiments that correspond to the conditions of life—not simply of one individual but of millions.

Most of the poems were deeply personal in content but at their best were able to transcend the individual circumstances to embrace more universal themes. I remember from opening night a young Black woman having a conversation with various parts of her body, thanking them each in turn for their ability to support her through all the crap she had put them through. By the end she had painted this haunting image of finding her own humanity in a dehumanizing woman-hating culture in a poem which spoke volumes to the conditions of life of women throughout this society and the world.

I was also struck by an older Black man (perhaps the oldest competitor in the event) whose poem associated every stitch of clothing in his meager wardrobe—from T-shirts to belts and socks with a prison or lockup he had spent time in—“those sandals carried me into Angola Prison, this drunken belt held up my pants in a county jail in Fresno...” and later, flipped the script—reconnecting them to every performing stage he had since been on. By the end, the audience had heard the story not just of one Black man from New Orleans but of generations of Black men around the country.

A young gay man from Oklahoma talked about coming out and his compassion for all the other young gay and lesbians facing the “cuts and blows” of a society unwilling to acknowledge, let alone accept them.

Others cut right to the heart of the crimes of imperialism—one of our team members spoke of hearing an amazing solo piece on Guantánamo from the perspective of the water used in waterboarding torture and another controversial piece unmasking Obama (“the Kool-Aid is laced with strychnine”).

So this was the scene over five days—literally thousands of poems being performed, covering every imaginable topic.

It was striking that so many poems spoke to the oppression of Black people—often in extremely visceral and agonizingly explicit terms—the police murders and dehumanizing daily abuse and the anger and alienation. This has led to struggle within the Slam community that spilled out onto the stage, where one poet responded to another’s complaint about there being too many “struggle poems” and scornfully challenging the attitude that we should simply “look up at the sky...how beautiful it is.” Not when you are being brutalized by police on a daily basis, where your dreams are crushed at an early age.

This was so intense at the finals that one older white woman familiar with Revolution Books walked out. She later said she was both offended and overwhelmed by the intensity of the poets but she then commented that “if this is the sentiment that exists more broadly in the Black community, maybe you guys are not so crazy with your talk of revolution.”

At the same time, there was tremendous beauty in much of the poetry—both in its form and the people and situations it portrayed.

This was the mix that we dove into with the emancipatory vision of Bob Avakian, the necessity and possibility of revolution and of a re-envisioned pathway to a communist world of freely associating human beings. The opening night our team set up a table with BA Speaks: Revolution—Nothing Less! playing on a portable DVD outside a venue around the corner from Revolution Books. The table had piles of the DVD, along with copies of BAsics, CDs of the scored version of “All Played Out,” and the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America (Draft Proposal). We were passing out palm cards of the DVD and getting out copies of Revolution newspaper issue 312.

I have to say that the response was as varied and wild as the scene I am trying to describe with the audience including many of the poets attending the Slam—along with a broad cross-section of people—again of different nationalities and backgrounds.

The first people I talked to were a couple of young Black guys who were part of a team that had driven up from Birmingham, Alabama. Their first comments were that it was a whole different world up North but when I showed them the “Three Strikes” poster, they quickly added that it was really all the same under the surface as they demanded copies of the poster to take with them back to Birmingham.

A young woman I approached was almost incredulous that we were at the Slam at all—she couldn’t understand what revolution and especially communist revolution had to do with a poetry competition and was really intrigued by the point that BA made that you couldn’t be a revolutionary leader without a poetic spirit. She had simply accepted the commonly accepted wisdom that socialist revolution and communism were about sacrificing individuality and individual expression in the name of the “common good.” She had never really considered the difference between “individuality” and “individualism” as a world outlook. Others we met were so focused in on their own conditions that they were almost offended that we would be bringing politics into the Slam.

At the same time many were immediately attracted to the paper—This is a Criminal System! We need REVOLUTION-NOTHING LESS!—and our large poster of “Three Strikes.” One guy came up and asked: What kind of revolution? What kind of revolution? What kind of revolution? And when someone replied communist revolution, he smiled, took the paper and commented that he just wanted to make sure because a lot of people are talking about a lot of different kinds of revolution nowadays.

Some of our team discussed what we were encountering in light of the letter from a reader that appeared in Revolution—“Two Different Approaches, Two Different Epistemologies—Two Different Worlds”—and in particular the approach of basing ourselves in the necessity of “raising people’s sights to a radically different world” and based on that sorting through the mixed bag of ideas in people’s thinking—what’s correct and incorrect but also trying to figure out how they have come to the conclusions they have reached.

Everyone agreed that the scene at the Slam was a concentrated expression of the “mixed bag of ideas” and ways of looking at the world—where even the most articulated expressions of outrage or rebellion against this crushing system still lacked a real vision of a radically different world and often included an undercurrent of religiosity.

It was a real challenge not to be overwhelmed by the powerful, painful, often poignant stories unfolding on the stage—or to appreciate how so many in the audience related to these stories. One poet read a poem she had written on Emmett Till which was devastating but which also included a soulful backup singer with the line “God gave his soul.”

This lack of vision also came out on the stage from one Black poet whose team, from LA, made it to the finals. He ended another incredibly powerful poem dealing with the oppression of Black people with “sometimes just deciding to get up and keep going in the morning is the greatest act of resistance a Black person can undertake today.”

This led to a struggle among some of our team and other people deeply moved by the imagery of the poem that NO! Getting by from day to day is not the greatest act of resistance a person of any nationality can undertake today. Taking up the real scientific solution to these horrors and engaging with BA is the greatest act of resistance (actually revolution) and is both necessary and possible. One woman came back after chewing this over to say that she thought this was correct and even though she still deeply identified with many of the sentiments in the poem, she could see how this kind of thinking would disarm people and never lead to any meaningful change.

But as we did sort out these ideas, we also found a desire among many attending and participating to take a stand now, based on what they do understand—while more deeply engaging with what is really going down in the world and what it is going to take to bring a radically different world into being.

After the opening round of competition, one team of poets from Texas invited our team back to the hotel hosting the competitors to get more into “this question of revolution.” One team member recounted his experience with a young Black college student attending the finals, who responded to the comment that many in the crowd didn’t like the world as it is now but few believe it can be radically changed, by saying that this is a question he is trying to figure out himself. He bought a copy of the DVD and made plans for coming to Revolution Books when he returns to school in the fall. Another poet from Denver asked for a bundle of newspapers to take back with him and several people bought and immediately (and proudly) adorned themselves with Abortion on Demand and Without Apology stickers, getting more to take home with them. Others carved time out of the schedule to come by Revolution Books and introduce themselves to the staff.

By the end of the week, hundreds had been introduced to BAE, dozens left with copies of Revolution newspaper—sometimes multiple copies—and were going back across the country with a different understanding of the possibilities of a better world.

There was much to be learned and we are still assessing our experience but here were a few closing thoughts:

• Lead with revolution and get to the point. It is true in any situation but especially with a small team. We talked about the point in the letter about “Two Different Approaches...” that a really a serious discussion about revolution (even if brief) can change the terms of our engagement. And it usually allowed us to quickly meet the people most interested in conditions in the world and who wanted to learn more.
• Don’t pigeonhole people and don’t waste time on backward fools. People attending the Slam brought a tremendous amount of diversity and thought to the event. While poetry was the medium, many wanted to talk about what was going on in the world—a number were both amazed and filled with satisfaction to find out about the abortion rights freedom ride and serious in their interest about the California prisoners’ hunger strike. At the same time, there were certainly an element of backward fools—dismissive in their attitudes even before they reached our team. One young guy attending the finals thought he knew everything there was to know about the Cultural Revolution in China and wanted to prove this to his friends by debating people on our team. Someone just told him to come back when he had something intelligent to say and moved on.
• Have fun and involve friends. BA Everywhere team members invited friends who are supportive of the movement for revolution but not at the point of being out there around BA Everywhere. We went into the competition venues to listen to the poetry (and in one case were part of a team of judges). It was a very rich experience, struggling over the poetry but also struggling over the basis on which we were able to connect BA Everywhere to various sections of the crowd.
• Don’t underestimate the impact that a small number of revolutionaries can have in transforming the situation. We only had three people on our team and sometimes only two but by the end of the week many in the line for the finals knew about BA, Revolution newspaper, and the movement for revolution—if only a beginning way.

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/315/no-surgical-strike-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

No “Surgical Strike!”

August 30, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

Spokespeople and apologists for the rulers of the U.S. claim that an advantage of a U.S. “surgical strike” against Syria, as opposed to a “boots on the ground” U.S. invasion, is that it would not endanger American lives—as if American lives are more important than other people’s lives. They are not.

They also portray this option as a clean and almost bloodless action that would score a direct hit at Syria’s rulers and military without causing a lot of civilian casualties. And while their analysts speculate and wring their hands over unpredictable consequences for the U.S. empire in the aftermath of such an attack, little if anything is said about how a “surgical strike” could produce or lead to a whole range of consequences that would greatly increase the suffering of the people of Syria and beyond.

In that light, a bit of history.

As part of systematically programmed historical amnesia in this country, two U.S. “surgical strikes” are largely unknown, or forgotten in public discourse. One took place in August 1998 when President Bill Clinton ordered an attack from the sky that destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. The other was the 1999 U.S. guided bomb attack that blew up the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

Pharmaceutical Plant in Sudan

After U.S. embassies were blown up in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Clinton announced a strike against "military targets" supposedly associated with Osama bin Laden in the North African country of Sudan. On August 20 of that year, 16 U.S. cruise missiles struck one of those targets, which turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan's capital, Khartoum.

Clinton claimed to have “convincing  information” that the plant had been used to manufacture chemical weapons. After the attack, news reports revealed that “Western engineers who had worked at the Sudan factory were asserting that it was, as Sudan claimed, a working pharmaceutical plant. Reporters visiting the ruined building saw bottles of medicine but no signs of security precautions and no obvious signs of a chemical weapons manufacturing operation.” (New York Times, October 27, 1999).

The attack wiped out a factory that produced and packaged about half of the medicines used in Sudan, an impoverished country, including veterinary medicine used to keep livestock healthy. It undoubtedly caused great suffering and death over the long term for people denied the medicines produced in the plant.

Aside from the immediate harm caused by the U.S. attack, a byproduct was further enhancing the status and perceived credibility of reactionary jihadist forces in North Africa and the Middle East.

The Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia

On May 7, 1999, in the context of U.S. involvement in the war in Yugoslavia, U.S.-guided precision bombs with coordinates provided by the CIA hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The embassy staff had evacuated for reasons unrelated to this attack, but three Chinese journalists were killed.

The CIA, according to one official U.S. explanation, identified the building housing the Chinese embassy as a warehouse for a Yugoslav government agency suspected of arms proliferation activities. On that basis, the strike was approved by President Clinton. The U.S. later claimed that the CIA provided the military with out-of-date maps of Belgrade. Other U.S. official statements excused the attack because “the Chinese Embassy and a headquarters for a Yugoslav arms agency situated nearby look very similar: same size, shape and height.” (New York Times, May 10, 1999)

The attack set off demonstrations of tens of thousands in China and there were violent clashes between protesters and U.S. Marines guarding U.S. embassy buildings in China. Whether the U.S. missile attack was purposely directed at the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia to send a message to a rival and was passed off to the public as a “surgical strike” gone bad, or if indeed the U.S. was actually so reckless and unconcerned about who this “surgical strike” hit that they blew up the Chinese embassy by accident, in either case, the attack demonstrated utter disregard for the consequences and the lives of the targeted victims.

LESSONS FOR NOW

The point of these examples is not that the U.S. doesn’t have tremendous military capacity and the technical ability to hit targets around the world. The point is that all this is “guided” not by humanitarian concerns but driven by the needs of maintaining and enforcing a global empire. And in that context, all other considerations pale.

And here’s another point to grasp and act on: Even with their massive nuclear technology, the things the U.S. is driven to do around the world to maintain their empire have a price—in terms both of human life and suffering and also in setting off unexpected chain reactions with unpredictable and potentially far-reaching consequences.

All of which argues for, demands, and shows the potential for political protest in advance of, or in response to, any U.S. “surgical strike” against Syria. Especially when protest calls out these global mass murderers for what they are, it creates better conditions for another way—a real revolutionary alternative—to emerge as a force on the world stage.

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/massive-spying-on-everyone-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Massive Spying on Everyone: “The Price of Being a Superpower”

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

An article in the New York Times (September 6, 2013), headlined “N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web,” contained yet more revelations about how obscenely invasively the United States government spies on the private communications of hundreds of millions of people in the USA and billions around the world.

Material made available by Edward Snowden reveals that on top of its massive budget of billions and billions of dollars, the NSA spent billions of dollars “lobbying” (some Internet companies describe this as bullying) for rules and regulations that make it easier for the NSA to hack into what people assume and have been assured are secure and confidential email communications with their doctor, their bank, or their professional colleagues.

This includes the ability to hack into and access anyone’s confidential medical records in real time, which brings to mind how during the antiwar protests of the 1970s, the government broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to get information to harm or blackmail him as he was exposing covered-up material about what the United States was doing in Vietnam and its impact on people there. Now the government is doing this to everyone and doesn’t have to worry about being caught in the act.

And the New York Times article notes that much of this was attempted under President Clinton with the so-called “clipper chip.” That was an overt, public attempt to institutionalize government access to private, secure information. It set off widespread outrage. So instead, the government has implemented the same invasive technology, and worse, but covertly, lying to people and keeping secret what they are doing.

If you want to understand what all this government spying is REALLY all about, the “bottom line” in the strategic calculations of those who rule this country, listen to ruling class analysts when they talk to each other. A 2007 NSA document quoted in the Times made this assessment: “In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs.” And, “It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace.”

Revolution has continued to argue that the massive spying by the U.S. revealed by Snowden and others has nothing to do with the “tradeoff” between “security and privacy.” OK, there is an incidental aspect to what the ruling class is doing with all this spying that has an element of detecting potential terrorist plots, but even that is only to the extent, and in the context of, a whole array of moves to enforce the USA as a superpower. Come on! Does the government having real-time access to your or anyone else’s confidential medical records make you safer? And for that matter, what does hacking trade secrets from allies (practically every country—Mexico and Brazil are among the latest to protest U.S. government hacking into their diplomatic and trade communications), and rivals like the Chinese, have to do with stopping jihadist terrorists? Just how many jihadist terrorists does the U.S. think there are in the Brazilian and Mexican diplomatic corps? Or among researchers at Chinese technology firms?

And all this spying is not because this is a “national security state” or a power-mad bureaucracy carried away with its technology. Yes, there is a phenomenon of a bureaucracy with access to mind-boggling technology and a vast budget. But again, listen to them, and think about all the things they are doing to maintain their status as the world’s sole superpower—from invoking “credibility issues” if they don’t bomb Syria to maintaining their top dog position in cyberspace.

Recently Revolution wrote:

“This capitalist-imperialist system oppresses and exploits people here and all over the globe; carries out unjust wars, kills innocent people with drones, destroys the environment, backs dictatorial regimes, incarcerates more than 2.3 million people in the U.S. Its morality and culture have produced an epidemic of rape... and more. THIS is why the U.S. rulers see the vast majority of people on the planet—including those right within its own borders—as potential threats.

“And so, this spying is aimed at billions of people in the U.S. and all around the world who the rulers of this system consider potential enemies. Some of those people are reactionary Islamic fundamentalist forces. Some of this spying is aimed at rival global or regional powers with whom the U.S. is contending for domination. Some is aimed at allies, who the U.S. "trusts" the way a big time mob boss trusts his underlings.

“This is why the U.S. maintains such intense and broad surveillance. And this spying is not just about monitoring everyone's thoughts and actions (which is bad enough), it is also about CONTROLLING everyone's activity, communications, and thinking. It is about being able to bring the full power of the state down on people at a moment's notice.

“This is why Obama and others in the U.S. ruling class are so desperate to cover up what Snowden has exposed—because of what it reveals about the nature of this system.” (“More NSA Spy Crimes, More U.S. Lies,” revcom.us)

If you can make a case that this is not what the U.S. is enforcing with all this spying, we seriously want to hear your argument for that. But if what we are asserting here is true, then what is called for is resolute struggle in the realm of public opinion, and political protest (as well as legal challenges) that call out the actual terms of this spying, and demand that it STOP, in the context of building a movement for revolution, aimed at bringing about a world without empires, exploiters, oppressors, and “superpowers” that sit atop all that misery and spy on the entire planet to maintain their superpower status.

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/reflections-from-abortion-rights-freedom-riders-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Reflections from Abortion Rights Freedom Riders

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

From Stop Patriarchy: The Abortion Rights Freedom Riders are now back after an extraordinary month on the road, fighting for Abortion On Demand and Without Apology. We are now in the process of summing up this whole effort and want to share with everyone what we learned, what we transformed, and what we think we need to be doing next. For now, we are sharing with readers reflections from two young people who were part of the Freedom Ride.

"I love telling people the truth, and I am so happy to have gone on this ride."

From B.G.

After getting back home and thinking about all of this, like really thinking about it... what we learned, what we changed, and how we changed, I realized that there are people that are thirsting for a revolution and for groups that stand up and against all of this system's bullshit.

While on the road, I noticed we did find those people that wouldn't stop thanking us for what we were doing, and women who would openly tell their stories. While you are on the road you can't really look at what we did as a whole and really reflect on it, but once back I did see how much of an emergency abortion rights are in. With every state we went to, there was some sort of restriction on abortion. And to be honest, I didn't realize how big of an emergency it was until we were down south in Wichita. So many people didn't know what was happening in the U.S. with all of these new laws being passed... Not just that they didn't know, they didn't even know there were groups like us out there that were fighting for abortion rights, and that people in these states that were on the right side, the side of truth, weren't alone in this fight and that it truly is a national issue and can't just be localized.

That is one thing I noticed while traveling to different cities, that people would say "it's not happening to me, or here, what does it matter?" People don't realize that what happens in one state can influence another, and that it isn't just about the women in your single state, it is about women everywhere; how they are being oppressed, being forced into motherhood, and that if abortion clinics are to be shut down in their state, women's lives are at stake.

Not only were people just thinking about this on a local level, but while in Wichita I realized that so many women just think about themselves only as mothers, because that is all they have been told their whole life. "Well, you need to find a good man when you are older so then you can be a mother and raise a family." And it makes me sick that so many women just see their future as being mothers and being just a stay-at-home mom. Sure if that is what you want, that is cool, but the fact that so many women just instantly consider that their future is totally insane. And you see this whole ideology getting into the heads of the youth, with them seeing it on TV shows nowadays, 16 and Pregnant for example. This makes having a child and getting pregnant at 16 seem so amazing; that you can have a TV show about you if you get pregnant. This is so totally fucked up about how they beautify this. This shows how this gets into the heads of young girls. For example, when we were down in Wichita and went to the mall, and we came across those girls that said they weren't ready at 14 to have a child... but now that they were 16, they were "mature enough to have a child and raise one" and they wouldn't get an abortion.

In terms of changing people's thinking, I think we really showed them that it is okay to say "abortion" and there is in no way anything wrong with getting an abortion. So many women were still scared to say "abortion," but I could see how we really changed some women with letting them feel comfortable enough to tell their abortion stories. When we were doing outreach, at some point during that day a woman will openly tell you about her abortion and you could see in her eyes how proud she was to say that and the relief that we provided for so many women. When I was just folding T-shirts one day while in Fargo at the coffee house that became our hangout, this lady asked me what I was doing, or what we were about. I told her about the ride and what we were setting out to do, and she was like, "You know I got an abortion when I was 18 and for so many years I felt guilty and shamed that I killed a baby, but thank you for not shaming me and letting me tell my story."

Another example: my friend who came to our program in one city, she never talked about how her dad worked at and owned an abortion clinic in her hometown because she was harassed because of it. But then when she saw what we were doing she told me later that night that she was "proud of [her] dad and the work he did." It was totally awesome seeing her take pride in what her dad did and not be scared to talk about it.

This was one of the things that most surprised me. I was not expecting how many women came up and would just tell their abortion stories. All of that was really heavy, because a lot of women have felt shamed for so long and then they finally are able to tell their story, and I can't even imagine holding that in for so long and not being able to talk about it with people. And I mean I realized that the South was backwards, but I never realized how alone a lot of these people felt about their thoughts and that they felt they could never really talk about any of this because it is such a controversial subject. I could tell that over the course of our whole trip we really did change people's thinking about abortion... Even if it was few in each state, you could tell we really got people to think about what we were doing.

The thing that we did struggle with the most was actually getting people to join us, and really stand up against this and resist. It was because people are terrified of what others think and what will happen to them because of their views. This is when we need people to realize that the anti-abortion people aren't fucking scared of getting in your face and they are all united and they are gaining people and power, but how the fuck are they doing this? They have no truth to what they are saying and they terrorize and kill people. We need to gain the masses of people and have people stand up against this because we can't lose this fight. We can't go back in time after everything that has already been fought for.

In terms of building an organized movement, we are totally kicking ass, after getting so much coverage and having so many people on the ride coming from all over, we are really just getting this going and getting this started. I know since I have been back home, every day I have brought up the ride and Stop Patriarchy and almost every person I talk to wants to sign up and be a part of what we are doing. With all of the places we went, we need to keep in touch with the people we met. We need to help these places start their own chapters and really keep everyone involved in any way that we can. We need to make sure that when a new law is passed in one state, or there might be new restrictions against clinics, we need to have rallies all over the country supporting that state and that clinic and really be united nationwide.

I can't even begin to describe how I think I have changed over the course of the ride. When I joined the ride, I knew what I was getting into but I didn't know nearly as much as I know now about the state of emergency and what is happening in every state and just all over the country in general with abortion rights... and what this means for women and how it shows the role of women in society. I learned how women are really viewed in society, and how so many people don't even realize the degrading shit that is put out every day. It is something that people are so used to by now that they don't even find it disgusting anymore. I never really realized the harassment and shame that clinics go through on the daily and how threatened they are. This makes me sick; the fact that these "pro-lifers" can even sleep at night with knowing what they are supporting and saying to women makes no sense to me. I knew the anti-abortion movement was crazy, I just never experienced them. Really I'm happy I did because they would make me laugh, but it was also great to see their faces when we would be supporting abortion and us showing them the truth rather than the bullshit they put out.

I have always loved going to rallies and showing the world the truth behind this fucked up system, but I also really learned how truly fucked up this whole system is. How we live on the oppression, exploitation and lives of other people, this is what fuels this system. I was into BA [Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party] and would read Revolution and read about BA's new synthesis for communism but now this is all I ever want to read about and keep looking into, and thinking of ways on how I can get this out to everyone in my city, and not just my city but all of my state, and then just not my state but this whole country. I mean, I have always loved helping people, and giving them all that I had because I could see that they needed it more than I did at the moment. And I mean this is my passion, and seeing how greatly this would help all people, how people wouldn't be above or below another human being, how people won't be oppressed or exploited, how we won't murder others to just gain power...

I love telling people the truth, and I am so happy to have gone on this ride, because it really opened up for me what I want to do with my life. I mean I always had these ideas and whatnot but it is super fucking clear now and I love it. I just have so many ideas on what I can do locally for now with getting revolution out there. I do know for sure that we all are doing something amazing and we have a kickass group of people that are leading this up.

I think we need to transform the thinking of people about women; people see women as just sex objects and as breeders. People don't really see women as anything other than that, this is why we are having to fight for abortion rights. ....this isn't about the baby, it is about control over women and with men being the dominating force in this system. People need to realize if women, Blacks, Latinos, and LGBTQ [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Questioning] are oppressed and aren't considered as full human beings and if they aren't free no one can be free.

And we need to transform people's thinking about abortion. Rather than there being this shame put around people that are getting abortions, there should be shame around the people that are harassing, shaming, and oppressing women... And we need people to realize that "voting for the right person" is not the answer; when has that ever worked? Politicians are not going to change this; they will only fuck over people more and more. We need a revolution, we need to change this system and we need people to realize why we need a revolution and why this system should be changed.

I enjoyed doing outreach and talking to people about the ride and about having a revolution, but it was still always so hard to really engage people and get people interested in what we were doing and getting them to want to join and stand up. People are always hesitant when joining movements like this and actually joining and continuing to do work. I have met a lot of people at the local Revolution Books here, but you don't see a lot of them after one meeting because they aren't driven or interested in really joining. And this is what we need to try and get into people's heads, that it is so important every person that comes to the bookstore or to a rally needs to really stay in touch and continue in this struggle. People need to find it in themselves to continue in this effort... And I also still struggle with how to talk to people and engage them myself, I mean all of this is a learning process and every day you learn more information.

This whole ride had a huge impact on me, and meeting everyone who was so fucking passionate about all this was a huge impact on me. I mean everyone on this trip was so knowledgeable, and each person had a different view on things that added to the whole ride and really added to how to go about everything and I loved that. But I would say one of the biggest memories I have was at the Moral Monday protest in North Carolina. I didn't really talk with this woman for long but I noticed her friend had a sign that said "End the war on women" and I went over to give her a palm card. And then her friend saw what I was about and was listening in on our conversation and I gave her a palm card as well. I could see that this woman was starting to tear up from what I was telling her, and she was just thanking me for what we were doing... that she fought for this already and she can't believe that our generation has to go through this as well. And then she gave me a hug and was just thanking me, and I could tell that I made a big impact—not just on this woman but on so many women and men all over the country with what we were doing and we really inspired so many people and showed that we won't back down. It wasn't a long interaction, but for some reason this really stuck with me. I think it was just her emotions and her body language that really affected me—it made me so proud of all of us for what we were doing.

---

How the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride Changed Me as a Man

From P.H.

As a man, I stand behind women to have this basic right. I stand beside women who have had an abortion, and I will continue to STAND UP so women will continue to have this basic right. Women I know have disclosed to me their abortion stories. I validated their experiences and told them it was the right thing to do and they should not have to feel bad. That is why I decided to join the Abortion Rights Freedom Ride. I saw that there was a need for people to join a movement to remove the stigma, hate, and shame cast upon women. We are heading backwards toward a dangerous time for women, as it already is a dangerous time to BE A WOMAN.

We heard stories about why women get abortions. This is something I would never have to face as a man because of my reproductive anatomy. I learned so much from the women on this ride about the days of illegal and botched abortions and women who died. I intended to be a support person on the ride by being present, but I soon realized I can say something—I can say that when a woman is not ready to have a baby and is made to believe she needs to have one, THAT IS FORCED MOTHERHOOD—just because a woman is pregnant, it doesn't mean she needs to have a child. WE CAN ALL SAY THIS.

The Abortion Rights Freedom Ride has traveled around the country saying "Abortion On Demand" so women can decide if and when they will have a child. Without this basic right, women are slaves. We say "Without Apology" because, really—WHICH WOMEN SHOULD APOLOGIZE? Why should a woman have to apologize for having an abortion or having more than one abortion? Why should she have to explain? WOMEN ARE FULL HUMAN BEINGS capable of determining whether and when they will have a child. Just because a young woman says she wants to be a mother one day doesn't mean she has to be a mother the day she gets pregnant. Being pregnant is not a good reason to become a mother. If a woman is not yet ready or prepared or wants to be a mother and has a child against her will, that is forced motherhood. That is like someone forced or coerced or coaxed to have sex—that is rape! This is all a part of the global patriarchal culture of rape. A woman should not have to be punished for being pregnant. Having an abortion is a responsible thing a woman can do if she does not want to have a child. It can be positive and liberating and provide a feeling of great relief.

As someone who has worked with victims and survivors of rape, I have offered the words: "It wasn't your fault," "You are not alone," and "I'm here for you." It doesn't matter what a woman was wearing or how much she was drinking or how late at night she stayed out or what she is doing with her body or how she was behaving. She should not have to apologize or blame herself. We can all say it wasn't your fault because that is the truth! With having an abortion, we can ALL say "You shouldn't apologize" and "You have NO REASON TO BE SORRY." The scientific truth is that FETUSES ARE NOT BABIES and the moral truth is that WOMEN ARE NOT INCUBATORS FOR MEN OR BREEDERS OF SOCIETY. The life of the fetus is not worth more than your life or your future, just like the life of a man's sperm or your ovaries are not worth more than you. ABORTION IS NOT MURDER! The decision is up to you and only you if you want to have a child or not. We can encourage victims to not blame themselves, although we can understand why they do and where it comes from—IT COMES FROM PATRIARCHY which constantly shames and blames victims, particularly women who are further beaten, intimidated and killed every 10 seconds around the world just for NOT BEING A MAN. Just because a woman blames herself and internalizes the shame and the pain doesn't mean that is correct and should be left at that. We can all struggle with that.

It took a small group of people to lead a change in the right direction, and that's what we are doing. This Abortion Rights Freedom Ride is sparking and unleashing the fury of women toward the full liberation of women and the emancipation of all of humanity. Joining this movement transforms people as they take action. Many have thanked us for what we do, and we have to thank the women who are breaking the silence by telling their stories of having abortions so others could rise up in telling theirs. Many have thanked me for coming on this ride, and I have to thank them for allowing me to stand up and for me to realize—those of us who are just beginning and those who are still fighting for this—WE ARE ABOUT LIFE by protecting women's futures and lives.

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/315/california-prisoner-representatives-issue-statement-suspending-hunger-strike-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

California Prisoner Representatives Issue Statement Suspending Hunger Strike

September 6, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

Editor's Note: California prisoner representatives sent out the following communiqué announcing the suspension of their 60-day hunger strike as of September 5. For Revolution's perspective on the hunger strike, see "What Is Actually Revealed in the California Prisoners Hunger Strike?" Revolution/revcom.us will have more soon on the latest developments.

 

Statement Suspending the Third Hunger Strike

Posted on September 5, 2013

 

Greetings of Solidarity and Respect!

The PBSP-SHU [Pelican Bay State Prison-Security Housing Unit], Short Corridor Collective Representatives hereby serve notice upon all concerned parties of interest that after nine weeks we have collectively decided to suspend our third hunger strike action on September 5, 2013.

To be clear, our Peaceful Protest of Resistance to our continuous subjection to decades of systemic state sanctioned torture via the system's solitary confinement units is far from over. Our decision to suspend our third hunger strike in two years does not come lightly. This decision is especially difficult considering that most of our demands have not been met (despite nearly universal agreement that they are reasonable). The core group of prisoners has been, and remains 100% committed to seeing this protracted struggle for real reform through to a complete victory, even if it requires us to make the ultimate sacrifice. With that said, we clarify this point by stating prisoner deaths are not the objective, we recognize such sacrifice is at times the only means to an end of fascist oppression.

Our goal remains: force the powers that be to end their torture policies and practices in which serious physical and psychological harm is inflicted on tens of thousands of prisoners as well as our loved ones outside. We also call for ending the related practices of using prisoners to promote the agenda of the police state by seeking to greatly expand the numbers of the working class poor warehoused in prisons, and particularly those of us held in solitary, based on psychological/social manipulation, and divisive tactics keeping prisoners fighting amongst each other. Those in power promote mass warehousing to justify more guards, more tax dollars for "security", and spend mere pennies for rehabilitation—all of which demonstrates a failed penal system, high recidivism, and ultimately compromising public safety. The State of California's $9.1 billion annual CDCR [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] budget is the epitome of a failed and fraudulent state agency that diabolically and systemically deprives thousands of their human rights and dignity. Allowing this agency to act with impunity has to stop! And it will.

With that said, and in response to much sincere urging of loved ones, supporters, our attorneys and current and former state legislators, Tom Ammiano, Loni Hancock, and Tom Hayden, for whom we have the upmost respect, we decided to suspend our hunger strike. We are especially grateful to Senator Hancock and Assembly Member Ammiano for their courageous decision to challenge Governor Brown and the CDCR for their policies of prolonged solitary confinement and inhumane conditions. We are certain that they will continue their fight for our cause, including holding legislative hearings and the drafting legislation responsive to our demands on prison conditions and sentencing laws. We are also proceeding with our class action civil suit against the CDCR.

The fact is that Governor Brown and CDCR Secretary Beard have responded to our third peaceful action with typical denials and falsehoods, claiming solitary confinement does not exist and justifying the continuation of their indefinite torture regime by vilifying the peaceful protest representatives. They also obtained the support of the medical receiver (Kelso) and Prison Law Office attorney (Spector—who is supposed to represent prisoners interests, and instead has become an agent for the state) to perpetuate their lie to the public and to the federal court—that prisoners participating in the hunger strike have been coerced—in order to obtain the August 19, 2013 force feeding order.

We have deemed it to be in the best interest of our cause to suspend our hunger strike action until further notice.

We urge people to remember that we began our present resistance with our unprecedented collective and peaceful actions (in tandem with the legislative process) back in early 2010, when we created and distributed a "Formal Complaint" for the purpose of educating the public and bringing widespread attention to our torturous conditions.

After much dialogue and consideration, this led us to our first and second hunger strike actions in 2011, during which a combined number of 6,500 and 12,000 prisoners participated. We succeeded in gaining worldwide attention and support resulting in some minor changes by the CDCR concerning SHU programming and privileges. They also claimed to make major changes to policies regarding gang validation and indefinite SHU confinement by creating the STG/SDP [Security Threat Group Step Down Program] Pilot Program. They released a few hundred prisoners from SHU/AD SEG [Administrative Segregation] to general population in the prison. But in truth, this is all part of a sham to claim the pilot program works and was a weak attempt to have our class action dismissed. It didn't work.

In response we respectfully made clear that CDCR's STG-SDP was not responsive to our demand for the end to long term isolation and solitary confinement and thus unacceptable. (See: AGREEMENT TO END HOSTILITIES)

Our supporting points fell on deaf ears, leading to our January 2013 notice of intent to resume our hunger strike on July 8, 2013 if our demands were not met. We also included Forty Supplemental Demands.

In early July, CDCR produced several memos notifying prisoners of an increase in privileges and property items, which are notably responsive to a few of our demands, while the majority of our demands were unresolved, leading to our third hunger strike, in which 30,000 prisoners participated and resulted in greater worldwide exposure, support and condemnation of the CDCR!

From our perspective, we've gained a lot of positive ground towards achieving our goals. However, there's still much to be done. Our resistance will continue to build and grow until we have won our human rights.

Respectfully,

For the Prisoner Class Human Rights Movement

Todd Ashker, C58191, D1-119
Arturo Castellanos, C17275, D1-121
Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa (Dewberry), C35671, D1-117
Antonio Guillen, P81948, D2-106

And the Representatives Body:

Danny Troxell, B76578, D1-120
George Franco, D46556, D4-217
Ronnie Yandell, V27927, D4-215
Paul Redd, B72683, D2-117
James Baridi Williamson, D-34288. D4-107
Alfred Sandoval, D61000, D4-214
Louis Powell, B59864, D1-104
Alex Yrigollen, H32421, D2-204
Gabriel Huerta, C80766, D3-222
Frank Clement, D07919, D3-116
Raymond Chavo Perez, K12922, D1-219
James Mario Perez, B48186, D3-124

 

Send us your comments.

If you like this article, subscribe, donate to and sustain Revolution newspaper.

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/314/why-the-dream-is-a-dead-end-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Why “The Dream” Is a Dead End

August 25, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

This piece originally appeared as part of the special Revolution issue "The Oppression of Black People, The Crimes of This System and the Revolution We Need," which is available online at revcom.us.

 

People say: “If we could actually realize what Martin Luther King put forward in his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, then Black people would finally see a new day, America would be a much better place and it could play a much different and better role in the world. So, our efforts should be focused on making that ‘Dream’ a reality.”

Martin Luther King made many sacrifices—and indeed made the ultimate sacrifice—in seeking to bring about what he put forward in his “I Have a Dream” speech. But, as indicated by that very speech, the outlook of Martin Luther King was precisely one of seeking to make America “live up to its promise,” when that “promise” has always involved, as one of its most essential elements, first the outright enslavement, and then the continuing oppression of Black people in other horrific forms. King’s “dream” can never be realized, for the masses of Black people, under this system—a system which is founded on, and depends on, subjugating Black people and denying them even basic equality. And the fact is that, whatever King’s intent, the realization of this “dream” could, at most, apply only to a small percentage of Black people, and would in reality come at the expense of the masses of Black people—and millions, even billions, of other people, here and around the world, who will continue to be preyed upon and to suffer horribly as a result of the workings of this capitalist-imperialist system and its systematic exploitation and merciless oppression, all enforced by its organized machinery of mass murder and destruction.

Consistent with his outlook, King’s program was straight-up one of reform, directly and explicitly in opposition to revolution, when in fact only revolution, aiming for a communist world as its ultimate goal—and not reform, which leaves this system in effect—can finally end the long nightmare of the oppression of Black people, and all other relations of oppression and exploitation, here and throughout the world. The fact, and the great irony, that, while he sought only to reform this system, King was nevertheless cut down, is itself yet another indictment of this system and its towering crimes and yet another indication of why it cannot in fact be reformed but must be swept aside and abolished through revolution.

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/keystone-xl-pipeline-powerful-interests-and-big-stakes-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Keystone XL Pipeline: Powerful Interests and Big Stakes

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

The struggle over building the Keystone XL pipeline is sharpening and the stakes are high. A decision by President Barack Obama on the pipeline is now expected late this fall or winter, after a final State Department review.

Keystone XL would increase the flow of tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries in the U.S. by 830,000 barrels a day. According to a report by Oil Change International, this would result in the equivalent of an additional 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere each year. That's the amount produced by 37 million cars or 51 coal-fired power plants.

The planet stands at the precipice of a climate catastrophe. The polar ice caps are melting with increasing speed; extreme weather is hitting harder and more frequently; the oceans' chemistry itself is being turned more acidic threatening life; and ecosystems are being compromised and even destroyed. A climate emergency is upon us and picking up steam. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have built to atmospheric levels never seen in human history, warming the planet.

Think about it. The world faces a climate emergency because this system's economic way of life is completely dependent on burning fossil fuels. Tar sands oil is even more environmentally destructive and more carbon polluting than conventional oil.

And yet at this very moment, the ruling powers of Canada and the U.S. are stepping up their grab to use even more of this dangerous stuff!

"Domestic" Oil—A Strategic Resource

The Alberta tar sands represent a huge pool of oil reserves and a huge pool of capital investment for many of the world's largest oil companies and the entire economies of Canada and the U.S.

The tar sands project is the world's largest energy and capital investment project. The oil reserves there are the third largest in the world. Canada has already surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest exporter of oil to the U.S., most of this is oil from the tar sands. And the U.S. itself in 2012 posted the largest oil production increase in the world and in its history, and is thirsting to become the world's largest oil producer by 2020.

The expansion of oil production in Canada and the U.S. is an immense source of profitability and of central importance to the global economic position of both countries. And perhaps even more important to the ruling classes of the U.S. and Canada, expansion of oil production "at home" is seen as a way to guarantee "energy independence and security" in an increasingly volatile world. Control over vast reserves of fossil fuels, and especially oil, is fundamental and foundational to control and domination of the whole world. One key part of this is guaranteeing the functioning of the U.S. military, which is the world's largest institutional consumer of oil. The U.S. military is the most carbon-polluting, people- and ecosystem-destroying force in world history.

The expansion of oil and gas production in Canada and the U.S. is occurring by ravaging the earth for dirtier and harder-to-extract fuels. They are fracking for natural gas and shale oil, mining and steaming out gooey, filthy tar sands deposits using huge amounts of water. This gooey junk must be mixed with other toxic chemicals to even keep it in liquid form. In Alberta, huge tracts of boreal forest that are key habitat for many living things and also a vast reservoir for sucking up carbon dioxide from the air are being leveled. Toxic waste ponds are spreading and bodies of water poisoned. Indigenous people who've lived in these lands for thousands of years are being killed by cancers at increasing rates, their very lives being genocidally torn apart.

What's at Stake in Keystone XL and the Tar Sands

Yet none of these miseries defines the decisions of those in charge. Instead, their main concern is how to leap forward to increase tar sands production, get oil to market, and position themselves favorably in relation to less "energy independent" allies and rivals—the environment be damned.

According to a new report from a number of environmental groups, Canada has plans to expand pipeline shipments of tar sands oil from 2.2 million barrels per day to 6.6 million barrels per day by 2030. There are currently plans in the works for five major pipeline systems to be built from the tar sands—three going to Canada's west and east coasts and two into the U.S., including Keystone XL. Tar sands oil is also being shipped by other means—rail and truck, etc., but these methods are less efficient and far more costly than shipping oil by pipeline.

A big problem is developing for them because, in every direction these pipelines are planned, there is growing and significant opposition. Indigenous tribes whose land will be crossed are refusing to cede their territory. There is deep opposition to bringing big oil tankers into the pristine waters along the west coast in British Columbia. Huge sections of people in both the U.S. and Canada are increasingly concerned and angry about the environmental destruction this is part of. There is growing protest, including plans in 100 cities currently for protests to "Draw the Line on Keystone XL" on September 21. Building Keystone XL is seen by industry experts as a key part of being able to start to solve this problem.

In an initial review of Keystone's current route released in March, the U.S. State Department argued Keystone XL would not further carbon pollution, because whether it is built or not, tar sands oil would be extracted and shipped by other means and the U.S. would just go ahead and get oil from other sources if needed. The climate crisis demands that this tar sands oil and other fossil fuels be left in the ground if we're to save planetary ecosystems. But the State Department's logic instead is that "the market decides," along with the geostrategic needs of the U.S. empire, no matter what the cost, even though the truth is that carbon dioxide emissions are literally killing life on this planet. This is a chilling indictment of the logic of this whole system.

What Do We Need to Understand to Fight and Win

When Obama delivered his climate speech in June, he said he would only approve Keystone XL "if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." One interpretation of Obama's words on Keystone XL is that they are a setup to approve the pipeline by aligning them with the phony claim the State Department has already made: that Keystone XL won't further carbon pollution because the system is going to go ahead with carbon polluting one way or the other.

But leading environmental forces, including Bill McKibben with 350.org, as well as others, welcomed Obama's speech. McKibben said afterward that the world needs climate leadership and "Barack Obama showed he might turn out to be the guy who provided it."

As "4 Points for Bill McKibben" by Raymond Lotta put it:

This is as obscene as it is willfully self-deceptive.

You are aware that in 2009, Obama torpedoed any meaningful climate agreement in Copenhagen; that he expanded offshore drilling, including opening up the Arctic; and that he approved the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline (that would haul dirty tar-sands oil). You know that the U.S. posted the largest increase in oil production in the world and in U.S. history in 2012.

Obama's speech announced meaningless plans that will result in cuts in U.S. emissions of only a few percent below 1990 levels when what the climate crisis demands is massive cuts. And the U.S. continues to offload its emissions to other countries—because of the massive shift of production to poor countries. And while Obama made a central point of his speech the fact that some coal-fired plants are converting to natural gas in the U.S., the truth is the U.S. increased its exports of coal to be burned by other countries in 2012 by 50 percent!

The strategy being promoted by many of the leading forces who are opposed to Keystone XL is that the problem is a "rogue fossil fuel" industry and its lobby in Congress. And that Obama can be worked with, and alternatively pushed, to "do the right thing." This is completely wrong. It fails to understand the huge stakes and strategic control embedded in fossil fuels to the functioning of the entire system of capitalism-imperialism. Oil is not a rogue industry. It is part of a larger system that operates according to certain capitalist rules and imperatives. And Obama is the chief representative and commander in chief of this same system that is dominating and destroying the planet.

A lot is at play in the buildup to this decision on Keystone XL and it's not yet determined how all this will play out. But what is needed is not opposition that continues to be chumped every time Obama speaks some honeyed words meant to cover up the real interests involved and fool people to try to maintain belief in a system that is increasingly showing itself as entirely illegitimate—from the destruction of the environment, to mass incarceration of millions, to NSA spying on people worldwide, to its bloody moves now to bomb Syria.

The State Department review, to be concluded in several months, includes a recommendation to Obama on whether Keystone XL is "in the national interest." People who truly want to see the destruction of the environment stopped must break with this viewpoint, stop thinking like Americans and start thinking about humanity and the planet. The "national interests" of the United States are the interests of the ruling class of capitalist-imperialists who are bringing all this destruction and who are completely opposed to the interests of humanity and ecosystems.

What's needed is serious and uncompromising resistance based on confronting the actual truth about the deep interests of the entire system of capitalism-imperialism that are responsible for environmental destruction. We need resistance spread to millions of people, aiming to stop Keystone XL and all other fossil fuel projects and the larger environmental destruction carried out by this system, connected to building for what is really the only fundamental solution—an actual revolution.

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/NFL-concussion-settlement-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

NFL Concussion Settlement:
$765 Million to Suppress the Truth About Brain Injuries

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

On August 30, 4,500 current and former professional football players settled their lawsuit against the NFL (National Football League) for the brain injuries suffered by the players while they were playing football. The $765 million settlement is to be used to pay the families of those players who are dead, for those players who are currently injured, for the players’ medical costs, and for the players’ attorney fees. This settlement was called a “win for the players” by a few newspapers, television and radio sports columnists, and sports bloggers. A few more called it a “win-win for both the players and the NFL.” Many more called it “a win for the NFL.”

This is not about who “won.” It is about the continuation of concussions, brain damage, and ultimately, the early death of many of those who play football during early childhood, in high school and college, and in the professional leagues. This is about the criminal action of the NFL, which will not give the players, their families, or their physicians access to the players’ own medical records while they played in the NFL. It is about the criminal negligence of the NFL, which has spent millions of dollars researching brain damage in their players, in preventing the release of that research, which could help the players and their families at all levels of the game to know the truth about the brain damage that occurred while playing football. This is about the horrors of capitalism, where everything has a cash value, and for the NFL that means paying $765 million to suppress the truth about brain injuries while playing football.

Football players who receive multiple concussions are ending up with a brain disease called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).¹ Doctors are currently unable to diagnose this disease in living people. Only after the player is dead and an autopsy has been done on the brain, can it be determined that the person had CTE. The ultimate medical condition for CTE in living people is a severe form of dementia (like Alzheimer’s disease). There are indications there are links between CTE and a disease similar to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)² that attacks motor nerve cells in the brain and muscles. The Boston University Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy (BU CSTE) found that 34 of the 35 brains of former NFL players donated to the center have CTE.

Life after pro football has been more than just a horror for those with CTE. In 2002, Mike Webster, age 50, died of a heart attack. In his final years he exhibited severe memory loss and dementia. He would put Super Glue on his teeth and Tasered himself to relieve his pain.³ He was the first NFL player to be diagnosed with CTE. In 2004, Justin Strzelczyk, age 36, drove his car at 90 mph, head-on, into a tractor-trailer. Examination of his brain found CTE. In 2005, Terry Long, age 45, committed suicide by drinking antifreeze. He was found to have CTE, and the medical examiner ruled brain trauma a contributing factor in his death. In 2006, Andre Waters, 44 years old, shot himself in the head. It was discovered he had the brain tissue of an 85-year-old man. In 2009, Chris Henry, only 26 years old, died after either falling or jumping from a moving truck. He was later diagnosed with CTE. In 2011, Dave Deurson, age 40, texted his family that he wanted his brain sent to the Boston University School of Medicine and then shot himself in the chest. The BU School of Medicine found Deurson had CTE.⁴ In 2012, Junior Seau, 43 years old, shot himself in the chest so his brain could be left whole. The National Institutes of Health found that his brain had CTE.⁵

Despite the fact that CTE was not discovered in football players until 2002, indications are that the NFL knew of the severe dangers of concussions and head trauma as early as 1982. Keith Olbermann, commenting on the concussion settlement on his ESPN show on August 29, recounted the 1982 players’ strike against the NFL when he covered the negotiations between the players and the league. With tears swelling in his eyes, Olbermann told the story of Doug Kotar, who was found to have an inoperable cancerous brain tumor during the strike. Kotar was known as a player who would “lead with his head,” a practice of diving head-long at opposing players in order to knock them down. It was clear to the players that Kotar’s tumor was most likely the result of his type of play, which would jar his brain upon contact. The NFL denied that Kotar had brain injuries due to playing football and would not pay for his medical bills. Olbermann talked to two players after one negotiation session ended abruptly when a player lunged across the table at an NFL negotiator. That player, who had a law degree, told Olbermann that the players had asked the owners for Kotar’s medical records. The NFL refused and told the players, “Why would we let you see your medical records. You guys are too stupid to know what this means.” The player told Olbermann, “That’s when I wanted to kill that guy because of Doug Kotar.”

It is criminal that an employer will not give its employees their medical records. And now with this settlement, the NFL will continue to keep the players’ medical records from the light of day and will continue to deny that it is withholding life and death information regarding the players’ injuries. What kind of a society is this where people are not allowed access to their own medical records, and information that could help treat those injuries is withheld from them? It’s a society that needs to be swept away.

Further, this settlement only includes funds for those NFL players who have either retired or are playing right now; and the $765 million, which is to be paid out in increments of half in the next three years and the remainder over the next 17 years, is a pittance compared to the $9.2 billion in revenue the league took in last year.

The NFL is the richest sports league in the world with billions of dollars brought into its coffers through lucrative contracts with four of the biggest TV networks. Despite the fact that the NFL reaps enormous profits, it has been granted “non profit, tax exempt” status by the U.S. government! We’re not kidding.

The NFL is also the most popular league in this country, and it, as well as college football, boxing, and hockey, contribute in a large part to the culture of violence in this and other countries. ESPN, the premiere sports network, shows highlights of the “hardest (football) hits,” where one player throws his body at another player. ESPN continues to show the video of Jadeveon Clowney of the University of South Carolina violently knocking backward Vincent Smith of the University of Michigan in the January 1, 2013 Outback Bowl. The video shows Smith’s helmet being ripped off his head by the force of the violent contact and landing five yards from the point of impact. This video has had over 6 million viewers on YouTube. If you Google “football’s hardest hits,” you get 1.5 million links, with the top ones being YouTube videos, each having hundreds of thousands of viewers. One of those videos is actually titled, “Jadeveon Clowney Blxxs Up Michigan...!”

On October 8 and 15, PBS is going to air Frontline’s two-part investigation: “League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis.” This show is being touted by Frontline as “the hidden story of the NFL and brain injuries, where “thousands of former players and a host of scientists claim the league has covered up how football inflicted long-term brain injuries on many players. What did the NFL know, and when did they know it?”⁶ Revolution does not know what will be revealed in this show. However, we will be watching it and encourage others to do so too.

Originally, ESPN was to partner and collaborate with Frontline on this show, but ESPN pulled out of it one week after the NFL, which airs some of its games on ESPN, complained to ESPN about the show, which depicts “the league turning a blind eye to evidence that players were sustaining brain trauma on the field that could lead to profound, long-term cognitive disability.”⁷

Pro and college football Hall of Famer Tony Dorsett, who has a severe mental disability due to lack of oxygen to part of his brain and who was one of those who were pressured to play with concussions and other injuries, when asked if this settlement will pay for his medical bills texted, “NO, it wont.” “If I get some money out of this, $100,000 or $200,000, what is that going to do for my medical bills? What is that going to do for my quality of life?”⁸

Further this settlement does not include future NFL players, let alone youth playing Pop Warner football or high school and college football players. The serious medical risk to young kids playing football, who Dr. Robert Cantu, co-director of BU CSTE, describes as “bobble-head dolls with big heads and weak necks,” where any kind of a blow could shake a young player’s head more violently than it does with a fully-formed adult. Cantu says that youth should not be playing football, hockey, and soccer while they are under the age of 14.⁹

Revolution first wrote about football and CTE before the Super Bowl in 2009. This lightly edited quote from that correspondence holds true today:

We need to put a stop to these athletes being used by the NFL to add value to their product and then ending up as a vegetable or even worse. We should demand that the NFL (and all levels of football) focus on the health of these athletes and that they own up to and put a stop to the head injuries that cause this horrendous CTE disease that is resulting in the death of football players. Players at risk for CTE should be allowed to retire early with pay. The NFL should be demanded to give these players their own medical records and turn over all research the league has done on players’ injuries. However, it is ultimately going to take revolution and getting rid of capitalism-imperialism in order to fully put an end to the business of sports that treats athletes as commodities and chews them up and spits them out. Only when we get to socialism will we be capable of transforming athletics and sport into a game and not a business where the product takes precedent over athletes’ health.¹⁰

1. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes (and others) with a history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions as well as asymptomatic subconcussive hits to the head. CTE has been known to affect boxers since the 1920s. However, recent reports have been published that neuropathologically confirmed CTE in retired professional football players and other athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma. This trauma triggers progressive degeneration of the brain tissue, including the build-up of an abnormal protein called tau. These changes in the brain can begin months, years, or even decades after the last brain trauma or end of active athletic involvement. The brain degeneration is associated with memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, and, eventually, progressive dementia. (Boston University Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy) [back]

2. ALS is also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, where a patient becomes totally paralyzed in the disease’s later stages and then dies. Lou Gehrig was a Hall of Fame baseball player who had ALS. While playing baseball, he was knocked unconscious four times, due to getting hit by a ball in the head or by fighting. In all cases, he played the next day. He is well-known as the “Iron Horse” because he played 2,130 consecutive games. Baseball players did not wear helmets when Lou Gehrig was playing. He also played football at Columbia University. There are differences in the medical community about whether Gehrig’s head trauma while playing sports resulted in his getting ALS, as his medical records have not been released by the Mayo Clinic. [back]

3. Keith Olbermann on ESPN, August 31, 2013 [back]

4. Keith Olbermann on ESPN, August 31, 2013 [back]

5. All others in this paragraph attributed to “A Timeline Of Concussion Science And NFL Denial,” Barry Petchesky, August 30, 2013, www.deadspin.com. [back]

6. pbs.org/wbgh/pages/frontline [back]

7. “Did The NFL Put Pressure On ESPN To Divorce Frontline?” Richard Deitsch, sportsillustrated.cnn.com. [back]

8. “Cowboys great Tony Dorsett concerned that NFL concussion lawsuit settlement amount ‘not nearly enough,’” Brad Townsend, Dallas Morning News, August 30, 2013. [back]

9. Concussions and Our Kids, Robert Cantu and Mark Hyman, Houghton Mifflin Harcort, 2013. [back]

10. “NFL Capitalist Concussions” Revolution #155, February 8, 2009. [back]

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/make-revcomus-the-go-to-place-for-people-seeking-answers-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Make revcom.us the Go-to Place for People Seeking Answers

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

There are important battles over the truth raging in U.S. society right now around major questions facing people in this country and the world—battles over understanding what is really motivating the U.S. imperialists to attack Syria and what it would mean for the people of the world if they are allowed to carry through on this crime; and battles over how to understand the continuing reality of the centuries-long brutal oppression of the African-American people in U.S. society and what it will take to end it—to name just two key struggles over what is true and what is not that are raging today.

Revcom.us has joined the struggle over these and other critical questions with very important articles and analysis (see, for example, "Obama's Speech on Syria: Lies to Justify an Immoral War"; "Only Worse Suffering and Horrors Can Result From a U.S. Attack on Syria"; and "On Obama's August 28 Speech: The Battle Over the Truth About the African-American Experience and Present-Day Reality") No one else is speaking to things and getting at the truth of things the way revcom.us does. But nowhere near enough people are finding out about these articles and reading them. These articles need to be contending in society and they need to be seen and read by tens and hundreds of thousands of people. Revcom.us needs to become the go-to place on the web for people who are looking for answers and seeking out philosophies. And we need to start making that happen. Email the links to these articles out right now to everyone you know and ask them to read them and pass them on to everyone they know.

Then the next time a new debate or crisis breaks out—or the next time a particularly provocative and must-read piece comes out at revcom—do it again. People will have their thinking regularly challenged and provoked by these articles, and then some will go further and start digging into and exploring all the rest of the things that can be found at revcom: the revolutionary analysis, exposure and theory, and the reenvisioned communism of Bob Avakian that is at the heart of being able to bring forward another way in the world that is so desperately needed. As the RCP’s statement on the strategy for revolution speaks to: all of this “enables people to really understand and act to radically change the world...”

Much more fully wielding and popularizing Revolution newspaper and revcom.us in this and many other ways is one of the critical elements of carrying out the strategy for revolution. (For more on this, see On the Strategy for Revolution.)

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/urgently-needed-powerful-outpourings-october-22-2013-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Urgently Needed:
Powerful Outpourings on October 22, 2013
National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation

September 15, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

• George Zimmerman, the vigilante wannabe cop who stalked, confronted, and murdered Trayvon Martin, is given a not guilty verdict—which comes down to Amerikkka saying, again, that Black people have no rights that whites are bound to respect.
• The cops who murdered seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones in Detroit and 18-year-old Ramarley Graham in NYC get let off by the courts.
• David Silva—a 34-year-old Latino with four young children—is hog-tied and beaten to death by cops in Bakersfield, California.
• Melissa Williams and Timothy Russell are gunned down in a hail of 137 (!) police bullets in Cleveland.
• Cary Ball Jr., a 25-year-old honor student, is killed by cops in St. Louis who fired 25 shots at him.
• Sixteen-year-old Kimani Gray—gunned down by undercover cops in Brooklyn in a stop-and-frisk that went fatal.

These and many more killings by police and countless incidents of unspeakable brutality by cops have gone down in just the past year alone. Nationwide, an epidemic of police brutality is intensifying—police and racist vigilantes are still literally getting away with murder.

All this is occurring at a time of increasingly sharp attacks on the people by this system—more than two million people continue to be warehoused in prisons across the country; people in U.S. prisons are being subjected to torture, from Guantánamo to the SHUs (Security Housing Units) in California; the government is carrying out massive spying programs in this country and around the world; the president claims the right to assassinate anyone in the world, including U.S. citizens; women’s right to have an abortion is under sharp attack... and more.

And it is all occurring at a time when millions of people are deeply questioning the injustice of this country. This questioning drove thousands into the streets in outrage following the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. These outpourings were followed by a heroic and inspiring hunger strike by prisoners in California.

It is urgently necessary, and very possible, that the questioning and outrage broadly impacting people be tapped into and brought out into the streets on October 22, 2013.

This October 22 will be the 18th annual National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation. October 22 has become the day to manifest outrage and show our determination to say NO MORE to the official brutality and government repression that is devastating the lives of millions of people. And it is the day that victims of this injustice have a platform to bring into the light of day the horrors that have been inflicted on them.

Powerful actions on this day can further expose the illegitimacy of a system that subjects so many people to official brutality and treats so many of the youth like criminals—guilty until proven innocent, if they can survive to prove their innocence. And coming at these attacks from the perspective of Revolution—Nothing Less! can bring forward another way society could be organized.

The Call for October 22nd, 2013, will be available soon. People need to begin making plans to act on that day—to hold rallies, cultural events, etc. When the call is released, people should circulate and sign it. And people should contact the October 22nd National Office to coordinate activity nationally and to add their plans to what’s going to happen on that day.

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/more-lies-for-war-from-the-liar-in-chief-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Obama's September 10 Speech on Syria:

More Lies for War from the Liar-in-Chief

September 11, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

Barack Obama’s September 10 speech on Syria was packaged, and is being “debated,” as a defense of his policies and his latest diplomatic moves.

But framing and underneath all that, the basis on which everyone is supposed to think and act is as big a collection of incredible lies as has ever been assembled in a speech, starting with Obama’s assertion that “the world’s a better place” because for “nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security.”

As is Obama’s claim that the U.S. mission in Syria is driven by opposition to “the terrible nature of chemical weapons.”

As is his assertion that the motive of the U.S. is to “stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run.”

Libraries full of books, decades of documentaries, and the testimony of hundreds of millions of victims of what the U.S. has brought to the world would hardly begin to reveal the extent to which these are all LIES.

“Nearly Seven Decades” of Mass Murder – Including of Children

Obama: “The world’s a better place” because for “nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security.”

Let us fast-forward through U.S. history to those “nearly seven decades.” Past the genocide of Native Americans and the theft of their land, including the “Trail of Tears” where tens of thousands were driven off their lands in the southeastern U.S. and forced to march to Oklahoma—of 15,000 relocated Cherokees, 4,000 died on the march; yes, including many children. And let us fast-forward past slavery, where hundreds of thousands of people, kidnapped from Africa, were worked from “can’t see” in the morning to “can’t see” at night. And the legacy of children ripped from their parents, sold to other slave masters. All to build the foundation for much of what made America into the global empire it is today.

Let’s pause at just a few events in the “nearly seven decades” Obama claims that the U.S. was making the world “a better place.”

Those decades were launched with, and in important ways defined—militarily, politically, and morally—by the most concentrated mass murder of civilians in human history. The U.S. atomic bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed 200,000 civilians, some burned to death on the spot, others dying torturous deaths from radiation poisoning, with survivors and humanity as a whole traumatized. (See from A World to Win News Service, “From Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Today: Reporting American Crimes Against Humanity”)

Eight years later, the U.S. was “making the world a better place” through the Korean War. Of the U.S. invasion of Korea in 1950, U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay boasted that U.S. planes “burned down every town in North Korea.” The U.S. used more bombs and artillery shells in Korea than in all of World War 2, and used napalm—a chemical weapon more terrifying and “effective” against military and civilian targets than the older sarin gas the U.S. accuses Syria’s Bashar al-Assad of using. An estimated five  million people were killed in that war, three million of them civilians.

In the U.S. war of aggression against Vietnam, from 1965-1975, the U.S. continued to make the world “a better place” and along the way demonstrated how much it cares about children by dropping more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam and the neighboring countries of Cambodia and Laos before being driven out in 1975, killing an estimated three million Vietnamese—again, many of them children. Typical of the logic and morality of the U.S. military was the infamous statement by one U.S. military commander who directed the burning down of a whole peasant village and then said, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” In massacres as at the village of My Lai, and in the “cluster bombs” they dropped, the U.S. specifically aimed to kill civilians—including children—at random.

And in response to the arguments of defenders of U.S. imperialism, including liberal “critics” who insist “that was then, this is now,” the U.S. still provides cluster bombs for use against civilians. In 2006, the U.S. Senate voted, 70-30, to defeat an amendment to a Pentagon budget bill which would have banned the use of cluster bombs near populated civilian areas. That enabled the U.S. to continue to supply cluster bombs to Israel to use in an invasion of Lebanon. (See “Victims of Israel’s Cluster Bombs,” Revolution #61, September 17, 2006, at revcom.us)

Obama rails against Assad as a “tyrant.” But over “nearly seven decades” the United States installed many of the most brutal tyrants who carried out some of the most massive crimes against their own people in history. In 1965, the U.S. orchestrated a reactionary coup in Indonesia and the slaughter of one million communists and others. The massacres were so wanton that in parts of the country, the rivers were choked with bodies and blood. The fascist gangs and Islamic fundamentalists enlisted along with regular military and police to carry out these massacres used and reveled in the most depraved and sadistic means of torturing and killing people to spread widespread terror, including among children. The deaths of communists were then reported to officials at the U.S. embassy who crossed off the names of the dead from lists they had provided to the Indonesian butchers.

The fact that this history is not taught in schools, or acknowledged in acceptable discourse, does not mean these things didn’t really happen. Readers are challenged to look these up for themselves, and send the results of what they find to revolution.reports@yahoo.com.

Dealing with the Legacy of Iraq

Here’s one bit of actual truth that nearly everyone does know: The Iraq war was based on LIES.

Obama claimed in his speech that he was determined not to repeat what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. As if simply avoiding U.S. “boots on the ground” should be the measuring stick for whether or not the U.S. is again carrying out the same kinds of crimes it carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Justified with THE SAME BASIC SET OF LIES! 

Set aside, for a moment, the fact that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified by TOTAL LIES about Saddam Hussein’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction.” Set aside, for a moment, the fact that the media, including the liberal New York Times, channeled these lies and gave them credibility.

Consider instead the self-righteous claims by the likes of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush that the U.S. was motivated by and driven to attack Iraq because “Saddam Hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people, willing to use weapons of mass destruction against Iraq citizens." (President Bush, March 22, 2002)

Saddam Hussein did gas Kurdish people in Iraq in 1988—something the U.S. facilitated, by the way, including through encouraging the Kurds to rebel and then stabbing them in the back, and through making it possible—including through allies—for Hussein to obtain poison gas. And Saddam Hussein did torture his opponents in Abu Ghraib prison (remember the name of that prison, we’ll come back to it).

But the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and, importantly, the “diplomatic” moves the U.S. carried out against Hussein—namely sanctions, made things exponentially, horribly worse for the people of Iraq.

Operation Desert Storm, 1991, the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, killed or injured hundreds of thousands—over 25,000 civilians and fleeing soldiers were killed in 48 hours on the “Highway of Death.” Then, after the war, the U.S. continued “making the world a better place” and demonstrating care for children through sanctions that killed some 500,000 children in Iraq—killed because of those U.S. sanctions that prevented them from getting needed medicine, clean water, and nutrition. And this crime was justified by a future U.S. Secretary of State as “a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.” (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996)

In 2003, the U.S. and its allies again invaded Iraq—once again making the world “a better place.” During and after the war, between 600,000 and one million Iraqis were killed, and over four million were driven from their homes. (See “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster survey” The Lancet, October 12, 2006 ). One can debate whether the invasion of Iraq was a good move from the perspective of “the national interests of the United States.” But these deaths are almost never mentioned in the mainstream media.

And the U.S. turned Abu Ghraib prison into their hellish torture chamber, with U.S. military personnel bragging on social media and in emails of sadistic torture, murder, sexual abuse, water boarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, humiliation, and dog attacks.

Today Iraq is wracked with terrible sectarian violence (different religious and ethnic factions killing each other). During the U.S. occupation much of that was directly orchestrated by the U.S. in the tradition of colonial “divide and conquer” strategies, but all of it greatly exacerbated in one way or another by the U.S. invasion and the legacy and present-day reality of imperialist domination.

The same can be said about Afghanistan. And one can literally spin a globe of the planet, point to a country, and find crimes carried out by the U.S.

All this misery is a product of how their imperialist system works. It is a system that, by its nature, is driven to exploit the people and resources of the world, to contend and compete with rivals big and small, global and regional, over their ability to do that, which is driven by its nature to enforce all this with the most brutal violence.

Think about what kind of a SYSTEM is represented by a liar-in-chief who can look back on a record like this, look earnestly into the cameras, and talk about nearly seven decades of “enforcing” what he calls “international agreements” that he claims made the world “a better place.”

“The United States military doesn't do pinpricks”... and Diplomacy

Far, far too many of those who Obama would refer to as “on the Left” are breathing a sigh of relief that Obama is turning to “diplomacy” instead of launching a military strike—at this moment. But thuggish threats and violent crimes on the one hand and diplomacy on the other are two sides of the same coin.

Speaking to a world population that is much more aware than are people in the U.S. of the legacy of U.S. violent crimes around the world, and speaking to (and embracing) the “hawks” in the ruling class and good ole boys watching on TV, Obama put on his stern face, looked into the cameras, and made this ominous declaration and threat:

“Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks.”

U.S. diplomacy rests on violence and threats of violence, and is aimed at the same ends as violence of enforcing exploitation and oppression, fending off rivals, and keeping people enslaved. If Tony Soprano establishes the freedom to set up and run drug dealing, prostitution, and extortion in a district by threatening to strangle someone (a threat that only means something because everyone knows he actually strangles people), how is that something to celebrate?

And, again, look at Iraq, where U.S. sanctions (“diplomacy”) killed hundreds of thousands of children, and softened up Iraq for the 2003 invasion and all the horrors that came with that.

Stop Thinking Like Americans

On the basis of a world of lies, Obama proclaimed: “Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.”

First of all, given that Obama is speaking for a ruling class of imperialists who have carried out the greatest crimes against humanity in history, WHO THE FUCK WOULD WANT TO IDENTIFY WITH THE “IDEALS AND PRINCIPLES” behind what Obama calls “our” national security!? Those are NOT “OUR” ideals and principles. They are the “ideals and principles” of a murderous, sadistic, depraved imperialist ruling class driven to subjugate, dominate, and terrorize the planet.

So why would anyone want to “debate” what the United States should do in Syria based on THOSE interests? Unless they identify with ensuring that the U.S. imperialist ruling class can continue to dominate the planet, violently enforcing a system of sweatshops and slums, environmental devastation, and a system whose culture and “traditions” have produced an epidemic of rape.

Get Out of the Terms of THEIR Debate, and Get INTO Revolution

• Does Obama deserve credit for the negotiations now because he took a “strong stand? Or does America look weak for backing down on the threat of an attack on Syria?
• Can the Russians be partners for U.S. objectives in Syria, or should they be put in their place in the imperialist pecking order more decisively now?”
• Is a limited military strike possible? Or will it draw “us” into a wider conflict?
• Etc., etc., etc.

The answer(s): NONE OF THE ABOVE!

The American public is being trained to think in these terms through Obama’s speech, and through endless spinning and “debate” among media pundits who are allowed access to maintream media. But people who have the ability to think critically and have the moral sense to look at things from the standpoint of the interests of HUMANITY have to loudly and clearly REJECT THESE TERMS in all kinds of ways, including connecting that outlook with, and encouraging political protests against, any U.S. moves against Syria.

It is an unfortunate fact that among the forces “in the field” in Syria, none of them represent the interests of the people—including the regime and its allies and the motley collection of jihadists and more pro-U.S. forces. Beyond that, two reactionary forces are setting overall terms in the Middle East—“the West” (capitalism-imperialism, led by the U.S.) and—on a much lesser scale but equally reactionary—Islamic Jihad. And other reactionary powers (like Russia) are maneuvering for their own interests in the devastating civil war in Syria that has killed over 100,000 and made refugees of a million people.

But none of this should be an excuse for inaction and disorientation by people who oppose a U.S. attack. Just the opposite. An important editorial at revcom.us, “Syria: No War for Imperialist Interests!” bears ongoing study as a reference point for everyone who finds intolerable the “choices” of different ways of bringing oppression and suffering to the people of Syria. That editorial discusses the problems the imperialist system is facing right now, including that because of real difficulties, obstacles, and dangers to the U.S. empire involved in various scenarios they are debating, it may actually not be a settled question whether the U.S. attacks Syria. In short, there is both a moral and political basis to oppose any U.S. attack on Syria in any form, and openings to wage political protest on that basis.

And as the editorial we referenced earlier notes, this is a “teachable moment”—part of transforming people for revolution that will bring to an end this system that has perpetrated such terrible crimes against humanity.

As part of that, this is a critical moment to bring boldly into every sphere of public life the message of BAsics 3:8:

The interests, objectives, and grand designs of the imperialists are not our interests—they are not the interests of the great majority of people in the U.S. nor of the overwhelming majority of people in the world as a whole. And the difficulties the imperialists have gotten themselves into in pursuit of these interests must be seen, and responded to, not from the point of view of the imperialists and their interests, but from the point of view of the great majority of humanity and the basic and urgent need of humanity for a different and better world, for another way.

Bob Avakian
Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/emergency-presentation-on-Syria-by-Larry-Everest-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

Emergency Presentation and Discussion on Syria with Larry Everest, Sept. 9, 2013

September 10, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

Watch this video recording of an emergency presentation by Larry Everest at Revolution Books in Berkeley, California, on September 9, 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/316/the-september-11-massacre-they-dont-tell-you-about-en.html

Revolution #316 September 15, 2013

The September 11th Massacre They Don't Tell You About

September 10, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

September 11, 2013, marks 40 years since the U.S.-led coup in Chile that installed the fascist regime of General Augusto Pinochet, which murdered and tortured many thousands of people. This is one of the countless horrible crimes that the U.S. has carried out all over the world. This anniversary comes a day after Barack Obama, in a national TV speech, said "the world's a better place" because "for nearly seven decades,  the United States has been the anchor of global security." The following article is reprinted from Revolution #61, September 11, 2006.

---

On September 11th, 1973, the U.S. government orchestrated a coup d'etat in Chile that overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende and installed the fascist regime of General Augusto Pinochet. Writing on the 30th anniversary of the coup, A World To Win news service reported that, "No one can say for sure how many people were murdered. At the time, Chilean revolutionaries spoke of tens of thousands of victims. Today's Chilean government says 3,000, but the armed forces that committed that crime still have the last word over political events that displease them and they are not interested in counting. Some estimates say that 400,000 people were tortured. A whole generation of intellectuals and others who could escape was driven into exile."Many of those murdered during Pinochet's years in power were "disappeared," kidnapped by the U.S.-installed regime, and never seen again.

Countless numbers of people were taken by the U.S.-installed regime to secret torture centers, including on Chilean ships like the Esmeralda where torture included "the use of electric prods, high-voltage electric charges applied to the testicles, hanging by the feet and dumping in a bucket of water or excrement (Santiago Times, September 7, 1999). In many cases, the truth about the deaths of missing persons only came to light because the dead included foreigners like a British priest, a U.N. Official, or a U.S. filmmaker named Charles Horman, who was among those killed right after the coup. Horman's story was told in the Academy-Award-winning movie Missing.

The coup that unleashed 17 years of terror and death on the people of Chile was directed by the government of the United States. The U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time, Melvin Laird, told a National Security Council, "We want to do everything we can to hurt him [Allende] and bring him down." A CIA memo on preparations for the coup describes the work of a key U.S. ally in Chile "to increase the level of terrorism in Santiago." (See: The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability," edited by Peter Kornbluh)

Transcripts of White House conversations between President Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger shortly after the coup reveal the direct and hidden hand of the U.S. Five days after the bloody coup, Kissinger complained to Nixon that "In the Eisenhower period we would be heroes." Nixon replied, "Well we didn't—as you know—our hand doesn't show on this one, though." Kissinger replies, "We didn't do it. I mean we helped them." And he added that "[agency deleted from transcript] created the conditions as great as possible." Nixon responded, "That is right and that is the way it is going to be played." (New Transcripts Point to US Role in Chile Coup, Reuters, May 27, 2004).