Video Discussion of Peace and International Affairs with Sue Webb

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5839662

Left Debates Obama and Road Ahead by Ernesto Aguilar re-post from 19 Dec, 2010

MLToday has published a series of articles on internal struggles within the
Communist Party USA, a North American organization preparing for a congress in
May. Such struggles are indicative of other tussles on the Left over how best to
respond to the rise of Barack Obama to the presidency.

Its two-part “Crisis of the CPUSA” series critiques the party and its apparent
challenges, from ending of its People’s World newspaper to budget problems. Author
Edward A. Drummond says the group is facing party liquidation right now. In other
instances, Drummond accuses the organization’s leadership with folding in the wake
of Barack Obama’s ascension, essentially choosing to tail the Democratic Party
rather than lead struggles and leverage its strength to push harder for alternatives.

Elsewhere, Andrew Taylor of Left Turn raises similar points about the CPUSA’s
overestimation of the Obama movement.

Arthur Shaw presents the crux of the conflict within the CPUSA as one of the
struggle of the working class stance on imperialism. Shaw writes such a question
will increasingly center on Venezuela and Latin America in the coming period.

The CPUSA isn’t alone among the Left in its post-election soul searching. Rustbelt
Radical reminds us the Freedom Road Socialist Organization chose tailing Obama to
mixed results, pointing to FRSO’s siding with Obama on health care reform with
right-wing populists (and single-payer activists) as the foil yet without a more
thorough analysis. “If health care reform goes down it will hardly be because of the
intransigence of the single-payer folks and shame on FRSO for implying it,” the blog
notes. Groups like Solidarity spoke out against the Democrats’ health care reform
machinations, but there remains a major philosophical and polemical debate.

The CPUSA, which last met in 2005, hosts a congress every few years. The
organization is expected to meet in 2010 in New York City, when it is believed this
debate will be addressed.

We aren't going to be worried out of the Marxist Movement by the opportunists...We aren't going to be pushed out of the Communist Movement by old or new style Social Democrats...We promise but one thing: we are in for the long hard fight for a better world and are not yet dissuaded from our goal by nationalistic patois ~ Andrew

Dear Joe: A Letter to an Inquirer about The Communist Party, By Andrew Taylor, Tues. March 30th, 2010

Dear Joe,

I believe there is only one realistic way to overcome the economic crises, the grotesque current inequity of resource distribution and political power and the encroaching ecological meltdown that is even now beginning to compromise the earth's eco-systems, and it is a hard path that can only be won through the dedicated effort of the workers, led by socialist parties "of a new type" solely devoted to the cause of the working-class.

The goal is to establish a world of working-class power, with a socialist planned economy and public ownership of the key sectors of the economy such as energy and banking, etc. The socialist state's educational systems will self-consciously and assiduously apply itself to educate its citizens in socially aware, cooperative aspirations. In this socialist state, the key means of production are owned by the people themselves and the economy functions in a rational fashion through planning.

I do not believe a merely reformist social-democratic accession to government can conceivably be able to do what needs to be done in order to check and crush the power of monopoly capital, and to give birth to a socialist world.

While it may in certain conditions be a desirable measure, I do not see the nationalization of capitalist enterprises as necessarily a step toward revolutionary socialism. Keynesianism both old-style and in its 'neo' forms consists of an explicitly counter-revolutionary series of measures to save capitalism from its inherent self-destroying anarchic dynamism.

With my comrades in the canadian communist party, I reject mere reformism as an anti-working-class ideology because at bottom its premise is that the most the working class and all the the world's people can hope for is the adoption of reforms to the present capitalist dictatorship.

Reform-struggles are essential in the long struggle for socialism, but reforms are only in continuity with a path to revolution when there are strong working-class parties of Marxist Leninist theory and struggle leading the fight against mere Reformism.

Social democrats usually confine "Politics" to election campaigns and trade unions; both are necessary democratic areas of struggle and education, but at a nodal point in the struggle for democracy there will be historical points of opportunity when the organized working people must and can take unto itself that which has been unjustly monopolized from it by the parasitic capitalist class.

However socialism comes about in different nations and varied revolutionary struggles, it will have to be very carefully and deliberately carried out by an organised working class. Because of the logical, unyielding opposition to social ownership on the part of the possessing capitalist class, at all stages of the struggle for power as well as in the challenges of the revolutionary process, the working people have to be readied to defend their gains from police surveillance, agents provocateur, and perhaps the open violence of police and soldiers.

And here we must look at the experience of interferences in nations striving to become socialist, or simply sovereign, or national processes merely deemed to be "contrary to US national interests". And of course Canada has its own CSIS and RCMP that work hand to glove with 'external' CIA covert action.

All of these unhappy realities raise the question of the need for a disciplined Leninist party that has learned revolutionary realism and displayed an unflinching commitment to socialist transformation over decades of internal and international struggles with the enemies of socialism.

It is true "Society" can be conceived in a variety of different ways, depending on the operative (or unformulated) sociological theory. Let me speak more clearly, and as a Marxist-Leninist, of the State, including among its different arms, first, the courts, police, prisons; second, the government, the civil service, parliament, city council; third, govt. sponsored bodies like the public school system.

The Ruling Class requires police to guard property and break strikes as well as restraining the anti-social criminal. Parliament or Congress with the Courts maintain corporate class rule while keeping alive the fiction that anyone has the "right" to rise to the corridors of power and "serve the nation". A legal, formal right has never and does not now magically endow the worker with the power to transcend class barriers.

My examples are meant to illustrate that the State is not neutral; "Society" as its constituted in our several countries is partisan on the side of the antagonistic owning Class.

The transfer to Socialism will in itself produce a qualitatively more democratic state. The government of the socialist state is composed of the leading, politically educated elected delegates of the working-class and its socialist and pro-socialist parties, including opposition parties . The citizens elect and send their deputies to regional and central legislative bodies through free regular vote. They have the power to demand the recall of their legislative representatives.

This socialist State is also partisan, but in favor of the majority. It will defend itself from internal and external attempts at the overthrow of the Revolution. It will not tolerate the operation of parties advocating fascism, war,or hate crimes; it will not permit public political agitation intended to overthrow socialism and restore capitalism.

If the capitalist state is as I have characterized it in the foregoing discussion, a partisan possessing class stunting and distorting our creativity, our values, expropriating all in its path -- from our parliaments and judiciary to our factories and labour,-- then we must now work for the perhaps distant day, when the working-class takes power and creates a humanist civilisation.

This preparation demands participation in the collective struggle for deepened levels of democracy, it demands political education and standing shoulder together with one's class and allies. It demands facing imperialism, the latest and final stage of capitalism. Join the Communist Party and gain an experience of living at the heart of humanity!

"We Are Not Anti-US, We Are Anti-Imperialist", Hugo Chavez Interviewed by Cindy Sheehan, MR Zine, reposted March 30, 2010

Cindy Sheehan's interview with Hugo Chavez:


Cindy Sheehan: President Chavez, thank you for allowing the truth to be told about Venezuela, and about you and your revolution. Before the revolution, Venezuela was a nation ruled and used by the oligarchy. How did the revolution begin and how has it remained relatively peaceful?

President Hugo Chavez (HC): Thank you Cindy, for your efforts to find out our truth, we wish you luck in your struggles, which we share, against war, for peace, for justice, for freedom and equality, against imperialism. We accompany you in those struggles, you and the people of the US. The bourgeoisie of Venezuela dominated the country for more than 100 years, with force, with violence, through persecution, assassination, forced disappearances. Unfortunately the history of Venezuela is a history with a lot of violence. Violence of the strong against the weak. In the 20th century in Venezuela, dominated by the oligarchy and the bourgeois state, a reverse miracle happened. Venezuela was the top exporter of oil from the 1920s until the 1970s, and one of the largest producers of oil in the world throughout all of the 20th century. But when the century ended, Venezuela had more than 70% poverty and 40% extreme poverty, misery. That generated a violent explosion -- all explosions are violent. An explosion of the poor to liberate themselves. We were just remembering the anniversary of Caracazo a few days ago, on February 27, you were there with us, with our people. Twenty-one years ago the people awoke and arose in a big explosion. And us in the military were used by the bourgeois state to massacre the people -- women and children -- and that awoke a consciousness and a pain in the military, and led us to join with the people. We later led two rebellions. Our revolution isn't exactly peaceful. It's relatively peaceful.

The violence of the revolution appears to have come from the counterrevolution. The Bolivarian Revolution has transferred power and wealth to the people and has been an inspiration and at the same time has been relatively peaceful.

HC: Yes, we got to power in a peaceful way. And we have been able to maintain it, relatively. We've never used violence, the counterrevolution has used it against us. So the central strategy of our peaceful, socialist revolution is to transfer power to the people. I'm sure you've been able to see some of it with your own eyes in the neighborhoods of Caracas. We are engaging in immense efforts to help the people be sovereign. When we talk about power, what are we talking about, Cindy? The first power that we all have is knowledge, so we've made efforts in education, against illiteracy, to promote the development of thought, study, analysis, in a way that has never happened before. Today, all of Venezuela is a giant school. Children and senior citizens, all of us are studying and learning. Then there is political power, the capacity to make decisions -- Community Councils, Communes, People's Power, grassroots movements. We have economic power, transferring economic power to the people, distributing the wealth to the people. That is the principal force that guarantees the Bolivarian Revolution will continue to be peaceful.

Why do you think the Empire makes such a concerted effort to demonize you?

HC: There are several reasons, but I have come to the conclusion that there is one major reason. The Empire is afraid. The Empire is afraid that the people of the US will find out the truth and something could erupt in their own territory -- a Bolivarian movement, a Lincoln-esque movement. A movement of citizens, conscious citizens that seek to transform the system. Imperial fear killed Martin Luther King, Jr. The only way to stop him was to kill him. Then, they repressed the citizens of the US. So, why do they demonize us? They know the truth, but they fear the truth. They fear the contagious effect. They fear a revolution in the US. They fear an awakening in the US.

One of the biggest names they call you in the US is dictator. Can you explain why you are not a dictator?

HC: I am against dictatorships. I'm an anti-dictator. From a political point of view, I've been elected four times by popular vote. In Venezuela, we have elections all the time. Once, Lula, the President of Brazil, said that in Venezuela there is an excess of democracy! Every year there are elections, referendums, popular consultations, elections for governors, mayors -- right now we are starting campaigns for elections in the National Assembly. In 2012, there will be presidential elections. What dictator is elected so many times? What dictator calls for elections all the time? I'm an anti-dictator. I'm a revolutionary. A democratic revolutionary.

You've announced your candidacy for the 2012 elections. You've come a long way but there's still a long way to go. What do you think still needs to be accomplished in Venezuela?

HC: To tell you in a mathematical way, with everything we've done in education, healthcare, infrastructure, housing, employment, social security, etc., and in the context of everything we want to do, we've achieved about 10%. It's been 200 years of abandonment. The people have been abandoned. And all the wealth of the country was in the hands of the oligarchy. So, we have to work really hard. There is still a lot to do to achieve Bolivar's dream. Simon Bolivar taught us that the best government is one which gives the people the largest amount of happiness. That is our goal.

A couple of weeks ago in the US, a man flew his airplane into a tax building in Austin, Texas. Did you hear about that? There's a lot of that frustration in the US, but instead of flying planes into buildings we should find each other and organize. The US is a system for the elite, ruled by the elite, a coporacracy. Can you give us some words of inspiration to help us have the courage to make true revolutionary change?

HC: We were the same, dominated, persecuted, and there was a lot of desperation, just like that man who flew the plane into the building. There was a lot of that, a lot of suicidal tendencies, but that's not the path, the path is consciousness, an awakening of consciousness. We had our own experiences, a lot of us died as well, and went to prison. That's why what you are doing is the right thing. The path is not to fly a plane into a building, it's to create consciousness, and then the rest will come on its own.

I'd like to take this moment to say hello to the people of the US. We in the South have a lot of faith that the people of the North are going to wake up, just like you have awoken. We can do great things in the US, make great changes, and in a peaceful way, I hope. Because the future of the world depends on what happens in the US.

I think that despite everything, the people of the US, in the depth of their hearts, know how to appreciate the difference between truth and lies. They call us anti-US leaders, but we're not! We're anti-imperialist. We love the people of the US, we love humanity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation and transcription by Eva Golinger. This interview was first published in the 19 March 2010 issue of Orinoco International; it is reproduced here for non-profit educational purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------

Comparing Democratic Institutions in Venezuela and Canada Mar 27th 2010 , by Steve Caines - Media Co-op

Recent remarks by Canadian State of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Kent with regard to the media and “shrinking democratic space” in Venezuela [1] are but a few of a number of disapproving comments expressed by the Canadian government over events in the country in the past few years. But given that the remarks came during a three month prorogation of the Canadian Parliament, it was only to be expected that criticisms would arise over whether the government's comments actually stem from genuine concerns over democracy [2]. Regardless of what full motivations may be behind Kent's comments, the Canadian government's ongoing sweeping claims of faltering democracy in the country are deserving of close examination. Deciding whether democracy is improving or “shrinking” in Venezuela requires a more thoroughgoing and contextualized look at the country's democratic institutions, rather than short glimpses into single events.

What are some of the formal democratic institutions in Venezuela? And, given recent criticisms by the Canadian government, how might some of Venezuela's democratic institutions actually compare with those of the country's northern neighbor? By juxtaposing various aspects of the democratic systems of both Canada and Venezuela we can gain a better understanding of the functionality of each system, evaluate the validity of Canadian representative's accusations, and dispel some myths. As shown in this analysis, many aspects of Venezuela's system of democracy are not substantially different than those of Canada, while many other key aspects actually compare favorably when juxtaposed with Canada's system.

Of course, significant difficulties exist in any attempt to compare two different and complex democratic systems, each of which will invariably have their own unique characteristics and peculiarities. An added difficulty in making any comparison between Canada and Venezuela is that while one country's system in defined as a representative democracy, the other is purported to be - or purported to be on the way to becoming - a participatory democracy [3]; these characterizations imply differences with regard to the organizational structure of democratic institutions, differences which may be fundamental. Despite such difficulties meaningful comparisons can still be drawn.

Analyses of democratic systems can vary from discussions of overarching political institutions and processes (e.g. laws, and federal elections) to discussions on economics (e.g. the degree of wealth inequality in a country, the ability of a person to make decisions in the workplace, etc) as well as other topics. The objective here has been to make a comparison of the democratic institutions in Venezuela and Canada within the political framework of liberal democracy, but also to make comparisons in terms of aspects of participatory democracy in both countries.

Historical Factors and Organization

Venezuela and Canada have very different histories, however one commonality is that, like much of the rest of the world, both countries have roots in colonialism. Canada, founded in 1867, is a former colony of Britain. The country was originally established as a Federation of four provinces and has grown to include 10 provinces and three territories (the most recent territory – Nunavut - was established in 1999). Through various forms of legislation since Confederation, Canada has increased its independence from Great Britain, although remnants of the country's colonial past persist to present day; Canadian city names and streets still bear the names of British cities and leaders, and most significantly in this vein, the Queen of Britain formally remains the Head of State in Canada. This has many significant implications for how government functions in Canada.

Canada's form of government remains a Constitutional Monarchy. Although it has been amended and reformed at various times during the past (such as the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982) the 1867 constitution remains the only constitution Canada has ever had in its history.

Venezuela was established as a colony of Spain in 1522. After centuries of social upheaval Venezuelan independence was finally attained in 1811, and following years of military governments, a moderate amount of political stability is said to have gained a foothold in the mid 1900s. However, between the late 1950s and 1990s, Venezuela's political system was marked by a power sharing deal known as the Punto Fijo Pact, an agreement between political parties that largely restricted popular participation in the democratic process. Of course in 1998, Hugo Chavez's party the Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) was elected to power. Preceding Chavez's election was a substantial period of economic decline and a dramatic increase in poverty rates, which had contributed to much disillusionment with the prevailing political parties. The election of Chavez and the years that followed ushered in a veritable sea change in the political landscape in Venezuela, with the previously entrenched political parties becoming marginalized and replaced with leftist groups such as the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

In 1999, by popular referendum, the Venezuelan populace approved a new constitution. The 1999 constitution is the country's 27th to date, and has been described by various observers as one of the most progressive constitutions in the world [4].

Venezuela's government organizational structure is defined as a Federal Presidential Republic. The country is divided into 23 individual states, which are subsequently organized into 9 administrative regions.

Legislatures

Legislatures can be viewed as possessing the highest of political powers in both Canada and Venezuela. Responsible for the formation of law, the legislature establishes the conditions by which all other forms of government adhere to and thus has the most fundamental influence over political direction. Members of the executive and judicial branches of government are subordinate to the legislative branch.

Before the 1999 constitution Venezuela had a bicameral legislature consisting of two houses, i.e. the Senate and the National Assembly. This system was similar to the bicameral legislatures which still exist in Canada and the United States. However, the 1999 constitution reduced the legislature to a single house, the 167 member National Assembly [5]. Members of the National Assembly are elected by popular vote and serve a five year term, with the possibility of indefinite reelection. In 2005, the Venezuelan opposition famously boycotted the National Assembly elections in protest, resulting in every last National Assembly seat being filled with a Chavez supporter [6].

In Canada, the legislature or Parliament is bicameral and consists of the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons members total 308, who are all popularly elected [7]. Senate members in Canada (a total of 105) are not popularly elected but appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister (appointment powers officially lie with the Governor General, although it is customary for the Governor General to accept the Prime Minister's appointment suggestions) [8].

The stated purpose of a bicameral legislature, as opposed to a unicameral legislature, is to provide checks and balances. With two houses, it is said that each house can work as a check on the other as laws are being passed. An argument can be made however that a unicameral legislature is more democratic. This is because, as is the case in the United States, each state elects the same number of senators regardless of the state's population (9), which can lead to disproportionate representation. Or, as is the case in Canada, senators are not elected by popular vote, but are directly appointed by the governing party (the most recent appointments to the Canadian Senate were made by Stephen Harper's Conservative Party during a period of only 31% popular support for the party across the country). Furthermore, senators in Canada are appointed to their positions permanently, and are able to serve for any period of time until they are 75 years of age [10] [11] [12].

Some political parties in Canada continue to campaign on a promise to abolish the senate and create a unicameral legislature. However, as none of these parties have been elected federally, this has not yet happened.

Executive Branches

Canada's political system has been modeled after the Westminster system of Britain. As such, the executive branch of government consists of “the Crown” (the Queen and her representative the Governor General) the Prime Minister, and a Cabinet of Ministers. The number of cabinet ministers is not fixed and can change from government to government. While the role of the British Monarch and her representatives is now essentially limited to a ceremonial position in Canada, it is notable that the Crown can still play a very significant role in Canadian politics. This was dramatically demonstrated recently with two consecutive shut downs of federal parliament, which sparked outrage for the Canadian public [13] [14]. While only acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and ruling Conservatives on this prorogation of parliament, the existence of the formal powers of the Queen allow the governing party to have significant executive control over other elected officials in the country.

In Venezuela, significant to the 1999 constitution, presidential term limits were increased from five years to six years and the possibility of immediate re-election was established [15]. Previously, presidents could be re-elected for another term in office, but not immediately following their first term. Following the rejection of a constitutional amendment vote in 2007, which in part would have abolished the maximum two term limit for the Head of State, Chavez did win a second referendum vote in 2009 that effectively abolished term limits for all elected officials. As such, there are now no limits on re-election of the president in Venezuela, and Chavez will be able to run for re-election is 2012 [16]. Also of significance with regard to the executive in Venezuela is that the president now has the ability to dissolve the National Assembly [17].

Although the elimination of limits with regard to presidential reelections has raised eyebrows in and outside of Venezuela, it must be remembered that there are no executive term re-election limits in many other countries in the world, including Canada. In Canada, as long as the political party gains minority or majority support during the election process, it is possible for the party leader to be re-elected as Prime Minister for an indefinite period [18].

Judicial Branches

The courts in Canada are roughly divided into a four tier system. At the federal level are the Supreme Court (which consists of nine justices including a chief justice) and the federal court, and in each province or territory are the “superior courts” and the provincial and territorial courts. Federal level judges in Canada are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the governing federal party's cabinet. The judges of the superior courts in the territories and provinces are also selected by the governing federal party. Provincial and territorial court judges are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, who, as the Queen's provincial representative, acts on the advice of provincial cabinet. The Supreme Court of Canada is the final court of appeal in the country and its decisions are binding on all other courts at all levels. The courts at the various levels all handle different kinds of cases, as defined in the Constitution of Canada (19).

Judges in Canada are appointed for life terms and can serve until the age of 75 [20]. Judges can be recalled by the Governor General on the advice of Parliament, with just cause. In addition to judges being appointed for life terms, the fact that judges are appointed by the governing party and not elected by one or both houses of the legislature remains a point of contention.

In Venezuela, the court system is one of the most criticized aspects of the government, and upon election the Chavez government undertook efforts to overhaul the system. The new constitution put the entire court system under the control of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice [21]. In addition, in 2000, the executive set up a commission to review the positions of judges currently serving. The commission's review process resulted in the majority of judges being dismissed due to charges of corruption, who were then replaced with provisional judges [22].

While the 1999 constitution states that the National Assembly is responsible for electing individual judges for single 12 year terms, it appears that most of the once provisional judges have been appointed for permanent terms [23]. While this process alone has no doubt raised accusations of political bias in Venezuela, it is not the only point of contention. Since the election of Chavez, the judiciary has seen an increase of 12 judges [24], which has been criticized as a court packing move. While the overhaul of the court system may have been undertaken with the aim of improving its function and its independence, it appears that the judiciary is still under heavy influence by the executive.

Venezuela's Two Additional Branches of Government

The principle of separation of powers in democratic countries is usually exemplified by the existence of the above three branches of government. However, in addition to the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, the 1999 constitution of Venezuela established two additional branches. These include a citizens branch, and an electoral branch [25].

The purpose of the citizens branch is to monitor the actions of the other four branches of government and ensure that these branches adhere to their constitutionally determined functions. The branch consists of an attorney general, the human rights defender, and the comptroller general. The stated responsibilities of these officials are to watch for violations of the law, to monitor the government's adherence to human rights, and to ensure the proper administration and use of public funds, respectively. Each official in the citizen's branch is elected for a single seven year term [26].

The electoral branch consists of a National Electoral Council, the principle purpose of which is to oversee the organization of state, regional and municipal elections and referenda, and to ensure proper electoral procedure. The National Electoral Council consists of five principle members, which are elected by majority vote. The National Electoral Council can also oversee the functioning of non governmental civil society elections, upon request [27].

Members of both the citizen's branch and electoral branch are elected by the National Assembly. In the case of the citizens branch, if a two thirds majority on a candidate cannot be reached then the decision is put to a general public vote [28]. The creation of these two extra branches of government establishes further checks and balances on the other branches of government.

Elections and Electoral Processes

Canada does not follow a set time frame for elections. At either the federal or provincial level, elections can be called at various times, even in consecutive years [29]. Canadian federal elections and referenda are overseen by Elections Canada, an independent body that reports to the Canadian Parliament [30]. It consists of three principle members, which include the chief electoral officer, a commissioner of Canadian elections, and a broadcasting arbitrator. The chief electoral officer is elected by the House of Commons, who then appoints the commissioner and broadcasting arbitrator. The chief electoral officer serves until retirement or resignation, or can be removed by just cause by the Governor General [31].

Individual provincial and territorial elections (and their municipalities) in Canada are organized and overseen by respective provincial elections groups. Similar to the situation for federal elections, the legislature of each province or territory appoints a chief electoral officer, who then appoints other electoral officials. The actual appointment of the chief electoral officer is carried out by the province's Lieutenant Governor, who acts on the advice of the members of the legislature [32]. Provincial and territorial law in Canada prohibits municipal election candidates from campaigning by party stripe [33]. Therefore while candidates may campaign along ideological lines, municipal elections in Canada are non partisan. Also, unlike federal and provincial elections, municipal elections in Canada are held at fixed and regular times.

In Venezuela, presidential elections are held every six years, National Assembly elections are held every five years, and regional elections for governors and mayors are held every four years [34]. As in other presidential systems, it is customary for mayors and other municipal electoral candidates to campaign according to party affiliation. It is notable that prior to 1988, the Venezuelan populace were unable to directly elect mayors and governors. Previous to this time, mayors and governors were appointed by state representatives [35].

Canada has established election financing regulations, both in terms of public financing of political parties (i.e. parties can now be partially reimbursed for their election campaign expenses if they receive a certain amount of the vote), as well as a per-person limit on the amount of money that may be contributed to political parties [36]. Public financing of political parties was commonplace in Venezuela prior to 1999, however due to public discontent with the established parties, the use of public funds for political party support was abolished as part of the new constitution [37].

Referenda

Referenda are one method for the public to voice concerns and to apply their will directly, between elections. The most recent referendum put before the Canadian public was in 1995 where the public voted on the possibility of sovereignty for the province of Quebec. In Canada, at the federal level, referenda can only be triggered by the government in power as no legislation exists to support the ability for citizens to petition for them, or to subsequently recall elected officials. At the provincial and territorial level, one province has created legislation for citizens' petitioning for referenda. Federal referenda are generally rare in Canada, while non-binding plebiscites on contentious issues are at least more frequent [38].

In Venezuela the 1999 constitution established the right of citizens to petition for four different types of referenda, including consultative, recall, approving and rescinding referenda [39]. These referenda can be initiated by citizens, the National Assembly, or the President. Consultative referenda are non-binding and may be used for gauging public opinion on various issues, such as an economic trade agreement. Recall, approving and rescinding referenda are all binding votes. Recall referenda can be applied to any elected official, from the level of mayor up to the Presidency [40]. Approving and rescinding referenda can be used to pass, change or remove laws, or to amend the constitution [41]. For public petitioning of referenda, generally 10%-20% of registered voter signatures are required to trigger a public vote [42]. The most recent referendum in Venezuela was in 2009 and regarded the ending of term limits for elected officials, including the President, National Assembly members, mayors, and state governors.

Participatory Democracy and Constitutions

In addition to the possibility of petitioning for and voting in referenda, there are a number of other ways in which participatory democracy has been enhanced in Venezuela since the 1999 constitution. Some significant examples of this include the increased involvement of civil society in government decision-making processes, social auditing processes, and the creation of communal councils.

Increased public presence in government decision-making is shown by, for example, the participation of non-governmental groups in the nomination process for national electoral council candidates and citizens volunteering with the various ongoing health missions. With regard to the social auditing process, the law allows citizens to request financial reports and records from government agencies. This increases public oversight on the expenditure of public funds, on public projects and government institutions. Finally, perhaps the most significant example of participatory democracy in the country are the communal councils. Communal councils are composed of groups of people (no more than a few hundred people per council) who join together to plan work projects and/or the expenditure of public funds. Notably, communal council decisions are binding, such that mayors must abide by the decisions of the majority of the councils. Thousands of these councils exist across the country and often they receive direct funding from the federal government for community projects [43].

Grassroots action is common in Canada, and there are many groups of concerned citizens fighting for social causes in their communities. At least when compared to Venezuela, however, this grassroots action would seem to take place to an overall lesser degree. Generally, grassroots political involvement is not unified by an overall political vision or cause, but instead is guided by individual causes and on behalf of certain groups, with the battles being fought usually without any direct political involvement and with lower numbers of active people in general. Civil society groups in Canada do not necessarily enjoy the same consideration as might currently be enjoyed in Venezuela, and while the general public may from time to time be consulted even for the formation of some laws, this consultation is usually not a mandatory requirement. Consultation with civil society groups is usually through the voluntary discretion of elected or appointed officials, or a result of strong pressure from the public.

One would be remiss to discuss the many aspects of participatory democracy in Venezuela without highlighting the significance of the 1999 constitution and the part the constitution has played in solidifying their presence. Venezuela's constitution does actually goes as far as describing the country as a participatory democracy; as such, the constitution lays the groundwork for taking Venezuela's democratic system beyond the limitations of representative democracy to a more inclusive and comprehensive level. The constitution is characterized by a thorough description of citizen's rights, the relationship between citizens and governmental institutions, and the role of the government with respect to service to the public. Social rights such as health care, tertiary education, the right to employment and housing are incorporated. Fittingly, even the way the constitution was created involved thorough public involvement; the Venezuelan populace voted on whether to engage in a process to rewrite the constitution, were involved in the formation of the content of the constitution and the direct election of the members of the constitutional assembly, and later voted to approve the final document. These are opportunities never enjoyed by any generation of Canadians.

When juxtaposed against the participatory aspects of Venezuela's constitution, the representative character of Canada's constitution becomes more apparent. While there are without doubt merits to aspects of the constitution, it does not have the same comprehensive character and aside from the 1982 addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there really is virtually no reference to “the citizen” or “the public” in the entirety of the text. The effect of the lack of participatory guarantees in the Canadian constitution is evident when citizen participation is simply blocked from important processes, while justifications are made with appeals to long-standing traditions of representative and parliamentary democracy in the country.

Political Culture

While other parties do run in elections, three political parties generally predominate in Canada: the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, and New Democratic Party. The Conservative Party, although it holds power, does not have active parties in some Canadian provinces. The party is a new creation that formed in 2004 following the merger of the right-wing Progressive Conservative and Reform parties. The Liberal Party is generally accepted as right of center, as are the Conservatives. The New Democratic Party grew from socialist roots before being reformed into a more social democratic party during the 1960s. For virtually all of Canadian history, federal power has been held by the Liberal or Conservative parties, although the federal NDP have made gains over the years. Voter turnout during elections has generally been on the decline since the early 1990s, with the most recent federal election resulting in the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history (59%) [44].

In contrast, and while Venezuela has always had a strong grassroots political culture, the population of Venezuela have become more engaged in political matters since the 1990s. Rallying around the concepts of Bolivarianism and 21st Century Socialism, Venezuelan society has become increasingly involved in the democratic process. This was shown, in but one example, during the 2006 presidential election which resulted in the country's highest voter turnout ever with 74% of voters casting ballots. The demographics of political participation have even changed; whereas previous to 1998 political involvement in Venezuela was generally limited to more affluent groups (even Chavez is said to have been originally elected by the middle class), the past decade has been characterized by a large increase in the participation of the poor and previously excluded [45].

Along with increased political involvement and the rise of the concepts of Bolivarianism and 21st Century Socialism has come increased political polarization in Venezuela. This confrontation between different groups reached a peak during 2002, in which media groups were shown to have conspired with members of the military in the staging of a coup, temporarily removing Hugo Chavez from the presidency and dissolving the popularly approved 1999 constitution [46]. Although there have been dramatic political clashes in Canada during its history, there really is no parallel for that which occurred in Venezuela in 2002. One must consider the seriousness of such events and the effect that such events have on shaping the political culture and discourse in the Venezuela.

Concluding Remarks

While ongoing debate over the Chavez government's relationship with the country's news media is surely legitimate and important, one can see the folly of the Canadian government's continued claims of faltering democracy in Venezuela when looking at the situation with some attempt at objectivity. As shown in this analysis, many aspects of Venezuela's system of democracy are not substantially different than those in Canada, while other key aspects actually compare favorably when juxtaposed with Canada's system. In terms of the creation of a more inclusive and comprehensive constitution, the establishment of a unicameral and more democratic legislature, the ability of citizens to initiate referenda, recall elected officials, the various forms of participatory democracy, a higher general involvement of citizens in the democratic process, not to mention the basic ability of citizens to elect their head of state, Venezuela would seem a step ahead. While Venezuelans have seen an increased concentration of power in the executive branch of government in recent years this has been offset by the ability of the citizenry to recall elected officials, including the President. Through the popular ratification of the 1999 constitution Venezuelans have allowed for an increased role of democratic government in their country, which must be considered when analyzing specific situations or issues in the country.

On the other hand, while there are undoubtedly many merits to the Canadian system of representative democracy, citizens remain unable to recall elected officials, initiate referenda, or have full democratic control over the Canadian Parliament, among other key deficiencies. Contrary to claims from current representatives in the country, Canada's democracy could actually be improved if practices similar to those that are being taken up in Venezuela were adopted in Canada.

Notes

1.

Canada Concerned Over Venezuelan Suspension of TV Stations www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2010/046.aspx?lang=eng [1]
2.

Canada Accuses Venezuela of Stifling Democracy While Parliament Remains Prorogued www.handsoffvenezuela.org/canada_accuses_venezuela_of_stifling_democracy.htm [2]
3.

Moving Beyond Representation: Participatory Democracy and Communal Councils in Venezuela www.upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2090/1/ [3]
4.

The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_29878.shtml [4]
5.

Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006. www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]
6.

Venezuela “Landslide” for Chavez http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm [6]
7.

Guide to the Canadian House ofCommons www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/AboutParliament/GuideHouseCommons/PDFs/Guide_to_the_Canadian_HOC_v3.pdf [7]
8.

The Delicate Role of the Governor General www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/f-governor-general.html [8]
9.

The United States Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#17 [9]
10.

Harper Names Five to Senate
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/29/senate-appointments.html [10]

11. Prorogation Tightens Gap Between Tories, Liberals
http://www.cbc.ca/polit [11]ics/story/2010/01/13/ekos-conservatives-liberals-poll-prorogue-suspend.html [11]

12. The Canadian Senate www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007286 [12]

13. Thirteen Months, Two Prorogations of Parliament
www.rabble.ca/news/2010/03/thirteen-months-two-prorogations-parliament [13]

14. Thousands Protest Parliament's Suspension
www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/23/prorogue-protests.html [14]

15. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

16. Venezuelans Vote to Eliminate Two Term Limit on All Elected Office 54.4% to 45.6%
www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4213 [16]

17. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

18. Term Limits – How long can a world leader stay in the top job?
www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-leaderterms/ [17]

19. Constitution of Canada
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html [18]

20. Constitution of Canada
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html [18]

21. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

22. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

23. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

24. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

25. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

26. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

27. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

28. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

29. The Electoral System of Canada – The Federal Electoral Process www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=part2&dir=ces&lang=e&anchor=28&textonly=false#28 [19]

30. Elections Canada.
www.elections.ca [20]

31. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada: Appointment of the chief Electoral Officer
www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ceo&document=index&dir=app&lang=e&textonly=false [21]

32. Canadian Lieutenant-Governors www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004677 [22]

33. Local Elections in Canada
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004736 [23]

34. Consejo Nacional Electoral
http://cne.gob.ve/ [24]

35. Political Parties and Social Change
www.zcommunications.org/political-parties-and-social-change-by-sujatha-fernandes [25]

36. 2003 Electoral Reform – Political Financing
www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=index&dir=re3&lang=e&textonly=false [26]

37. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

38. Referendums in Canada: The Effect of Populist Decision-making on Representative Democracy
www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/prbpubs/bp328-e.htm [27]

39. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

40. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

41. Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf [15]

42. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

43. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

44. Voter Turnout Lowest On Record
http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE49E1B320081015 [28]

45. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – The History and Policies of The Chavez Government. 2006.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela [5]

46. The Revolution Will Not be Televised. www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144 [29]#
Media Co-op
http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/steve/3081
Source URL (retrieved on 28/03/2010 - 7:37pm): http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5225

Links:
[1] http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2010/046.aspx?lang=eng
[2] http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/canada_accuses_venezuela_of_stifling_democracy.htm
[3] http://www.upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2090/1/
[4] http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_29878.shtml
[5] http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/book/changing_venezuela
[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm
[7] http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/AboutParliament/GuideHouseCommons/PDFs/Guide_to_the_Canadian_HOC_v3.pdf
[8] http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/02/f-governor-general.html
[9] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#17
[10] http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/29/senate-appointments.html
[11] http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/13/ekos-conservatives-liberals-poll-prorogue-suspend.html
[12] http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007286
[13] http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/03/thirteen-months-two-prorogations-parliament
[14] http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/23/prorogue-protests.html
[15] http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf
[16] http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4213
[17] http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-leaderterms/
[18] http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html
[19] http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=part2&dir=ces&lang=e&anchor=28&textonly=false#28
[20] http://www.elections.ca/
[21] http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ceo&document=index&dir=app&lang=e&textonly=false
[22] http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004677
[23] http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004736
[24] http://cne.gob.ve/
[25] http://www.zcommunications.org/political-parties-and-social-change-by-sujatha-fernandes
[26] http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=index&dir=re3&lang=e&textonly=false
[27] http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/prbpubs/bp328-e.htm
[28] http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE49E1B320081015
[29] http://www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

Will Obama's Record War Budget Lead to a US Victory in Afghanistan? Don't Bet On it? By Jack A. Smith, Global Research, Feb 14, 2010

Via: Global Research and mltoday.com

President Barack Obama has increased the Pentagon's perennially-bloated annual spending spree to its greatest magnitude since World War II $708 billion. Congress eventually will overwhelmingly approve Obama's war budget request for fiscal year 2011, which takes effect in October.



The Obama administration's funding recommendation was announced Feb. 1. The next day Reuters reported that "Shares of major U.S. defense contractors rose on Monday after the Obama administration unveiled a defense budget... that seeks a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon's base budget and $159 billion to fund missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."



Also released Feb. 1 was the Pentagon's Congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which calls for a considerable expansion of U.S. military power, especially in bolstering counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaigns.



The QDR is a strategic guide for America's present and future wars, updated every four years. The new version remains based on an interventionist foreign/military policy that has not changed in essence since the early Cold War years.



As described by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the 2011 war budget reflects the QDR's call for "rebalancing America's defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts, while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future."



In addition to the Pentagon request, President Obama also seeks a supplementary $33 billion this year for "Overseas Contingency Operations," the bureaucratically bland title chosen to replace the Bush Administration's "War on Terrorism." The title is about all that has changed in the "terrorism" wars since Bush left office except for the new administration's grave expansion of the Afghan conflict.



The additional money is to pay for the 30,000 troops Obama most recently ordered to Afghanistan, bringing U.S. troop strength to over 100,000, joined by over 40,000 NATO troops, and scores of thousands of mercenaries and contractors. This war is said to cost about $1 million per U.S. soldier per year.



The Obama Administration's $708 billion for fiscal 2011 compares to the $680 billion President Obama approved for this year, which itself was 4.1% higher than President George W. Bush's $651 billion funding for fiscal 2009. A decade ago annual "defense" spending was $280 billion.



At minimum not including the expensive Pentagon infrastructure that supports America's wars in the Middle East and Central Asia the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures is over $1 trillion so far. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated two years ago that the final cost to the U.S. of both wars, when all aspects are included, will be over $3 trillion.



The amount of money Washington is spending in Afghanistan alone this year, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Feb 1, is "more than any other country in the world spends on defense, with the exception of China," with four times more people and a defense budget less than one-fifth that of the United States.



Addressing Washington's war money, writer and global analyst Chalmers Johnson comments "It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military."



Total U.S. annual "security" spending is over twice that acknowledged in the annual Pentagon budget. Omitted are many expenses from veteran's benefits, homeland security, and interest on past military debts, to nuclear weapons, the cost of America's intelligence agencies, and war-related spending absorbed by other government departments.



This means that the U.S., which contains 4.54% of the world's population, accounts for over 50% of global military expenditures, thus spending more on "security" than all the other countries combined. America's main and seemingly only enemy is al-Qaeda, with perhaps 2,000 decentralized adherents worldwide with varying degrees of commitment and ability.



In his State of the Union Address last month, President Obama specifically exempted "security" money from the "freeze" on many domestic expenses in the national budget, which amounts to some $3.8 trillion, the highest annual amount on record. About a third of this total $1.3 trillion, another record is in excess of tax receipts and will be paid with interest, along with many trillions more, by future generations of Americans.



In the interim, China and a few other countries are expected to continue lending money to a debt-ridden Uncle Sam who refuses to introduce a system of progressive taxation to absorb the intemperate accumulation of wealth by the richest 10% of Americans households (which in 2007 enjoyed a net worth of 71.4% of all the assets in the country), or to substantially cut military spending for aggressive wars of choice.



America's hugely disproportionate war funding is more the product of an economic construct known at military Keynesianism (excessive government spending for militarism in order to foster capitalist economic growth) than the official myth of being surrounded by a multitude of formidable enemies. Most of the war money Commander in Chief Obama requested will be directed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget includes:



$25 billion for 10 new Navy ships; $11 billion for 43 more F-35 fighter planes; $10 billion for missile defense; $56 billion for the Pentagon's "Black Budget" (classified programs known only by code names); $7 billion (to the Department of Energy) for nuclear weapons; Funding to increase the size of the of the 56,000 Special Operations Command by 2,800 fighters, plus new equipment; $10 billion to buy more Army and Marine helicopters for small-scale wars; Money for enough new advanced unmanned drones to increase seek-and-destroy missions by 75%, including doubling production of the advanced MQ-9 Reaper and 26 extended-range Predators (spending for these drones jumps from $877.5 million in 2010 to $1.4 billion in 2011); Many billions to train, equip and pay for the U.S.- controlled Afghan and Iraq armies; $1.2 billion more to Pakistan for counterinsurgency; $140 million to Yemen to fight al-Qaeda. Additional billions will be spent in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, buying off the armed opposition and bribing officials.



The industry portion of the military-industrial complex is delighted with Obama, according to Todd Harrison, a Senior Fellow for Defense Budget Studies, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. In an interview conducted Feb. 4 by the Council on Foreign Relations, he said of the new war budget:

"Given a bigger defense budget and few major program cuts, the defense establishment is elated.... The defense-industry base people read too much into a Democratic administration coming into office and there being real pressure on the federal budget overall because of soaring deficits. They... construed massive cuts in defense spending in the future, particularly in acquisitions. That hasn't proven to be true. This administration hasn't cut defense spending at all but increased it to record levels, and it looks like for the foreseeable future defense acquisitions are going to continue increasing.... People started to realize, 'Hey, this president isn't bad for the defense industry.'"

The U.S. government's extraordinary war expenditures are intended to secure America's position as the world's unipolar hegemon far more than "fighting terrorism" in small, weak countries all the more so as Washington's domination over global affairs is being challenged by rising nations in the developing world and breakaways by once obedient countries, as in Latin America.



Anatol Lieven, author of "America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism," put it this way: "U.S. global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the U.S. establishment, is unsustainable.... The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted, and key vassal states are no longer reliable.... The result is that the empire can no longer pay for enough of the professional troops it needs to fulfill its self-assumed imperial tasks."



The main reason the new Quadrennial Defense Review is greatly expanding the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism aspects of the war machine is because the U.S., for all its devastating military power, has been fought to a stalemate in both Iraq and Afghanistan by much smaller, poorly armed guerrilla forces for nearly seven and over eight years respectively.



The main emphasis in the fiscal 2011 war budget is on prevailing in Afghanistan, or at least in conveying the impression that U.S. has not been defeated by a force of fewer than 20,000 scattered irregulars belonging to the Taliban and other groups fighting against the U.S. invaders.



It is worthwhile to note that by Washington's own assessment, there are less than 100 members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and a vague "several hundred" possibly in Pakistan. Both the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban groups are independent of each other and are only interested in fighting against the U.S. within their own countries, not in attacking America.



Former Indian ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar, writing in his country's English-language daily newspaper The Hindu Feb. 4, commented thusly on Washington's multi-billion dollar effort to control Afghanistan:

"The spectre that is haunting Washington today cannot be overstated: a prolonged war in Afghanistan is unsustainable financially, materially and politically; the NATO allies lack faith in the U.S.'s war strategy; domestic public opposition to the war is cascading in the Western countries; the war has become an Albatross' cross hindering the optimal pursuit of U.S. global strategies in a highly volatile international situation posing multiple challenges; the war radicalizes the Muslim opinion worldwide and pits America against Islam....

"What lies ahead? Make no mistake that the Taliban are returning to Afghanistan¹s power structure ‹ quite plausibly under Mullah Omar's leadership. The U.S. expectation to 'split' the Taliban will likely prove misplaced. As months ebb away, fighting intensifies and Omar is in no particular hurry, Washington's pleas to Islamabad will become more and more insistent to bring the so-called Quetta Shura to the negotiating table."

Quetta is across the border in Pakistan. The Shura is the leadership organization of the Afghan Taliban which has been domiciled in Quetta with Islamabad's approval since a month after President Bush invaded their country in October 2001. What Bhadrakumar is suggesting is that the only way Washington can end its long and dreadfully expensive impasse in Afghanistan is to make a deal with the Quetta Shura providing the Taliban with a substantial coalition role in the Afghan provincial and national government.



This is hardly what President Bush had in mind a month after 9/11 when he launched a foolish, macho invasion of Afghanistan rather than depend on worldwide police work and other means to disrupt al-Qaeda. The Pentagon juggernaut "defeated" the Taliban in a matter of weeks, but it couldn't conquer the Afghan resistance after all these years. The same was true of the illegal and unjust invasion of Iraq, of course.



Victory was President Obama's goal as well when he greatly expanded the Afghan war in order to break the stalemate, but negotiations and a return of the Taliban in a coalition government may well be the best outcome he can bring about.



All Obama has gained politically at home for his "Bush Lite" war maneuvers is the near-unanimous support the pro-war Republicans, who otherwise view him with contempt. Most of the Democratic electorate, which constitutes the broad base of the peace movement, seems to oppose the Afghan war and its expansion, but has stayed away antiwar protests because of reluctance to take an open public stand against Obama. This is changing as the disillusionment sinks in, as least among the party's liberal and progressive sector.



The test to see if Democrats come back to the antiwar movement will be the mass march and rally in Washington March 20 being organized by a large coalition of national and local peace groups. The White House will be watching carefully. If it is a highly successful event, it will give pause to an administration sensitive to insistent political currents; if it is relatively small, it could mean full speed ahead for the war machine.



In a Feb. 3 AlterNet article titled, "The Defense Industry is Pleased with Obama," writer Laura Flanders expressed the liberal dilemma in these words: "Who says the president is failing to show leadership? In one area at least, there¹s no sign of flag or falter. If anything, the administration¹s only becoming more forthright. Sad to say, that area is military build-up."



The Pentagon has learned some lessons since it stormed into Afghanistan and then Iraq, and wound up with unanticipated black eyes. In this sense, President Obama's 2011 war budget and QDR are less aimed at Afghanistan and more at future "Overseas Contingency Operations" against alleged "rogue," "failed," "undemocratic," "leftist," or "terrorist" states. It's Bush all over again, but next time it's supposed to be done right.



Washington, with its "rebalanced defense posture" and unlimited military checkbook, even as the country sinks in debt, will in time attack another small country when one more "contingency" inevitably develops. The White House no doubt expects to win big when it does, given full spectrum dominance, drones and helicopters, the enhanced Special Operations Command, and soldiers, marines, NATO troops, mercenaries, and contractors. But at this stage, with America's track record, it wouldn't be smart to place any bets.



Jack A. Smith is editor of the Activist Newsletter http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com, and former editor of the now defunct U.S. Guardian newsweekly. He may be reached at jacdon@earthlink.net.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

STILL HERE, STILL SCARY People's Voice Editorial, April 1-15, 2010

Here's the good news. After four years in office, Stephen Harper's Tories are still a minority in Parliament. Despite all the advantages of power, and the open support of the ruling class and the corporate media, Harper's polling numbers are lower today than during the past two elections. In part, this reflects the Tory capacity to remind working people of their vicious, reactionary politics. Whether it's their brutal imperialist war in Afghanistan, their utter indifference to mass layoffs, or their hatred for women's reproductive rights, the Tories regularly shoot themselves in both feet.


Even the sleazy attempt to paint themselves as "populists" has backfired, thanks to all those temper tantrums. It's hard to hold a pose with your Timmy's double-double when the Veteran's Affairs Minister is screaming at security guards for refusing to let him take his expensive bottle of tequila onto the plane.


Now the bad news. Stephen Harper is still in office, and still within spitting distance of a majority. Some argue that this hardly matters. Our response? Harper already runs the country like his personal banana republic. Wait until he has even less obstacles to slow the corporate attack and the fundamentalist agenda of his MPs.


Consider the tussle over documents on the Afghan detainee torture issue. Even now, the Conservatives are playing the "national security" card to deny any access to these materials. Imagine the degree of control a Harper majority regime would exercise over any embarrassing revelations or criticism.


Time is running out - an election is more likely by the month. It would be a terrible mistake to assume that the Tories will make enough blunders to lose. The outcome of the next election may shift the political terrain for years - defeating Harper remains urgent.

The Class War: Where Things Stand Zoltan Zigedy, Sunday, February 14, 2010

The singular contribution that Marxism offers to the theory of the working class movement is the idea of exploitation as well as a way to gauge its intensity. Prior to the pioneering efforts of Marx and Engels, those sympathetic to the miserable conditions of working people brought on by the rise of industrialization pointed to the grinding poverty and short, brutal lives of employees and urged reforms and relief. They failed to locate these conditions in the very logic of capitalism. They failed to find the source of these conditions in the relation between capital and wage-labor.

Marx and Engels brought the concept of exploitation to the fore as both a rich and robust moral concept and as an objective, measurable centerpiece of working class political economy. Exploitation, in its most intuitive and simplified sense, is the appropriation of the product of labor by those not engaged directly in producing those products. Stealing, of course, is a kind of appropriation as well, and a kindred notion to exploitation, but exploitation differs by existing in a socio-economic system that permits and even encourages its practice. A clear and transparent example of exploitation is the extraction of coal from a tract of land. The workers produce the end product, but the owner of the land, by virtue of the institution of private ownership, appropriates that product in its entirety, paying the workers the least amount adequate to coax them to take the risk and supply the effort. In such a pure example, it is apparent that the compensation of the workers is largely independent of their necessity and sole role in creating a useful product. It is equally clear that the owner may very well add no effort to the product’s creation though commanding its disposition – possessing the product – solely by virtue of a contingent social relationship: ownership of land. The amount paid to workers is determined independently of their role in production; the less the owner pays for the production of a given quantity of commodities, the greater the rate of exploitation.

The Mechanism Unveiled

While the complexities of a modern capitalist society tend to obscure the relations of exploitation, a deep capitalist crisis serves to expose these relations. With growth slumping, investment meager, and wages and benefits stagnant, the unquenchable thirst for profits requires an intensification of exploitation to restore the system’s health. If profit is the life blood of the capitalist organism, exploitation is its nutrient. We see the rising rate of exploitation in the current US economy with the dramatic growth of labor productivity. Beginning early in 2009, worker’s output per man hour accelerated dramatically, advancing by 5.1% in the fourth quarter over the previous year. Nearly all of this increase can be attributed to layoffs, resulting in fewer workers producing as much or more than in the prior year. The mass layoffs of the last two years retarded and reversed the declining productivity of 2008 and spurred an explosion of productivity growth in 2009.

The rate of exploitation, as expressed today in productivity growth, serves as the best indicators of the condition of the working class and its prospects. Increasing exploitation reflects capitalist aggression, the failings of the labor movement and the politicians it sponsors, and the unlikelihood that any great effort to improve employment is forthcoming. Political leaders and corporate managers are reluctant to deny the market economy the one lever that has successfully restored profitability and corporate health. A glance at the last recession earlier in the decade reveals the same pattern: economic decline followed by layoffs and a jump in labor productivity, restoring profitability. Commentators then wrote of the “jobless” recovery. Today we are experiencing the same process in a far deeper recession. As long as layoffs remain the mechanism for gains in productivity, profit restoration and corporate recovery, unemployment will remain high. Only a new level of labor militancy and anti-corporate fight back will install a recovery for the people ahead of a recovery for capitalism. The bankruptcy of shoring up capitalism to promote the people’s needs – the ideology of social democracy and labor-management cooperation - has been demonstrated over the last decade.

The Other Side of the Coin

Exploitation is equally intensified by paying less in wages and benefits for the same effort, a process made easier by labor capitulation and the fear of job loss. In late January, Ford announced that it will hire 1,200 union workers, many at “at significantly reduced wages” (The Wall Street Journal, 1-26-10). The 2007 contract with the UAW allows the Big Three domestic automakers “to fill jobs vacated by older workers who leave or retire with new hires earning a little more than $14 an hour, about half what veteran workers are paid. Newer workers also get reduced benefits”. The “second tier” workers will have a 401(k) retirement plan rather than a traditional pension. Bob King, the heir apparent to the UAW Presidency, confirmed that “[t]here will be new people hired at Ford.” Since the 2007 UAW contract gives existing workers priority, the hiring of new, entry-level employees is retarded by desperate workers laid off around the country, but willing to uproot and relocate where jobs are available. Nonetheless, industry experts expect the mass hiring of low wage workers to be a significant factor in employment by 2015.

The same depression of wages and benefits – an increase in exploitation – is ravaging the public sector. The Chicago Transit Authority secured concessions from the unions in 2007, but are back again with even greater demands upon the workers. The CTA threatens to layoff more than 1,000 workers unless deep cuts in wages and benefits are made. A transport workers’ concessionary proposal has been ignored by management. The Chicago Sun-Times (1-29-10) reports that Chicago Federation of Labor President, Dennis Gannon, has urged the transport unions to accept in whole the management proposal to “save 1,100 jobs…” Once again, the long standing philosophy of labor-management cooperation proves ineffective and thwarts the fight back to rally workers and the public to defend living wage jobs.

This failure to marshal a resolute and militant struggle against corporate aggression – a legacy of the destruction of labor’s left in the Cold War – is confirmed by the latest Labor Department figures. In the last twelve months, inflation adjusted wages and benefits in the private sector fell by 1.3%, the worst performance since the government began to record data in 1983. At the same time, US corporations succeeded in reducing 2009 health care cost increases to the second lowest yearly figure in the decade by cutting their contribution or shifting workers to less comprehensive health plans.

Can a capitalist economy recover without forcing the burden of recovery on the backs of working people? At a time when corporate profits are improving and management salaries are exceeding historic levels is it inevitable that workers must endure great sacrifices for the economy to bounce back?

Another Way

On January 18, 2010, The New York Times reported that the French government – led by the conservative President, Nicolas Sarkozy – demanded that the firm Renault “maintain employment at its French factories.” Meeting with the head of Renault, Carlos Ghost, Sarkozy extracted a commitment that “Renault is a French company, a socially responsible citizen, attached to its industrial and technological roots.” Of course the French car companies do not want to do this; they would prefer to shift production to low-wage countries and layoff French workers. Nor does Sarkozy, an avowed fan of the US neo-liberal, free market model, want to make these demands upon the industry. But all know that any retreat from guaranteed employment will bring French workers into the streets and into occupancy of the factories. They know that the public will rally around the French workers.

Renault, like Peugeot-Citroen, received government bailout money from the French people under the condition that they would maintain employment; “The companies pledged in return to protect French jobs.” The industry minister stressed that “The state will have its say. When a French car is destined to be sold in France, it should be made in France.” This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the US President, allegedly a progressive and friend of labor, whose policies dictated that US auto companies would close plants and layoff workers in exchange for bailout money. The difference, quite clearly, is the militancy and class consciousness of labor. French unions, unlike their US counterparts, have consistently and without relent, refused class collaboration.

Politicians, media pundits, industry experts, and the EU competition commissioner have cast dire predictions that supporting employment, wages, and salaries in France will result in a weak, uncompetitive economy. Ironically, France showed the best economic growth of all EU member states in the fourth quarter of 2009.

We Can Do Better

Weakened by years of close and servile collaboration with management, most US unions and the AFL-CIO hierarchy are in a difficult position. The atrophy of labor militancy has backed leadership into the corner of choosing concessions or job loss. Labor’s political “friends” have betrayed labor’s cause without retribution to the point that they no longer fear labor’s still significant strength. The only way out of this corner is mobilizing the membership, the unemployed, and its many allies in a determined campaign to stand up to the corporate offensive and expose the political charlatans who pose as friends. As always, this begins with bringing people to the streets.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

Ann Coulter and free speech? Hardly, by: Ozlem Sensoy, The Vancouver Sun, March 25, 2010,

On Tuesday, a speech by controversial American Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa was cancelled because of fears there might be physical violence.

One of the arguments I've heard over and over about the cancellation is the "free speech" argument: Coulter has the right to say whatever she wants. This, her supporters argue, is what free speech means and what Coulter is being denied.

What people who launch the charge of "free speech" (and other charges such as "anti-democratic", "censorship" and "lighten up, it's just entertainment") fail to acknowledge and understand is the social concept of power.

Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, classism and anti-semitism are not about individual acts of discrimination (what some conservative commentator might have specifically said to offend someone or some group). These terms do not primarily refer to acts of discrimination (expressions of prejudices like Coulter's). They refer to systems of privilege that "normalize" a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.

That is why Coulter's speech is not just "free" (i. e. bias-free, objectively sent out into the atmosphere). The effects of her speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups.

That is why scholars of race relations and critical feminists would argue that so-called reverse-racism or reverse-sexism do not exist. Because of this difference, individual speech acts have different consequences in the social world.

A useful example is that of the electoral franchise for (white) women in North America. While women had to agitate for the right to vote and could certainly be angry with men during that period and perhaps even launch angry and hateful speech at men, women could not grant themselves the right to vote. Only men could grant suffrage because only men held the institutional positions to do so. Hence, while both groups could be prejudiced against the other, only men's prejudice against women was backed by institutional power, creating a significant difference in the impact.

The "isms" words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.

From this framework, we can see how free speech is a slippery problem. Ironically, it seems to surface when there is a need to stifle speech that challenges social power (which is what the U of Ottawa students were doing, challenging the inequitable social power relations that Coulter's "speech" upheld).

In a parallel way, while "left wing" voices might not receive the kind of caution that Coulter did from Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, to be aware of Canada's hate speech laws, it doesn't matter: The effect of Coulter's speech is not the same as the effect of marginalized speech.

So is "reverse" free speech at issue here? Is Coulter the victim of censorship? Are all expressions defensible as free speech?

If freedom of speech means anyone can say or print whatever they want, why was James Frey famously fried for embellishing about his own life in his Oprah's Book Club selection? Why was the issue there "lying" and not "freedom of speech?"

Not long ago, I remember a lot of hullabaloo in the news about some unkind TV ads about Stephane Dion and puffin poop. I don't remember that incident framed as an issue of free speech. Those were rightly characterized as "attack" ads. No one I heard dared defend the Conservative party's right to free speech.

There is also a type of context-appropriate speech. For example, the morning baby-talk I know many of you use when chatting with your kitty-witty or puppy-wuppy would probably be inappropriate at a job interview or with friends at the pub.

The point is, we live with these types of speech limitations every day, limitations governed by social norms. When the "free speech" card is played (by those whose speech aligns with power structures, like Coulter), it is a defensive response to their perspectives and power being challenged. The "free speech" discourse protects power and privilege by acting as a shield against such challenges. If you dare challenge free speech as a normal social value, you dare challenge the founding ideals of Western-style democracy.

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster "free speech" in the West.

Whether it's humorous "jokes" about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or "real" remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance. You can't just say whatever the hell you want.

University of Ottawa students embody the spirit of student activism. Thank you, students.

Ozlem Sensoy is assistant professor in the faculty of education at Simon Fraser University.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Block the Manitoba NDP attack on public sector workers By: Darrell Rankin, Leader, Communist Party of Canada - Manitoba, 24 March 2010

Dear Friends, Sisters and Brothers,

In the Manitoba budget yesterday the NDP government said it will try to freeze the wages of lower-income public sector workers, many of whom are Aboriginal, immigrants, women or youth. This kind of injury will be remembered for many years.

Originally the government threatened to impose a wage freeze or fire workers. It will now "negotiate" a two-year wage freeze with nurses, health and home care workers, and provincial government employees.

Unless these workers force the government to back down, they could lose about $250 million in two years.* Teachers and professors are specifically excluded from the government's wage "pause."

How far will the NDP go to wrest wages from its lowest-paid workers? Will they lock them out or force them into a costly strike?

The only realistic reply is that a united and militant fight supported by the whole Labour movement - by all workers - can and will defeat this plan by a government that would crush the sisters and brothers who most deserve a wage hike. United, the workers will never be defeated.

The problem has added importance because of capitalism's grave economic crisis. Concessions to the wealthy elite will only deepen and prolong the crisis for workers.

Below, the Communist Party explains why workers must unite and fight to defeat this anti-working class attack.

In Solidarity,
Darrell Rankin
Leader, Communist Party of Canada - Manitoba

* About $85 million this year and double that next year. Annual inflation in Manitoba was 2.25% in the four years before 2009.

PS. Instead of targeting the lowest-paid workers, the NDP government should lower the salaries of MLAs and, say, the top 5% civil service earners down to the average worker's wage.

* * * *
Subject: Block the NDP attack on Manitoba public sector workers

Released in advance of the budget.
Manitoba Committee,
Communist Party of Canada
387 Selkirk Ave.
Winnipeg MB R2W 2M3
(204) 586-7824 - cpc-mb@mts.net
www.communist-party.ca

Block the NDP attack on Manitoba public sector workers
Statement of the Manitoba Committee, Communist Party of Canada
March 23, 2010

After handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations by cutting their taxes, the Manitoba NDP government is attacking public sector workers - government employees and nurses - with a threat to impose a wage freeze, layoffs or unpaid days off.

If any group should pay for the expected provincial budget deficit, it is the corporations which have benefited from many years of NDP largesse.

An injury to one is an injury to all. The Labour movement must resist now or face more serious attacks later on.

The number one rule of a working class party, including the NDP which calls itself a labour party, ought to be never attack your base, the workers. This is more than a monumental mistake by the Manitoba NDP government; it is an injury to workers that will be remembered for many years.

We need to remember the harm and sense of betrayal experienced by workers when past NDP governments imposed wage cuts and freezes, including when the Ontario NDP created the infamous Rae Days and broke public sector collective agreements in the 1990s.

Unsurprisingly, the Manitoba NDP’s fortunes are falling in the public opinion polls. The Manitoba NDP is bowing down to the wealthy, the banks and the corporations, attacking the workers while helping the capitalists.

According to many statistical surveys, wages for working class families have essentially been frozen for nearly three decades, while the handful of people who own the large corporations have seen their incomes skyrocket.

The plan to cap wages or impose layoffs just adds insult to injury.

The plan is harmful because it divides workers along public and private sector lines.

Many public sector workers do not earn high wages, yet the Manitoba NDP is trying to sell the idea that these workers can afford to cut wages more than workers in the private sector.

Why does the plan exclude teachers and professors from the wage cap? The Manitoba NDP is imposing the wage cap on home, health care and other low income workers. But it is only cautioning school boards and other agencies to stop giving increases to teachers and professionals.

By attacking wages instead of bloated corporate profits, the Manitoba NDP is sending a clear signal to all employers that it is acceptable to freeze all workers wages.

The Labour movement must stand up to the bullying and resist this attack. In the Fall of 2008, the Harper government raised an idea similar to a wage cap by proposing to ban the right to strike in the public sector.

The Harper government was almost toppled because of the massive protests outside Parliament led by the Labour movement. There should be the same outrage in the Labour movement and by all workers in Manitoba, in the public and private sector, in small and large shops, by workers in unions and by those who are not organized.

The Manitoba NDP must back down, not the workers.

Information: Darrell Rankin, Leader

"Hold the pickle!" , the hammersickle restaurant song with apologies to Arlo Guthrie, by Andrew Taylor, March 24, 2010

The Hammersickle Song
with apologies to Arlo Guthrie

I don't want a pickle
Just really got to ditch my ole hammernd... sickle!
And I don't want a hammer
'Cause I'm gonna tail behind president obammer
And I don't want to die
just on the gogo for a logo, the old college-try!...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The foregoing revised song lyric was inspired by these words of Roberta Wood who said in her presentation to the celebration of the 90th anniversary of the Communist Party in the United States:

"We love our history but there’s no point in being a cult about it. For example, do we need a hammer and sickle? A sickle was a common agricultural tool of European peasants, but that symbol doesn’t mean anything to Americans – we only see a sickle if someone dresses up as the Grim Reaper for Halloween. Yes, we need a new 21st century logo that evokes an image of the unity that WE are building."

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/9129/1/376/