Saturday, February 09, 2019

Crawling to the Americans


The May Government’s recognition of the American lackey, Juan Guaidó, as ‘interim president’ of Venezuela is the latest episode in what some British politicians still shamefully call the “special relationship” with the USA. The weakness of the British Government makes this meaningless gesture, which was given in the hope of future reward from the Trump administration, pointless. But crawling to the Americans comes as second nature to those sections of the ruling class who believe that their global interests are best preserved through the might of US imperialism.
Though the Trump administration has widened existing divisions within America’s ruling circles over immigration and minority rights, the entire American ruling class wants to establish US hegemony over the world. What divides them is how to achieve it.
Democrat leaders still believe in the ‘new world order’ although they now prefer to call it ‘globalisation’. Trump, on the other hand, represents circles who want to cut back US military expenditure in Europe and north-east Asia so that they can concentrate on controlling the global energy market by taking over the entire Middle East and restoring US imperialism’s hegemony over south and central America. This is why they’re itching to get their greedy hands on Venezuela's vast oil reserves, the biggest in the world.
When it suits them American, British and Franco-German imperialists will bang the drum of “human rights”. So reading from the American script the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, says that: “The people of Venezuela have suffered enough. It is time for a new start, with free and fair elections in accordance with international democratic standards. The oppression of the illegitimate, kleptocratic Maduro regime must end. Those who continue to violate the human rights of ordinary Venezuelans under an illegitimate regime will be called to account. The Venezuelan people deserve a better future.”
The usual lies. But few are taken in these days. Attempts to build another “international coalition” to justify American military intervention and “regime change” have failed at the United Nations and the Organisation of American States. Ten members of the European Union have refused to endorse Juan Guaidó’s empty claim and Turkey has broken ranks with NATO to back the elected Maduro government that is also supported by Russia, People’s China, India, Cuba and Democratic Korea, as well as most of the Third World.
Those in favour of imperialist aggression are the most aggressive and greedy sections of the capitalist and landowning class. They looted and enslaved Africa and Asia in the 19th century, killing millions on their way. They are the people who sent millions to their deaths in two world wars to preserve and increase their fortunes.
They started the Korean War and the American interventions in Indo-China during the Cold War. These are the people who brought death and destruction in the name of “regime change” in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. They are the ones behind the sectarian gunmen who tried the same in Syria.
They are the kind who live the life of Roman Emperors in their grand houses whilst workers slave in their factories for pennies and die broken and destitute in the slums of the great cities of the imperialist heartlands. Now they want to push the clock back in Venezuela.
The governance of Venezuela is a matter for the Venezuelan people alone to determine. They’re going to fight to defend their revolution, We must stand by them and the legitimate government of the Bolivarian republic.


Friday, February 01, 2019

Project Fear nonsense


Whilst the Prime Minister struggles to get parliamentary support for her revised Brexit plan, ‘Project Fear’ continues to pump scare stories into the media about the supposed mass starvation and anarchy that will begin the day after we leave the European Union (EU).
Last week we were told that the Government is considering imposing martial law to deal with the “chaos” of a no-deal Brexit. When pushed however, Government ministers downplayed this ludicrous Domesday scenario as simply an “option” that has always existed to deal with massive civil unrest or a large-scale terrorist threat.
Some 21,000 troops were sent to the occupied north of Ireland to fight the IRA in ‘Operation Banner’, which began in 1969 and finally ended in 2007 under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The current ‘Operation Temperer’ plan, designed to help the police on the streets against terrorism, is, indeed, a martial law programme that would act incrementally, rather than overtly. Once implemented though, ‘Temperer’ could be very difficult to reverse.
But the prospect of troops on the streets to enforce curfews, shoot rioters and looters, and stop and search anyone they suspect could be involved in or planning acts of unrest or rebellion, is pure fantasy. How Mrs May’s government could get such draconian measures through parliament when it can’t get anything else through the House of Commons these days beggars belief. In fact it is simply another propaganda ploy conjured up by the EU lobby to stampede us into backing Mrs May’s weaselly plan that would keep Britain inside the EU in all but name for years to come.
On a more sophisticated level we are told that there isn’t enough time left to reach an agreement with Brussels and so Britain’s departure will have to be suspended well past the cut-off date of 29th March. Sadly a large number of Labour MPs seem willing to go along with this charade. Essentially this would mean suspending Article 50, the legal process for leaving the EU that establishes the two-year negotiation period, after which the departing member state is no longer subject to the EU’s treaties. It can only lead to continued membership of the EU until the time comes for the “people’s vote” that the pro-EU wing of the ruling class are determined to get to reverse the referendum and keep Britain inside the European imperialist union.
Brexit would mark a significant shift in the balance of power between capital and labour in Britain. It would leave a Labour government free to trade with any country around the world and free to invest in British manufacturing industry. It would enable Labour to restore trade union rights and in so doing reverse the yawning wealth gap between rich and poor in Britain. It would be a government that could cap rents and burst the housing bubble that sees our cities’ forests of towering luxury homes owned by investment companies and parasites whilst workers are forced to live in hostels, hovels or sleep on the streets.
The alternative is the EU with its austerity regime, the highest food prices in the world, ham-strung unions and mass unemployment in Greece, Spain, Italy and throughout eastern Europe. No wonder the French are up in arms…
Two years ago millions of people voted decisively to leave the EU. Leave means Leave!

An evergreen Marxist digest from India


Review
Arkady Shaiket
Construction of the Moscow Telegraphic Centre, 1928,

by Robin McGregor

Revolutionary Democracy Vol XXIV, No 1, October 2018. £5.00 + £1.00p&p from NCP Lit: PO Box 73, London SW11 2PQ

Revolutionary Democracy, the twice-yearly Indian Marxist journal is catching up on its schedule and its latest issue is now on sale from the above address. Like Gaul, the journal is in three parts. First there are collections of articles on contemporary India, then statements and articles from various parties belonging to the International Conference of Marxist Leninist Parties and Organisations. Finally there is the always interesting material from the Soviet archives, which editor Vijay Singh assiduously ferrets out.
The Indian section begins with an article entitled Culpable Genocide Not Amounting to Murder – The Tuticorin Massacre, which deals with long-running attempts by local people to close a dangerously polluting coper smelting plant in Tamil Nadu. In one protest, 13 people were killed when police opened fire. Opponents of the closure included workers employed at the plant, who were to become targets of the protestors. As the author points out, this is not a unique case and the working class needs to become involved in environmental questions.
Other articles take a harsh look at the BJP government’s financial management and its most recent budget that promises far more than it delivers. There is also a piece on women in agriculture, which both describes the dire effect of neoliberalism on the sector and offers some pointers to a better future. Short articles deal with frequently brutal trade union struggles. The 1931 case of Bhagat Singh who was hanged for anti-imperialism is considered from the perspective of Jawaharlal Nehru’s inaction at the time.
The articles on contemporary international problems include two on the recent presidential election in Brazil. The first offers a plausible analysis of errors and omissions by the Workers Party of Brazil that caused it to lose support. These factors include adopting the very neoliberal policies it criticised in 2015. The second article warns that the new president is clearly a full-bloodied fascist.
The Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan) offers A Communist Approach to the Question of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination in the Era of Imperialism, which is critical of Kurdish claims to a separate state that will be a base for imperialism in the region. A writer from the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) offers a more theoretical discussion on the merits of the Popular Fronts.
The archival material begins with a brief but telling letter from Stalin written in 1925, distancing himself (but not too sternly) from proposals to rename the city of Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad. There is also a report from a Soviet delegate on the Youth Conference of South-East Asian Countries, held in 1948. This is followed by a 1950 account of disputes within the Communist Party of India, these were pronounced in Bengal and focussed on the merits or otherwise of armed struggle.
On the Question of Lavrentiy Beria}is the first part of a report given by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov on the 2nd July 1953 to the Central Committee of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] shortly after Beria had been deposed as Minister for Internal Affairs.
Of particular interest to British readers will be the report Serious Mistakes and Shortcomings in the Activities of the CPGB [Communist Party of Great Britain], written in January 1954 by the leading Soviet philosopher Mark Borisovich Mitin. This report to the CPSU Central Committee addresses the decline in the party’s support since its high watermark in 1945.
Mitin is critical of General Secretary Harry Pollitt for side-lining the party’s recently adopted programme, the British Road to Socialism. He is also critical of the party’s view of the Labour Party, then in right-wing hands, and for downplaying the role of factory branches and inactive members.
This reviewer suspects that Mitin underplays the hostile Cold War environment of the early 1950s, but this piece offers useful reflections for historians of the CPGB and for present day struggles.
Unfortunately, thanks to the miracles of information technology, readers receive an unintended bonus. This issue comes complete with an additional incomplete title page and a version of the first article before the main body of the journal. This malfunction does not detract from the overall content however, and we hope that it won’t happen again.