The future on fire

The is what democracy looks like - The people in arms in Venezuela

2010-04-22T09:55:00.035+10:00

Venezuelan students organised in the Bolivarian Militia.

This is what democracy looks like

A common chant around the world when people take to the streets against the crimes of the global capitalist system is: "This is what democracy looks like!"

It is a statement that real democracy is on the streets, in the united action of ordinary people. It is a statement that democracy is more than passive voting once every few years, it is popular power and direct participation.

April 13, 2002 in Caracas, Venezuela was the scene of a powerful expression of popular power. The poor majority and much of the armed forces rose up and overthrew a coup-installed dictatorship. Elected President Hugo Chavez was restored to power.

In Caracas on April 13, 2010, a large demonstration occurred that gives further meaning to the slogan. What occurred on the streets of Caracas that day was indeed what democracy looks like - a march by tens of thousands of Venezuelan people organised in the Bolivarian militias.

There were battalions of workers, peasants, students, the urban poor organised in social missions - all organised from the grassroots.

This was a dramatic demonstration of the "People in Arms".

This is a crucial part of democratising a society - breaking the hold over the potential for armed violence of small, highly organised professional bodies governed with tight discipline from the top down by privileged castes in the interests of the powerful.

The monopoly over violence by the powerful gives them the permanent potential to terrorise the powerless.

A “people in arms” is a people you think twice before fucking with. A people in arms cannot be easily subdued.

You only need to look at the brutal response by large landowners in Venezuela to the government's land reform policy to see the significance of this question. Since 2001, more than 200 peasant activists have been murdered, without the existing institutions stopping the bloodshed. No one has been brought to justice for these crimes.

Now, the peasants are being organised into armed detachments - as peasant organisations themselves have been demanding.

Peasant battalion in the Bolivarian Militia, April 13.

Organising the oppressed in such a way is a defensive measure to prevent the sort of coup that occurred in 2002, in which more than 60 unarmed protesters were murdered on the streets and supporters of Chavez were hunted down.

It is also a preventative measure against a US invasion or a US-sponsored invasion by, for instance, neighbouring Colombia.

When the US imperialists and Chilean capitalists organised a military coup against the elected left-wing Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, a reign of terror was carried out with thousands slaughtered. On the back of the mass slaughter of militant workers, vicious neoliberalism was imposed.

This bloody example showed the need to do just what is happening in Venezuela - the arming of the people.

In Venezuela, there is a popular revolution that is still very much developing and seeking to advance. Capital still holds much power. It still controls significant sectors of the economy and has much power within the state.

The pro-poor policies of the Chavez government have helped raise the poor majority up and begun to create alternative structures. But much of capital’s economic power remains intact.

There are important steps forward in recuperating sections of industry. There are important experiments in popular power and ongoing attempts to strengthen these and create new institutions based directly on the organised people.

The most important are the communal councils and the communes (based on elected representatives from the communal councils, which are also experimenting with creating a "communal economy" in which the communes take control over production and distribution in their areas).

The struggle to implement workers' control, or other forms of workers' participation in management, in important state industries is resulting in important steps forward. This is a struggle to weaken and defeat the corrupt counter-revolutionary bureaucracy that still controls much of the state and sabotages the revolution's plans.

But it is all partial and still in the realm of experiments to find a way forward. There are important sectors of the broad-based Bolivarian movement that are hostile to serious attacks on capital and frustrate attempts to develop genuine popular power. It is not possible to advance decisively without ongoing struggle within the Bolivarian movement.

An important battlefield of this internal class struggle is the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) – the mass party led by Chavez that was formed in 2007.

Will it be a revolutionary vehicle that organises the most conscious and militant sectors in the communities and workplaces to push the revolution forward (as Chavez insists it must be)?

Or will it be dominated by more moderate, bureaucratic sectors as a vehicle for their interests, for advancement of individuals and competing power blocs fighting over the spoils of power (as Chavez’s old party, the MVR, was)?

This fight is occurring now. The right-wing has a lot of organisational power within the PSUV, but the political initiative lies with Chavez, who pushes leftwards, towards strengthening the bases.

At the founding congress in 2008, which right-wing sectors largely had organisational control over, these forces argued the provisional PSUV program should limit itself to “anti-imperialism” rather than be explicitly anti-capitalist.

Delegates rejected this and adopted a draft program and declaration of principles that calls for a thorough-going socialist revolution – in Venezuela and the world.

The problem facing the revolution is not simply from above, but also from below - in a related way. In particular, a major block is the fact that the organised workers' movement is too weak in Venezuela. It is divided, organises too little of the working class and the level of consciousness is too low.

This cannot be overcome by a government decree or a speech by Chavez. It can only be overcome through the many struggles breaking out to advance the interests of the working class.

This weakness in the revolutionary movement makes it hard to push forward decisively. Also, it leaves a vacuum within the Chavista movement that is filled by more right-wing and bureaucratic sectors.

But it is a live question, an ongoing struggle. How can you develop the working class except through the direct involvement of the working class in all aspects of the struggle to transform society?

This is the significance of the struggle for workers' control - and why it is resisted so fiercely by privileged bureaucrats. It creates a school for workers to develop, learn and transform themselves from a passive and narrowly-interested sector into active, organised, revolutionary actors.

The ongoing power of capital and bureaucratic sectors creates deep-going problems, with the government often unable to get its policies implemented. There is economic sabotage by corrupt state managers and private capitalists. This poses big struggles in the near future.

The Bolivarian militia is partial itself - it is uneven. Some communities and sectors are organised and others aren't. It is still relatively new.

But the demonstration of April 13 is a very powerful one. It shows the revolution is strengthening itself from the ground up. It shows the growing power of the oppressed.

It sends a powerful message: You don't fuck with the Venezuelan people.

This is what democracy looks like.

Below is a powerful eyewitness account by British socialist Alan Woods of this dramatic demonstration. The photos are by Kiraz Janicke, a member of the Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau.

* * *

The People in Arms

By Alan Woods, www.marxist.com

Eight years ago something occurred that has no precedent in the history of Latin America. The reactionary coup of 11 April, in which the Venezuelan oligarchy, in collaboration with the US Embassy and the CIA, overthrew the democratically elected government, was defeated by a spontaneous uprising of the masses.

On that day history was made. Ordinary men and women came onto the streets, risking their lives to defend the Bolivarian Revolution. With no party, no leadership and no clear perspectives other than to defeat the coup, the workers, peasants, and revolutionary youth, women and men, young and old, marched in their thousands to the gates of the Miraflores Palace to demand the release of President Chávez. The soldiers went over to the side of the people, and the coup collapsed.

These heroic events can only be compared to Barcelona in July 1936, when the workers, armed with old hunting rifles, clubs and anything they could lay their hands on, stormed the barracks and smashed the fascist reactionaries. If anybody doubts that this was a genuine revolution, they have only to study the events of April 2002.

In past years these events have been turned into a celebration of the Revolution. The Bolivar Avenue in downtown Caracas was a sea of red shirts and waving banners. But this year the scene was quite different to what I remember. Instead of a sea of red, Bolivar Avenue was filled to overflowing with a sea of camouflage green. This was the Day of the People’s Militia – a demonstration of the power of a people in arms.

The militias marching, April 13.

As you walked along the Avenue the files of militiamen and militiawomen (there were many women also in uniform) seemed to have no end. Here once again one could sense the unconquerable power of the masses. But now there was a different element. Here were thousands upon thousands of workers from the factories, peasants from the villages, and young kids from the schools and colleges, expressing their willingness to fight, arms in hand, to defend the Revolution against enemies – both external and internal.

Under a blazing sun, the people massed – the usual red shirts of the chavistas alongside the green-clad militia. Along the Avenue the loudspeakers blared out revolutionary slogans: against imperialism, against the bourgeoisie, for the Revolution, for socialism, and for Chávez: “The Right is still preparing another 11 April, but now the People have arms! Long live the Bolivarian Revolution! Long live the Armed People! Long live President Chávez!”

People climbed trees and lampposts to get a better view and to display placards with militant slogans, while some made a quick profit selling hats, tee-shirts and cold drinks (which were much in demand). There was a deafening roar of music – Latin American rhythms with revolutionary words, interrupted by chants and slogans. The militia was organized by groups that showed their origins: young teenagers from the schools and peasants with straw hats and tractors with Belarus written on the side.

To the rear, the militia was unarmed, but as one approached the head of the demonstration, everyone was holding a Russian-made AK-47, that most versatile and effective weapon, light and easy to use.

Students from the national armed forces university march with AK-47s

In recent years Chávez has bought large quantities of these weapons from Russia. Washington and its hired media have made a tremendous fuss, alleging that these guns are destined for the FARC guerrillas in Colombia. Now everyone can see what they are really intended for.

As they wait for the arrival of the President, the militias stand listlessly, or sit on the ground to eat a sandwich. Some rest on their rifles, and one or two even had the muzzle of their AK-47s resting on their boot – a somewhat risky practice, one would have thought. In fact a professional drill sergeant would doubtless have a heart attack, looking at these half-trained civilians with guns.

Militia members relax with their guns.

But this impression would be entirely false. These militias are the lineal descendants of the Cuban guerrillas, of the militias that fought Franco in the Spanish Civil War, of the workers´ militias that overthrew the Tsar in Russia in 1917, and if we go even further back in history, of the armies of the French Revolution and the militias of the American Revolution in the 18th century.

None of these were professional forces and they did not conform to the standards of a professional bourgeois standing army. But they did not fight any the less well for that, and in more than one case (Spain comes to mind) the attempt to force them into the format of a professional army had the most negative effects on their fighting spirit.

Late in the afternoon, a mood of expectancy can be noticed. The militia begins to form ranks. The crowd on the pavements pushes forward to catch a glimpse of their hero. Chávez appears, dressed in army uniform, riding on the back of an open vehicle – an ordinary army truck – saluting and waving to the militia and the crowd. The militia marches forward towards the tribune where Chávez is to deliver his speech.

His speech was shorter than in the past, but went straight to the point. Recalling the dramatic events of April 2002, he pulls out a magnificent sword and shows it to the multitude. It is the sword of Simon Bolivar – El Libertador (The Liberator). He tells the people that the liberation of Latin America has not been achieved for 200 years and can only be achieved through socialist revolution.

In the kind of dramatic gesture that is characteristic of him, he makes the people swear a sacred oath: that they will never rest until this task is accomplished. The militias repeat the words loudly, holding their rifles in the air. “The militia is the People, and the People is the militia,” he proclaims.

Then Chávez recounts the events of April 2002, from the fascist coup of 11 April to the popular-military uprising of 13 April. “I have been thinking a lot about this,” he says. “Ever since the 1970s, some people have been dreaming of a popular-military rebellion. But it never occurred. The 1980s was a black period that ended in the Caracazo of 1989, with a massacre of unarmed civilians.”

Chávez then recalled how he and a group of progressive army officers tried to stage a rebellion in 1992: “We failed because this was a military uprising without the People,” he concluded. After a spell in prison, he recalled the formation of a mass movement: the Bolivarian Movement, which swept to power in the 1998 elections. But the oligarchy lost no time in preparing the coup of 2002.

Chávez recalled the men and women who died in the coup, and the many more who were wounded. Contrary to the myth so assiduously spread by the media in the West about the allegedly repressive and dictatorial regime in Venezuela, nobody is in prison for these crimes, and eight years later the judicial investigations are still dragging on: “Let there be no impunity for this massacre, as there has been impunity for so many other massacres in our history!” he said.

He then went on to say that the blood of these martyrs of the Revolution acted as a spur to the Revolution. “Immediately after the 11 April there began the arrests and manhunts, the threats on television and the other media. But this aroused all the latent pent-up power of the masses that had been suppressed for so long,” he said. “This gave rise to the greatest rebellion in our history – the popular uprising we had waited so long to see.”

“This was an uprising against the bourgeoisie and imperialism. But the latter had calculated that such an uprising would be put down in blood by the army, as happened in the Caracazo. But our soldiers not only refused to fire on the People, but went over to the side of the People. The bourgeoisie and the imperialists had the surprise of their lives.”

Chávez pointed out that US imperialism was actively involved in the coup. US helicopters and spy planes were flying over Venezuelan air space, a US submarine and an aircraft carrier were in Venezuelan waters waiting to intervene. But the movement of the masses forced them to withdraw.

Ever since then the bourgeois media have tried to wipe that date out of the calendar, but the masses have kept it alive. “They cannot wipe April from the calendar, any more than they can wipe out January, February or any other month.”

Chávez observed that, if they had succeeded in crushing the Venezuelan Revolution, it would have dealt a heavy blow against the revolutionary movement throughout Latin America. “On our shoulders a heavy responsibility lies,” he said. “The peoples of Latin America are looking to us for their salvation.” Admitting that the Revolution was far from completed and that there was a colossal amount still to be done, he appealed for patience. “After its first decade, the Revolution has hardly begun,” he said.

Chávez then warned that the threat of counterrevolution had not gone away, and that there were conspiracies to assassinate him. He said that if this occurred: “Do not lose your heads, keep calm. You know what you have to do: take the power into your own hands – ALL the power! Expropriate the banks, the industries, the monopolies that remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie.”

Turning to the September elections he warned: “We cannot allow the bourgeoisie to take control of the National Assembly. If they do, they will use it to destabilize the country and create the conditions for another 11 April. We must win two thirds of the seats in order to press on with our programme.”

He warned the bourgeoisie that it was not possible to repeat what happened in April 2002, because the people were now armed and would crush any counterrevolutionary attempt. He finished with the words: Long live the National Militia!” Long live the People in Arms! Long Live the Socialist Revolution! Patria, socialism o muerte!

Caracas, 13 April, 2010

Education workers' combat corp.

Mission Ribas (education social program) combat corp.

Metro workers' combat corp.

A student battallion.

All ages have mobilised to defend the revolution.

You don't fuck with the Venezuelan people.

Ireland's Easter Rising: striking a blow against an insane system

2010-04-01T14:49:00.082+11:00

The Dubliners version of "The Foggy Dew" (featuring photos from the Easter Rising).

Easter is here again - the anniversary of the Irish rebellion against British rule in Easter 1916. On Easter Monday, Irish rebels took control of key parts of Dublin and declared a republic. It took seven days for the British to put the rising down.

The Foggy Dew, a much-covered Irish folk song about the event, details what happened and gives an indication of the issues surrounding the event.

There are two key lines that reveal something often sidelined about the rising. The first is: "'Twas better to die 'neath an Irish sky/Than at Suvla or Sud-el-Bar."

The second is: "'Twas Britannia bade our Wild Geese go/that small nations might be free/but their lonely graves are by Sulva's waves/or the shore of the Great North Sea".

Sulva and Sud-el-Bar are in Turkey and were the scenes of intense fighting in World War I. "Wild geese" refers to the flight path by migrating geese as they travel from Ireland to Europe - where many young Irish men were sent by the British to die for the British empire.

"That small nations might be free" is an ironic reference to the justification Britain used for its participation in the bloodshed - all Britain wanted was to "free" Belgium from foreign rule! A justification bound to ring hollow in Ireland - occupied by the British for 800 years.

These two lines say something fundamental about the Easter Rising often forgotten.

The Easter Rising is a seminal event in Irish history. It remains a touchstone for Irish republicanism.

But the rising cannot be viewed in a purely Irish context. It should not be seen as simply a rising to free Ireland of British rule and set up a republic.

Of course, it was. But one very important piece of context is that the rising occurred in 1916 - in the middle of the mindless slaughter occurring in Europe in World War I.

This fact is essential to understanding its significance. Ireland's colonial master, Britain, was one of the key protagonists. Britain sent millions of young men to die in a war to carve up the world between the great imperialists powers. There was a widespread recruitment campaign for the British army throughout Ireland and it was feared conscription could be introduced.

In Belfast, bosses sacked men and replaced them with women and boys so as to give the recruiting effort a boost.

World War I was a war of competition between competing capitalists classes for access to markets and resources. For this, millions were butchered.

An insane system that, to further the interests of tiny groups of the mega-rich, would destroy so many lives in almost unimaginable barbarity.

The threat of the wholesale conscripting of Irish men to fight for the British crown and British capital in a futile war was one factor driving the urgency behind the rising.

To best understand the relationship between World War I and the Easter Rising, it is best to look at how it was viewed by its most radical and clearest-sighted leader: James Connolly.

James Connolly: One of the greatest figures in the pre-1917 international socialist movement.

Born in 1868, Connolly was a veteran socialist revolutionary by 1916 who was active in the workers' movement in three countries: Scotland, Ireland and the United States.

He was one of the greatest figures produced by the post-Marx, pre-1917 socialist movement. He made enormous ground in developing an understanding of the relationship between the national struggle for Irish independence and the Irish class struggle.

Connolly saw the struggle for Irish freedom from Britain as an opportunity to fight for more than simply a nominally free country - it was as a chance to establish a socialist republic.

But more than that, Connolly was an internationalist. C Desmond Greaves explained in his 1961 The Life and Times of James Connolly that Connolly saw the horror of World War I as the most important injustice in the world.

In Belfast in the early stages of the war, Connolly's attempts to campaign against were criticised by other members of the Independent Labour Party (Ireland) Belfast branch, who wanted him to focus on "bread and butter issues".

Greaves said Connolly responded: "They seem to have a curious idea of what constitutes a working-class propaganda. They don't seem to think I ought to express an opinion on the greatest crisis that has faced the working class in our generation."

He saw the war as a direct result of the insanity of capitalism - and drew the conclusion it required a revolutionary response.

Greaves highlights an anecdote that claims when Connolly, sitting in his Belfast office, was brought the news in 1914 of European military mobilisations, he declared, "This means war" - and "sat for a long time silent, head in hands. Finally, he announced emphatically that a blow for Irish independence must be struck."

Connolly had drawn the same basic conclusion as the Russian Revolutionary V.I. Lenin as to the appropriate response to the horror of World War I.

Lenin famously coined the slogan "turn the imperialist war into a civil war".

Connolly wrote, Greaves said, in the March 1915 International Socialist Review: "The signal of war out to have been a signal of rebellion ... for social revolution ... Such a civil war would not have entail such a loss of socialist life as this international war has entailed."

Greaves shows Connolly's thoroughly internationalist reasoning for his participation in the Easter Rising by quoting an article by Connolly in the Irish Worker: "Starting thus, Ireland may yet set the torch to a European conflagration that will not burn out until the last crown and the last capitalist bond and debendture will be shrivelled on the funeral pyre of the last warlord".

In otherwords, a rising in Ireland was seen by Connolly as a signal for international socialist revolution.

This answers the allegation that, in turning his attention to liberating Ireland from British rule, Connolly had abandoned the working class and socialism.

Connolly's response stands in stark contrast to the shameful response of many European socialist parties, who responded to the war by backing their own country in the bloodshed. Connolly was not caving into national chauvinism, as many European socialists did, by participating in a rising to free Ireland: his response was the exact opposite.

For Connolly, like Lenin, it became incumbent on socialists to seek to end the madness by a revolutionary struggle to take power away from their own bloodstained ruling class.

In Connolly's case, this meant, in the first place, overthrowing British rule. Liberating Ireland from British rule would be a concrete blow against British imperialism.

The Irish republic established by a rising may not, in the first instance, be socialist - but it would greatly weaken one of the great capitalist powers, thus assisting international socialist revolution.

Connolly understood instinctively the significance of World War I. He could see empirically that capitalism had reached a highly destructive phase.

He never developed the detailed theoretical explanations for this that Lenin did. Lenin had developed a detailed theory to explain the rise of imperialism in his book 1916 book "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism".

It argued that capitalism had entered a monopolistic phase, based on a convergence of industrial and financial capital in the imperialist nations.

Fuelling the growth of these nation's capitalist classes required greater and greater expansion, and this drove intense competition between competing imperialist capitalist classes for markets and resources.

This competition led directly to the outbreak of World War I - as competing imperialist powers sought to resolve the question of how to divide up the world between them on the battle field.

Connolly would never get to read Lenin's work. But Connolly responded as a revolutionary to what he could see clearly with his own eyes.

Lenin also explained the way that imperialist super-profits enabled the imperialist ruling classes to buy off a section of the working class — generally the most skilled and organised. This was the labour aristocracy, and it was the crumbs from superprofits going to this sector that explained the horrible chauvinism of much of the official labour movement.

Connolly personally experienced this with the Great Lock-Out in Dublin in 1913. A brutal struggle was provoked by the bosses attempts to smash militant trade unionism in Ireland. The Irish trade unionists, led by Connolly and James Larkin, looked to British workers for solidarity.

Despite many rank-and-file workers being willing to respond with sympathy strikes, their Irish counterparts were betrayed by the leadership of the British union movement that took a "neutral" position.

This helped convince Connolly that the Irish workers could not, in the short term, rely on British workers for support. With the British largely supporting the their nation's war efforts (compared with Ireland where there was strong anti-war sentiment), Connolly decided not to wait for this to change but to move ahead with an Irish revolt.

It was necessary to strike a blow against one of the great powers waging the war. This was the time - there could be no waiting. To be a revolutionary meant striking now.

Connolly was not alone in this thinking. Republicans in the Irish Republican Brotherhood had decided World War I was an opportunity for a fresh Irish rising and had begun working to this end.

Connolly was a leader of the Irish Citizens Army - a workers' militia set up for self-defence against the violence of the bosses in 1913. By threatening to go it alone with the ICA, Connolly forced IRB leaders to include him in their plans.

Connolly was carrying out popular agitation for a rising, but the middle-class republicans in the IRB developed their plans in conspiratorial fashion, behind the population's back.

Connolly initially saw the lack of open agitation by the IRB as a sign of moderation, Greaves said, of moving away from a perspective of an armed rising. In fact, it was a difference in strategy — Connolly believed in the working class leading an open, mass struggle to win national liberation.

The IRB’s strategy weakened the rising and meant, when it occurred, it took Dublin's population by surprise.

Despite this weakness, Connolly led the ICA into the rising anyway. He felt the most important thing was to rise. A blow had to be struck - a blow struck in less than perfect conditions was better than no blow at all.

In lead up to the rising, everything went wrong. A car meant to collect weapons from a boat accidentally drove over a cliff. The conservative leadership of the armed Irish Volunteers (of which the IRB were an internal faction) discovered the IRB's plot and called off crucial armed mobilisations.

As it was due to begin, success in the rising seemed incredibly slim if not not non-existent.

Still, the rebels went out.

Greaves gives an account of Connolly, on the morning of the rising, coming down the stairs of Liberty Hall, where the ICA was based, whistling happily. A comrade asked him how he thought the rising would go. Connolly gave the cheerful reply: "We are all going out to be slaughtered."

For Connolly, the blow had the be struck - even if it meant an immediate defeat. There had to be a rising against the insanity plunging the world into darkness. The banner of revolution had to be raised.

Connolly commanded the Dublin forces in the rising. Various areas were taken, and IRB leader Padraic Pearse read the famous proclamation of an Irish Republic on the steps of the General Post Office.

The British responded immediately and brought in heavy weaponry. "The British huns, with their long range guns, sailed in through the foggy dew", as the song tells it.

Without broader support, the rebels could not win. They held out for a week. Connolly was shot in the ankle, but continued to command the rebels from a stretcher.

Having crushed the rebellion, the British retaliation was as awful as you would expect from a power willing to destroy so many innocent lives at Sulva and Sud-El-Bar.

Thousands of rebels were arrested. Some 15 leaders were executed. Three weeks after the rising, it was Connolly's turn. His ankle was still shattered from the bullet and he couldn't stand. He was strapped to a chair to face the firing squad and shot.

The rising failed, but it became a beacon.

The event had a massive impact in Ireland, sparking fresh struggle for freedom. The Easter Rising lead directly to the Irish war of independence that broke out in 1919.

Easter is still the most important time in Irish republican's calendar.

But the rising was much more than that. The revolutionary banner had been raised internationally, a revolt had occurred against one of he key belligerents in World War I.

Lenin hailed it.

He explained the significance of an anti-colonial blow coming from within Europe itself: "A blow delivered against the power of the English imperialist bourgeoisie by a rebellion in Ireland is a hundred times more significant politically than a blow of equal force delivered in Asia or in Africa."

He argued against socialists who dismissed the rising as a "putsch", or a purely nationalist action. "To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe ... is to repudiate social revolution...

"The socialist revolution in Europe cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements."

The following year, a spontaneous revolt overthrew the Russian czar in February. In October, Lenin's Bolsheviks lead the world's first successful workers' revolution.

The example of the seizure of power by the workers' and peasants' of Russia with a key aim of ending Russia's involvement in the bloodshed went a long way to ending the Great War. Other imperialist powers feared similar revolutions at home.

Lenin may have succeeded where Connolly and his allies had failed, but the example of the Easter Rising was important internationally. It was part of the same struggle.

Today, for reasons far too long to go into here, the same system still governs internationally. The Russian Revolution, left isolated, ultimately failed as well.

But the struggle against the insane system has never stopped. Nor has it been more urgent.

The system is just as insane and now, the stakes are even higher than in 1916. The very survival of life on Earth is being threatened by the continuation of the profit-driven system.

We need to take the approach of Connolly and Lenin to World War I to the problem of climate change and the threat of eco-destruction. It is the overriding issue facing working people in the world today. The only question is: how can we end this system so that we may have a chance at life.

We can look to Latin America, where popular rebellions are ongoing against the imperialism and capitalism. From there, a call came from Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez for a Fifth Socialist International — to unite those in struggle against capitalism internationally to fight for "socialism or death".

Climate change is "the greatest crisis facing our generation". We need the spirit Connolly - determined at whatever cost to take on the system. We need the determination to find a way to strike a blow against this system with the aim of ending it. This doesn't mean we need a failed, but heroic rising - our aim is to win.

But to win, we need the determination, boldness and heroism that the rebels showed in Dublin in Easter 1916.

When we remember this event, that is the lesson we must take with us wherever we are. It was an example not just for Ireland, but for humanity.

Sinead O'Connor and the Chieftains version of The Foggy Dew.

A song for our times

2010-03-13T19:02:00.002+11:00

“Go, go speculator trade up hard if the money's all right. Go, commodity traitor, the blind leads the blind leads the blind leads the blind.”

Angry anarchists from Australia released this song back in 1996, but its lyrics are more relevant than ever.

The album it is from, Power to the Poison People, had some good songs — such as one called International Mother Fuckers.

No prizes to guess what that is about — angry anarchists are not renowned for subtlety.

Venezuela's revolution in its second decade: profile of a people's movement

2010-03-02T08:41:00.005+11:00

The video posted below is from a public meeting featureing Australian activists and Socialist Alliance members based in Caracas, Kiraz Janicke and Federico Fuentes.in Toronto, Canada on Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution.

Kiraz Janicke is a journalist for Venezuela Analysis, the foremost independent English-language source of news on Venezuela. She is editor of the Peru en Movimiento website and is a member of the Caracas bureau of Green Left Weekly.

Federico Fuentes is an associate of the Centro Internacional Miranda, an independent agency funded by Venezuela’s Ministry of Popular Power for Higher Education in Caracas. Together with Marta Harnecker, he leads two CIM study projects: “Political Instruments for the 21st Century” and “Popular Participation in Public Management”. He maintains the Bolivia Rising blog and is a member of the Caracas bureau of Green Left Weekly.

The meeting was sponsered by POIRG-Toronto; Center for Social Justice (CSJ),; Barrio Nuevo; Hands Off Venezuela/Louis Riel Bolivarian Circle; Latin America Solidarity Network-Toronto; Latin@s Canada; Socialist Project; Venezuela We Are With You Coalition;Toronto Bolivia Solidarity; and Toronto Haiti Action Committee.

The video is taken Socialist Project’s Left Steamed site.

Mark Steel radio broadcast about the Russian Revolution

2010-02-27T14:42:00.003+11:00

Three-part radio broadcast on the Russian Revolution British socialist and comedian Mark Steel. He has done a number of fascinating and entertaining live shows, radio broadcasts and TV programs on various aspects of history and historical figures.

Haiti: natural and human-made disasters combine

2010-01-14T18:12:00.020+11:00

Haiti, the poorest nation in the Americas, has been hit by devastating earthquake that has caused widespread destruction and killed as many as 100,000 people. Registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, it is the worst earthquake to hit the Caribbean half-island for more than 150 years.

Pat Robertson, US televangelist and leader of the US Christian right, offered the view on his TV show The 700 Club that this was due to the fact that Haitian revolutionaries, leading the world's first successful slave revolt and winning their independence from France in 1804, had made a pact with the devil.

Says Robertson: “They said, we will serve you, if you get us free …true story. And so the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal’.”

Presumably, African slaves could not possibly liberate themselves from a “civilised” (white) empire built on the miserable practice of enslaving human brings without the helping hand of the Prince of Darkness.

It has to be said, if Robertson is correct, then God is one hell of an arsehole and why anyone would want to follow such a psychopathic mass murderer is beyond me.

This earthquake, after all, follows the catastrophes unleashed on the Haitian people in terrible hurricanes in 2004 and 2008.

Robertson goes further, however, to blame the terrible poverty Haitian people have been condemned to on said deal with the devil.

But there is a much simpler explanation.

The terrible reality is the earthquake and its aftermath are a horrible combination of natural and human-made disasters. It is a natural disaster piled on top of a social disaster created by two centuries of brutal exploitation.

There are few countries in a worse position to cope with the consequences of such an earthquake.

In an opinion piece in the British Guardian, Peter Hallward wrote: “Any large city in the world would have suffered extensive damage from an earthquake on the scale of the one that ravaged Haiti's capital city on Tuesday afternoon, but it's no accident that so much of Port-au-Prince now looks like a war zone.

“Much of the devastation wreaked by this latest and most calamitous disaster to befall Haiti is best understood as another thoroughly manmade outcome of a long and ugly historical sequence.”

Hallward explains the sorry history of a nation subjected to “the direct legacy of perhaps the most brutal system of colonial exploitation in world history, compounded by decades of systematic postcolonial oppression”.

He points out: “The noble ‘international community’ which is currently scrambling to send its ‘humanitarian aid’ to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce.

“Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti’s people to move (in former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide's phrase) ‘from absolute misery to a dignified poverty’ has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies.”

Read his full article, giving a useful overview of how Haiti got to where it is today.

Also, check out this timeline of US oppression in Haiti (1804-2005)

Also, check out this 2008 article from Green Left Weekly on the effects of trade and other economic policies enforced on Haiti: Haiti: Hunger made in the USA

You cal also read this 2008 Green Left review of Randall Robinson’s book An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, From Revolution to the Kidnapping of a President, (“the story of a great tragedy of recent times — the violent overthrow of Haiti’s elected president and government on February 29, 2004”).

Right now, Haiti needs immediate assistance. You can help by donating to the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund. Originally formed in 2004, it is a grassroots organisation working with people and organisations on the ground in Haiti and is helping coordinate badly needly relief at this terrible time.

Donations to such organisations are very badly needed, but as you donate, keep in mind Hallward’s conclusion:

“The same storms that killed so many [Haitians] in 2008 hit Cuba just as hard but killed only four people. Cuba has escaped the worst effects of neoliberal ‘reform’, and its government retains a capacity to defend its people from disaster.

“If we are serious about helping Haiti through this latest crisis then we should take this comparative point on board.

“Along with sending emergency relief, we should ask what we can do to facilitate the self-empowerment of Haiti's people and public institutions.

“If we are serious about helping we need to stop trying to control Haiti’s government, to pacify its citizens, and to exploit its economy.

“And then we need to start paying for at least some of the damage we've already done.”

Coup threats in Ecuador and Paraguay

2010-01-09T15:02:00.005+11:00

Rafael Correa Denounces Honduran Style Coup Attempts in Ecuador

Paraguay: Watch out ... coup in sight

The offensive by US imperialism and the local oligarchic elite in Latin America, aimed at reversing the popular movements that have made important gains in recent years, is clearly continuing in the new year.

Last year was marked by the military coup against the elected government of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, with mass resistance and brutal repression still continuing.

Zelaya had introduced popular measures like an increased minimum wage and joined the anti-imperialist political and trading bloc, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA).

The US also announced plans for seven new military bases in Colombia, which other South American nations denounced as a serious war threat. Already this year, Venezuela has denounced violations of its airspace by US planes and also a plan by Colombia to manufacture an incident on its Venezuelan border as an excuse to provoke a war.

None of these threats should be taken lightly. Argentinean Marxist Luis Bilbao, working as an advisor to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, explained in a 2008 article what was at stake for imperialism and also for the popular movements.

He argued that the popular movements had grown so strong in consciousness and organisation in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador that they could only be defeated through war.

And this is what we are seeing. The military coup in Honduras is the first shots on this war. The military bases and other threats from Colombia indicate future threats.

And, now we have indications of coup threats from two mopre countries: Ecuador and Paraguay. In both, right-wing political forces have been defeated electorally by forces promising pro-people changes. Ecuador has joined ALBA, while Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has indicated his intention to join.

UNICEF stats on child poverty: Not one of them is Cuban

2009-12-21T13:40:00.003+11:00

Left I on the News blog, run by Eli Stephens, put up this useful and revealing post on UNICEF’s new report on children and global poverty.

Not one of them is Cuban

UNICEF reports today that 146 million underweight children in the developing world, and that not one of them is Cuban. Indeed, UNICEF reports that Cuba is the only country in all of Latin America and the Caribbean that has eliminated severe child malnutrition.

As a reminder, there are other categories in which Cuba can claim the same distinction:

900 thousand children die every month because of poverty: not one of them is Cuban.

200 million children in the world sleep on the streets today. None of them is Cuban.

250 million children under 13 have to work in order to survive. None of them is Cuban.

More than one million children are forced into prostitution and tens of thousands have been victims of human organ trafficking. None of them is Cuban.

25 thousand children in the world die every day of measles, malaria, diphtheria, pneumonia and malnutrition. None of them is Cuban.

Cuba isn't perfect, or heaven on earth. It is a society which puts people's needs first, and it shows.

By the way, to compare Cuba to another "tropical island," consider today's news from Hawaii:

Public schools in Hawaii are closed most Fridays, rats scurry across bananas in an uninspected market, and there may not be enough money to run a Congressional election.

Nepalese Maoists seize Kathmandu, declare autonomous district government

2009-12-21T12:52:00.007+11:00

The Nepalese Maoists, a mass force based on the impoverished majority, played a key role in the movement that overthrew the centuries old feudal monarchy and ushered in a republic. In elections to the constituent assembly, the Maoists won the most seats, securing around 1 million votes more than their nearest rival and around twice the seats. However, the old royal army refused to bey the new government and pro-elite parties conspired to bring the Maoist-led government down in May.

The strength of the Maoists since then appears to have grown, both in political support (with the new government seen as undemocratic and a puppet of the elite, India and the US) but organisationally. The Maoists have been building from the ground up, holding discussions throughout the country. In a show of strength, they shut down much of Kathmandu with mass demonstrations and blockades in November. The government, with little popular legitimacy, was blockaded and had to meet in secret.

(for info on this round of mass protests, read these two Green Left Weekly articles: Nepal: New uprising builds
and Nepal: The struggle for civil supremacy)

Now, they have begun launching "autonomous zones" — be areas with parallel governments and structures based on the oppressed, especially oppressed nationalities.

Maoist-led land seizures by peasants against large landholders have increased, Mike Ely reports.

But most dramatically, in recent days, the Maoists have launched mass demonstrations to seize the capital Kathmandu in order to declare it, too, an autonomous zone — for the Newa people, a national minority. they have declared a parallel government for the district. They intend to repeat this process in other areas in a massive and growing challenge to the central government's authority — which looks increasingly weak.

Mike Ely provides some useful analysis of what is happened here.

Check out this impressive short video of the Maoist night-time torch-lit march through Kathmandu.

The following report appeared in economictimes.indiatimes.com.

Red alert: Maoists seize Kathmandu

KATHMANDU: Maoists on Wednesday announced the seizure of the Nepalese capital Kathmandu declaring it an autonomous region, after storming into heavily guarded Durbar Square, in a development that could trigger a new political confrontation.Waving red flags, 5000 militant cadres forced their way into the Durbar Square city centre where their chief Prachanda declared Kathmandu valley as the Newa Autonomous State. The Maoists, who have already announced formation of parallel governments in nine districts and paid little heed to warnings by the Nepali Congress, to desist from such tactics as it may lead to “biggest political and social confrontation”.

Though the Maoist takeover was more of a symbolic nature, their choice of the capital city sent shock-waves in the ruling CPN-UML-led 22-party alliance. Prachanda lit a traditional lamp to declare Kathmandu as Newa Autonomous State by flying a banner that read “Newa Autonomous State” as hundreds of balloons were let off.

A gun salute was also given and the city declared an autonomous state amidst performance of traditional music.

“Our move is not intended to disrupt the peace process or block the constitution making task,” Prachanda proclaimed adding it was to “make people aware about federalism and strengthen the republican system”. The Maoist supremo claimed that “regressive forces were hatching a conspiracy against the republican system and trying to reverse the change”.

Other Maoist leader who spoke on the occasion defended their move to declare various areas as autonomous regions rejected the claim that it would derail the peace process and lead to disintegration of the nation. The party is planning to declare altogether 13 autonomous states in the country by December 18.

Tuvalu demands serious climate action, walks-out at Copenhagen

2009-12-10T12:53:00.002+11:00

Tuvalu is a small Pacific Island state whose very survival is seriously threatened by rising sea levels.

Tuvalu takes centre stage as talks stall

and

Tuvalu walks out after being blocked

“Tuvalu has caused quite a stir at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen with the island's representative pleading with delegates to come up with a legally binding agreement, then in an unprecedented move stormed-out, closing the session until the afternoon.

Tuvalu has caused quite a stir at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen with the island's representative pleading with delegates to come up with a legally binding agreement, then in an unprecedented move stormed-out, closing the session until the afternoon.”

SMH: 2010 set to be hottest yet, Australians should prepare for heatwaves

2009-12-10T12:00:00.003+11:00

Scientists tip 2010 as hottest yet
DEBORAH SMITH
December 11, 2009

THE past six months have been Australia's warmest winter-spring period on record and it is likely next year will set global temperature records.

Scientists predict that, whatever the outcome at Copenhagen, Australia must adapt to unprecedented heatwaves ...

Every decade in Australia for the past 70 years had been getting warmer, and this decade has been the globe's warmest so far.

full article

Last decade the hottest on record

2009-12-09T23:30:00.003+11:00

Like the climate scientist guy said: “actually frightening”.

Did I mention Hugo Chavez's call for an International To Save All Life on Planet Earth?

Past decade the warmest since records began in 1850
DEBORAH SMITH SCIENCE EDITOR
December 9, 2009

THIS year has been the third-hottest on record in Australia, and is ranked as the fifth-warmest globally.

A report by the World Meteorological Organisation, published last night, concluded that the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest since instrumental climate records began in 1850.

In 2009, only the United States and Canada experienced conditions that were cooler than average. ''Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have their warmest year on record,'' the report said.

Published as world leaders gathered in Copenhagen to consider climate change, it highlights extreme weather conditions around the globe this year, including three ''exceptional heatwaves'' in Australia, China's worst drought in 50 years and the wettest October in the US in 115 years.

Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, said this year should have been a cool year because of low solar activity and a recent La Nina weather event. ''The fact it ranked in the top 5 since 1850 is actually frightening,'' he said.

This year's heatwaves in NSW, Victoria and South Australia also did not bode well for next year, Professor Pitman said.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/past-decade-the-warmest-since-records-began-in-1850-20091208-khqv.html

Secret rich nations’ plan leak sparks Third World fury — Copenhagen being reduced to rubble

2009-12-09T21:36:00.009+11:00

In the lead up to the Copenhagen talks, poor nations had expressed their anger and frustration at the rich nations over the rich nations plans to refuse to agree to serious, binding cuts in their emissions and for compensation for poor nations over climate change effects.

Poor nations are bearing the brunt of the already all-too-real effects of climate change, caused overwhelmingly by the industrial development of the rich countries.

The summit barely started before the actions of the rich nations blew it up. Anger of the poor nations has exploded over a leaked text of an agreement worked beforehand by a cabal of rich nations (known as the “circle of commitment” and including Australia) that lets rich nations off the hook and spits in the face of Third World demands.

The greed of the great (First World-based) corporate interests, and the slavish commitment to those interests of rich nation governments, is more than sickening: it is threatening the potential for life on this planet to continue.

This is exactly why I support so wholeheartedly Hugo Chavez’s call for an International to Save the Planet.

* * *

(Taken from Climateandcapitalism.com)

Leaked Document Shows Rich Nations Plan Climate Coup in Copenhagen

December 8, 2009

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

by John Vidal
The Guardian, December 8, 2009

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalized this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act.

The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol — the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks.”

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

* Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
* Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called “the most vulnerable”;
* Weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance;
* Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

“It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up.

“It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed.”

Hill continued: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.

“That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

* * *

The Sydney Morning Herald noted, meanwhile: “Drafted by the Danish Government after talks with the so-called ‘circle of commitment’, including Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the document said global emissions should peak by the end of the next decade but did not include any emissions targets for 2020 or specific proposals for the creation of a green fund to help the most vulnerable ...

“it prompted a furious rebuke to rich nations from China. In a surreal press conference in a cramped room next to the Chinese delegation office, chief negotiator Su Wei claimed he was unaware of the leaked Danish proposal that had hijacked the mood of the convention centre while attacking the European Union, Japan and the US for claiming they were acting on climate change while doing very little.

In a detailed analysis of the flaws of rich nations’ 2020 targets, he said Europe had already done more to limit emissions under the flawed Kyoto Protocol than it proposed to do under a Copenhagen pact, Japan’s proposed 25 per cent cut was meaningless because it had set conditions that would never be met and the US had promised a ‘remarkable and notable’ emissions target but proposed only a provisional 1 per cent cut below 1990 levels.

“‘I’m not very good at English, but I doubt whether just a 1 per cent reduction can be described as remarkable or notable,’ he said.

“He said the $US10 billion annual green fund, that has won wide support at the conference and is included in the draft Danish agreement, worked out to just $2 per person across the planet - not enough to buy a coffee in Copenhagen, or a coffin.

“‘Climate change is a life and death issue,’ he said.”

The key to this, as has been the key for so much of human progress in recent centuries, is the actions of ordinary people. We are many and they are few, and all that.

It is true if you look at how trade union rights and universal suffrage were won, abominations like apartheid defeated, civil rights for a wide range of sectors secured in country after country, etc etc etc.

Therefore, the real action at Copenhagen will be occurring on the streets outside it.

In the lead-up, these two articles have just been posted to Green Left Weekly

Britain: Massive climate protest demands real deal at Copenhagen

Canada: Protests condemn climate crimes

Dave Zirin: Sorry Obama, you can't have Muhammad Ali

2009-12-08T23:22:00.003+11:00

Dave Zirin, the best sports writer in the US...

Message to Obama: You Can't Have Muhammad Ali

By Dave Zirin

On November 19th, President Barack Obama wrote a stirring tribute in USA Today to the most famous draft resister in US history, Muhammad Ali. On Tuesday, Obama spoke at West Point, calling for an increase of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, with a speech that recalled the worst shadings of George W. Bush's "war on terror."

...

[Ali said] "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No, I'm not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over.”

...

Barack Obama can have the fawning media, the adoring generals, the RNC, and the liberal apologists on his side.

But he can't have the Champ. Remove that poster from your wall Mr. President. Your Ali privileges have been revoked.

Full article here

Bolivia: Resounding victory for Evo opens path for further change

2009-12-08T19:02:00.002+11:00

In an important victory for the process of democratic transformation of Bolivia, South America’s poorest nation, and Latin America in general, Evo Morales was re-elected for his second term as president on December 6 with more than 63% of the vote.

Morales’ party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS — which unites range of predominantly indigenous social movements) looks like it could win a majority in the senate based on exit polls — which would remove the right-wing majority there that has slowed down the process of change.

Below is an article from Granma on December 7. It is followed by an analytical piece from NACLA.

For more information on the process of change in Bolivia, and ongoing news, visit Bolivia Rising.

Resounding Victory for Evo

Granma, December 7

LA PAZ, December 6 — "Today Bolivia has once again shown its democracy, and that change is possible," declared the president elect, Evo Morales, from the Movement to Socialism Party (MAS). He was confirmed in that position with resounding popular support, gaining more than 63% of the votes.

In his address, from the seat of government in the Plaza Muillo in front of thousands of emotional supporters, Morales emphasised that the Bolivian triumph basically constitutes an acknowledgement of the anti-imperialist governments and nations, and was grateful for this opportunity to continue working for equality and the unity of Bolivia.

The leader, who will be as president for the period 2010-2015 on January 22, together with his vice-president, Álvaro García Linera, promised to accelerate the social changes that are taking place in the country, with a possible majority in the upper house of 25 of the 36 senators, according to exit polls.

There was a massive turnout for the elections, with a reported 140,000 votes from abroad. This was the first election under the new constitution promoted by Evo, which declared Bolivia a pluri-national state.

Morales also called on the opposition to work together for Bolivia, in a government that "Comes from the people, for the people."

With Victory, Morales and Social Movements Confront New Challenges in Bolivia

Dec 7 2009
Tanya Kerssen, NACLA.org

Bolivian president Evo Morales and his political party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), won a resounding victory in the presidential elections this past Sunday, December 6.

The nearest challengers, Manfred Reyes Villa and his running mate Leopoldo Fernandez — whose current address is a La Paz prison, where he stands accused of ordering the murder of pro-government peasants — represent an old political and economic order that has used sedition and violence in an effort to obstruct and destabilize the Morales government.

The old order and the new are locked in a struggle for the future of Bolivia. "The social movements are critical for presidents to be able to create a new alternative," declared Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca in the tropical city of Cochabamba in October at a summit of leftist Latin American presidents, including Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Ecuador's Rafael Correa.

At the parallel Social Movements Summit comprised of 700 delegates from 40 countries, Isaac Ávalos, leader of the Bolivian Peasants Federation promised to help "bury the opposition" in the election.

The dialogue between these parallel summits is emblematic of the close association between social movements and the new left governments of Latin America. In Bolivia, a broad-based coalition of movements — with peasants, workers and indigenous groups at the forefront — was instrumental in defining Morales' platform even before he was first elected to the presidency in 2005.

With the support of the social movements, the administration succeeded in meeting three key goals in its first term: government control over the nation's oil and gas resources, the creation of a new constitution to re-found the Bolivian state, and the advance of agrarian reform.

The right-wing opposition, rooted in its control of large landed estates and petro-carbon resources in the eastern lowlands, constitutes the main challenge to transforming property relations and creating a more equitable, democratic society in Bolivia.

The deepening of "21st Century Socialism" during Morales' next five years in office will depend on the sustained strength of the social movements, the government's continued responsiveness to their evolving agenda, and the ability of both to overcome the opposition of the entrenched elites while maintaining democratic legitimacy.

A report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shows that despite the global recession and destabilizing threats from the right, the government was able to minimize the impact of the economic crisis and increase foreign exchange reserves.

Morales has also expanded social services for the poorest Bolivians through the creation of health and literacy programs and financial support for the elderly, school-aged children and pregnant women. These achievements were made possible by the government takeover of the oil and natural gas industries, which increased government revenue by an impressive 20% of GDP since 2004.

The deepening of government involvement in the economy — one of Morales' key campaign planks — is a remarkable achievement, and one that was unthinkable just a few years ago.

It was, of course, built on the blood and sweat of the social movements, which called for an end to the privatization of public corporations, land and natural resources; the restoration of social protections and government regulation of private capital; and the reassertion of state sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States and the dominant international financial institutions.

In a long turbulent process, the administration succeeded in creating a new constitution — approved in a popular referendum in February 2009 — that seeks to re-found the nation to be more reflective of, and accountable to the country's indigenous majority. The constitution provides indigenous peoples with greater territorial autonomy and recognizes Bolivia's 36 indigenous languages as "official."

The new charter also grants the state greater control over natural resources, establishes access to water as a human right and requires the government to protect biodiversity.

In a country with one of the most unequal land tenure systems in Latin America, deepening the land reform program is a central challenge facing this administration. Since large landholdings are the basis for elite power, land reform is an overtly, sometimes violently, contested issue.

Under the changes introduced to the land reform law in 2006 and approved by congress, land must fulfill a "social and economic function" — regardless of property tax payment — in order to avoid expropriation and re-distribution to poor peasant families.

The land reform process, which according to government figures has titled 26 million hectares and distributed 958,454 hectares since 2006, was further bolstered by a measure approved by voters in 2009 limiting private landholdings to 5,000 hectares (about 12,400 acres) rather than the 10,000 hectares demanded by the landed elite.

As a result of pressure from conservative landowners in the process of drafting the new constitution, however, these reforms will not be retroactive to include currently owned properties. This compromise greatly defuses the radical potential of the legislation.

In another capitulation to the right, language that prohibited the use and production of genetically modified organisms was removed in the final text, a large blow to the peasant movements and environmental NGOs that fought for its inclusion.

The more radical leaders of the social movements are advocating new decrees and legislation to overcome these limitations and deepen the agrarian reform.

Changes in the international context are promising for the Morales government's ability to implement its agenda. The rise of South-South cooperation provides opportunities for greater independence from and negotiating power with the North, especially the United States.

ALBA, the Venezuelan-led Bolivarian Alternative for the People, is an important iteration of this phenomenon.

Relations with the United States remain estranged ever since the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in September 2008 for meddling in Bolivian affairs. Though Bolivia has long been dependent on U.S. foreign aid, ALBA's support - and particularly support coming directly from Venezuela - has allowed it to escape Washington's political and economic stranglehold.

Venezuela also helped Bolivia cushion the blow of its suspension from the U.S. Andean Trade Preference agreement, a suspension initiated by President Bush in 2008 and extended by President Obama last June.

Negotiations for the normalization of relations took place at the State Department in Washington last month, but with no final resolution. Morales has expressed his disappointment with the policies of the Obama administration, particularly its decision to establish seven military bases in nearby Colombia. He declared that Latin America is no longer "in the time of kings" and that "we cannot be in the time of American military bases."

One of the poorest countries in Latin America, Bolivia under Evo Morales is in a strong position to transform its economy and to break the historic hegemony of the United States. The strength and character of this transformation will largely hinge on continued dialogue between the government and the social movements that have been at the vanguard of progressive change.

Tanya Kerssen is a master's candidate in Latin American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and a contributor to the Center for the Study of the Americas.

Oz climate report: 250,000 coastal homes at risk of flooding

2009-12-06T00:15:00.008+11:00

The federal government’s own report from November on the threat of climate change, “Climate Change Risks to Australia”, finds disturbing results.

Unfortunately, the government’s response is to seek to introduce an emissions trading scheme that gives hand outs to big business and lets them continue polluting — while increasing the power bills for ordinary people. (See the history of cap and trade below)

The ABC.net.au report on the finds including the following points.

* * *

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Up to 250,000 homes around Australia will be inundated by the end of this century. Ports will disappear, airports will be submerged, and up to $63 billion worth of residential property will go.

That's the alarming finding of the most comprehensive climate report card to date.

...

SARAH CLARKE: By using the latest projections on rising sea levels of up to 1.1 metres by the turn of the century, combined with increasing number of extreme weather events, scientists say no property by the sea is safe.

...

SARAH CLARKE: The cost of losing these homes by the sea is estimated at between $40 and $63 billion.

And those properties within 110 metres of the soft shorelines don't escape either. This report warns they'll be exposed to flooding, wild wind events, higher storm surges and erosion, all of which put them at risk. And 39,000 homes have been identified.

...

One hundred and twenty ports are within 200 metres of the Australian coastline, as well as five power stations, three water treatment plants and 1,800 bridges.

Sydney and Brisbane airports are built on low-lying areas and if this report is correct, they'll be more like ports.

* * *

Somewhat serious.

Too serious to be left to the likes of climate denier Tony Abbott, or, for that matter, climate pretender Kevin Rudd — for whom the entire emissions trading bill is just a clever way to seek to split the Liberals, while putting on a face of taking the climate seriously.

Yet more and more people want proper action — even in the blue-ribbon seat of Higgins, as safe Liberal as can be, climate activist and academic Clive Hamilton won more than 35% of the vote running for the Greens.

The media spun this as ringing endorsement for Abbott as new Liberal leader, yet in both Higgins and Bradfield (safe Liberal seats), the Greens outdid Labor’s vote in those seats in 200.7

The story of stuff

2009-12-05T23:58:00.004+11:00

Having posted Annie Leonard’s piece on emission’s trading, I thought it would be worth highlighting her original introductory video the Story of Stuff

This is a very introduction to how the world works — how things get produced, sold, consumed and turned into waste.

The story of cap and trade: a short video on the reality of emissions trading

2009-12-05T19:27:00.005+11:00

Some strange, disturbing and frankly ridiculous political games and fights that have dominated Oz politics over the last couple of weeks or so.

The debate in the Liberal Party over climate change and the Rudd government’s emissions trading bill was accurately described by Green Left Weekly’s Simon Butler as a fight between the climate deniers and the climate pretenders.

Therefore I am glad that the first post on my blog is this short video explaining why emissions trading is not serious climate action.

Here is the spiel, followed by the video:

“The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill.

“Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the ‘devils in the details’ in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis.

“If you’ve heard about Cap & Trade, but aren’t sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.”

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

For more information, and to see Leonard’s earlier, great short video The Story of Stuff, click here.