International

The meaning of victory

The count has been called and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. has become the 44th President of the United States of America.

But, in truth, history will record him as #1 - the first African-American president.

It is undeniable that this is a singular political achievement, a work of impressive political skill, and (we must admit) a gift of the political gods.

Among friends, in the privacy of a prison visiting room I’ve often made the following half-joke.  Obama wins handsomely, and in his acceptance speech, flush with victory, loaded with ‘political capital’, he would open by saying, “My fellow Americans -- first and foremost, I want to thank the one person who made my election possible (if not inevitable): George W. Bush!”

I always got a laugh, for like all good jokes  the truth makes it happen.

And the truth is, without the blunders of Bush, Obama would’ve been an also-ran.  His fundamental issue, which set him apart from the rest of the Democratic pack, was his early opposition to the Iraq War.  That gave him a wind that carried him far and long beyond his competitors, who were, for the most part, half-hearted war supporters -- or worse, people who supported the war only because to not do so, would’ve harmed their political careers (or so they thought).

That wind carried him to the Oval Office, the grandest prize in U.S. politics.

But what does it mean?

We cannot deny its symbolic value.  In millions of Black homes, his picture will be placed on walls, beside Martin, John F. Kennedy, and a pale painting of Jesus. I’d bet that quite a few African homes (especially in Kenya) will also boast his smiling visage.

But beyond symbol is substance, and substantively, some scholars have defined Obama as little different from his predecessors. Political scientist Clarence Lusane, writing in a recent issue of The Black Scholar pointed to the money men behind both Obama and the Democratic Party, and noted the following:

The promotion of U.S. hegemony, expansion of markets for U.S. corporations, security-based multilateral relations, protectionist trade policies, and a focus on terrorism will likely be key priorities demanded by the major political and financial backers of the Democratic Party. In other words, in a number of key areas, an Obama administration would echo the policies of  both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.” *

Yet, symbols are powerful things.  Sometimes, they have a life all their own.  They may come to mean something more than first intended.

History has been made.

We shall see exactly what kind of history it will be.

 November, 10 2008 

www.prisonradio.org/mumia

 Russia is back and Latin America is its new play ground

Stanislav Mishin

For almost two decades, even long after its turn around in 1999, the Russian elites continued to believe in the West, much longer than they ever should have. To that end, Russia refrained from encroaching on the American play ground, Latin America. With the Monroe Doctrine, the US has seen to Latin America, especially to Central America, as it’s personal play ground, where national governments are over thrown as would be and policies are shoved down everyone’s throats as desired. The area was kept hands off by Russia, even while the West continued, driven primarily by the Anglo-Americans, to surround and encapsulate Russia from all sides. Outside of some weapons sales to Venezuela or some nice words to Cuba, Russia was gone from Latin America and with no plans on returning.

That all changed, of course, as so many other things did, when the Anglo-American Trotskytes, the Neocons, attempted to restart the Cold War and to renew their sagging fortunes. They poked the bear, not directly, but by using their proxy Saakashvili. What they found was not a hibernating bear but the renewed Russian Imperial eagle of the Holy Third Rome. That point was driven home all the more by the endless stream of relentless lies that flowed forth. With the lies came the malice that had previously been ever so lightly disguised, except that it was disguised no longer. Now even the Russian liberals were shocked and dismayed by what they found that the West, particularly the Anglo-Americans really were, once the fairy dust settled from their eyes.

Now no sphere is off limits and Russia has roared back into Latin America. The response? The response both from the Anglo-Americans and the Latin Americans has driven one thing home clearly not only to Moscow but the world: the Anglo-American Empire is teetering. It is not over, it is not dead but it will cede territory as it starts its long retreat. In other words, except for some words and confusion there has been no response from the Trotskyte Neocons.

From the Latin Americans, the response is loud and clear.

1. Cuba is in talks about setting up air defense, new Russian bases and a space center.

2. Mexico is Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa for trade talks and political cooperation.

3. Nicaragua has come out in support of Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia by also recognizing them, as it too seeks to get closer to Moscow.

4. Columbia has sent Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos to discuss combined military efforts against terrorism, drugs and possible equipment deals. Columbia is looking at fighters and helicopters and radar systems, just like the ones Venezuela bought.

5. Venezuela, not only purchasing equipment, but it has now hosted Russian bombers and navel assets on maneuvers and is in talks about permanent facilities.

6. Bolivia is following Venezuela’s lead and in return Gazprom will invest in Bolivia’s infrastructure, along with Total.

7. Brazil has invited Gazprom to invest in their pipelines.

More is on the way, of course as more nations in Latin America sense weakness and defect.

The point to Washington has always been the same and has always been ignored: do not provoke fights you are not prepared for. Be it the War of 1812, be it Iraq, be it a new Cold War it is hell bent on igniting. Washington as always knows the thrill of adventure, never once contemplating how much the ticket for the ride will cost.

www. mat-rodina.blogspot.com

From the History

The question of the future of the revolution

Some comrades have raised this question, and here I can only give a brief answer.

 In the writing of an article the second half can be written only after the first half is finished. Resolute leadership of the democratic revolution is the prerequisite for the victory of socialism. We are fighting for socialism, and in this respect we are different from those who confine themselves to the revolutionary Three People’s Principles. It is the great future goal to which our present efforts are directed if we lose sight of the goal, we cease to be Communists. But equally we cease to be Communists if we relax our efforts of today.

 We are exponents of the theory of the transition of the revolution[10] and we are for the transition of the democratic revolution in the direction of socialism. The democratic revolution will develop through several stages, all under the slogan of a democratic republic. The change from the predominance of the bourgeoisie to that of the proletariat is a long process of struggle, of struggle for leadership in which success depends on the work of the Communist Party in raising the level of political consciousness and organization both of the proletariat and of the peasantry and urban petty bourgeoisie.

The staunch ally of the proletariat is the peasantry, and next comes the urban petty bourgeoisie. It is the bourgeoisie that will contend with us for leadership.

To overcome the vacillation of the bourgeoisie and its lack of revolutionary thoroughness we must rely on the strength of the masses and on the correctness of our policy, or otherwise the bourgeoisie will come out on top.

A bloodless transition is what we would like and we should strive for it, but what will happen will depend on the strength of the masses.

We are exponents of the theory of the transition of the revolution, and not of the Trotskyite theory of “permanent revolution’’.[11] We are for the attainment of socialism by going through all the necessary stages of the democratic republic. We are opposed to tailism, but we are also opposed to adventurism and impetuosity.

To reject the participation of the bourgeoisie in the revolution on the ground that it can only be temporary and to describe the alliance with anti-Japanese sections of the bourgeoisie (in a semi-colonial country) as capitulation is a Trotskyite approach, with which we cannot agree. Today such an alliance is in fact a necessary bridge on the way to socialism.

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1967, Vol. 1, pp. 285-94.