chinese exodus of influence

In the early days of African discovery soldiers, missionaries, and explorers led the way towards the attempted understanding of and preceding conquest of Africa. This push came from the world powers of the day in Western Europe - now we see a new wave of settlers moving in on the African continent. However, this exodus should not be a surprise. Lured by the increase in wealth, property, and life style, Chinese migrants are starting new lives in Africa. Approved by the Beijing government, the migrants are involved in agriculture reform, construction (which is a huge Chinese business in Africa), and trade.

The Chinese relationship with Africa is strong and this new development should not come as a surprise. "To build a unified front against imperialism," was the Chinese goal in the 1950s. This involved supporting the growing African decolonization, nationalist movements, and revolutions. There is a strong history of economic ties between China and Africa. We can see this in Chinese blue and white porcelain found at African gravesites from the expeditions of Zheng He. Zheng He left the Cape of Good Hope with the gift of a giraffe. Trade relations with China only increased from there.

China began its first bilateral agreements in 1956 with Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, and Guinea. China had been in agreement with the Soviet Union in supporting African revolutions, but China became more interested in providing financial and military support for nationalist movements. In the 1960s there were nineteen African countries with official ties to Beijing. The recent wave of nearly 750,000 Chinese migrants are not the first. In the 1960s Mao Zedong sent people to forge political ties with the continent. This newest wave or Chinese people is to strengthen the Chinese claims over raw materials and markets. The head of the China Export-Import Bank has said that he will support this migration with "investment, project development, and help with the sale of products." Mr. Li says,"There's no harm in allowing [Chinese] farmers to leave the country to become farm owners [in Africa]," he added.

Mission of the China Export-Import Bank:

The main mandate of the Bank is to implement the state policies in industry, foreign trade and economy and finance to provide policy financial support so as to promote the export of Chinese mechanical and electronic products and high- and new-tech products, to support Chinese companies with comparative advantages to "go global" for offshore construction contracts and overseas investment projects, to develop and strengthen relations with foreign countries, and to enhance Sino-foreign economic and technological cooperation and exchanges.

Beyond the trade relations that are now ever growing, the political ties have been and remain strong. During the 1960s China provided military and financial to nationalist movements as well as increasing development dollars - $100 million. They also sent 150,000 technicians to implement projects in agriculture, transport, and infrastructure development. China was involved in numerous independence movements. In the build-up to democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China was providing financial support, but it wasn't enough. After Lumumba was assassinated by the efforts of the CIA, the Chinese demonstrated en masse. Millions gathered in Peking, 400,000 in Shanghai which solidified the Chinese influence and support for further revolutionary movements. A new regime was supported in Tanzania (1964) until Nyerere took power. Nyerere even adopted the Mao-style uniform. Chinese engineers built a railroad from Zambia to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania showing the Chinese economic might and proving that China was serious in Africa. China supported many nationalist and revolutionary movements (see map) with arms, money, medical supplies, scholarships, and guerrilla trainings and camps.

In 1971 China received 76 votes for a permanent UN Security Council seat. Of those votes 26 were from African countries and by the 1980s fourty-four African countries had established diplomatic ties with Beijing. These ties soon faded out, but have recently been rekindled in the 1990s and more recently in 2006. In the third China-Africa forum 48 African countries were represented. China now represents the leading Asian developing giant, above India, Singapore, and Thailand. China now rivals OECD countries or the developed West in providing foreign aid (rogue aid). China now outbids the World Bank and in 2006-2008 provided over $10 billion in loans to African countries.

China has regained its strong influence in African countries. Their power is unmatched and their recent wave of settlement unprecedented. This is a point of contention for both Western powers who may be afraid of the growing Chinese power and the people of African countries who should be wary of another exploiter. The Chinese may have a history of support, development, and influence, but that does not justify current action.

From the When not in Africa. . . blog.

Previously posted on the Young People For Blog.

Bordiga and the Democratic farse

Liberalism has marked its role as the rightful heir of God when it declared the sacredness of the individual--an individual who is a complete autonomous ghost that hovers over the world. All these ghosts, granted with divine equality, are treated the same by the beautiful phantom of Liberal Democracy!

The bourgeosie demonstrated its own inability to kill God when Robespierre declared Thérèse Momoro as the Goddess of Reason. The new "secular priests", with their constitutional bibles, preach the cult of the mutliated God of "Liberalism". Everywhere these stupid secular evangelicals declare that the opinion of the majority--a majority composed of ghastly entitities divorced of the material world--is the absolute truth.

The Democratic lie is based on the misconception that a society conformed by antagonistic classes is conformed by one, supreme interest. To the Liberal democrat the vote of the exhausted worker, the rich capitalist, and the homeless lumpen is the same: everybody is a spook divorced from material realities, everybody enjoys the same intellectual faculties--and most importantly, everybody's interests are similar.

It is no surprise to anyone that economic power equals to ideological power. Since the beginning of civilization, mainstream ideology has served the ruling class. God served the monarchy with the "divine rights of kings", and today ideology serves the "divine right of capitalists". Societies always try to justfy their modes of of being, and their modes of being always lay founded on those who have the economic power. It is laughable to consider that the people raised by the television, school, work ethic, church, and family will offer autonomous, independent opinions. They will only offer, at least generally, the dominant opinion, which is deeply rooted to the way society is structured.


I recur to the "ghost metaphor" because the naive liberal democrat argues for an idealized man, separated from the world. An idealized man that is not subject to the dominant opinion, which, unless the process of societal decomposition sparks, the dominant opinion will always be serving the dominant class.

The vicious cycle of ideological domination is broken when society is unable to justify itself anymore. It is when decomposition kicks in, when warfare is openly declared. When society is unable to justify itself anymore, the ruling class always resorts to the most horrible methods to secure its rule. When the Democratic lie loses its credibility, it is when we see the bullets flying to the heart of Ferrer. The spectres of Porfirio Diaz and Francisco Franco are my witnesses.

People who hold a "new word in their hearts" cannot always depend on the opinions of the mayority. We should not measure our ideas based on the crude arithmetic of the democratic farse--we only measure their merit based on the metric of human emancipation. Just because slavery was an accepted idea in 1850 it doesn't means we should accept it.

Counter-insurgency in Chiapas

(http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012508I.shtml)

"The Mexican state has re-activated paramilitary groups," says Ledesma.
"They are doing what the Spaniards did during the conquest and what the ranchers
and local mafias did after the Mexican Revolution: They are dispossessing
once again the indigenous peoples from their lands, from their territory."

full article -

<_http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012508I.shtml_
(http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012508I.shtml) >

US economic recession likely boon for China in trade, investment

Interesting article...

Published on ShanghaiDaily.com (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/)
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2008/200801/20080124/article_346388.htm


US economic recession likely boon for China in trade, investment
Created: 2008-1-24
Author:Mei Xinyu


THE concern by many Chinese that the US' possible economic recession might mean
an overwhelming shock for China is unnecessary.

A US recession might not necessarily lead to the reduction of its imports from
China. Rather, it might even create opportunities for China.

Despite the fact that in the highly globalized world economy, economic recession
might result in the reduction in the overall import volume of a developed
country, it should be noted that recession stimulates a country's demand for
relatively low-priced imports.

While China has been making efforts to upgrade its commodities structure of
export, cheap commodities still account for the majority of its exports to
developed countries such as the US and European countries.

Therefore, economic recessions in developed countries are more likely to lead to
increases in their imports from China, rather than the other way around.

This is proved by the fact that although US economic development slowed down ever
since the later half of 2000, China's annual export to the US has been
continuously on the rise.

Of course, China will have to readjust its restrictive macro economic policies if
the economic recession of the US gets serious.

Further, the benefits to China from its foreign trade are not limited to its
exports, but also its imports, especially the import of advanced technological
equipment, energy resources, raw materials, and overseas investments.

It is precisely in these areas that the interests of China and the US do not
overlap.

As a developed country, the US has always been on the alert for China's
development.

In as early as 1949 when the People's Republic of China was just founded, the US
issued its NSC41 (National Security Council) document with which it created a
broad, strict and rigid export control system of strategic materials against
China.

Even today, the control system has not been relaxed.

What's worse, the latest rule issued by the US further broadened the control on
its exports to China and complicated the approval procedures.

In such cases, the amount of technological equipment that we can import from
developed countries depends heavily on the export controls of those nations and
the prices they quote.

When developed countries experience an economic boom, due to high domestic
demands, they are likely to be more conservative in their export of advanced
technological equipment to China and thus quote higher prices.

Contrarily, when they enter economic recession, because of reduced domestic
demands, they are likely to loosen export controls and offer the equipment at
lower prices.

In this sense, the US recession will provide a good chance for our country to
increase its import of advanced technological equipment from the US.

In this way, we will be able to transform the economic crisis of a developed
country into an opportunity for the development of China.

The situation is similar in terms of China's investment in the US.

In 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) met with great
difficulties and was thwarted in the end in its attempt to buy Unocal in the US.

Yet this time, as the US has fallen into economic crisis, Chinese financial
institutions didn't meet with even the least objection from anti-China forces in
the US when they recently offered to invest in Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley in
that country.

Although products made in China sell all over the world, China's manufacturing
industry is still too weak to make big profits.

Therefore, purchasing world famous brands and distributors is no doubt the
quickest way to raise our profitability.



(The author is a senior researcher under the Ministry of Commerce. The views are
his own. His Website: www.meixinyu.com)

While other states rise, Mich. remains stagnant in higher education funding

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008/01/while_other_states_rise_mich_remains_stagnant_in_higher_education_funding

Editor’s Note: The numbers in this infobox were changed to reflect an increase in thousands in regard to the appropriations.

Nationally, state appropriations for higher education saw a 7.5 percent increase for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Michigan ranked 49th in the nation with a 0.1 percent increase.

In the 2006-07 fiscal year, Michigan distributed $2.04 billion to higher education institutions. MSU received about $350 million of those funds.

Source: Grapevine project_

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Julie Baker
The State News
Published: January 22, 2008

Editor’s note: The numbers in this story were changed to reflect an increase of thousands in regard to the appropriations.

In a global fight for talent, Michael Boulus wonders why Michigan is so far behind the country and the rest of the world.

Boulus, executive director of the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan, said the state needs to take a larger role in financially supporting students as they pursue higher education.

Michigan ranked 50th in state tax appropriations for higher education in terms of percent increase during the past 10 years, according to the Grapevine project, an annual compilation of data on state support for higher education put together by faculty at Illinois State University.

In the 2006-07 fiscal year, Michigan distributed more than $2.04 billion in tax appropriations to higher education institutions. MSU received about $350 million of those funds.

State tax appropriations for the 2007-08 fiscal year are set at $2.043 billion, equating to a 0.1 percent increase from last year and a No. 49 ranking nationally.

Nationally, state tax support for higher education rose 7.5 percent in the 2007-08 budget year, the highest annual increase since 1985, according to the Grapevine report.

Rhode Island is the only state that saw a decrease in funds, with a decline of 1.2 percent.

James Palmer, a professor at Illinois State and editor of the study, said the Grapevine project is one of the longest continually operated and recurring studies of higher education.

The study has been conducted every year since 1960. It tracks state tax appropriations but does not include other forms of fiscal support, such as lottery money, Palmer said.

Michigan’s ranking has many groups concerned because it means the state has some catching up to do, Boulus said.

Factors like inflation and the economy must be figured in, he said. But for the state to have economic prosperity it must support higher education.

“It’s not so much about the economy as it is about decisions lawmakers are making,” Boulus said.

Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said higher education is a priority in Michigan.

“The state Legislature went to great lengths in a year when the budget was so fiscally broke to make sure higher education institutions received their deferred payments,” he said. “This demonstrates that state lawmakers on both sides are dedicated to funding higher education.”

Greg Bird, spokesman for House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford, said House Democrats believe a strong higher education system must be a priority in order to help the state’s economy grow.

“Investments in research, development and new technologies not only benefit students learning at our institutions but will create the jobs of the future in Michigan,” Bird said.

Karen Schulz, spokeswoman for the Michigan Education Association, said education should be one of the first areas to receive state funds.

“Investing in education has huge public and private payoffs,” she said.

Steve Webster, MSU’s vice president for governmental affairs, said the issue of state tax appropriations for higher education becomes how a lack of funding translates into the classroom for students.

He cited MSU’s No. 61 ranking for academic and financial value by Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine as an example of what the university can do under limited budget constraints.

“It’s a good indicator for what the university has done to move up in rankings and maintain or improve quality of education in the classroom,” Webster said.

The challenge for public universities in Michigan now is to determine how long they will be able sustain themselves on the limited funding, he said.

“It really isn’t clear for anyone how long the Michigan economy will remain in this position,” he said. “We are just as hopeful as anybody that higher education not only remains a high priority, but that dollars will follow.”

Published on Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Immigration: myths vs. facts

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12336/1/406/

Author: Joelle Fishman, Rosalío Muñoz and Emile Schepers

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/17/08 13:10

A look behind the anti-immigrant furor

In the buildup to the 2008 elections, the right-wing Republicans have decided to make immigrants the scapegoat for the failure of the Bush administration and the shortcomings of the capitalist system. Right-wing personalities on cable TV, on talk radio and in newspapers are fueling this process. Vicious lies are being told about immigrants.

The questions and answers here are designed to provide you with accurate information about the impact of immigrant workers and their families, with or without papers, on the United States today.


Why are so many immigrants coming to the United States?

• Working people in Mexico and other poor countries have been devastated by the practices of U.S. and other international corporations. So-called free trade pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are imposed with conditions that prevent poor countries from meeting their people’s needs.

• After NAFTA came into force, more than 1.3 million Mexican farmers were driven out of business. U.S. agribusiness, subsidized by our tax dollars, sold corn in Mexico at lower prices than farmers there could produce. Undocumented Mexican immigration to U.S. rose 60 percent.

• Big corporations in the United States have been glad to take advantage of the cheap labor, and have sent labor recruiters into economically depressed areas of Mexico, Central America and elsewhere.


So why don’t people in those countries fix their situation at home instead of coming here?

• U.S.-based multinational corporations have put heavy pressure on other countries, including Mexico, to keep their economies open to penetration by U.S. corporations.

• When these countries resist this pressure, the U.S. government and corporations intervene with threats, bribery and even military force to stop union organizing and political change from taking place.

• With this pro-business, anti-worker foreign policy, the U.S. government has sponsored coups, civil wars and dictators in Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras.


My grandparents came from Europe legally. Why can’t people from Mexico and other countries do the same? Why do they butt ahead in line?

• It is not a matter of “butting in line.” There is no line for them to get in! In 2005, the U.S. government gave out only 5,000 permanent legal resident visas for low-skilled workers.

• Even people married to U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents sometimes have to wait years to join their spouses. This is a different situation from the one our grandparents faced.

• Today it is nearly impossible for most people who don’t have relatives here or specialized skills to come at all.


Do immigrants cause unemployment?

• There are not a fixed number of jobs in our economy. The truth is immigrant workers and their families, like all other workers, create jobs at a rate corresponding to those they fill.

• The real causes of unemployment are rooted in the decreasing wages being paid to all workers. Our country’s workers can no longer afford to buy the products they produce.

• Immigrant workers are not responsible for the millions of jobs wiped out by the shutting down of plants across the nation. They are not the cause of massive job loss which occurs when employers increase the workloads of some employees while laying off others.


Do immigrants drive down U.S. wages?

• It’s true that today U.S. workers are seeing their wages drop. This is especially true for young workers and people of color. But more than anything, this is due to a Congress and a president who refuse to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. It is due to right-wing policies that deny workers the right to form unions.

• Employers will always take advantage of workers who don’t have the right to defend themselves, using one group of vulnerable workers against the rest.

• Immigrants are not the cause of higher unemployment rates of African Americans and other U.S. minorities. The continued toleration of racial discrimination in hiring, the dismantling of affirmative action, and weak labor laws are to blame.

• The only effective response is to fight for equal treatment and equal rights for all workers. That is why the legalization of immigrant workers, with full labor and civil rights, is in the interest of us all.


Do immigrants join labor unions?

• Immigrant workers, even those without documents, have been at the forefront of many recent labor actions including organizing drives and strikes.

• One example is immigrant workers at Smithfield Foods’ meat-packing plant in North Carolina, who struck for safe working conditions alongside their African American and white co-workers.

• The roofers’ union reports huge organizing successes among immigrant workers in New Mexico.

• Immigrant workers are at the core of organizing efforts of laundry workers across the nation.

• Employers regularly use the threat of arrest and deportation to break up union actions where immigrant workers are involved. Nevertheless, union membership is growing even faster among immigrant workers than among others.


Do immigrants pay their fair share of taxes?

• Like other workers, most undocumented and documented immigrant workers have both federal and state income taxes deducted from their paychecks. An undocumented worker picking tomatoes in Florida pays more income taxes proportionally than many corporate executives.

• Undocumented workers pay $7 billion a year into Social Security. However, they are ineligible to collect any benefits.

• Immigrants, like the rest of us, pay sales taxes every time they buy something. They pay property taxes too, either on property they own or through their rent.


What about the crime rate among immigrants?

• Numerous studies show that the rate of violent and property crime among immigrants, with or without documents, is lower than that of comparable sectors of the U.S. population, even though anti-immigrant agitators try to give the opposite impression by highlighting isolated cases of shocking crimes.


What about terrorism?

• Undocumented immigrant workers were not linked to 9/11 or any other recent terrorist attack. Every one of the 9/11 terrorists came here on a legal visa issued by the United States government.

• The vast majority of undocumented and documented immigrants have nothing whatever to do with terrorism, and come here only to work and be with family.

• If hard-working immigrants could have a legal way of coming here, the danger of terrorists entering secretly would be lessened.


What is the impact of immigrants on social, health care and educational services?

• Immigrant workers are not getting a free ride. Like other workers, most immigrants pay the same federal, state and local taxes which finance our schools, health clinics and other public services.

• Immigrant workers, alongside their native-born co-workers, generate fortunes for their employers in industries such as agribusiness, meatpacking, hotels, restaurants and construction.

• However, Republican administrations since Reagan have given the super-rich huge tax cuts. If these were rolled back, there would be enough money to finance needed services for everybody: immigrant and U.S.-born.

• There is no evidence that new immigrants pose a public health danger to their neighbors. Indeed, studies show that they are on the whole healthier than comparable sectors of the U.S.-born population.


Do immigrants threaten the English language and American culture?

• There have always been other languages spoken alongside English in the United States, including Native American (Indian) languages, Spanish in the Southwest and Florida, French in Louisiana and German dialects in Pennsylvania.

• Our country’s experience has been that while new immigrants may struggle a bit with the language, the second generation always speaks English fluently. This is just as true of Latino immigrants today as it was of other immigrants in the past.

• All over the country, classes to teach English to non-English speakers are jammed full.

• The vast majority of new immigrants believe fervently in democracy, family, freedom and social justice, and thus are a boon to our values, not a menace.


What is really behind the anti-immigrant furor?

• Right-wing politicians and their media supporters want to distract the public’s attention from the scandals of the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, the health care crisis, the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs and the home foreclosures disaster. They are using the “illegal immigrant” scare to do this.

• Big business interests want cheap labor but do not want low-paid workers to have rights. So they whip up scare campaigns against immigrant workers. Their aim is to keep them quiet and underpaid, and the workers divided.

• Hard-core racist forces are using the immigration issue to whip up hate and fear against Mexicans, other Latinos, Africans, Middle Easterners and South Asians. Their strategy is to give legitimacy to racist attitudes and policies in this country. This works to the detriment not only of immigrants but of all U.S. minorities and the rest of us.


What is the solution?

The solution is not to hang a “keep out” sign on the Statue of Liberty’s torch. The solution is not to waste vast amounts of taxpayer money on a useless and environmentally destructive fence. The solution is to carry out a comprehensive, worker-friendly immigration reform including:

• Legalization of the current undocumented immigrants, as quickly and cheaply as possible, with full labor and civil rights and a clear path to citizenship.

• Changes in U.S. visa policies so that ordinary working people who want to come here and live and work can do so without violating laws or risking their lives.

• Avoidance of guest worker schemes that keep foreign workers in conditions of serfdom without the right to defend themselves or integrate themselves into our society.

• Giving immigrant workers the same rights on the job and in the community that other workers have, so they can join unions and fight together for better wages and working conditions.

• Changes in U.S. trade and foreign policy so that the development of the economies of poorer countries is no longer undermined by multinational corporate interests or U.S. government interference.


For more information and sources:

• “They Take Our Jobs! and 20 Other Myths About Immigration” www.beacon.org.

• “The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers” www.monthlyreview.org.

• The Pew Hispanic Center www.pewhispanic.org.

• Migration Policy Institute www.immigrationinformation.org.

• Immigration Policy Center www.immigrationpolicy.org.

• The People’s Weekly World/Nuestro Mundo www.pww.org, and Political Affairs www.politicalaffairs.net.


Emile Schepers, Rosalio Muñoz and Joelle Fishman serve on the Communist Party USA’s immigration legislative subcommittee. For more information contact politicalaction @cpusa.org.

Unions go all-out for Kucinich re-election

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12330/1/406/

Author: Rick Nagin

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/17/08 12:48

CLEVELAND — At a rally here this month with hundreds of labor leaders, public officials and community supporters, Dennis Kucinich kicked off his campaign for a seventh term in Congress, defiantly blasting corporate interests seeking to unseat him.

Kucinich told the Jan. 9 gathering, which followed the monthly meeting of the North Shore AFL-CIO Federation of Labor, that he would continue his campaign for president and keep bringing the issues confronting his constituents to a national audience.

“I have challenged the war in Iraq,” he said, “a war based on lies that has taken the lives of 4,000 American soldiers and a million Iraqi civilians.”

The war, he said, will cost residents of his 10th Congressional District $1.2 billion by the end of 2008, money that should have been spent on health care, housing and education.

“We must end this war!” he said to thunderous applause. “I will do whatever I can to end this war.”

On another of his top issues, health care, he declared, “We must change the corrupt system of health insurance that is undermining the rights of the people. No one else has taken to the national stage the demand for a single-payer, not-for-profit system. That’s what matters to the people in the 10th District.”

Kucinich said he would stay in the presidential race until at least one other candidate calls for this, or for canceling the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has caused the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs.

“The corporate interests that I challenge 365 days a year are eager to gain advantage in the 10th District,” he charged. “These corporate interests are determined to do everything they can, raise millions of dollars if necessary, to gain this seat in Congress that belongs to you.”

“I am ready to take on this challenge, to fight for your seat in Congress, to counter any kind of dirty tricks” he said. “Working men and women will prevail.”

Kucinich’s chief opponent in the March 4 Democratic primary, Cleveland City Councilman Joseph Cimperman, has already raised $226,000. The Kucinich campaign charged the money has come from business groups and a right-wing pro-Israel group that is angry about Kucinich’s support for an even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jimmy Dimora, Cuyahoga County Democratic Party chairman, bellowed out a call for all-out efforts to re-elect Kucinich, calling him “a fighter for the people.” Kucinich has been endorsed by both the Democratic Party and the AFL-CIO.

“We would have to search far and wide for a candidate who better represents the interests of working families,” said Harriet Applegate, executive secretary of the Cleveland labor federation, “and we still wouldn’t find anyone who comes close. Kucinich represents the kind of politician that union members — like the general public — yearn for: one who stands up and fights for the needs of his constituents. It is an honor and a privilege to work for his re-election.”

Applegate said the federation would launch a campaign of phone-banking, letters and door-to-door canvassing along with a comprehensive worksite communication program.

“In a word, there is nothing we wouldn’t do for Dennis. That is why we are pulling out all the stops between now and March 4,” she said.

ricknagin @yahoo.com

rewinding to 1936

This is a recording of a speech made by the anarchist-communist militant Durruti who fought in the Spanish Civil War. Those were the days when anarchist-communist ideas were deeply rooted in the spanish working class.

For those who do not understand spanish, it comes with a translation.

"We have a new world in our hearts!"

comedic relief

I am quite flattered, I actually am in the video.

Notice how the MLK photo fades into stalin lol

thanks for the publicity yaf

(btw that stephen guy is not in YDS sherlock)

Chopping down the trunk of social injustice takes patience…

Hello friends and comrades...

What I want to share with you today is simply a message of hope, encouragement, and most importantly one of love. I don’t normally speak in the abstract…so we’ll see how this turns out.

I came to the YP4 National Summit feeling overwhelmed, frustrated, angry, and skeptical. Great feelings to start out with at a progressive summit, right? I’ll give you a sense of my history, and maybe you’ll understand.

I am a socialist. As you can imagine, this means the way I analyze things are largely misunderstood in greater society. As soon as I label myself as such, I feel that a large number of people immediate close their minds off to what I have to say next. Dealing with a country that is largely influenced by conservative values throughout such entities as Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, it is no surprise that those farther left than “democrat” are given the name “radicals.” And the negative connotation that comes with it. My “radical” views such as advocating for equal access to education, freedom of reproductive choice, socio-economic parity for people of color, and the freedom for people to marry anyone of their choice—regardless of sexual orientation is seen as some sort of vile, social ill. Advocating for clean water, safe living facilities, un-biased elected officials, quality and available health care…oh no. How dare I even have the audacity to go there…Don’t I remember where I came from—the United States? Don’t I know that I live among the richest, most privileged and powerful peoples in the world?

Yeah, I get that. But maybe I don’t want to be a part of that legacy—because it is hurting more people than it is helping. Isn’t there another side to the story? If there is someone prospering and gaining wealth, does that not also mean that someone else is suffering and living in poverty? In a world fueled by destructive capitalist philosophy—prioritizing profit of business over the labor of the workers—there is an overwhelming level of suffering. Some people in this country cannot afford the basic things they need in order to survive: food, water, shelter…and with a deficiency in those things there comes a lack of self dignity, motivation, creativity, and engagement. Approximately one percent of the population of the United States owns 1/3 of the personal wealth. That means that ninteysomething percent of the people own the rest. And because I think this is wrong, in the eyes of the larger society, I am wrong. Excuse me, but THAT is wrong.

The myth of the American Dream needs to be dispelled immediately. How can people lift themselves up by the bootstraps if they don’t have any boots?! In this country, it is extremely hard to work your way up when the entire system is against you. Oppressive STRUCTURES are the “trunks” of our problems. Our problems do not stem from bad presidents, corrupt governments, or biased judges. No, it is dangerous to blame individuals in the fight for social justice. Individual people die, but oppression continues…how do you explain that? It is not the actions of these individual people, but the policies they create, advocate, and implement. Our problems stem from the discriminatory policies that come from such institutions. Some examples of institutionalized discrimination include, but are not limited to: lack of funding for urban or rural schools, laws prohibiting people from being able to marry the person of their choice (anti- miscegenation and anti-same-sex marriage laws), biased curriculums (devoid of teaching critical thinking skills or select themes in history including class struggles, Black history and accurate war history) selected for public schools, gerrymandering of voting precincts to keep poor people and people of color from voting in blocs, ineffectual and un-enforced environmental policies…the list goes on.

So here’s the thing. Trying to convince people that structures have been the problem with the United States thus far has been something of a challenge. I have had to mainly deal with “liberals” who try to sell me let’s-end-racism-with-a-hug solutions. Others have attempted to try and convince me that picking up signs, screaming, and spitting on cops at a protest is the best way to end our problems. Sitting around in a circle eating soy nuts and singing kumbaya isn’t going to bring us any closer to true democracy in this country. I’m not blessed with the gift of eloquence, so I don’t know if I’m really getting through to you. You see…my main concern with activism in America is that much of it is symbolic, not attacking structures of oppression, but engaging in reactionary, petty activism. Don’t get me wrong! There is a time and a place for activism…but one must first understand what the root of a problem is before they go attacking something! Otherwise the practice is blind. Practice without theory isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. At best, that kind of activism will achieve short term results that are hard to sustain.

What some liberals are doing is putting a band-aid on a broken arm. As much as I am frustrated with them, I realize that is they who are my closest allies. It is them that I must bring farther to the left. Yes, so even among so called progressives, my socialist analyses land me in the far off land of marginalization. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s ever felt this way. I’m sure other people, who may not even identify as being a socialist, have felt frustrated with the reactionary left.

The truth is, activism is tough work. Constructive activism is even tougher. Making the kind of change necessary means getting to the root of the problem, finding ways to fix it, and being able to sustain one’s efforts. One must then fight distraction from the ineffectual left, and the close-minded conservative right that is always willing to support the status quo. Before coming to the YP4 conference, I was very skeptical that I would find people who would be adverse to my kind of politics. What I found was actually something completely different. I found a warm, open, environment filled with people who are out there organizing with purpose. I found people who were willing to not only listen to me, but support me in anything I decided to do. Those who did listen to me wanted to learn more about what I was talking about rather than casting my views aside as “crazy.” Never before had I been in such a position of acceptance and open minded-ness.

So, by now you’re probably wondering where all the promised encouraging sentiments are…where that message of love could probably be. Well, here is it. I apologize, as this is ridiculously longer than what I anticipated it to be. The kind of change needed in this country will take courage, time, and above all, patience. I urge everyone who reads this to keep the energy alive, and realize that even though the change you wish to see might not come automatically...it doesn't meant that it won't ever happen. I beg you fellows, advocate for real, positive, tangible change. Don’t settle for the status quo. Don’t take the easy way out. I believe that you can do this. I see the promise in all of us. I don’t know most of you… but I share a common love with you. Love, mixed with anger, love, mixed with passion, love, mixed with patience…will inspire us to do great things.

The other day I heard somebody say something that I will never forget. In lieu of Martin Luther King, Jr. day: “We can come together to praise the dreamer, but if we don’t do anything about the dream—then why are we here?”

Be patient.

Be persistent.

Be radical.

In the utmost solidarity, your girl,

Mao$

shout out: STEEEEVE!!! - BFF

Martin Luther King Jr. — Visionary and Trade Unionist

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/01/18/martin-luther-king-jr-visionary-and-trade-unionist/

by James Parks, Jan 18, 2008

We all know that Martin Luther King Jr. was a visionary. We know he was a champion for civil rights. But did you know that he also was a strong supporter of unions and workers’ rights from Day One?

As AFL-CIO Organizing Director Stewart Acuff said last year, speaking before the Electrical Workers:

I would submit to you that Dr. King was a trade unionist. He believed in our movement and struggled for our movement. He knew and he preached that civil rights were inadequate without economic rights. Dr. King knew that our economic system allows a few to have too much power and wealth and workers to have too little, so he believed that we have a responsibility to struggle to push down wealth and power from those who have too much to those who have too little. That is why he was a trade unionist. His last great campaign was the Poor People’s Campaign to organize America’s poor to fight for economic justice and dignity.

Click here to read excerpts from Acuff’s speech.

In 1961, King explained his belief that the civil rights and union movements were linked. Speaking before the AFL-CIO Convention that year, he said:

The two most dynamic and cohesive liberal forces in the country are the labor movement and the Negro freedom movement…Together we can bring about the day when there will be no separate identification of Negroes and labor.

Four years later, he told the Illinois AFL-CIO convention:

Negroes in the United States read the history of labor and find it mirrors their own experience. We are confronted by powerful forces telling us to rely on the goodwill and understanding of those who profit by exploiting us. They deplore our discontent, they resent our will to organize, so that we may guarantee that humanity will prevail and equality will be exacted.

And in 1967, one year before he died, King wrote in his book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? that unions are just as important as business in ensuring economic success for people of color:

Our young people need to think of union careers as earnestly as they do business careers and professions.

This year, the annual AFL-CIO King Day celebration is in Memphis, the site of his last campaign and where he was assassinated while helping city sanitation workers gain a voice at work. (See video of King supporting the sanitation workers.)

Michael Honey points out his book, Going Down Jericho Road (available at The Union Shop Online™), that King always supported the union movement as a means of bringing justice to the workplace. Honey is one of the speakers at the annual King Day celebration.

King had qualities that allowed him to lead a mass movement that joined working-class people to the middle class through the black church. In a remarkable few moments in his first speech at the first mass meeting of the Montgomery Improvement Association, King put the struggle against segregation into a moral and world-historical context. “There comes a time when people get tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression,” and have to organize, he said. Unions had set the precedent. “When labor all over this nation came to see that it would be trampled over by capitalistic power, it was nothing wrong with labor getting together organizing and protesting for its rights.”

national-identity

"Identity is a dream pathetic in its absurdity. You dream of being yourself when you've nothing better to do." -Baudrillard.

It is a shame so many people dream about fossils--colorful pasts that remind men that they are more dead than ever. The dead-weight of national identity pulls generations into a giant black hole--a hole with an immense gravitational force that makes it impossible for men to turn their heads towards the sky.

The old russian nihilists were 50 percent correct: destruction is a joyful, creative passion, but only because in it lies the potential of a new world. Conservatives get alarmed because tradition and morality are being swept by the same hand that killed God. However, we people that hold a new world in our heart, should celebrate this nihilism, in so far that it is pre-revolutionary.

From left to right, we hear the same boring song of the nationalist martyr: "embrace tradition, embrace nations, protect your identity!". This "identity" is a very sad obituary--because only those in the graveland live in the memories of the past. My grandfather is already dead, his only "living place" is in my memory; it would be really pathetic that all my everyday decisions were subordinated to this memory. To base one's politics and ideology from "national obituaries" is the sad tale of a humanity unable to embrace its own creativity--its own capability of creation and destruction. If the meaning of my life was totally posessed by the dead memory of the "glorious Mexicatl", I might as well chug a bottle of benzos with a half gallon of vodka.

A famous nazi said once: "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver". I also say the same thing, I also reach for my revolver--but only to shoot culture until it falls dead.

Kucinich unfairly nixed from NBC/MSNBC debates

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008/01/letter_hoerger_011708

Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and our fragile democracy became weaker today.

After inviting presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, to the Democratic debate in Nevada, NBC/MSNBC rescinded their offer. Even after a judge ordered MSNBC to include Kucinich, the network was able to overturn the ruling moments before the debate began.

NBC and MSNBC are owned largely by General Electric Co., a substantial war profiteer, that has made billions of dollars constructing engines and nuclear reactors. They have also heavily funded Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Meanwhile, Kucinich has been outspoken about both the war and corporate America. If it is not too presumptuous, one might wonder whether corporations, such as GE, may be exerting a role on politics that does not advocate the best interest of citizens.

Fascism can be defined as corporate control of the government. To the extent that big business is able to select which candidates will be viable, democracy fails, and fascist interests reign supreme.

This is not an isolated incident and our democracy is falling into a state of frailty. Candidates are excluded from debates. Notable names are missing from ballots. Michigan may not receive its delegate for the primary.

It is hypocritical that we attempt to spread democracy throughout the world while simultaneously failing to appreciate and protect our own democracy. I hope that as patriots and responsible, reasonable citizens we will continue to question and call attention to these issues for the sake of justice.

Michael Hoerger

2005 MSU alumnus

Published on Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Privatization of prisons keeps racism in judicial system

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008/01/letter_mays_011608

The 13th Amendment states “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

While we may think slavery was abolished after the Civil War, it still continues and is supported by the Constitution. The prison industrial complex is something that none of the presidential candidates seem to look at.

The privatization of prisons is a major problem Americans seem not to care about. Americans want to save Darfur but do not want to save people of color in prisons who are nothing more than 21st century slaves in the “prison industrial complex.”

This is not provocative, it is the truth. The 13th Amendment says so.

Blacks make up 12 percent of the American population but represent around 40 percent of the prison population. Chicano/Latinos represent 15 percent of the American population but represent around 20 percent of the prison population. If we look at history, corporations and the state have been making money from black labor since after the Civil War, and this is called convict leasing.

I am not undermining the fact that there are whites in prison, but not to the extent of blacks and Chicano/Latinos. The majority of people who are imprisoned are underemployed the year before their imprisonment or lack employment at all. Thus, is it a problem of people of color’s criminal nature? No! It is a problem of capitalism and racism.

Kyle Mays

social relations and policy senior (also a YDS/W.E.B Dubois Society Member)

Published on Tuesday, January 15, 2008

About Saving Darfur: Reflections on the Carrot and the Stick

by
Stephen Eric Bronner (a fellow DSA member)

Read the article here

The murder of Bhutto: Cold War fallout

Author: Norman Markowitz

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/10/08 14:32

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan last month has a direct relationship to the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the subject of “Charlie Wilson’s War,” the Hollywood “comedy” in which a corrupt congressman and a wily CIA man win “the Cold War” against the “evil Soviet empire” in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union, and ethnic groups who also were part of the Soviet Union were minority populations in Afghanistan. The Soviets had helped to educate a significant number of Afghanis and an influential Communist Party existed in the city of Kabul. Feudal and pre-feudal nomadic elites were predominant in much of the country and the Muslim religion was the primary unifying force.

Communists took power in Kabul in 1978, faced with threats from Pakistan’s military dictatorship and also hoping to advance a social revolution, bringing mass education, land reform and other vital social reforms to the people. The Pakistani dictator Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq had publicly executed Muhammad Ali Bhutto, the civilian prime minister whom he overthrew (father of Benazir Bhutto). Zia’s regime turned increasingly to rightist clerical elements as a base of support and also worked with Saudis to establish right-wing religious primary schools in a country where large sections of the population, including most women, were illiterate.

Afghani Communists tragically were unable to achieve the unity that is a prerequisite for Communist parties everywhere — they were divided into rival factions that fought each other fiercely over policy. Along with important gains, there were disastrous errors in seeking to advance the revolution into the countryside, great ineptitude in the land reform policy among cadre with a limited understanding of agriculture, and an aggressive self-defeating anti-clericalism in response to the clerical opposition to the revolution.

With Zia aiding right-wing Muslim guerrillas, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski gained Carter’s support to use the CIA to aid to the guerrillas. Brzezinski saw this aid as creating an “Afghan trap” for the Soviets, manipulating them into a military intervention which, he hoped, would be their “Vietnam.”

The Soviets intervened in 1979 to both save the Kabul government and advance a social revolution against fiercely reactionary and imperialist forces. For the Soviets, the intervention was also a protection of their own borders.

CIA aid to Afghan “freedom fighters” grew under the Reagan administration before the real Charlie Wilson got into the act. Reagan, George H. W. Bush and the CIA deserve the lion’s share of the “credit” for the “victory” in Afghanistan that led to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the present “war on terrorism.”

The CIA recruited thousands of fighters from Muslim countries and trained them in Afghan-Pakistani border areas to attack Afghanistan. Money was raised not only from U.S. appropriations but also from heroin traffic that led Pakistan in the 1990s to have the highest per capita number of heroin addicts in the world. Today, Al Qaeda and Taliban forces attack the U.S.-backed Afghan government, serving as Frankenstein’s monsters whom their creators can’t destroy.

Benazir Bhutto became Pakistan’s prime minister after Zia’s death in a mysterious plane crash in 1988. After she failed to seriously address the economic and social problems of the people, she was defeated in elections and then returned to power in 1993 after her Muslim League opponents failed in their policies. Gen. Pervez Musharraf established a military dictatorship in 1999 and remains, in effect, military dictator, as U.S. media and politicians talk about scheduled elections in Pakistan. (Pakistani elections over the years have been stolen, canceled, or simply declared null and void when the dominant factions of the Muslim League and military didn’t approve of the results.)

Now Benazir Bhutto has been murdered under Musharraf. Bhutto was undoubtedly a lesser of two evils compared with Musharraf, and her death is a tragedy. But while she was prime minister, she did not seek any real resolution of Pakistan’s long and inflammatory conflict with neighboring India, and in her second government many feel she gave de facto support to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan as part of her anti-India policies. The Bush administration apparently wanted to see a Bhutto-Musharraf coalition take shape, since Bhutto had not been an opponent of U.S. imperialism in the region.

Continued U.S. support for Musharraf and the reactionary ruling groups in Pakistan strengthens Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region and intensifies the misery of the Pakistani people. Moreover, one hallmark of U.S. imperialist policy has been denial that Pakistan and India were part of the same national community and that there must be a larger policy of reconciliation and development for all of South Asia, including the three states that represent what was once India. A progressive U.S. policy for the region, one that works for and builds peace, must begin by withdrawing military support for Pakistan, including its adventures against India, and making regional cooperation and disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, the centerpiece.

CIA tape trashing suggests a cover-up

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12298/1/405/

Author: Tim Wheeler

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/10/08 13:24

A new firestorm is raging over the Bush administration’s use of torture in its “war on terror,” ignited by CIA Director Michael Hayden’s admission that the spy agency destroyed videotapes of its interrogation of two detainees.

Hayden claimed the videotapes were destroyed in 2005 to protect the identity of CIA agents who conducted the interrogations of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaida and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri in 2002.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) scorned this alibi, telling the Senate, “The CIA was desperately attempting to cover up damning evidence of its practices.”

Kennedy pointed out that the Bush White House has erased 10 million e-mails. He commented, “We have not seen anything like this since the 18-and-a-half minute gap in the tapes of President Richard Nixon,” a reference to Nixon’s Watergate cover-up efforts.

The furor comes on the sixth anniversary of the opening of the Guantanamo detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Human rights, civil liberties and peace organizations scheduled an International Day of Action to Shut Down Guantanamo, Jan. 11 in Washington, D.C. Protesters in orange prison jumpsuits, their heads covered with black sacks, planned to march to the Supreme Court to protest the incarceration of 360 at Guantanamo, many held for years without criminal charges, and many subjected to torture.

Daniel Gorevan, a leader of London-based Amnesty International, who was in Washington for the protest, told the World the real aim of destroying the tapes “was to protect the current administration, not to protect national security. It is a case of covering up serious crimes, holding prisoners in secrecy, subjecting them to torture. Our hope is that the scandal of Guantanamo [and] Abu Ghraib will sufficiently outrage the U.S. population and that it will bring an end to these policies and the closing of these prisons.”

Amnesty cites the case of Australian David Hicks, who won release from Guantanamo last year. His case galvanized voters to oust conservative Prime Minister John Howard, one of Bush’s closest allies in the Iraq war. Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd defeated Howard in a landslide. Amnesty toured Australia with a mock CIA prison cell like the one where Hicks was held. A similar cell will be touring the U.S. during our elections.

The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement, “Serious questions remain about the extent to which the White House and other governmental agencies were complicit in the CIA’s destruction of the tapes.” Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, told the World, “The public has the right to know who authorized such a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and why nothing was done to stop it.”

The ACLU has been litigating under the Freedom of Information Act for more than three years, and a federal court ordered compliance with the ACLU’s FOIA request for documents related to extreme interrogation methods. “Yet the CIA has not released a single document or record relating to its treatment of prisoners in its custody at Guantanamo or other prisons around the world. Instead, the CIA has chosen to flagrantly violate the court order,” she said. “It is very significant that we have confirmation from Hayden that those tapes were destroyed. Those who destroyed them should be held accountable.”

The Bush administration could face charges of obstruction of justice like those that forced Nixon’s resignation, if it is proved that the White House was involved in ordering the tapes destroyed.

The New York Times reported last Dec. 20 that at least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions of whether to destroy the tapes, including then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Cheney’s counsel, David Addington.

The House Intelligence Committee has issued a subpoena for Jose Rodriguez, chief of the CIA’s clandestine branch, to testify Jan. 16 on his role in destroying the tapes. Observers say it is inconceivable he acted without the approval of his superiors. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the UK Guardian that Bush himself probably viewed at least one of the tapes since he was interested in the Zubaida case “and received frequent updates on his interrogation” from then-CIA Director George Tenet.

greenerpastures21212@yahoo.com

kenya's political history of turmoil

If it happens in Africa it must just be the primal instinct based in tribalism. The mass media has been covering the situation in Kenya as a near exclusive tribal and ethnic conflict without accounting for the history of Kenya's political turmoil and where ethnicity is put into a colonial context. The crisis in Kenya is not solely ethnic and tribal. It is a crisis based on democracy and fueled by past divisions created by British colonial rule.

What we have seen recently is a devolution of 'democratic' elections into ethnic conflict. The Presidential incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, was made President in previous elections as the opposition candidate was declared unable to run by the constitution. Moving into the most recent elections Kibaki did not have the majority support. However, in the end tallies of votes Kibaki came out ahead of the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga. Odinga was running with his Orange Democratic Movement behind him. European Union observers declared Kibaki's second term as stolen when the national vote counts came back different than the district vote counts, putting Kibaki as the winner. What we then saw was a devolution of a 'stable democracy' in to "tribal" conflict. But, before we can even begin to grasp what this means in Kenya we have to examine and understand Kenya's history of colonial violence and created ethnic tension.

In 1888, the British took over the area known as Kenya as part of the 1885 Berlin Conference that divided the land area of Africa between the major European powers. The Germans formerly controlled the land. The colony known as British East Africa remained uninvolved in World War I. By the twentieth century 30,000 white British settlers began establishing themselves in the fertile highlands growing coffee and tea and commanding unjust political and economic power in the country. The highlands had traditionally been home to the Kikuyu people, who were forced off of their land and had to then seek jobs on their own former land under the employ of white settler farmers for a meager wage of newly imposed British currency. This injustice set off the start of the Mau-Mau rebellion lead by the Kikuyu people and the Land and Army Freedom movement in 1952. The country was placed under martial-rule. The British Long Rifles, the Home Guard (Kenyan soldiers), and the British army backed by Winston Churchill's command came together strongly against the movement and killed 42% of the rebel fighters. The capture and execution of Dedan Kimathi in 1956, the Mau Mau leader, essentially ended the rebellion. The Kikuyu rebellion was destroyed. The British consciously divided the Kikuyu and Luo people for fear that they would be too strong of a unifying force against their colonial empire. The Kenyan elites were able to take power with the election of the Kikuyu elite, Jomo Kenyatta.

The first elections in Kenya were in 1957. To the dismay of the British, the election was won by Kenyatta backed by his Kenya African National Union (KANU) party instead of the 'moderate' Africans the British had hoped for, but this was their own product of favoring the Kikuyu. Upon Kenyatta's death Daniel arap-Moi took power, stepping up from his Vice Presidential role. His succession to president was strongly opposed by the Kikuyu elite, known as the Kiambu Mafia. He held power in uncontested single-party elections from 1978 until 2002. Moi dismissed political opponents and consolidated his power. He put down Kikuyu coup attempts through execution of coup leaders. Moi was central in the perpetuating Kenyatta's single-party state, reflected in the constitution. In his 2002 and 2007 election wins, Moi exploited the mixed ethnic composition of Kenya and with a divided opposition of smaller tribes - Moi won. Moi represented an ethnic minority, the Kalenjin, that kept the Kikuyu out of power for many years. I am not sure if we are to assume the role of Moi as Vice President to Kenyatta was to appease the ethnic minority, but the Kikuyu's role as a benefiting elite was lost with Moi's succession.

Kenya's 36 million people are divided among more than 40 ethnic groups, each with its own identity, cultural traditions and practices, and separate language. The main groups are Kikuyu (22%), Luhya (14%), Luo (13%), Kalenjin (12%) and Kamba (11%), according to government figures. Now we see the colonial policy of "divide and conquer" lives on. The tradition of corruption in Kenyan politics continues and Kikuyu is pitted against the various ethnic groups. However, this is a created ethnic conflict in a country where ethnicity and politics are conjoined. Kenyatta was a Kikuyu elite created by the British colonialism, Moi was essentially a dictator for 30 years, and Kibaki undemocratically stole power and now for a second time. Instead of a conflict rooted in tribalism this conflict, "suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago." What is most surprising is not that there is now an ethnic conflict in Kenya, but that it did not happen sooner.

Surprisingly, CNN acknowledged the roots of Kenya's ethnic political troubles. Neither candidate in Kenya's elections really represented the people or true democracy. Odinga's (Luo) Orange Democratic Movement was supported by Luhya and he promised to appoint a Luhya deputy if elected. Kibaki's government has had troubles and scandals dealing with corruption and graft since beginning in 2002. The BBC also gives a more accurate account of the conflict in Kenya. They suggest that the headlines talking of tribalism should better read: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population." But no one wants to read that. The main stream media has decided to final cover Africa as a front page story only because it provides a striking headline. As Kikuyu flee, the news wants to make Kenya out to be another Rwanda, but I wouldn't venture so far to say that it has become that terrible. This sentiment of violence influences writers at every level. One student writer can only focus on the violence in her article.

The US has condemned the violence in Kenya. "We condemn the violence that occurred in Kenya as its citizens await these election results, and call on all Kenyans to remain calm while the vote tabulation process is concluded," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in a statement. The US would like to say how terrible it is that Kenyans have been denied democracy. However, I am not sure how we can claim to know democracy. Just as Kenyans, we too have never known real democracy in this two-party system full of government control and corruption. My swahili professor is from western Kenya, he is a Luo. The other day I asked him if his family was safe. He said they were, they had fled soon enough to miss the violence. I asked him about the history of ethnic favoring in Kenya and he said that it all started with Kenyatta. While this all goes on - colonial legacies of ethnic tension, stolen democracy, and a fear of continued turmoil, the US presidential primaries plug along. We as US citizens can only dream of democracy. While Obama, with Kenyan descent, gains popularity and primaries his family in Kenya watches. Will there be democracy gained anywhere? Will stolen votes bring conflict in the US too or maybe we do not have a knowledgeable enough electorate to protest.

From theWhen not in Africa. . . blog.

silly libertarians

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/weekinreview/30goodman.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Mainstream commentatiors are starting to gain a bit of common sense.

The article basically says that the Bush Adminstration is starting to put aside the free market rhetoric and intervening in the economy--especially in the housing department. The Administration says that without doing this, millions of Americans would lose their homes.

The stupid cult of the unfettered, free market has much more to do with metaphysics than a sane analysis of economics and history. The intervention of the state on the economy was actually what saved capitalism--it did away with those cyclical depressions, trusts etc.

Left Communists--those who claim the theoretical heritage from the left wing opposition of the Comintern--have a very interesting analysis on this trend. They recognized that the Market showed a tendency towarss centralization, and more importantly, to planification under the heel of the state. They called this state-capitalism, and according to them, it was a trend found in all corners of the capitalist market. Not only did they call the USSR, Vietnam, China, etc state-capitalist, but they said that even the US, Netherlands, etc had a tendency toward state-capitalism, albeit not as strongly as in places like the USSR.

State-capitalism was a perfection--not a regression. It is state-capitalism what created the modern middle class, what dealt with cyclical depressions--and more importantly--what homogenized ideology. That is why those stupid Paulites are retarded as hell. They don't understand that their "capitalism" is only the primitive, retarded version of the present form of capitalism.

The economy is already basically planned. State-economists create policy by assuming, almost with mathematical precision, how the market forces are going to act. Then they know which parts of the market need to be stimulated, and then they try to predict what will happen. A friend once told me that he was told by an Economist with a PHD that the market is increasingly becoming more mathematically predictable--and it is easy to agree with him. The increasing centralization of the economy under a few corporations, the new modern, real trusts, makes things increasingly more predictable compared to the days of old, anarchic capitalism.

State-capitalism is indeed, the highest form of capitalism.

Where’s the humanity in immigration enforcement?

Author: Pepe Lozano

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/20/07 15:47

When human beings are called “illegal” and “alien” by elected officials and law enforcement agencies and in the media, what kind of message are we spreading?

“Illegal” means “not according to or authorized by law” or “not sanctioned by official rules.”

When people are termed “illegal,” they are defined according to rules that say, even if they are trying to survive and make a living for themselves and their families, in a time when good paying jobs, with benefits and protections, are rare, especially for poor working families, it’s “illegal” to do so, right?

Generally when we hear the word “alien” the first thing that comes to mind is Star Trek, E.T. or Star Wars characters, something strange, distant, out of this world and non-human.

When we hear “human,” people with families, men and women workers, and children, with ordinary emotions we share like happiness, sadness, anger, love, hunger and even struggle, come to mind, right?

How can we not take offense when any human being is belittled and replaced with “illegal alien”?


In search of a better future

Immigrant workers come to the United States because so many have limited job opportunities in their home countries, especially when it comes to providing food, shelter, let alone an education for their families. But upon arrival they are referred to as “illegal aliens” and dubbed criminals.

Undocumented workers have few options entering the U.S. “legally” to make a living here. Families who travel to the U.S. from Central and South America do so because it is their only hope to survive and find relief from a life surrounded by poverty, underdevelopment and scant resources including jobs.

Every day immigrant workers risk their lives to come here and once they do they live in fear and in the shadows, under scrutiny and criminalization. It is their children who are the single most important reason why they work tirelessly, with hopes for a better future. And it is the children who suffer the most.

When children have to witness how their parents are dehumanized, criminalized and punished for trying to provide for them, it sends a cruel and irresponsible message contrary to the family values taught in American society.

Because of workplace or neighborhood raids, immigrant families are constantly being torn apart, instilling widespread community fear in a country that says it is fighting terrorism.

Such terror, enforced by immigration officials, haunts workers who want what any American citizen wants, to work and provide for their family in peace.

Imagine immigration agents invading your workplace or your home with bulletproof vests, machine guns and military gear and taking you away. Talk about alien abduction.

This needs to stop. Raids, deportations and separation of families should be illegal, and no parents should be forced to abandon their children.


Baby torn from her mother

Saida Umanzor, 26, originally from Honduras, was arrested after federal immigration agents and county police searched her house in Ohio with a warrant for her brother-in-law.

As they searched her house, Ms. Umanzor was with two of her U.S. citizen children, one of whom was a 9-month-old baby whom she breast-fed.

The officers checked Ms. Umanzor’s background and detained her for not previously appearing in immigration court. She was forced to leave her children. Along with her sister’s children, they were taken by county social workers.

While detained, Umanzor could not see her children. Her baby did not eat for three days, refusing to take formula from a bottle. After four days the children were finally released to Ms. Umanzor’s sister, who managed to wean the baby to a bottle.

Two-thirds of children whose parents were detained in immigration raids in the past year were born in the United States. At least 13,000 American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two years after roundups in factories and neighborhoods. About 3.1 million American children have at least one parent who is an “illegal” immigrant.

President Bush says he is leading wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against world terrorism so that families in America can feel safe. Are working mothers nursing their babies a threat to our national security and the fight against terrorist attacks?

Did immigration agents find any secret conspiracy documents or weapons of mass destruction in Ms. Umanzor’s home? No, they found diapers, baby bottles and toys. What blatant hypocrisy when American family values are preached from the White House, and here is Ms. Umanzor, found guilty for nursing her child.


Their fight is our fight

In polls this year by ABC, CBS, Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg, Fox and Pew, a majority has consistently supported allowing undocumented workers to obtain citizenship.

Whether someone comes from Mexico, Poland, India, Japan or Texas, does that mean that the right to shelter, a job, health care, or an education is different depending on where they come from? Are these basic human rights illegal?

Are immigrants being made a scapegoat for larger issues in our society?

Are poverty, lack of good paying jobs with benefits, overwhelmed public schools, lack of affordable housing and health care all the fault of immigrants?

Most people agree that immigrants fuel local economies with their consumer power and even open small businesses, not to mention pay all sorts of taxes.

The fight for immigrant rights is a fight for human rights. Their fight is our fight.

It is in the interest of every U.S. citizen to embrace immigrant workers and their families and ensure that their equality and civil rights are guaranteed without any limitations, including the right to apply for legal residence with a path to citizenship.

It’s only human for us to do so!

Pepe Lozano (plozano @pww.org) is a member of the People’s Weekly World editorial board.

Labor alive and well as new year arrives

Author: John Wojcik

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/20/07 14:40

A review of the recent past and a peek into the nearby future of the labor movement reveals a level of activity reminiscent of the militancy that built industrial unions more than half a century ago.

From breaking the GOP grip on Congress in 2006 and the current wave of strikes to new mobilizations for a fundamental shift in the balance of political forces in 2008, labor is proving that — despite a 30-year, right-wing corporate/government assault — it is alive and well.

Workers and their unions increasingly see themselves now as fighters in a full-fledged class war. This attitude is perceived, surprisingly, by people in corporate boardrooms more than by many workers themselves, even in the current strike by the nation’s writers against the big media moguls.

Writers have turned that six-week strike from a fight over pay formulas into an epic battle to force media conglomerates to cede some real power over that industry to their unions. Their demand of union representation for thousands of writers on reality and animated shows who are not yet organized would create a major shift in favor of workers in the entertainment industry.

The pressure on the centers of power is so strong that individuals like David Letterman are starting to break with the production conglomerates they are hooked up with and are attempting to talk separately to the union.

Even in unsuccessful contract battles, this year workers showed both a high level of willingness to fight and an attitude that their battles were part of something much bigger. Perhaps the best example of this was in the auto industry. Autoworkers shut down GM and Chrysler plants all across America in two short strikes this fall as they battled to maintain jobs and health care. Although the final auto contracts were serious setbacks, with the union taking on responsibility for retiree health care and with the loss of jobs and the establishment of a two-tier wage system, there are forces in the union that appear ready to build for a comeback and to fight another day. The workers, in any case, have shown that they are ready.

The strike wave of which their actions were a part continues. In New York City alone, several strikes are ongoing as this article is being written. Paratransit workers (who provide transportation for the disabled), writers, and cafeteria workers are on strike. The taxi drivers have just come off two of their “rolling strikes” and are planning for a third in January. The janitors are planning for a possible strike and the contracts for tens of thousands of city workers are just about up. The union leaders involved openly talk to the memberships about the need to emulate the militancy of Transport Workers Union Local 100 which struck in 2005. In Los Angeles, where some 30 important contracts are running out, union leaders are talking the same way.

Labor refused this year to allow itself to be divided by so called “wedge issues” frequently used by the right wing. The United Food and Commercial Workers has been running major organizing campaigns in nonunion meatpacking plants where the companies have responded by cooperating with government raids that round up immigrant workers. The government raided union plants all over the country and detained thousands of workers. The union responded aggressively with a campaign defending the right of all workers to decent wages and working conditions and with a massive lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.

Many argue that the response of labor against this intimidation, including the AFL-CIO’s strong defense of immigrant workers, has contributed to the fact that the polls now show that the economy, the war in Iraq and other issues far outweigh the immigration issue in the minds of voters.

Labor aims to increase significantly the Democratic Party majorities in both houses of Congress and, of course, to elect a Democratic president in 2008. The reasons why are obvious.

2007 started off with a legislative bang as the new, labor-backed and Democratic-run 110th House began passing pro-labor bills. Chief among them was an increase in the minimum wage for the first time in 11 years and the Employee Free Choice Act, which allows workers to form unions when a majority indicate their desire to do so by signing pledge cards. This avoids having to go through elections that are dominated by the companies.

Labor is seeking to increase the pro-worker majorities in Congress because current majorities are not big enough to overcome presidential vetoes or GOP filibusters in the Senate. Bigger progressive majorities and a Democratic president can end the deadlock.

Virtually the entire labor movement has now come out against the war in Iraq, calling for the use of the money spent on the war for useful domestic purposes. Labor sees bigger progressive majorities and a Democratic president as essential to ending the war.

The labor movement also called this year for universal health insurance that would cover all Americans, with the government playing a major role in controlling costs. The unions see success of their electoral plans as key to passage of a new national health insurance plan.

Strikes and electoral activity are not the only way that labor has shown new militancy. Rulings by the Bush controlled National Labor Relations Board that took away from millions of workers their right to unionize by re-classifying them as “supervisors” literally brought thousands of workers all over the country into the streets in November. The AFL-CIO, which led the outpouring, said the NLRB had become so biased against workers that it should be completely shut down until a new president who can appoint a new majority is elected.

If anyone has doubts about labor’s ability to turn things around in the 2008 elections, he or she needs only to look at what happened in the 2007 off-year elections. Unions ended the 16-year GOP grip on the Virginia state Senate, they elected a Democratic governor in Kentucky, and in Utah, the most Republican of states, they smashed a right-wing initiative for a statewide voucher plan.

The right wing likes to portray the labor movement as out for the count or as a thing of the past. As workers ring out the old and ring in the new this year, they send a message that says nothing could be further from the truth.

John Wojcik (jwojcik @pww.org) is labor editor at the People's Weekly World

Fear of Cuba

Author: W. T. Whitney Jr.

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/20/07 15:48

During the Vietnam War era, President Richard Nixon worried about his country becoming a “pitiful, helpless giant.” Now, with the world’s only superpower over-reacting to fears, that possibility seems to have resurfaced. Two recent U.S. measures relating to Cuba hint at weak knees.

Washington officials recently refused permission for U.S. filmmaker Brian De Palma to attend the 29th International Festival of New Latin American Cinema in Havana. His film “Redacted,” a story of misfortunes surrounding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was shown Dec. 5 at the inaugural event of the famous film festival. At the 2007 Venice Film Festival, De Palma won the best director’s award for the film.

And this month the U.S. government denied permission for five members of the European Parliament, representatives from Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Germany, to visit five Cuban men held in U.S. prisons for actions taken to defend the Cuban people against terrorism.

The parliamentarians issued a statement protesting the refusal as “an outright provocation to worldwide democratic public opinion,” and condemned the U.S. government for “violating the basic human rights of the five prisoners [and] basic principles of international and humanitarian law.”

Presumably Washington was acting to maintain its long embargo on news from Cuba and to discourage public knowledge about the Cuban Five. Free flow of information concerning Cuba seems to make U.S. leaders uneasy.

By contrast, a lot of bad news in other areas does circulate without the news bearers being openly attacked. Bush administration news managers seem to have coped, for example, with the wide diffusion of news about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

The administration routinely dealt with press reports on the CIA use of European airports to transport duct-taped passengers to torturers. It didn’t seem to faze the White House. Probably foreigners reporting on the issue could gain easy entry into the United States, if they wanted to come.

Stories about civilian deaths at U.S. hands are everywhere — reporters killed in Baghdad, an Iraqi wedding party massacred on the Syrian border, for example — but military spokespersons stick to their routine: apologize and pay off the families.

Accusations are commonplace that millions of dollars are funneled by U.S. agencies into Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries to adjust elections. But apologists can and do easily ignore them.

These are weighty matters, as is the recently divulged CIA destruction of evidence from “hard” interrogations. By contrast, a film showing in Havana and five European visitors are small potatoes. Even so, Washington put its foot down. Why the difference?

Cuba gets its own script. The U.S. government has long applied special rules to the island nation, including liberal policies for would-be refugees from Cuba, full-bore economic sanctions and protection of anti-Cuban terrorists.

Why does Cuba warrant such treatment? The reason is that Cuba can be scary. One may have to stretch the imagination to realize that giants are underdogs when it comes to Cuba. According to mythologist James Frazier (“The Golden Bough”), giants’ souls often lie outside their bodies, “hidden away in some secret place.” If a giant’s enemies can find and destroy the soul, the giant dies, or at least — we might suggest — loses power and goes helpless.

Greed and rampant individualism characterize the soul of a capitalist empire. To construct a society marked by justice, the Cubans long ago must have determined that the offending soul must be watched over, maybe boxed up, the easier to be thrown away.

That’s the hold a tiny nation has over a bullying neighbor. In socialist Cuba, the giant’s soul is exposed as ready for the trash heap. It is used as a teaching aid. That’s why fences are in order separating people from ideas. Otherwise, all would be revealed and the giant’s soul endangered — a frightening prospect.

W.T. Whitney Jr. is a retired pediatrician active in the Cuba solidarity movement in Maine.

Students, faculty react to study on campus racism

By Stephanie Goldberg
The State News
Published: January 9, 2008

A study involving racism at MSU and four other historically white campuses found that black men are discriminated against solely because of their race.

The study, titled “Assume the Position … You Fit the Description,” conducted by two professors from the University of Utah and a professor from the University of California, Los Angeles, was completed in December.

The professors interviewed 36 black male students about their experiences at five different “historically white” campuses: MSU, University of Michigan, University of Illinois, University of California-Berkeley and Harvard University.

Researchers found what they called “black misandry,” or negative views of black males, on all five campuses.

The study’s results show several recurring themes regarding black males, including “hypersurveillance” by campus police and stereotyping.

Several phone and e-mail messages left with the researchers were not returned to The State News.

Political science and pre-law senior Julius Holmes, who is black, said he experienced an incident on campus when he was leaving work at 4 a.m. in fall 2007.

“A cop followed me all the way (from Grand River Avenue) to Lake Lansing Road by the Speedway, and he asked me if I had been drinking,” Holmes said. “The cops in East Lansing have a tendency to be very prejudiced.”

While the study does not include specific examples of racism toward black males on MSU’s campus, Holmes’ situation is similar to other examples included in the study.

“I haven’t experienced any racism from students on campus, but it’s not surprising that it exists,” Holmes said.

MSU spokesman Terry Denbow said diversity is an important issue at MSU.

“Any national study would show that MSU is philosophically and historically and consistently committed to celebrating diversity,” he said.

Graduate student Dionel Waters does not consider racism toward black males to be a problem on MSU’s campus.

Waters said the closest to an example of racism he witnessed on campus involved an older professor that used a once-acceptable name for referring to blacks.

“My professor explained a research study about African American males in prison systems and used the word ‘colored,’” he said. “This was an older professor, though, and by no means did I think he meant it in a racist way.”

Despite the study’s findings, Waters said the university does help students to deal with racial issues on campus.

“MSU has organizations and things in place for all students to have the opportunity to receive additional help academically or emotionally,” he said.

“Ultimately, it’s up to the students to seek those organizations out and get help.”