This is one of my favorite documentaries on Cuba and Latin America as a whole. "The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" tells hows Cuba completely retooled it agricultural economy after the USSR collapsed, thus loosing support in the form of technology, fertilizers, oil and other petrochemicals. We are often told that the current form of agro-industry/planetary devastation is the only way to feed people efficiently (NPR recently told me how Monsanto seeds produce more with less) and that localized forms of agricultural production and distribution would not work on a large scale. This film tells a different story.
Apr 27, 2010
Apr 21, 2010
.jpg)
Apr 18, 2010
Imperialist Warcrimes Caught on Tape
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
To get a more comprehensive view to the event, I believe that I should give some soldiers involved equal space, an interview with a soldier in the unit on Democracy Now! and one from a soldier who came to clean up the carnage from The Danger Room.
Apr 17, 2010
Nine Myths About Socialism in the United States
By Bill Quigley, via The Speed of Dreams. Bill is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans.
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however, is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education, the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
Glenn Beck and other far right multi-millionaires are claiming that the US is hot on the path towards socialism. Part of their claim is that the US is much more generous and supportive of our working and poor people than other countries. People may wish it was so, but it is not.
As Senator Patrick Moynihan used to say “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”
The fact is that the US is not really all that generous to our working and poor people compared to other countries.
Consider the US in comparison to the rest of the 30 countries that join the US in making up the OECD – the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These 30 countries include Canada and most comparable European countries but also include some struggling countries like Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Turkey. See www.oecd.org
When you look at how the US compares to these 30 countries, the hot air myths about the US government going all out towards socialism sort of disappear into thin air. Here are some examples of myths that do not hold up.
Myth #1. The US government is involved in class warfare attacking the rich to lift up the poor.
There is a class war going on all right. But it is the rich against the rest of us and the rich are winning. The gap between the rich and everyone else is wider in the US than any of the 30 other countries surveyed. In fact, the top 10% in the US have a higher annual income than any other country. And the poorest 10% in the US are below the average of the other OECD countries. The rich in the U.S. have been rapidly leaving the middle class and poor behind since the 1980s.
Myth #2. The US already has the greatest health care system in the world.
Infant mortality in the US is 4th worst among OECD countries – better only than Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic.
Myth #3. There is less poverty in the US than anywhere.
Child poverty in the US, at over 20% or one out of every five kids, is double the average of the 30 OECD countries.
Myth #4. The US is generous in its treatment of families with children.
The US ranks in the bottom half of countries in terms of financial benefits for families with children. Over half of the 30 OECD countries pay families with children cash benefits regardless of the income of the family. Some among those countries (e.g. Austria, France and Germany) pay additional benefits if the family is low-income, or one of the parents is unemployed.
Myth #5. The US is very supportive of its workers.
The US gives no paid leave for working mothers having children. Every single one of the other 30 OECD countries has some form of paid leave. The US ranks dead last in this. Over two thirds of the countries give some form of paid paternity leave. The US also gives no paid leave for fathers.
In fact, it is only workers in the US who have no guaranteed days of paid leave at all. Korea is the next lowest to the US and it has a minimum of 8 paid annual days of leave. Most of the other 30 countries require a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave for their workers.
Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere else.
Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.
Myth #7. The US spends generously on public education.
In terms of spending for public education, the US is just about average among the 30 countries of the OECD. Educational achievement of US children, however, is 7th worst in the OECD. On public spending for childcare and early education, the US is in the bottom third.
Myth #8. The US government is redistributing income from the rich to the poor.
There is little redistribution of income by government in the U.S. in part because spending on social benefits like unemployment and family benefits is so low. Of the 30 countries in the OECD, only in Korea is the impact of governmental spending lower.
Myth #9. The US generously gives foreign aid to countries across the world.
The US gives the smallest percentage of aid of any of the developed countries in the OECD. In 2007 the US was tied for last with Greece. In 2008, we were tied for last with Japan.
Despite the opinions of right wing folks, the facts say the US is not on the path towards socialism.
But if socialism means the US would go down the path of being more generous with our babies, our children, our working families, our pregnant mothers, and our sisters and brothers across the world, I think we could all appreciate it.
Apr 12, 2010
Revolution Script Fan Art
OK this wasn't really drawn by a fan or reader but rather an internet comrade who I commissioned.
Apr 11, 2010
Beware of Century Arms International Built Weapons
After a Yugo SKS, the WASR-10 by Century Arms International is probably the rifle most commonly purchased by aspiring revolutionaries in the united states. The reasons for this are simple: they are AK-type rifles and they are the cheapest option, outside of handbuilding which is considerable effort. I own one and was recently sent a link for a cheap AK-74 clone by CAI by loyal reader Spiderman 2099 as well as this video review.
I advised a comrade to order one as my new state of residence has tyrannical and counterrevolutionary gun laws and I would not be able to do so. He recently wrote that he had to send it in for repair as it was inoperable out of the box because "the bolt won't close on a round because the cartridge sticks out of the breech half a centimeter." CAI is known for their poor quality builds of imported gun kits. The front sight post of my WASR (should stand for What A Shitty Rifle) is so badly canted that semi accurate shots past 30 yards require significant compensation of the part of the shooter. Problems resultant from lack of care during assembly and lack of quality control on the part of CAI which I have heard about and seen in person include trigger slap, canted gas blocks and front sight posts, poorly fitting furniture, uneven rivets, sloppy hand dremmeled receiver markings, poorly sized magazine wells so that magazine don't fit at all or fit too loosely cause the magazine to make a loud and potentially lethal rattling noise. Granted these do not afflict all CAI rifles and that mine has always functioned reliable. Also to Century's credit they will fix most defects if they are sent back to the factory but only for a limited period after it's manufacture, not initial sale, something like up to three years. But the next time you see a number or CAI AKs at a gun store inspect them and most likely it will have some visible defects.
I advised a comrade to order one as my new state of residence has tyrannical and counterrevolutionary gun laws and I would not be able to do so. He recently wrote that he had to send it in for repair as it was inoperable out of the box because "the bolt won't close on a round because the cartridge sticks out of the breech half a centimeter." CAI is known for their poor quality builds of imported gun kits. The front sight post of my WASR (should stand for What A Shitty Rifle) is so badly canted that semi accurate shots past 30 yards require significant compensation of the part of the shooter. Problems resultant from lack of care during assembly and lack of quality control on the part of CAI which I have heard about and seen in person include trigger slap, canted gas blocks and front sight posts, poorly fitting furniture, uneven rivets, sloppy hand dremmeled receiver markings, poorly sized magazine wells so that magazine don't fit at all or fit too loosely cause the magazine to make a loud and potentially lethal rattling noise. Granted these do not afflict all CAI rifles and that mine has always functioned reliable. Also to Century's credit they will fix most defects if they are sent back to the factory but only for a limited period after it's manufacture, not initial sale, something like up to three years. But the next time you see a number or CAI AKs at a gun store inspect them and most likely it will have some visible defects.
Apr 10, 2010
The Rural Guerrilla vs. the Urban Guerrilla (Updated)
Traditionally, guerrilla insurgency theory has been essentialized into two schools of thought. The first, Guevarism is marked by its adherence to Che Guevara’s foco theory, which says that a revolutionary uprising can create the necessary social conditions for a successful socialist revolution. It is a radically vanguardist, derived from Marxist-Leninism and adapted for social, political, economic and geographic conditions of Latin America. The second, Maoism is more traditional and conservative in that it considers favorable conditions among the rural population to be a necessary prerequisite for staging a guerrilla insurrection(Also See Mao's Innovations in Popular Warfare. But both agree that the countryside is the only place where such an insurrection is to take place and victory decided. In their analysis the urban sphere is completely excluded as the site of legitimate, potentially successful guerrilla operations. Without this, such movements become simply “terrorists,” linguistically and conceptually separate from a tradition to which it rightfully belongs. Perhaps the most significant theorist in the urban guerrilla tradition is Abraham Guillén, a former fighter in the Spanish Civil War who moved to South America after escaping from one of Franco’s prison. He wrote extensively about the Tupamaros guerrillas of Uruguay, a movement he highlighted as providing a model used by other urban guerrilla movements on the continent in his essay “Problems of Revolutionary Strategy.” This essay has earned canonical status, as urban guerrilla groups throughout South America during the 1960’s and 1970’s were trained by Guillén and his manual. It develops a discourse on urban guerrilla strategy through an in-depth critique of revolutionary movements, both contemporary and historical. He draws on dozens of examples throughout the world, not just in Latin America, although this is where the bulk of his analysis is focused. This is compared to Guevara's “Guerrilla Warfare” in which his analysis is based entirely on his experience in the Sierra Maestra during the Cuban revolution. Because of the historically influential nature of Che and his writings, he has become almost synonymous with guerrilla insurgency. Criticisms of Che and his method are equated in many people's minds with the problematic nature of guerrilla warfare as a whole. As such, Guillén writings, particularly his critique of foquismo are a refreshing change from Guevara’s non-self-critical tome and a positive addition to the discourse of guerrilla warfare.
It is not immediately clear what distinguishes urban guerrilla movements from their rural counterparts, other than the fact that they operate in cities. As previously stated I hope to elucidate these characteristics using the framework outlined in the beginning of this paper as well as my own analytic insight. Despite their obvious and significant differences, the rural jungle and the so-called “urban jungle” serve the same purpose for the guerrilla, protection through concealment. Similar to rural guerrillas disappearing into the jungle after an attack on an urban center, the Tupamaros guerrillas of Uruguay retreated to the safety of Montevideo after their temporary occupation of Pando, a small town immediately outside the capital. Concealment, analogous to that which is provided by the density of vegetation in the mountains is found by utilizing the density of population and development in the urban environment. Additionally, the city provides anonymity due to the alienation and disassociation of people from each other that many argue is inherent in urban social relations. The concealing properties of both types of terrain allow the guerrilla to suddenly appear, strike and melt into their surroundings.
While some similarities can be found between the tactics and strategies of the two types of guerrillas, several major differences distinguish them. To begin with, the daily life of the urban guerrilla is far less involved with the insurgency than that of the rural. According to Abraham Guillén, the urban guerrilla should live separately and fight together with their comrades in arms . The rural guerrilla’s entire life is the insurgency; they live, eat, march, sleep and fight together, almost completely separated from society. But all types of guerrilla theory stress the importance of mobility and non-reliance on permanent terrain (in the country permanent bases, in the city safe houses or arm caches.
Additionally the nature and style of their violent actions are very distinct. To begin with, urban guerrilla groups usually contain far fewer active members than rural groups, as bombings and kidnappings require fewer troops. The rural guerrilla, while certainly assisted by acts of sabotage, fights very much like a conventional army in that their conflicts are primarily gun battles. While they are irregular forces and utilize certain tactics to gain an advantage over a technologically superior opponent, the rural guerrilla army is organized and behaves like a conventional army. The urban guerrilla tends to avoid gun battles if at all possible and prefers three main types of actions, ones that take full advantage of the urban environment and the benefits that it provides, all of which were utilized by the FLQ; armed robbery, kidnappings, and bombings. Armed robberies are obviously nothing new and no different in function than the supply raids of rural guerrillas. The urban guerrilla robs banks, gun stores, shooting ranges, and police and army barrack in order to gain both funds and munitions. Kidnappings are also sources of income for the urban guerrilla but also a potentially useful political tool. Some are merely acts of extortion while others, such as when a politician, member of the bourgeoisie, or their family member had the additional benefit of demonstrating the weakness of the government and implicitly the strength of the guerrilla, freeing political prisoners or supporting non-violent labor movements such as a unions on strike.
The urban guerrilla uses bombings for very much the same reason: to demonstrate the state’s lack of control, it's inability to maintain its monopoly on violence (as described by Weber and Foucault) and stop the bombing of civilians and infrastructure. Foucault sees politics and the states relationship to society as inherently violent, arguing that politics are an extension of war by other means , reformulating von Clausewitz’s famous adage . His theory of biopower argues that the modern state utilizes “an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of population .” This is a kind of violence is omnipresent and invisible to those being controlled. Additionally, the state uses its various forms of legitimized violence to maintain its monopoly on means of violent coercion, by suppressing popular and non-state violence, i.e. riots, crime, guerrilla insurgency, etc. The urban guerrilla challenges this monopoly, the cornerstone of legitimized rule and therefore challenges the legitimacy of the state's existence.
It is not immediately clear what distinguishes urban guerrilla movements from their rural counterparts, other than the fact that they operate in cities. As previously stated I hope to elucidate these characteristics using the framework outlined in the beginning of this paper as well as my own analytic insight. Despite their obvious and significant differences, the rural jungle and the so-called “urban jungle” serve the same purpose for the guerrilla, protection through concealment. Similar to rural guerrillas disappearing into the jungle after an attack on an urban center, the Tupamaros guerrillas of Uruguay retreated to the safety of Montevideo after their temporary occupation of Pando, a small town immediately outside the capital. Concealment, analogous to that which is provided by the density of vegetation in the mountains is found by utilizing the density of population and development in the urban environment. Additionally, the city provides anonymity due to the alienation and disassociation of people from each other that many argue is inherent in urban social relations. The concealing properties of both types of terrain allow the guerrilla to suddenly appear, strike and melt into their surroundings.
While some similarities can be found between the tactics and strategies of the two types of guerrillas, several major differences distinguish them. To begin with, the daily life of the urban guerrilla is far less involved with the insurgency than that of the rural. According to Abraham Guillén, the urban guerrilla should live separately and fight together with their comrades in arms . The rural guerrilla’s entire life is the insurgency; they live, eat, march, sleep and fight together, almost completely separated from society. But all types of guerrilla theory stress the importance of mobility and non-reliance on permanent terrain (in the country permanent bases, in the city safe houses or arm caches.
Additionally the nature and style of their violent actions are very distinct. To begin with, urban guerrilla groups usually contain far fewer active members than rural groups, as bombings and kidnappings require fewer troops. The rural guerrilla, while certainly assisted by acts of sabotage, fights very much like a conventional army in that their conflicts are primarily gun battles. While they are irregular forces and utilize certain tactics to gain an advantage over a technologically superior opponent, the rural guerrilla army is organized and behaves like a conventional army. The urban guerrilla tends to avoid gun battles if at all possible and prefers three main types of actions, ones that take full advantage of the urban environment and the benefits that it provides, all of which were utilized by the FLQ; armed robbery, kidnappings, and bombings. Armed robberies are obviously nothing new and no different in function than the supply raids of rural guerrillas. The urban guerrilla robs banks, gun stores, shooting ranges, and police and army barrack in order to gain both funds and munitions. Kidnappings are also sources of income for the urban guerrilla but also a potentially useful political tool. Some are merely acts of extortion while others, such as when a politician, member of the bourgeoisie, or their family member had the additional benefit of demonstrating the weakness of the government and implicitly the strength of the guerrilla, freeing political prisoners or supporting non-violent labor movements such as a unions on strike.
The urban guerrilla uses bombings for very much the same reason: to demonstrate the state’s lack of control, it's inability to maintain its monopoly on violence (as described by Weber and Foucault) and stop the bombing of civilians and infrastructure. Foucault sees politics and the states relationship to society as inherently violent, arguing that politics are an extension of war by other means , reformulating von Clausewitz’s famous adage . His theory of biopower argues that the modern state utilizes “an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of population .” This is a kind of violence is omnipresent and invisible to those being controlled. Additionally, the state uses its various forms of legitimized violence to maintain its monopoly on means of violent coercion, by suppressing popular and non-state violence, i.e. riots, crime, guerrilla insurgency, etc. The urban guerrilla challenges this monopoly, the cornerstone of legitimized rule and therefore challenges the legitimacy of the state's existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)