Right-Wingers Support Fascist Military Coup in U.S.

By Alexander Kinser

Reaction is Growing

In recent months since the election of President Obama, the first Black President of the United States, right-wing and racist/racialist movements have sprung up on the political stage with renewed vigor. While this is nothing new, the racial component being mixed in draws even larger crowds of so-called “closet” racists. Indeed, a great deal of the so-called “Tea Party” movement is made up of people who are convinced that because a Black man is the person selected by the bourgeoisie as their political puppet the world is coming to an end.
The simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t. The American bourgeoisie’s power is, on the whole, not threatened in any way, shape or form by President Obama. If they were, there would have already been coup attempts made, perhaps even assassination attempts made, by those in power. This has yet to happen. A threat from the right, not only towards revolutionaries but towards the entire bourgeois republic, arises from groups of right-wing reactionaries.

The “Tea Party” element, the fascist elements and even the Republican party at this time are very disorganized. The GOP is currently undergoing a “purge” of the moderates whereby they will be removing those Republicans sympathetic to the demands being made by the proletariat and will move even further to the right. Despite this, the APL must stress that while these Tea Parties are only a part of the ruling class now, should the rich feel a threat to their power, they will not hesitate to organize along fascist lines. This has been shown many times in history in countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Chile and other fascist or neo-fascist states.

John L. Perry’s Article as an Example of Pseudo-Fascism
It is with this in mind that a decision has been made within the leadership of the American Party of Labor to distribute to the readers of The Red Phoenix the full text of one such right-wing work calling for nothing less than a military coup within the United States.

We must stress that the views expressed in this quoted material are not the views of The Red Phoenix or the American Party of Labor, but are rather the views of the original author.  We bring this to our readers to expose the actual beliefs and political agenda of these so-called Tea Parties, and their right-wing and racist allies.
It is our hope that by presenting this material that we can help the American people realize that these Tea Parties and their right-wing and racialist allies are a grave threat to the interests of the people.

We will, after presenting the article, issue our own point-by-point debunking of the points laid out by the original author.

Original Article

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

The Tea-Party Protests Have Taken On An Undeniably Racist Tone

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Source: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php

Response From the APL
First, Mr. Perry states that officers in the US military take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He is correct on that matter, at least from a strict definition of it. However, this does make me question if Mr. Perry has ever served in the US military. I have, I was in the US Navy from 1996-2001.

While officers do swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States that also means that they must uphold any laws passed by the Congress of the United States unless such laws are ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The particular law any US military officer would be violating should they even conspire to form a coup attempt against the government of the US headed by President Obama would be the Sedition Act of 1918.

Furthermore, Mr. Perry misrepresents the Oath of Enlistment that enlisted personnel take upon their enlistment.  Which reads as follows:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Enlisted personnel are bound by the Sedition Act of 1918, hence the inclusion of the words “according to the Regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice” debars any enlisted man from taking any action against the President until such time as he actually constitutes a threat to the Constitution of the United States.

John L. Perry's Above Article Has a Distinctive Rightist Vibe

While it could be argued that President Bush did indeed constitute a threat to the United States Constitution, Obama dialing down one imperialist war and greatly escalating another while attempting to tackle the problems of the Global Depression and the failing health infrastructure do not constitute such a threat.

On Mr. Perry’s second point, it is true that any military personnel can view the constitution that they are sworn to defend—a constitution which empowers the federal government to take actions in the interests of the general welfare of the country. The Health Care Reform is in the interest of that general welfare. Indeed, how could insuring that Americans who are sick can go to a doctor so they get well or even better don’t infect other people not be in the interests of the general welfare?
Furthermore, there is not, and never have been any plans underway in the White House or on Capital Hill to nationalize any industry or even any business. If anything, President Obama has been more than willing to pour money on top of the heads of the financial bourgeoisie who caused the Global Depression in first place. Capitalism has been unstable since the 1980’s despite the boom that World War II gave to the industrial-military complex.

On Mr. Perry’s third point—yes, there are many Americans who are alarmed that the US will no longer be sole “superpower.”  Or as most people with a minimum of political education would call it Sole-Empire. This process did not begin with President Obama, but started slowly at first under President George H. W. Bush (Bush I). The institution of anti-tariff treaties such as NAFTA and GATT have eviscerated the manufacturing base of an otherwise industrial economy. This has resulted in more and more products consumed in the US being produced in China and other countries. This of course is again the result of capitalists seeking to maximize their profits at the expense of not only the working class but also their country.

On Mr. Perry’s fourth point—yes, the US economy is wracked by unemployment, deficits, high taxes (if you are working class anyway) and impending inflation.  However, each of these conditions did not start on Mr. Obama’s inauguration day. In fact, a great deal of the problem rests on the capitalist system which created them. Unemployment caused by the relocation of manufacturing to low-wage nations resulting in fewer purchases by industrial workers eventually leads to unemployment among service workers.

Deficits are the result of George W. Bush’s policy of starting two wars while cutting taxes on the very richest Americans. In short, President Bush squandered a budget surplus of some 200 billion US dollars in the first six months of his presidency (a surplus that was the result of rampant global imperialism and exploitation to begin with). Inflation is the result of consistent deficit spending as it is financed in two ways, borrowing and printing money. As the dollar becomes more unstable due to the instability of the national economy, the government will have to resort to printing more money because no one will want to keep dollars as a reserve currency for international trade. While we do not support the Democrats they cannot be blamed for the squandering of budget surplus in the first six months of the Bush presidency as it was the Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

On Mr. Perry’s fifth point— I feel the need to point out to our readers that torturing people does not provide good evidence that is admissible in a court of law or a military tribunal. It needs to be constantly stressed that the CIA-led torture not only ended whatever viable intelligence the military and FBI interrogators were getting but also increased the chances for torture to be used against any American prisoners taken by this so-called enemy.

On Mr. Perry’s sixth point—the dismantlement of the Eastern European Missile Defense program was vitally necessary. Many times Americans forget that not only do we have nuclear weapons but so do other countries, particularly Russia which has the second largest reserve of nuclear weapons.  Therefore, it is vital that concessions be made particularly when the US is already fighting two imperialist wars that have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. There is even less reason to give anyone a causis belli to start World War III.

Military recruitment is not reaching its goals because the American People do not want to be involved in the unjust quagmire that is Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore the prospect of five and six tours of duty upon enlistment does nothing to encourage enlistment—not to mention the moral problems it causes with military personnel already in the military or reserve.

On Mr. Perry’s seventh point—yes, any person who knows anything about the military can see that. However, one must remember why the US military is at its breaking point. Not to mention Obama’s plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan doesn’t exactly help. Every fighting person in the US military and US Military Reserves would be on active duty and deployed and could not be re-deployed should another war break out, or a natural disaster occur at home.

On Mr. Perry’s eighth point—the reason why the US military cannot respond at this time to any further threat or natural disaster at home is because the military is already engaged in two wars. The only way for the imperialists to increase US military preparedness for such an event would be to institute a draft—a move that will make the Anti-War Movement we have currently grow exponentially.

On Mr. Perry’s ninth point—the military establishment is under pressure and in harms way because George W. Bush started wars that he had no plan on ending and Obama continued this practice. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. It is purely in the interests of empire.

Conclusion and Summation of Perry’s Neo-Fascism
While the American Party of Labor in no way endorses the Democrats nor President Obama we certainly must make it clear where the blame for these problems lie – at the feet of the very right-wing bourgeois politicians which say they can now deliver us like Messiahs. Hopefully President Obama can weaken US imperialism by withdrawing from these conflicts, but I for one will not be holding my breath for an instant.

All this being said there is no way that a military coup in the US or any other country could possibly be peaceful as Mr. Perry claims. Military coups are by their nature violent, and it is their nature to destroy dissent when they occur. That is the nature of military coups. What this person is advocating is far worse than anything the President could do if he wanted to.

Let it be clear: what Mr. Perry and his right-wing ilk call for is not the ending of imperialism in the same manner as the political left-wing does, but rather nothing less than the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in the US.

Review of “Avatar”

Written by Comrade Kale, Edited by Marcus Winter

(Warning: Minor Spoilers)

Avatar, the latest film by James Cameron, lives up to the hype. Throughout James Cameron’s career he has created blockbuster after blockbuster, from Aliens in 1986 to the famous Titanic in 1997. Cameron’s movies usually are long, expensive epics that combine humor, action, adventure and of course, romance, notwithstanding the groan-inducing romantic subplot of Titanic which took too much away from the tragedy of drowning “Third Class” passengers. His latest movie, reportedly his personal baby for 15 years, has finally manifested on screen, and it does not disappoint. Avatar is a predictable film, but it’s also a damn good one.

Plot Summery
In 2154 A.D., humanity has discovered Pandora, a lush rainforest moon that orbits Alpha Centauri A, located 4.3 light years from earth and the closest star to the sun. Pandora is home to the Na’vi, an indigenous sentient species of humanoids who are considered primitive technologically, yet are physically superior to humans. The Na’vi appear as blue, ten-foot-tall feline creatures with long black hair in the film, though the CGI conceals real actors and actresses in the cases of the main characters. The Na’vi are CGI, but the way they move and the manner in which their faces express emotion are animated so well that the viewer forgets he/she is watching computer animation. This also applies to the plants and animals of Pandora.

The planet has been found by the humans to be rich with unobtanium, an incredibly valuable mineral that acts as the most efficient superconductor in the known universe. Humans are unable to breathe the atmosphere of Pandora. In order to interact with the Na’vi, scientists have created genetically engineered human-Na’vi hybrid bodies called “Avatars.” A human who shares genetic material with the avatar can be mentally linked to it, allowing them to control its functions and experience what it experiences. The story’s protagonist, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is a former U.S. Marine who was wounded and paralyzed from the waist down in combat on Earth. Jake is extended the opportunity to inhabit an avatar. The movie’s main villain is Colonel Miles Quaritch, an Ex-Marine who is put in charge of the corporations’ ‘SecFor’ PMC-Type Military force, which wants nothing more then to destroy the native population. Jake’s assignment for him is to contact the natives and gain their trust for a “relocating operation” that will allow the humans to mine the mineral.
Jake travels to Pandora and after assuming control of his avatar body is sent deep into its jungles as a scout for the soldiers that will follow. Jake encounters many of Pandora’s beauties and dangers alike. He meets a young Na’vi female named Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), who teaches him the ways of her clan. Despite having originally been sent to gain the trust of natives and convince them to abandon their Hometree, which sits above a large deposit of unobtanium, Jake finds himself caught between the military-industrial forces of Earth and his newfound love for his adopted home and people. He is forced to choose sides as the humans grow increasingly violent in their mining activities, and the oppressed Na’vi rise up to protect their home, resulting in a battle that will decide the fate of an entire race.

Imperialism as Plot Device
In Avatar, humanity has come millions of miles from its dying world for one thing—profit. The Na’vi are targeted by capitalist adventurers who care only for capital and the expansion (the leader of the expedition is actually the CEO of the company). Throughout the film we are exposed to an increasingly desperate attempt by this corporation to mine more and more of the resource, that we are told “sells for 20 million per kilo,” ultimately resulting in more violent solutions. These are encouraged by Colonel Quaritch, a chauvinist and human supremacist. As Marxist-Leninists we respect the right of self-determination and autonomy to nations without fear of repercussions. In this age of imperialism, that is considered a radical position.

Anti-Imperialism
Avatar is very much an anti-imperialist film. This movie does its job properly—it shows the suffering of the people and the destruction they face due to the invasion by the humans. It correctly puts forward the idea that oppressed peoples have the moral right to violently rebel against their oppressors.
The relationship to Native Americans is simply the most prevalent example that can be seen, but Avatar can be related to nearly every atrocity of imperialism. Imperialism, the expansion of economies and nations through force, is the driving motive of the story. The humans attempt to trick the Na’vi into letting them exploit the natural resources of their planet, and when that doesn’t work they resort to violence, a pattern that has been repeated many times in history. Most movies that attempt such a thing would end up taking a moralist approach and thus taking the safe path—teaching its American audience to sympathize with the Na’vi while refusing to connect it with real events—but Avatar does no such thing.
It does not show the brutality visited upon the natives as incidental, or disconnected from the capitalist-imperialist system which spawned it. It shows it as institutionalized and inherent in the system the humans have set up. Many real parallels can be found in different parts of the movie:

Native Americans: The portrayal of the invasion of Pandora by the humans as motivated by resources is possibly an analogy for the extermination of the Native Americans, whose culture could be roughly related to the Na’vi (more on how this portrayal is carried out this later).

War on Terror: The connection to the War on Terror is strengthened later in the film when the racist, genocidal Colonel makes a speech about “fighting terror with terror.” This echoes the major propaganda weapon in the ongoing genocidal imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Colonel Quaritch announces “This is your enemy!” to a room full of assembled imperialist soldiers as he shows a picture of one of the Na’vi. This is a clear reference to actual slideshows shown to members of the US army deployed to the Middle East depicting Muslims and Arabs as a savage, dirty and evil people.
At another point, the Colonel justifies attacks on them by calling them “flea-bitten savages.” They also mock the Na’vi’s faith and religion to a chorus of laughter from the soldiers, much how America has made a “savage and backward” characterization of Islam for their own purposes.

Anti-Colonial Struggles: One of the methods used for the relocation of the Na’vi is the use of biological weapons. The Colonel in charge of the operation calls it “humane,” much like imperialist politicians such as Winston Churchill, who famously wrote, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”

Vietnam War: In the battle scenes during the climax of the movie, the humans under the command of the Colonel launch missiles and firebombs onto the Na’vi resistance. The scenes of futuristic helicopters dropping incendiaries on the surrounding jungle and forest heavily reminds one of the “brush-clearing” policies pursued by the US in Vietnam, in which more shells were dropped by the US military than by the entire Allied forces during WWII.

Criticisms of Avatar
We must note, however, there are several negative aspects of the film which we will deal with in turn. Our criticisms are as follows:

1) Firstly, Avatar tends to glorify and romanticize the Na’vi’s culture, a clearly liberal image of Native American culture, to the point of ridiculousness. The movie plays on several Native American clichés, such as “being in harmony with nature” and having the protagonist fall in love with the Chief’s daughter. There are a plethora of scenes with focus on the native customs, culture, religion, etc., which is supposed to be overly exotic to the viewer. As materialists, we found those scenes rather tedious at times.
2) Avatar also focuses on how superior the ways of Na’vi are without much examination of the actual class structure of their society. The contradiction on the screen is between imperialism and natives.

"Avatar" Supports the Revolutionary Violence of the Oppressed as Righteous

3) There is a bit of a primitivist feel to Avatar, since the Na’vi’s natural live-off-the-land civilization is associated with construction while technology, machines and industry are associated with nothing but destruction. No distinction is made between machines of production for the good of society (food, clothing) and imperialist death machines (bombing vehicles).

Organicism & Utopianism
Finally, there is a Utopian flavor to how Avatar proposes to solve the global environmental crisis. As said above, the Na’vi live in harmony with the flora and fauna of Pandora. This is because the animals, plants and Na’vi are literally connected through bio-electric bonds.
Avatar explains this bio-electric connection as being similar to the signals sent between neurons in the human brain. The brain is like a mini generator, sending electric signals all over the body through the spine and nervous system. The animals and plants of Pandora behave much the same way. This allows every species on the planet to interact and communicate. This is an essential part of Na’vi culture—harmony and unity with all around them in a spiritualistic as well as physical connection.

From a materialist standpoint, the movie is reinforcing liberal organicist and idealist views of man and nature in harmony, united as one, ignoring the dialectic relationship between man and nature. The ongoing destruction of the ecosystem by imperialism is correctly criticized and conservatives will no doubt throw fits about the environmentalism of the movie. But in reality, there is no such magical or mental connection—we humans cannot connect with plants and animals mentally and the exploitation of nature for its resources is a necessary evil for production for human needs. “Connection” with nature as the movie portrays it is not the solution, nor is a return to primitive forms of society—we cannot liberate ourselves and the ecosystem through liberalism, so we must liberate it through socialist revolution.

Conclusion
Despite these flaws, at its base Avatar tries to teach liberals and reactionaries to support the justified revolutionary violence of humanities oppressed against their oppressors. The film makes no simpering, cowardly “moral equivalency” argument that the violence of the Na’vi against the genocidal human corporation and military-industrial complex invading their homeland for financial gain is “just as bad” as the violence committed by the humans. Unlike most Hollywood trash, Avatar does not give any liberal criticism of violence against oppressors as “wrong.” This would amount to a rejection of revolution and the rights of oppressed peoples. There is no attempt whatsoever to justify imperialist actions in Avatar.

The final grade is that Avatar is a good film with a message that is on the side of progress. Despite flaws such as the Orientalist attitude towards Na’vi culture, Avatar’s anti-imperialist merits are primary and its errors are secondary. It is a thoroughly entertaining, enjoyable and well-made film.

Obama’s War Prize

By Matteo Ferrofusil & Marcus Winter

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been a joke. Alfred Nobel was a 19th century military-industrialist who invented dynamite as a weapon. He was called the “Merchant of Death” throughout his career. The fact that he used his fortune to create a prize, and of all things a “peace prize” would be humorous if it weren’t so sickening. The prize itself was created by the sale of weapons that were designed to kill more people at a faster pace.
The Nobel Prize was always pro-imperialist on top of this fact. Among others, it has been awarded to imperialists who performed microscopic good deeds to wash their hands of blood, like Henry Kissinger, whose policies helped escalate the Vietnam War and kill millions of Indochinese people, or the Dalai Lama, a former theocratic dictator who personally owned 6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves.

That legacy was confirmed a few days ago when Obama made his acceptance speech for the prize. This is quite fitting for a Nobel Prize, as like the prize’s creator Obama has done little for peace and a great deal for war.
The American Party of Labor maintains that overseeing a violent coup in Honduras, troop escalation and mass murder in Afghanistan, bomber drones in Pakistan, CIA torture, military escalation in Iraq, mass murder in Gaza, threatening war against Iran and North Korea and whitewashing indigenous Holocaust while doing nothing for Black Civil Rights is not worthy of anything called a “peace” prize.

The Question of the State

By Robert LaVida

What is a State? A Group of Public Organs Controlled by a Certain Class That Has the Right to Use Violence and Terror

The Essence of the State
No question has been more confused by capitalist scholars than that of the state, since no other question is as vital to the interests of the ruling classes.
Capitalist ideologists picture the state as some kind of “supernatural force” standing above society that has existed since time immemorial. It supposedly has no class character and is merely a neutral “instrument of order,” an “arbiter” called upon to resolve disputes which may arise between people regardless of their class affiliation. Such a “theory” of state serves to justify the privileges of the bourgeoisie and the existence of exploitation and capitalism.

To scientifically explain the origin and purpose of the state, we must examine its essence and the role it plays in society. In contrast to capitalist ideologists, it’s obvious the state is not something introduced into society from the outside, but is a product of society’s internal development. The state was brought into being by changes in material production. The succession of one mode of production by another causes a change in the state system.

The state has not always existed. Primitive society which had no private property and no classes had no state. Naturally, there were certain social functions, but they were performed by people chosen by all of society which had the right to dismiss these people at any time and to appoint others.

The further development of the productive forces, as we have already observed,led to the disintegration of primitive society, private property appeared, accompanied by classes—slaves and slave owners. It became necessary to protect private property, the rule and security of the slaveowners, and this brought into being the concept of the “state.”

Its further development was accompanied by a fierce class struggle, as we shall see below.

What Purpose Does the State Serve?
In a society made of antagonistic classes, the state is a political instrument, a machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another. The state is a product of class society. It arose with the appearance of classes and it will vanish, wither away with the disappearance of classes. The class dominating economically, possessing the means of production, acquires in the state a powerful instrument for the subjugation of the oppressed and exploited. Therefore, the state has a clearly defined class character.

What are the features of a state? The main feature of a state is the existence of public, social authority representing the interests of the class which dominates economically and not the entire population. The authority rests on armed force and the control of the Rule-Of-Law—the army, the courts, the police and the prison complex.

In primitive society all the people were armed, but the armed forces were in the hands of the ruling class and are used to suppress the people, to subordinate them to a small handful of exploiters. Representative bodies such as Congress, the Senate and parliaments—the huge bureaucratic administrative machine with a whole army of officials, intelligence agencies, courts, prosecutors’ offices and prisons, are all used for the same purpose. All of them combined make up the political authority of the exploiting state.

As class contradictions deepen and the class struggle intensifies, the state machine expands. The process is particularly intensive in contemporary capitalist society where the state machine and the armed forces have grown to an unprecedented size. The maintenance of this colossal state machine and armed forces is a heavy burden for the people, especially today when imperialist circles are engaged in political, and militaristic global hegemony.
While in primitive society people settled in consanguineous groups, in a state the population is grouped territorially, i.e. in districts, counties, states, regions etc. Territorial settlement is a result of the development of production, the increasing division of labor and the growth of trade and commodity exchange.

The Nature of the Capitalist State

Bourgeois ideologists and politicians are fond of talking about the progressive role of the bourgeois state. They claim that only this state has brought the people full freedom, that it is the highest type of genuine democracy.
Today the reformists, as opposed to the revolutionaries, are particularly vocal in this respect. They portray the bourgeois state as a force standing above classes, equally restraining both labor and capital. The capitalist state, in their opinion, has ceased to be the organ of only one class, the capitalist class, and now serves all classes in society. There is no evidence to support the statements of the reformists about the progressive, democratic nature of the contemporary bourgeois state.

At the dawn of capitalism the bourgeoisie did in fact posses some progressive features; it helped to introduce and develop capitalist production relations, which were more advanced than feudalist relations. Even in its heyday, however, the bourgeois state was not a democracy for all, but only for the small and rich elite, for the bourgeoisie. The democracy of capitalist society is democracy for the rich and dictatorship for the poor.

The capitalist state, whatever its form, is a dictatorship of the capitalists, a machine for suppressing the working class and all working people which always employs coercion against its class enemies in varying degrees and forms. This is especially true now, in the age of imperialism.

The Imperialist State
State-monopoly capitalism becomes widespread under imperialism. It combines the power of the monopolies with the power of the state into a single machine for enriching the monopolies, crushing the proletarian movement and the national liberation struggle, attempting to save the capitalist system and unleashing aggressive wars. The state becomes a committee for administering the affairs of the monopoly elite. In the interests of the latter the state constantly interferes in the process of capitalist production, applies various regulating measures and takes over individual branches of the economy in order to ensure the maximum profits to the monopolies.

In an age like this, there can be no talk of “democracy for all.” Imperialism is indisputably the negation of democracy in general, of all democracy. This cannot be concealed either by oratory about freedom, democracy, human rights, references to bourgeois constitutions or declarations, about the civilizing mission of capitalism.

The constitutions of many imperialist states are not wanting in articles proclaiming all sorts of freedoms and rights for all citizens, universal suffrage, free elections, freedom of speech and the press, and so on and so forth. In reality, these freedoms often remain a dead letter for the overwhelming majority of citizens, for the working people. Only the bourgeoisie, which controls all the instruments of economic and political domination, enjoys them to the full.

The “free” world of capitalism has millions of unemployed; in other words, bourgeois rule is unable to ensure the right to work for everyone. However much the capitalists and their lackeys boast about the capitalist paradise, capitalism remains a system of oppression of an overwhelming majority of people by a handful of exploiters, a society where lack of rights, poverty and unemployment are the lot of millions of working people. The essence of “freedom” in the imperialist world is freedom to exploit the working people not only at home but in other countries.

Fascism & Domestic Dictatorship
Under imperialism, the financial oligarchy increasingly resorts to the most reactionary methods of government, to outright terrorist dictatorship, to fascism; it relies on the army and the police as a last resort to protect it from the popular wrath and hold up capitalism’s doom. Mankind has not forgotten the horrors of the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini and their allies in Europe, nor the horrors of the Second World War unleashed by fascism.
Dangerous signs of fascism have reappeared in some capitalist countries. Complete subordination of the state to the giant monopolies, militarization of the economy, expansion of the state machine, the frenzied drive against the working-class and left-wing movement, the persecution of peace supporters and members of other progressive organizations, racial discrimination and restriction of democratic freedoms, this is the content of the domestic policy pursued by contemporary imperialist states.

Imperialist Foreign Policy
The foreign policy of contemporary imperialist states is also worth noting. Posing as champions of “liberation” of the colonial peoples, the imperialists are actually waging a vicious struggle against the national liberation movement and are imposing in new forms the very same colonialism which is so hated.
In order to gain control over countries which have formerly won their independence, the imperialists bully them into their aggressive blocs, make use of economic “aid” to less developed countries and other means. The imperialist states pursue their domestic and foreign policies under the flag of struggle against left-wing and liberation fighters, whom it labels “terrorists.”

"Expand & Conquer or Die" is the Motto of Imperialism

Conclusion
The working class cannot be indifferent to the form of capitalist state that exists in their country. That is why the working class in the capitalist countries, heading all the progressive forces, persistently combats the onslaught of the state, and must fight for a revolution to overthrow imperialist rule.

Review of “Fast Food Nation”

By Marcus Winter

What Is the Error of this Book?

This book will doubtlessly go down in history as the favorite palm book of the elitist, petty-bourgeois American social democrats and liberals. If you are looking for a manual on how to look down on the working class for not having enough money or education to “know” to shop exclusively at farmers’ markets and Whole Foods, this is your book. If you wish to imagine yourself as part of a “new generation” of liberals with upturned noses pointed towards cheap food and the foolish people who buy it, and not bother to make a worthwhile analysis of why they buy it, this is your book. Finally, if you wish to remain blissfully unaware that farmers’ markets and organic stores are not particularly less exploitive then Burger King, this is most definitely your book.
Perhaps I am being too harsh. After all, not all is lost here-Schlosser does a good job of portraying the exploitation of immigrant labor and the horrible working conditions inherent in the fast food industry. He also does a great job cataloguing how greed is inherent also in capitalism and thus in its red-headed stepchild, the fast food industry.
He does not, however, examine how Whole Foods is several times as expensive as your average fast food restaurant (since it, too, operates on a profit-motivated capitalist system), and how that might be a factor in fast food’s popularity among the lower classes. Instead, he seems to thumb his nose at those who dare not spend extra money on organic beef instead of using the check from their below-minimum-wage job to pay their rent. There are some families (immigrants especially) that are simply too poor to afford good food, not to mention fast food is available and addictive. Fast food restaurants, like gun stores and liquor stores, infest poor neighborhoods. Might there be a reason behind this? Not in Schlosser’s world.

Elitism
The over-intellectualization should be a given when reading a book written by a journalist, but there’s enough here to make even your most dyed-in-the-wool urban liberal queasy. When an author tries to draw parallels between the specific rise of fast food and the life-long alienation of American workers, between fast food and High School dropouts, one begins to scratch his head.
Schlosser is frequently quite reactionary. For example, in one chapter he notes that robberies at fast food joints occur because those they employ members of the youth, poor people and minorities-groups responsible for much of the nation’s crime, he says. I found this quite disturbing. Is he suggesting these “high-risk individuals” should not be given jobs? He concentrates much on the question of brand fetishism, but also on the Freudian analysis of the fast food chain as a “papa” figure, rather than a chemical addiction and irreplaceable “choice” given by schedule and financial situation.

Fundamentally Wrong Theses
It pains me to blast this book so savagely, since Schlosser’s heart is obviously in the right place. However, his elitist approach and complete lack of working class analysis must be criticized, as well as his blaming the fast food industry instead of the system that produced it. This book was not a truly critical look at the system. His pleading to the reader to “do the right thing and look beyond what is profitable” is moralist and does not realize that the kind of “morals” he speaks of protect private property and the eternal interests of empire. He suggests stopping ads targeted at children, but then goes on to suggest that this will only happen when we, as individuals, decide to not buy anything from fast food places.

Yeah, sure. Good luck with that.

Even if it were possible to return to the “small free enterprise” capitalism that everyone from the liberals to neo-fascists dream about, it is only natural that the more successful small business owners would grow into big businessmen and put others out of business. One would think Schlosser would have noticed that the fast food pioneers he profiled started from very humble roots—small restaurants to multinational corporations. Why would anyone believe that taking the process back a few steps, assuming that were even possible, wouldn’t lead to the same outcome again?

Staying Within “American” Politics

The Republican/Democrat argument is irrelevant and breathtakingly naive. Both bourgeois parties protect and defend the wealthy interests these operations he seems to despise, as well as the small stores he seems to think are the solution. In another section, he suggests that the lure of employment at McDonalds is causing teenagers to drop out of High School (seriously, what?) If kids are having to support families, that highlights a social and economic problem, not the “foolishness” of working at McDonalds. He then goes on to link employment at fast food joints to dying because of on-the-job injuries, not realizing such things happen in every industry. Shock, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois store owners do not care about their workers!
More deeply, Eric Schlosser falls for the capitalist trap of bourgeois culture-beauty instead of truth, or in his case ugliness instead of truth. He provides no meaningful analysis of a system which allows such commercial capitalist relations to exist, and provides much history of the food chains themselves while magically giving no historical analysis as to the societal conditions which gave rise to the business in the first place. Yes, McDonalds flourished in 1961. Why?

The Myth of the Small “Mom & Pop” Capitalist

Schlosser offers no solutions to the people for stopping the horrors of capitalism except “buy less” and “do things that are not profitable for big corporations.” By urging people to buy from small businesses, he is basically advertising for another industry, and creating demand for their product so they can be profitable.

Somehow returning to a blissful state (as if there ever was one) of capitalism is idealistic and defies the laws of capitalism itself, which naturally moves toward monopoly. This is why the small bourgeoisie are an unstable class with 95% of their businesses failing within a year of being started. This idea of going back to small-time capitalism defies the laws of capital accumulation—a big capitalist can outbid any small capitalist.

A Class Analysis
In the final analysis, Schlosser’s work is objectively pro-imperialist. He does not speak out against capitalism and exploitation-rather against big capitalism and visible exploitation. Most of his complaints themselves are capitalist and reactionary to the core. “Can’t we go back to the small business owner?” and “globalization homogenizes others!” Not realizing, or more than likely ignoring, the fact that it can equally foster and exaggerate differences for political needs. Another problem with this liberal analysis is that for Schlosser, the biggest problems are aesthetic ones, for example the old and tired “McDonalds and big box stores are so uniform and boring, no to mention they’re everywhere” complaint. Ah yes, Mr. Schlosser, how awful it is that your perfect suburban paradise has to be ruined by an “everything-you-need-in-one-place” shopping center. Schlosser would apparently prefer if the masses of people were forced to do their food shopping at many different stores to fulfill their nostalgic fantasies.

Conclusion
If nothing else, this book, as well as the movie “Super-Size Me” represent a growing tendency of the neo-liberal and social democratic movements to privilege reformism instead of actual solution to social conflict and “Golden Age”-favoring nostalgia of the “good ole days” to the actual, eternal realities of imperialism.

A Marxist’s problem with Wal-Mart is that it is a corporation, a capitalist enterprise, and it treats its workers like shit. I could care less that it is a big box store, and the fact that it sells every product for low prices is something positive for the working class. What does it matter if peoples’ days are longer or more inconvenient for the sake of aesthetics? It does matter to us. It’s the liberals who think that people should be forced to stop at half a dozen small shops on the way home for the sake of preserving a quaint past. The fact is, Wal-Mart’s prices appeal to the lowest common denominator because of poverty and availability. These are social problems which must be solved via revolutionary means, not through liberal whining.

His text, in the end, reduces itself to a mere gelatinous pile of complaints, utterly worthless, fattening and with no nutritional value, much like the food he so rails against. The irony of all this is supreme if one realizes that the small capitalist world they want back is absolutely impossible in an imperialist world. Liberal writers’ nostalgia and future hope for some unsullied traditional early capitalist culture where the small business owner rules and production relations are kept at the capitalist level cannot be seen as anything but reactionary. The base may have moved on, but the superstructure drags behind, wishing for better days.

Killing Two Capitalist Myths

By Comrade J

F.A. Hayek, a Libertarian Scholar and Stooge For Capitalism; Argued that Ruthless Capitalism was the Best Course For Humanity.

There is a widespread popular myth that the capitalists are entitled to their compensation, as well as the value of other peoples’ labor, simply because they take “risks” or because they come up with original ideas for production of goods. The second popular myth is that we cannot criticize capitalism because capitalism made our modern lifestyle possible. In other words, capitalism is providing us with all these wonderful consumer goods, so we should all just shut up and stop complaining. These are not ideas exclusive only to radical libertarians or Austrian School advocates; they are far more commonly accepted even by people who admit that there are many problems with the capitalist system.

The Theory of “Original Risk”
First, let’s look at this matter of “risk.” Who takes more risks—the worker or the capitalist? The capitalist is someone who has capital, at least enough to invest in some industry or business. After all, this is what we are speaking of when we speak about capitalists taking risks—they invest in some business or industry with the hopes of getting a high return on their investment. Recent events have shown us how wonderfully this system works, but let’s ignore that for a moment. What happens when the capitalist takes a risk and loses? Most likely, he/she will not lose everything unless they have been very foolish with their money and careless with their investments. Even if that should happen, what is the absolute worst that could occur? They will have to work for a living, like everyone else. How dreadful!

Now what about the worker’s risk? The worker is already forced into a life-or-death situation, as working people have no means of subsistence other than their ability to work. They are forced by necessity to work for the capitalist by his or her conditions in order to be paid money to live. Thus for many men, women and even underage children, the worker may often be risking physical injury, disease or death. Millions of workers worldwide are forced to risk their health and life by working long hours under extremely dangerous conditions such as exposure to toxic fumes, heavy machinery, unsafe structures and so on.

As if that wasn’t enough, the worker is also taking a risk when they trust that the company they work for isn’t going to go belly-up within a short time, putting them back out on the street. This is especially devastating in these days when unemployment is very high. Workers may have to relocate and disrupt their lives just to find a decent job. When they are laid off soon after relocating, all their plans are shattered. The capitalist by stark contrast, risks at most being reduced to the state of the worker. Clearly, the worker risks far more, and yet their compensation is far less than that of the capitalist, thus dispelling the idea that risk entitles one to wealth.

Capital, in a capitalist system, is generally accumulated via surplus value; that is the exploitation of workers’ labor. Moreover, what about those capitalists who make wise investments, searching for investments which will guarantee profitable returns? Should they be penalized or taxed in some way for not making risky investments? But how are investments risky when the richest capitalists can trust the governments they control to bail them out if they should fail? Those banks and companies which invested their money weren’t risking anything at all, since the government promptly compensated them for their failure at the expense of the public.

“Capitalism Has Given You All This!”

Now for the next item on the chopping block. In discussions about capitalism, we have heard many times the argument that reduces anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism to complaining: “You complain so much about capitalism, but capitalism is why you have a computer, phones, toasters, clothes…” and so on and so forth.

This argument essentially says that we have no right to be anti-capitalist because, presumably, capitalism is providing a better standard of living. There are many flaws with this argument. Foremost is the fact that capitalism is not providing such a wonderful lifestyle for the majority of the world’s population. More than half the world’s population—about 3 billion people—currently lives on less than a few dollars a day. Imagine if we were to suggest that African-Americans had no right to complain about the system of segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South simply because they had it worse under slavery. Slavery was objectively worse, as feudalism is objectively worse than capitalism, but that does not mean that the post-slavery society of the South should be beyond reproach. As well, this logic must also mean that because of the inventions that feudalism gave us, which we still use to this day, we must not criticize the feudal system of serfs, kings and lords.

We must also consider that in many countries which formerly had socialist systems, including revisionist market-socialist systems, the standard of living has dropped, often quite dramatically, with frightening consequences for many populations. It’s easy to look at modern-day Eastern European cities, note the people carrying expensive cell phones, the internet cafes, and the modern clubs and restaurants and conclude that this is an improvement over the late “socialist” societies which previously existed here. However, let us be honest—many of the innovations that make these societies bearable today did not exist even in capitalist societies in the last days of the USSR and Eastern Bloc, such as our wonderful modern cell phones.

These countries now import many luxuries and consumer goods that are out of reach for most of the world population. Not to mention that many people in the West acquired their homes, cars, and other luxury consumer goods through credit, and now we can all see the results of that scheme.

In Moscow, people work ridiculously long hours just to get a piece of that capitalist pie, to the point where many people will tell you that they have virtually no time for recreation. By contrast, the socialist government, even in the corrupt, revisionist post-Khrushchev era made it a point to ensure that workers had access to recreation and cultural facilities, and provided workers with the means to develop their various talents. When we look at the negative aspects of full capitalist restoration, such as plunging birthrates, migration, corruption, drug addiction, shortened life-spans, ethnic violence, sex slavery, and a failing social welfare system, it is clear that while it can be said that Western capitalist countries had a higher-standard of living compared to the socialist bloc countries, the standard of living in these countries today is in many ways worse.

So much worse in fact, that a number of articles from sources including The Wall Street Journal and the AFP report that recent polls show a growing discontent with capitalism and a rising opinion that life under “communism” was in many ways better. So to say that capitalism has provided us a much better world today is clearly dishonest as it has also provided a much worse standard of living for many people.

Now if we consider the argument that we should be grateful that capitalism has produced everything we use today, we see that it is also illogical on the grounds that capitalism has been the dominant system for several hundred years, and it has had time to develop unlike the first attempts at building socialism. To say that we can’t criticize capitalism because we depend on it today would be like attacking capitalism from a feudal perspective, pointing out that capitalism could not have accomplished anything without feudalism. How can the pro-capitalist sing the praises of capitalist innovation when so much of that innovation is based on previous technology, in turn based on previous scientific knowledge and methodology, all dating back centuries, even thousands of years in some cases, developed by societies which existed long before the development of capitalism and the money-based economy. Does capitalism owe a debt to the theocratic Islamic Caliphate, under which a great deal of crucial inventions and scientific advances were made? Try that argument next time a capitalist apologist tells you to thank capitalism.

Class Nature & Origin of these Arguments
These myths persist like urban legends. They are often the products of various think tanks and right-wing organizations who bankroll the books, television, and radio programs of pundits whose job is to convince working class people to align with the businessmen at the top, rather than consider their own interests.

Because there is an inherent contradiction between these two classes, in that what benefits one class necessarily comes at the expense of the other, the apologists for capitalism have

Propoganda has Always Played a Large Role in the Ruling Class' Fear Campaigns

little choice but to resort to illogical arguments in favor of capitalism. No wonder that right-wing punditry seems to prefer focusing on social issues, creating false outrages every week, and generally relying mainly on emotional appeals, especially fear.

Conclusion

Explaining that a capitalist deserves to profit off of others’ labor because he allegedly takes a risk simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Thus, the right today seems far more interested in convincing our fellow workers that they are in danger of a Marxist dictatorship, being taken over by “illegal aliens,” that their religion is under attack, and so forth. We must obviously engage and expose these lies, since if we attack the foundations of those myths which are used to justify capitalism in the eyes of the worker, it can only help towards building class consciousness. When class consciousness becomes strong enough, and the working class is fully aware of their class interests, all the whining, fear-mongering, and conspiracies of a thousand Glenn Becks will be able to throw the working class off their course toward revolution.

Fanning the Flames of War In Afghanistan

By Alisha Reed

War President Obama: 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

Obama: “We Did Not Ask for This Fight”
Bush: “We Did Not Seek This Conflict”
Obama: “New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak”
Bush: “At This Moment … Terrorists are Planning New Attacks”
Obama: “Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering”
Bush: “Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined”
Obama: “This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat”
Bush: “The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle”
Obama: “We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country”
Bush: “I Wouldn’t Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either”

The war in Afghanistan turned 8 years old on October 7^th, 2009. The War in Afghanistan has carried on longer than the Second World War…
Longer than the First World War…
Longer than the American Civil War …

When you talk to a person in the United States or Canada about the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, many are unaware that the conflict persists to this day (in fact, it is escalating). Despite the recent escalations in Afghanistan, most pay the conflict absolutely no mind in their day-to-day affairs. Why would they? But the Afghan resistance continues, in the face of a foe that is better armed, funded and supplied than the insurgency. In the face of this resistance, successive administrations of NATO commanders continue to give the same message on Afghanistan: “We cannot win”.

So, how is it that the some of the poorest people on the planet earth are holding their own, and continuing to give NATO forces in Afghanistan an ongoing fight and mounting casualties? More importantly why do the people of Afghanistan continue to resist?

Afghanistan: A Brief History
Afghanistan is, if nothing else, a historical example of iron resistance to invasion.
Alexander the Great, the Mongol Khans, the Persians, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics…no great power has been able to conclusively conquer Afghanistan or hold it indefinitely, no matter what the brutality towards the Afghan peoples inhabiting the region or the cost in human life. Every empire that has ever invaded Afghanistan has subsequently collapsed.

The following account could have just as easily been written after the American conquest of Afghanistan in 2001, but it is an analysis of the British conquest of Afghanistan in 1839 (my emphasis added):
“The conquest of Afghanistan seemed accomplished, and a considerable portion of the troops was sent back. But the Afghans were noways content to be ruled by the Feringhee Kaffirs (European infidels), and during the whole of 1840 and ’41, insurrection followed on insurrection in every part of the country. The Anglo-Indian troops had to be constantly on the move. Yet, McNaghten declared this to be the normal state of Afghan society, and wrote home that every thing went on well, and Shah Soojah’s power was taking root. In vain were the warnings of the military officers and the other political agents….every insurrection during the summer of ’41 was successfully repressed, and toward October, McNaghten, nominated governor of Bombay, intended leaving with another body of troops for India. But then the storm broke out. The occupation of Afghanistan cost the Indian treasury £1,250,000 per annum: 16,000 troops, Anglo-Indian, and Shah Soojah’s, had to be paid in Afghanistan; 3,000 more lay in Sinde, and the Bolan Pass; Shah Soojah’s regal splendours, the salaries of his functionaries, and all expenses of his court and government, were paid by the Indian treasury, and finally, the Afghan chiefs were subsidized, or rather bribed, from the same source, in order to keep them out of mischief. McNaghten was informed of the impossibility of going on at this rate of spending money. He attempted retrenchment, but the only possible way to enforce it was to cut down the allowances of the chiefs. The very day he attempted this, the chiefs formed a conspiracy for the extermination of the British, and thus McNaghten himself was the means of bringing about the concentration of those insurrectionary forces, which hitherto had struggled against the invaders singly, and without unity or concert; though it is certain, too, that by this time the hatred of British dominion among the Afghans had reached the highest point.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

While the British occupiers grew complacent in their conquest of Afghanistan, resistance erupted. Engels continues:

“ Nov. 2, 1841, the insurrection broke out. The house of Alexander Burnes, in the city, was attacked and he himself murdered. The British general did nothing, and the insurrection grew strong by impunity…. A few companies were sent against the thousands of insurgents, and of course were beaten. This still more emboldened the Afghans. Nov. 3, the forts close to the camp were occupied. On the 9th, the commissariat fort (garrisoned by only 80 men) was taken by the Afghans, and the British were thus reduced to starvation…In fact, by the middle of November, his irresolution and incapacity had so demoralised the troops that neither Europeans nor Sepoys were any longer fit to meet the Afghans in the open field. Then the negotiations began. During these, McNaghten was murdered in a conference with Afghan chiefs. Snow began to cover the ground, provisions were scarce. At last, Jan. 1, a capitulation was concluded. All the money, £190,000, was to be handed over to the Afghans, and bills signed for £140,000 more. All the artillery and ammunition, except 6 six-pounders and 3 mountain guns, were to remain. All Afghanistan was to be evacuated. The chiefs, on the other hand, promised a safe conduct, provisions, and baggage cattle.”
-Friederich Engels, Afghanistan, 1857

The British adventure in Afghanistan ended with the withdrawal of British troops and thousands of British soldiers dead with a disproportionately larger amount of the people of Afghanistan killed in the process. The later Soviet adventure in Afghanistan ended under similar terms. The mass resistance to occupation was enough to drive out even the most technologically superior foe. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the period of Taliban rule began, which leads us to the current occupation which began in 2001.

“Cartoon” Muslims and Chauvinistic Orientalism

“These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”
- Canadian Chief of Defense staff, General Rick Hillier.

The ongoing resistance in Afghanistan is written off by Western audiences as savage and the ongoing resistance to occupation is seen as a malevolent force that would just as surely wage a military strike on the United States itself, as well as allied countries, if ever given the chance.
The fighters in Afghanistan are seen literally by many Western observers as being in league with the infamous 9/11 hijackers. Of course, none of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Afghanistan (15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab emirates, 1 from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon), but nonetheless the parallel is drawn.
For this reason, as with resistance/national liberation fighters all over the Middle East, the Afghan resistance fighters are portrayed as two-dimensional cartoon villains, motivated purely by irrational religious fundamentalism. Of course, it is true to an extent that all political movements in contemporary Afghanistan (including the Karzai puppet regime) claim allegiance to Islam, as the majority of the population does.

The dehumanizing portrayal of all Afghan resistance fighters as bloodthirsty religious zealots—note that in most narratives, it is the occupied people of Afghanistan who are portrayed as the aggressors—coupled with “War on Terror” pop-Islamic theology, where the smug premise is given that the unwashed Muslim peoples of the world want nothing more than to end their own life and others in order to receive a celestial gift of paradise and virgins in the afterlife, has given rise to massive national-chauvinism and racism.

While Islam does perhaps have cases of condoning martyrdom, one must also remember that so do Christianity and Judaism, the other major Abrahamic faiths. The allegations of Islamic scriptural basis for the war in Afghanistan are flimsy, as it contrasts sharply with not only the long history of coexistence (including intermarriage) among Muslims and non-Muslim neighboring peoples around the world, but also contrasts with some of the teachings of Islam itself.
From the Quran:
“Be good to . . . the neighbor belonging to your people and the alien neighbor.” (4:36)
“Allah does not forbid you concerning those people who do not fight you because of your religion, nor expel you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly.. . . Allah forbids you only concerning those people who fight you for your religion, and drive you from your homes and help others to expel you, that you make friends of them.” (60: 8,9)
“And you will always find treachery in them, except a few of them. So pardon them and forgive. Surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (5:13)

These are words of peace and coexistence, taken from the same scriptures as those alleged to incite suicide bombings. It becomes clear at this war being waged in Afghanistan, and other wars waged in other parts of the Middle East against occupation, while they may assume Islam as their vehicle just as most Western conflicts acquired a basis in Christianity, it is not the Islamic faith that is the driving force behind their armed defiance. The actual reasons for their armed resistance are very worldly, very material and tangible—the continuation of capitalism and imperialism.

Statement from the American Party of Labor on President Obama’s Announcement on Troop Escalation in Afghanistan

Dec. 1st – The American Party of Labor expressed today its sincere and principled opposition to the latest announcement by President Barack Obama to escalate the United States’ military presence in occupied Afghanistan by more than 30,000 US soldiers. Today’s announcement represents the administration’s renewed investment in waging a costly, long-term and indefensible colonialist war against the people of Afghanistan, who have suffered unfathomable hardships, misery and privation after more than eight years of foreign military control.

Washington’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan constitutes a grave threat to the countless innocent civilians who will die as a direct result of today’s decision. But even more, the President’s so-called strategy for “finishing the job” in Afghanistan will only further destabilize a region gripped by instability, while concurrently inhibiting local development and progress for generations to come. In effect, the President’s decision to deploy tens of thousands of additional US soldiers to occupied Afghanistan aims to ensure that the region remains completely powerless to develop itself along its own lines, with the ultimate aim of providing newly opened markets for American and Western exports as soon as conditions are favorable.

But the Obama administration’s failures, just like its predecessor’s, rest in its sheer arrogance – blinding it to the realities of the situation as they currently exist. Once again, these developments have shown the government’s shortsightedness and inability to learn from its own failed history. Not unlike US military intervention in Vietnam, the United States government finds itself today confronted with a quickly degenerating situation in Afghanistan:

*Faced with a growing insurgency proving itself capable of inflicting heavy losses against the foreign invaders;
*Stuck in a politically compromising position while providing near limitless support for an utterly corrupt collaborator-regime;
*And now deploying thousands of US military men and women to fight and die in an unwinnable and unnecessary war.

Moreover, the President’s decision today is at odds with the majority of the people in this country that currently oppose the escalation of so-called “Operation Enduring Freedom.” The steady decrease in public support for US adventurism and imperialism in Afghanistan reflects the rapidly declining situation on the ground, compounded by reports of more and more American soldiers coming home in body bags or severely maimed on a near daily basis.

From the very beginning, the American war against Afghanistan and Iraq has been based on the purported claims that the war of absolute necessity in ensuring the US’s national security. These claims, unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, provided the precedent for the previous administration under George W. Bush, and abetted by a shamelessly complicit mainstream media, to wage a war of aggression against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in order to expand US material interests in the region while providing the economic consumption necessary to satisfy the insatiable greed of this country’s military industrial complex.

The American Party of Labor declares itself in strong opposition to the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Somalia and demands the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of all foreign military forces abroad—coinciding with the restoration of sovereignty into the hands of the peoples currently under siege by US militarism abroad.

About the American Party of Labor:
Founded in 2008, The American Party of Labor is a revolutionary working class organization. Our aim is to abolish the capitalist system and all its horrors by replacing it with socialism, a system based on the principle laid out by Marx, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
For more information, please visit www.americanpartyoflabor.org.

A Peoples’ Economic Recovery

By Robert LaVida

The current global economic crisis is a capitalist crisis. Millions of workers are losing their jobs and face a chaotic market which has no employment to offer. Many families face eviction from their homes as poverty rises to its highest level since the Great Depression. This situation offers plenty of opportunity for the “Change” President Obama has promised the nation, though we have yet to see it in any way, shape or form.

Though we have a new CEO of the ruling class in office it should not deter us from seeking to change the economic landscape to the benefit of the working class and the US labor movement. Given that one of the root causes of this economic crisis is a growing divide between the rich and the working class in the United States, and the corresponding growth of corporate power, now is a time for our Party to fight for both economic rights (job creation, extension of unemployment benefits, expansion of Medicare, etc.) and political power.

Particularly for the American Party of Labor and the U.S. working class movement, especially the organized labor movement, increasing power will mean reversing the slow decline of membership that has marked the past four decades. Today only about 12% of the workers in the United States belong to a union, although more than half of all workers say they would join a union if they could. Decades of anti-union propaganda distributed by the capitalists have contributed to this.

But how to turn around decades of slow retraction given the continued attacks on unions and workers’ right to organize? The labor movement and allies in the social and economic justice movements are pushing hard on the House and Senate to change national labor law to fix some of its biggest holes. The proposed legislation, called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), would increase the currently feeble sanctions against employers who fire workers for supporting a union and force arbitration of a union contract if an employer refuses to negotiate within a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, the legislation would force a company to recognize a union once a majority of workers had signed a petition or card saying they wanted to join the union. These changes would dramatically increase workers’ power to form unions by taking away some of the critical tools employers use to drag out the unionization process while they harass and intimidate workers.

Clearly shifting the balance of power, even slightly, toward workers and unions will not be easy, nor will one legislative battle alone turn around this economic crisis. That is why grassroots groups that bring together unions, community organizations and student activists are working to connect the fight for EFCA to a broader fight for economic rights, a fight at the local, state and national levels to increase social spending and the social safety net to create jobs, keep people in their homes, and reverse the skyrocketing cost of health care.

In October and December of last year, community and labor activists around the country took to the streets as part of “Peoples’ Bailout Now” weeks of action, supporting struggles to keep people in their jobs (or at least guarantee their severance pay, in the case of the Chicago Republic Windows and Doors workers who occupied their factory), stop evictions from foreclosed homes, and fight for public property like schools and shelters to remain public.
Building bridges between the battle for major labor law reform and the push for a massive economic stimulus package is critical for strengthening the working class movement. By taking this opportunity to raise the political consciousness of working people, we help to build a broad movement of the most advanced members of that class. This work brings together groups of people with similar interests who often are working so hard on their own campaigns and issues that they don’t have the time or resources to connect.

We should begin in the cities to partner with labor unions, workers’ centers and organizations including domestic workers and day laborers, and other grassroots tenant and community rights organizations to hold town-hall style gatherings to define what a real economic recovery that impacts the people most affected by the current economic crisis would look like.

We should come out of these forums with a grassroots proposal and the momentum behind it to secure both the right to organize and the basic right of all people to economic stability. Those changes nationally—together with the critical international solidarity work of ending U.S. military, political, and economic intervention abroad, are the kind of changes the labor movement and the American Party of Labor need to demand of an administration that has raised people’s hope for change.

Book Review of “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus”

By Matteo Ferrofusil

Today is Thanksgiving, and nothing would mark the occasion better than to check out 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, a 2005 book by Charles C. Mann. The work serves as a challenge to the arguments presented to us by Euro-centric scholars. For starters, Mann presents the argument that the Native peoples came 20,000 years ago as opposed to 13,000 years ago from Asia and not just from the Bering land bridge but by small boats from the coast of Siberia.

Much Larger Population than Believed
Euro-chauvinists like Ayn Rand as well as the Founding Fathers believed the “Indian” population ought to have been conquered because they did not “utilize the land properly.”

The truth of the matter is the Indigenous peoples throughout the New World used a slash and burn method to bring nutrients to otherwise sterile soil. The ancient Olmec peoples utilized this method in the otherwise infertile soil in the jungles of the Mexican Gulf Coast. Likewise, the Amazonian peoples utilized charcoal and a fish fertilizer to enrich the soil of their rainforests. The Praire tribes used annual fires to encourage the growth of berry bushes so as to sustain a large population of deer. In the Inca Empire they utilized stone terraces for farming, and among the Mexica, also known as the Aztecs, used Chinampas, a floating garden in the lake of Texcoco. The results of this dominion over nature was a population of 100 million people, which is 10 times the previous estimates.

European Technology Was Not a Factor in Victory
Mann also tackles the overemphasis of gunpowder and steel, a major argument from some scholars. He describes the Indigenous attitudes to the arquebus (the early European firearm) as “noise makers” as well as wildly inaccurate and incapable of firing in the rain, susceptible to misfire and incapable of firing as quickly as a bow and arrow. The colonist John Smith commented on the ability of the arrow to shoot farther and much more accurately than those of the early firearms.

Similarly, the use of Indigenous clothing proved to be much better suited to the New World than their European counterparts. The armor of the Mesoamerican peoples was quickly adopted by the Spanish Conquistadors who commented on its lightweight properties and the ability to stop an arrow. They quickly used it instead of their cumbersome steel breastplates. European colonists as well commented on the sturdiness and comfort of Indigenous moccasins compared to European boots which were prone to wear and tear, and also recognized the superior maneuverability and speed of a canoe compared to anything the Europeans had of similar size.

Aztec Philosophy was Comparable to Greek Philosophy
A shattering analysis by Mann was the philosophy of the Mexica, or Aztecs, which he argued was just as sophisticated as Ancient Greek Philosophy. Aztec Philosophy was, in his opinion, the most developed philosophy in the Americas and has produced more philosophical texts than even the Ancient Greeks.

Aztec Society placed the Tlamatini, in Nahuatl “man who knows something,” or philosopher in high esteem. The Aztec philosophers dealt with such concepts as dialectical monism, aesthetics and poetry. Aztec philosophy was largely fatalist—it was their viewpoint that the Earth was fragile and destined for destruction and it was necessary to “find balance” in one’s life.

Conclusion
The book 1491 serves as a tool to challenge Euro-centric views propagated by many historians. It is to challenge the belief that the Indigenous peoples of America were “wild savages” and the ridiculous notion that the Conquistador and Colonist brought “civilization” as well as “discovered” this continent.