Libya: brutality and hypocrisy

By SPGB

When the popular movements against long-standing despots in the Arab world spread from Tunisia and Egypt to Libya the Western powers thought that something they had long wanted – regime-change in Libya – was about to be handed them on a plate. But they didn’t have the same control over Gaddafi as they did over Moubarak and Ben Ali and so could not arrange for him to bow out. His own man, and true to form, Gaddafi chose to try to brutally repress the movement. With the support of mercenaries and some sections of the population armed with superior military power, it was looking as if he might succeed.

Faced with this prospect, the Western capitalist powers have decided to play the military card too and have launched a series of bombing and missile raids against the armed forces loyal to Gaddafi. Since, under the UN charter, wars not authorised by the UN are “illegal”, they have had to present their action as being to protect the civilian population against the very real exactions of the Gaddafi regime. (Read on)

Source: World Socialist Party (US)

Revolutions Today and Yesterday, Part 2

By Zach Foster

Read Part 1 (How this applies to the revolutions in the Middle East)

Oddly enough, despite incredible evidence and living testimonies that largely vindicate the United States’ actions in Southeast Asia (particularly Vietnam) from 1954 – 1975, political agendas still manage to distort history and paint Ho Chi Minh as a hero.  Ho, famous for “leading” the Vietnamese to freedom from French Colonialism and reunifying the “artificially divided” Vietnam.  It is only prudent to analyze Ho’s path to Leninism in his own words.

First and foremost, let it be noted that Vietnam had been naturally divided for centuries long after independence from the Chinese and long before the French ever arrived.  Northern and Southern dynasties fought multiple wars against each other, one of which lasted nearly fifty years (the Trinh-Nguyen Wars).  The nineteenth century arrival of the French, who did exploit and oppress the Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, only served to nominally and loosely unite some Indochinese independence factions.

Let it also be known that Ho’s actual name is Nguyen Sinh Cung.  He granted himself his nom de guerre “Ho Chi Minh” (meaning Enlightened One) in 1941.

After World War I, I made my living in Paris…  I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.

At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.

Above is a statement to be taken in question.  Ho claims to have supported the October Revolution, which was carried out in October of 1917.  At that time, Ho was not living in France, but rather in England, and had not yet come into contact with Marxism or Marxists.  His first contact with Marxism was in 1919 in France, long after the October Revolution and well into the Russian Civil War.  If he did know about the October Revolution and about Lenin, it would have been through reading newspapers or hearsay and his opinion would have been incredibly ill-informed.

In regards to Vladimir Lenin, Lenin also being a nom de guerre (what is it with these ultra leftist revolutionaries and the fancy nick names?), his credibility as a Marxist is nil at best.  In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx describes how the proletariat will become conscious of their economic slavery and rise up as a whole to overthrow the bourgeoisie.  In The Civil War in France, Marx praises the national guards (defense militias) raised by the people, of the people, and for the people for the purpose of defending the Paris Commune from French police and military brutality.

Unfortunately for Lenin, the Russian proletariat wasn’t waking up fast enough for his taste.  This is where he developed the basis for Bolshevism, what the world knows today as Leninism: a system based on Marxist theory but dependent on “vanguards of the revolution” (militant/paramilitary agitators) to “lead” the proletariat to a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.  Lenin had basically turned a peaceful method of economic revolution into war.

Revolutions Today and Yesterday, Part 1

By Zach Foster

Part 1: Knowing the Past to Understand the Present

In the wake of the ongoing state of revolution in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya (where the revolution is being provoked to civil war by the Qadafi regime), and one expected to break out in Saudi Arabia, many people are wondering what directions these countries will go.  Will the revolutions be successful?  Can the people form new governments?  Will civil war ensue?  What system will the people choose to run their governments?

In the United States, emotions are running high as the American people watch the revolutions in awe.  Ultra-conservatives are scared out of their wits that Barack Obama’s Constitutional policy of nonintervention (which at this point is only direct nonintervention, as the U.S. has been performing humanitarian missions for the Egyptians, Tunisians, and Libyans) will pave the way for radical militant groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to take power.  It is highly unlikely that they could take power, since they are a scant minority among people protesting for their basic human rights to be respected.  The world knows how devastated the countries would be if radical (violent) Islam seized the reigns of fledgling revolutionary governments: they would parallel Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under the Ayatollah.  The educated and socially conscious revolutionaries are aware of this.  Nonetheless, more and more often Conservatives like to blame the President for the mere sake of blaming the President.

Leftists and socialists throughout America are riding revolutionary coat tails as usual, waving their flags, red banners, and claiming solidarity with the Middle Eastern revolutionaries from the safety of their college campuses, public parks, and police protection of the First Amendment, but not actually doing anything to fundamentally benefit the cause of the revolutionaries. The leftists are also protesting America’s policy of foreign intervention, though many if not most are doing so from a viewpoint of class struggle rather than pro-Constitutional reform.  Many are hoping that the Socialist and Communist parties of these countries will become leading forces in the revolutions (which they have yet to do).  In light of this, it may be beneficial to politically conscious Americans to study Communism in past revolutions and American interventionism, to see how the past affected America and how the current events could affect America.

Oddly enough, despite incredible evidence and living testimonies that largely vindicate the United States’ actions in Southeast Asia (particularly Vietnam) from 1954 – 1975, political agendas still manage to distort history and paint Ho Chi Minh as a hero.  Ho, famous for “leading” the Vietnamese to freedom from French Colonialism and reunifying the “artificially divided” Vietnam.  It is only prudent to analyze Ho’s path to Leninism in his own words.

Next: Ho Chi Minh's own words and Lenin's track record

Tunisia – people power, but…

By SPGB

The light­ning rapid­ity and rel­a­tive ease with which Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was chased out of Tunisia in Jan­u­ary, is a clear tes­ti­mony not only of the power of the masses but also (though unknown to many) how vul­ner­a­ble and cow­ardly many a dic­ta­tor is. Hours before his igno­min­ious flight, Ben Ali appeared on tele­vi­sion vis­i­bly shaken and plead­ing with the peo­ple to give him time to address their prob­lems. Too late; the masses were already up in arms. It is said that the cap­i­tal­ist sys­tem digs its own grave. But it does not do so will­ingly. It is an inevitable fate that it must ful­fil; it devel­oped the inter­net to enhance its insa­tiable crave for prof­its but, iron­i­cally, it is the same inter­net that the masses will use as a col­lec­tive organ­iser to mobilise the exploited to bury the sys­tem. The present upheavals in the Arab coun­tries are one such example.

Else­where in the Arab lands, this defi­ant action of the Tunisians sent frosty shiv­ers down the spines of the other dic­ta­tors and, appre­hen­sive of a pos­si­ble domino effect, some of these rulers started mak­ing jit­tery reforms to avert a sim­i­lar (and deserved) fall. (Read on)

Source: World Socialist Party (US)

Recent Protests and Website Hackings in Tunisia

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public AffairsWashington, DC

We are concerned about demonstrations that have occurred over the past few weeks in Tunisia, which we understand to be the result of social and economic unrest. We encourage all parties to show restraint as citizens exercise their right of public assembly. We have also conveyed our views directly to the Tunisian government.

Furthermore, we are concerned about recent reports that Tunisian ISP providers, at the direction of the government, hacked into the accounts of Tunisian users of American companies including Facebook, and providers of email such as Yahoo and Google, and stealing passwords. This kind of interference threatens the ability of civil society to realize the benefits of new technologies. Cyber intrusions of all kinds, including reported attacks on government of Tunisia websites, disrupt the free flow of information and reduce overall confidence in the reliability and security of vital information networks. We urge all parties to respect the freedoms of expression and information that belong to everyone.