by SEAN F. McMAHON

By Jim Kavanagh

I watch the unfolding events in Egypt with a sense of unease, even dread. In the accounts I’ve read so far from the Egyptian street, I get the sense that, where two years ago there was an elation married with great hope, now there is something more like muted glee accompanied by a sinking feeling.

I am someone who thinks it is extremely important that the centrality of Islam in Middle East politics and ideology in general, and the specific parties of “political Islam” (like the Muslim Brotherhood) be challenged. I’m also someone who is not at all opposed to extra-electoral revolutionary mobilization, including the possibility of revolutionary insurrection. Still, I watch the unfolding events in Egypt with a sense of unease, even dread. In the accounts I’ve read so far from the Egyptian street, I get the sense that, where two years ago there was an elation married with great hope, now there is something more like muted glee accompanied by a sinking feeling. Mohamed ElBaradei’s quote from the great American philosopher, “It’s déja vu all over again,” is decidedly lacking its original charm in this context.

Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) won the elections last year. In fact, I’m sorry to say, with the highest voter participation in fifty years, the MB and the more fanatical Salafists parties dominated the seven elections that were held over the last two years, crushing the secular left and liberal forces in every electoral contest. Given that the Election Commission and the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC), which oversaw the elections, were composed of Mubarak appointees, and considered in league with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), there were suspicions that there would be vote-rigging, but the numbers were such as to leave no doubt that the elections reflected hard truths about the relative strength of the parties. On the basis of those electoral victories, Morsi, as presidents are wont to do, used his office to consolidate power for his political allies. It is fair to argue that he and the MB were too aggressive in that regard, but I do not think he closed the door on the opposition parties and factions. [See Al-Amin, “Showdown in Egypt.”]

If anything, I think the opposition–especially its more militant secular and leftist elements–made a strategic choice from the outset to embark on a project to undermine the Morsi/MB regime as quickly and thoroughly as possible. The radical opposition refused any strategic cooperation with the Morsi/MB regime, because they understood–correctly, I think–that such cooperation would have helped that regime consolidate and gain long-term stability and legitimacy. They wanted to cut off any possibility of the enracination of an Islamic state in Egypt. They wanted to stop in its tracks any attempt to strengthen the social, cultural, and political foundations of such a state, which they understood–again, correctly, I think–would be a profoundly reactionary regime, in a cultural and socio-economic, if not political, sense.

Indeed, the Morsi government did nothing to stop the continuing degradation of the socio-economic plight of ordinary Egyptians. As poverty rose to over 50 percent, Morsi weighed the terms of surrender to an IMF austerity loan. Like other Islamist tendencies, the MB has a definite strain of caritative populism. The left opposition understands, however, that the MB has no structural socio-economic program that breaks with neo-liberal capitalism. As Gilbert Achcar, in Le Monde Diplomatique , quotes Sameh Elbarqy, a former member of the Brotherhood: “The core of the economic vision of [the] Brotherhood, if we are going to classify it in a classical way, is extreme capitalist…. One of the big problems with the Muslim Brotherhood now–they have it in common with Mubarak’s old political party–is the marriage of power and capital.”

So the radical opposition, taking a decidedly revolutionary posture that refused to be bound by the limits of electoral politics, mounted an extraordinary campaign to undermine and depose Morsi. They acted on the basis that street-level education and agitation were legitimate and necessary elements of an ongoing, and democratic, political process. They were confident that, especially given the dire and deteriorating social situation, such work could change the ideological ground, and move masses away from the Brotherhood’s orbit and toward more radical action. And they were right.

Coalescing around a group called Tamarrud (Rebellion), founded at the end of April, the radical opposition announced their intention to mount a weekend of protests at the end of June that would either force Morsi to resign, or, as Esam al-Amin put it, “force the military to take over the country and launch a new transitional period without the domination of the Islamist groups.” They wanted the constitution annulled, and the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court installed as interim president. Toward that end, they then began a final push, circulating a petition, which, they claimed, quickly gathered more signatures to oust Morsi than votes he received in the election. They mobilized the anger of the nearly hopeless, impoverished populace, which had seen no changes for the better in their social lives, and united it with the fears of secular liberals, who saw Brotherhood political hegemony as the encroachment of a dogmatic Islamic social and cultural order. And they succeeded.

It was an amazing, exemplary, revolutionary offensive that, within the space of a few months, instigated a popular movement that deposed the elected government, and turned Egyptian politics upside-down.

Except …

for one little thing. This “revolutionary” dynamic was also based on an alliance with elements of the “deep state” of the repressive Mubarak-era regime, known as the fulool. As is to be expected in an unfinished revolution, the fulool haven’t gone anywhere. As Esam Al-Amin points out: they are “still largely in control of the security apparatus, most of the private media, the judiciary, as well as major industries and influential economic institutions.” Al-Amin also claims that, by the end of 2012, they had become “part and parcel of the secular opposition groups and a major factor of the instability that has overwhelmed the country …reinvent[ing[ themselves [to] become major players on the side of the secular groups against the MB and the Islamists.”

Also deeply disturbing: The final offensive against Morsi and the MB was based on promoting the Egyptian army as the legitimate nationalist savior. Indeed, the events of the last week unfolded just as the opposition hoped they would, culminating with the army stepping in to depose Morsi, in response to clear demonstrations of popular anger and discontent, and sporadic and spreading episodes of violence. The SCAF, it turns out, was the key player, the go-to guy, for the Tamarrud.

This, we must remember, is the same army that was the backbone of the repressive Mubarak-era state for decades. It’s the same SCAF that was denounced by tens of thousands who jammed Tahir Square last April, partly because of its perceived alliance with the MB! At that time, for example, one student was quoted as saying: “The military council is putting the people in a very hard situation, and people are angry because their demands have not come true…. People feel like the old regime has not gone anywhere, and under the army we are living with them still.” Yet another said: “I am against the military council because the constitutional declaration they made last year was all about rigging the election…. We just want a revolutionary candidate, someone we can support and who stands with the people.”

This is the same army that is notorious for being an economic as well as a military caste. It’s an army that, according to Al-Amin, controls “as much as thirty percent of Egypt’s economy,” that, according to Shana Marshall and Joshua Stacher, “manufacture[s] everything from olive oil and shoe polish to the voting booths used in Egypt’s 2011 parliamentary elections,” through a network of  “the privately owned businesses that constitute what has become known as the ‘officer economy.'” It’s the same army whose “tentacles also grasped large shares of the civilian public sector as part of the ‘privatization’ process in the 1990s,” and which, accordingly, appointed as Finance Minister “a strong advocate of free-market liberalism and the ‘rationalizing’ of state subsidies on staples.”

Even the New York Times reporter, Ben Hubbard, recognizes that this army “has never been a force for democracy. It has one primary objective…preserving national stability and its untouchable realm of privilege within the Egyptian state.” For decades, “its tens of thousands of elite officers have jealously guarded their privileged station” and “grown wealthy through government contracts and business deals facilitated by their positions.” As Hubbard says, the elite officers’ corps is virtually “a hereditary Brahmin caste, in which sons follow their fathers’ careers and they all live inside a closed social circle.”  And, as he cites Steven A. Cook, of the Council on Foreign Relations: “The liberals and the revolutionaries are too quick to hop into bed with the military–it is not their friend…. The most important thing from the military’s perspective is preserving its place as the locus of power and influence in the system.”

It’s also the same military that was, with the consent of most secular and Islamist groups, in the constitution that has just been annulled, “afforded a constitutionally sanctioned special status in a supposedly democratic state run by civilians,” and given a guarantee that the Defense Minister would be appointed from its ranks. [See Al-Amin, “Egypt’s Constitution, the Opposition, and the Dialogue of the Deaf.“]

There’s no way to avoid recognizing it: The Egyptian radical opposition has delivered the government back into the hands of this army. I find it hard to imagine how anyone thinks this advances a revolutionary process. The SCAF are not the Portuguese officers of 1974 (who are still revolutionary, BTW!). The SCAF is not there to energize and support, but to control and suppress mass movements for social justice. Nothing has happened to move the Egyptian state one more inch in a progressive direction, politically or socio-economically. If anything, the opposite has occurred. Replacing Morsi-and-the-MB + SCAF with ElBaradiei-and-the-technocrats + SCAF still = IMF + SCAF. It’s neo-liberalism with a secular face, a combination more acceptable to the West.

What Will Happen Now?

Shamus Cooke quite perceptively reminds us how it goes: “In Egypt, the economic interests of different groups are consciously hidden behind religion and abstract notions of democracy. The very wealthy and corporations have no problem acting extra religious or especially democratic if it pushes their interests forward.”

Now you also have this army rounding up and arresting Morsi, the elected president, as well as the leaders and who knows how many of the cadres of the MB. For what? What crime against the people have they committed? Being Islamists? Having won elections? Being too politically aggressive? For how long will they be held? Until they agree never to run in, or maybe never to win, another election?

Perhaps the anti-Morsi left opposition thinks (What else could it be?) that the undeniable mass mobilization of the people they’ve achieved will be the guarantee against a return to pre-Tahir repression, and the engine of further, more complete, revolutionary change. Now that we’ve got the Islamist menace out of the way, we can go after the rest of the obstacles to the profound change we need, or something like that.

That has a superficial plausibility, and I certainly hope it works out that way. Problem is, it will only work out that way if the masses stay mobilized, if they have a program to press for that at least outlines specific policies that will make ordinary people’s live better, if there is a political leadership and political organization capable of transforming the state in ways that will enable instituting that program, and if that mass movement and leadership have no illusions about the role the “officer economy” and the (politically) liberal (economically) neo-liberal  “technocrats”–i.e. IMF robots–will play, along with the conservative and dogmatic Islamists, in obstructing such decisive revolutionary change. If what you’ve actually got is a Groundhog Day appeal to the mass of Egyptians to wake up to a new morning of million-people mobilizations every 6, 12, or 24, months; if, in the last mobilization you’ve actually strengthened everyone’s illusions about the friendly, democratic, and salvific role of the national army; if you have no political and socio-economic project besides disrupting the reign of one bad guy after another; and if you have no political leadership or organization that wants to, and will, build the capability for those masses to take power and enact progressive programs–then, well, ongoing revolution, not so much.

There’s also this tiny little thing: If you think you’ve gotten the Islamist menace out of the way, you are dreaming. There are tens of millions of people who have long-standing allegiances to the MB and groups like it. They did not all turn against it in the last few months. The MB is a  party with deep roots in Egyptian history and society. It isn’t going away. You’ve got them out of democratic politics, though, that’s for sure.  As one Egyptian merchant says: “Didn’t we do what they asked…? We don’t believe in democracy to begin with; it’s not part of our ideology. But we accepted it. We followed them, and then this is what they do?” And, as Essam el-Haddad, Morsi’s foreign policy adviser put it on his web page, before he was detained by the military: “The message will resonate throughout the Muslim world loud and clear: democracy is not for Muslims.” Already, thousands have been chanting in rallies in the Sinai: “The age of peacefulness is over. No more peacefulness after today.” Far from “out of the way,” the Islamists are going to be in your face, more aggressively than ever, for some time to come. So much for peaceful transition. [See “For Islamists, Dire Lessons on Politics and Power,” NYT.]

Unfortunate as it may be, Islamist parties’ conservative socio-cultural positions and simple doctrinal certainties, as well as their charity-driven populism, have wide appeal in Muslim societies. Changing that will require some years of demonstrating that democratic political dialogue and liberal social values, combined with radical structural economic changes, can more effectively guarantee people’s social security as well as a nation’s cultural integrity. It requires, in other words, another kind of long-term revolutionary project. Under any circumstances, this problem will not be arrested away, and it is the opposite of revolutionary to think that it can.

As I said above, I am not averse, in principle, to extra-electoral politics, or even insurrection. A serious revolutionary conjuncture, a real break into a new social order, usually involves both. It’s a process driven by politicized masses in motion, in ways that are not constrained within the limits of “normal”–i.e., elite-crafted–electoral politics. Let’s say you have a sclerotically corrupt and unreliable electoral process, with tepid citizen participation, largely understood as a futile exercise, obviously fixed in advance by the ruling party or elite, and riddled by obvious maneuvers to disenfranchise dangerous voters and skew the vote, as you did in Mubarak’s Egypt, or, you know, as we have now in the United States. Then, sure, that kind of electoral process is actually a tool of disempowerment and a thin facade of democracy, giving political mobilization that bypasses it a strong claim to legitimacy. If, however, you have an election cycle in the wake of a euphoric revolutionary rupture, which attracts millions of newly empowered citizen voters who are eager to help define their new polity, then, from even the most “revolutionary” democratic perspective, you should be much more reluctant to declare it null and void.

Similarly, in the midst of a revolutionary insurrection that, with the cooperation of progressive military elements, deposes the government of a small, corrupt, plutocratic elite that has little popular support, especially a government that’s been engaged in vicious repression of an insurgent popular movement, it is legitimate to arrest and detain key figures and key backers of that government. After all, a revolution involves an unapologetic, forceful, seizure and transfer of power that seeks to be irreversible, and there are crimes against the people that deserve revolutionary justice. It’s quite another thing, however, when a military that is an integral part of the corrupt elite itself finishes your insurrection for you by arresting a wide swath of the cadres of a mass popular movement, including its presidential candidate, who had been elected by tens of millions of people. This is not an exercise in revolutionary, or any other kind of, justice or democracy.

Egypt is in the midst of an upheaval that still contains a myriad of possibilities, but I’m pessimistic about how this is going to play out. It’s a tad too clever to ideologically disarm the populace in the face of the army one day, with the idea that you can quickly rearm them ideologically against the army tomorrow. I fear that we may be seeing another example, in a key Arab country, of a powerful democratic upsurge veering into a disastrous dénouement. So far, in Egypt, we have seen the unfolding of an intense and militant revolutionary process, without a revolutionary program or revolutionary leadership, and therefore without a revolutionary strategy. If we want to pursue a familiar distinction, what we’ve seen in Egypt has been a rolling rebellion, not an uninterrupted revolution. It could still become the latter, but I think the last week’s events have made that less likely.

This is the symptom of a condition that affects insurgent left movements throughout the world, especially those driven by revolutionary-minded youth. They understand both the political and socio-economic nature of the oppressive power they live under, and they understand how radical are the changes that are necessary to build a new world of peace and justice. They are smart and creative about devising ways to educate a broader public about it, and to protest and disrupt it. They fight power, disrupt power, challenge power. With few exceptions, they also refuse to assume power, or to organize for the possibility of doing so. By virtue of lived experience and liberal education, they have developed, beyond a healthy skepticism, an absolute allergy to power and organization. They inhabit an ideology in which power is not just tendentially dangerous, but intrinsically and irretrievably nefarious, and in which coherent, disciplined political organizations are dogs of this devil. Despite their positive appreciation of “empowerment” in other contexts, in the political context they cannot imagine power to be liberating as well as dangerous. They do not want to, and cannot, imagine a way of wielding power in a consistent, programmatic, progressive manner. That way lies the Gulag, always.

Yet, the thing is: If progressive, revolutionary forces are not willing or capable of taking and wielding power to build a new social order, someone else will take that power. Something else will substitute itself for the revolutionary political organization that power-averse revolutionary youth disdained to build. Some other political party or parties, formed around a relatively coherent theory and agenda and set of common interests, will step into the vacuum of political agency that is left by such an ideology at the most critical juncture. Some other organized political force will take as a prize the society in ferment that those rebellious youth created–like, say, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. That way lies the status quo, squared, always.

Still, in any real set of circumstances, the possibilities for such a takeover are not infinite. In Egypt, as one analyst says, “besides the Brotherhood, [the armed forces] are the only really cohesive institution in the country.” Globally, there are a few constellations of programmatic ideas for structuring a modern polity, and I want to focus on the one fundamental socio-economic question that’s “hidden behind religion and abstract notions of democracy” in Egypt and throughout the world today.

Everyone recognizes that a shallow program of “democracy,” limited to formally free elections and well-written constitutions, does not nearly a revolution make. Revolutionary upheaval like we’ve seen in Egypt occurs because there is widespread social discontent, and without programs that–radically, quickly and tangibly–begin to change the social lives of the majority of people for the better, no revolution will move forward. A revolution is not just about giving people a vote or a newspaper. It’s not really a question of giving people anything, but of the people themselves taking control of social capital, and changing the fundamental social relations of wealth production, accumulation, and distribution.

There can be no more pretense, in Egypt or elsewhere, that such changes can be made without a decisive break with capitalism, or, as its actually-existing variant is called, neo-liberalism. That’s a very tall order, which demands not just evoking the necessity to do it, but elaborating– in a context structured to make it extremely difficult to do so–specific policies and programs that will lead irreversibly to the end of capitalist social penury and the beginning of another, more just, social order. That way requires, always, a theory that can explain the situation, and an organization that is rooted in the lives of everyday people and capable of effectively focusing their struggle for political empowerment,

Democracy is  empowerment of the people, and thoroughgoing democracy is not a question of the granting of political rights, but of the seizure and extension of political and social power. That is the dangerous, and unavoidable, challenge, of revolutionary politics. In Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces will be no part of it.
Submitters Website: www.thepolemicist.net

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Former college professor, current man-about-town, native New Yorker. Blogging at www.thepolemicist.net, aiming to be intellectually rigorous, politically challenging, and occasionally snarky, from a left-socialist perspective.

by Stephen Lendman

On July 6, Russia Today headlined ” ‘Free from imperial persecution:’ Venezuela offers Snowden asylum.”   Days earlier, President Nicolas Maduro said asylum would be “seriously” considered if sought. Snowden deserves a “humanitarian medal,” he added. 

 

“If this young man is punished, nobody in the world will ever dare to tell the truth,” he stressed.

He’s a man of his word. It’s official. Maduro granted Snowden asylum. He did so on Venezuela’s Day of Independence.  On April 10, 1810, the First Republic of Venezuela was established. Venezuela’s War of Independence began.  On July 5, 1811, Venezuela declared independence. Spanish colonial rule ended.

[pullquote] “I announce to the friendly governments of the world that we have decided to offer this statute of international humanitarian law to protect the young Snowden from the persecution that has been unleashed from the most powerful empire in the world.” [/pullquote]

Venezuela was its first American colony to break free. Doing so reflected Bolivar’s vision. He liberated half of South America. He advocated using national wealth responsibly, equitably and fairly.  He fought against what he called the imperial curse “to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty.”

Chavez was his modern-day incarnation. Maduro carries his torch. Doing so responsibly matters most. Hopefully he’s up to the challenge.  Chavez called him Venezuela’s most capable administrator and politician. His leadership experience prepared him well. His credentials are impeccable. He’s ideologically left of center. He’s a former union leader, legislator, National Assembly speaker, foreign minister, and vice president. On April 19, 2013, he succeed Chavez as president.

Venezuela’s independence was short-lived. It lasted until July 25, 1812. Chavez restored Bolivarianism. It’s institutionalized. It benefits all Venezuelans. It does so equitably and fairly.  Americans are cheated. They’re deprived. They’re denied. They’re persecuted. State terror is policy. Police state justice targets challengers.

Neoliberal harshness punishes millions. Americans get force-fed austerity, growing poverty, high unemployment, and unaddressed homelessness and hunger. They get government of, by and for wealth, power and privilege alone. They’re targeted for supporting right over wrong.

Venezuelans enjoy government of, by and for everyone. National wealth is equitably shared. On July 5, Maduro acted responsibly, saying:

“As head of state and of government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, I have decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden.”

“To be independent, we must feel it. We must exercise our independence and sovereignty. Our discourses are meaningless if they aren’t exercised with force at the national level.”

“I announce to the friendly governments of the world that we have decided to offer this statute of international humanitarian law to protect the young Snowden from the persecution that has been unleashed from the most powerful empire in the world.”

“Let’s ask ourselves: who violated international law? A young man who decided, in an act of rebellion, to tell the truth of the espionage of the United States against the world? Or the government of the United States, the power of the imperialist elites, who spied on it?”

“Who is the guilty one,” he added. “A young man who denounces war plans, or the US government which launches bombs and arms the terrorist Syrian opposition against the people and legitimate president, Bashar al-Assad?”

Venezuela isn’t alone. Bolivia suggested asylum would be granted. On Friday, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega said he’ll “gladly receive Snowden.”

“We are open, respectful of the right to asylum, and it is clear that if circumstances permit it, we would receive Snowden with pleasure and give him asylum here in Nicaragua,” he said.

On July 4, USASUR countries adopted the Cochabamba Declaration.

Presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela, as well as delegations from Brazil, Chile and Peru reacted to France, Italy, Portugal and Spain denying Evo Morales airspace and landing rights.

Their Declaration states:

“Given the situation that the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was subjected to by the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain, we denounce before the international community and various international organizations:

• The flagrant violation of international treaties governing peaceful coexistence, solidarity and cooperation between our states, that took place is an unusual act, unfriendly and hostile, configuring an unlawful act that affects freedom of movement and displacement of a head of state and his delegation.

• The abuse and neocolonial practices that still exist on our planet in the XXI century.

• The lack of transparency about the motivations of policy decisions that prevented air traffic for the Bolivian presidential vessel and its president.

• The injury suffered by President Evo Morales, which offends not only the Bolivian people but all our nations.

• The illegal spying practices that threaten the rights of citizens and friendly coexistence among nations.”

“In view of these denunciations, we are convinced that the process of building the Patria Grande (Integrated Latin America) to which we are committed must be consolidated with full respect for the sovereignty and independence of our peoples, without interference from global hegemonic powers, conquering the old practices of imposing first and second class.(status on) countries.”

“The male and female heads of state and governments of countries of the Union of South American Nations, gathered in Cochabamba on July 4, 2013:

(1) We declare that the unacceptable restriction on the freedom of President Evo Morales, making virtually him a hostage, is a rights violation of not only the Bolivian people but of all countries and peoples of Latin America and sets a dangerous precedent for existing international law.

(2) We reject the actions that clearly violate norms and principles of international law, the inviolability of the heads of state.

(3) We call on the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain to explain the reasons for the decision to prevent the presidential plane from the Plurinational State of Bolivia from overflying through its airspace.

(4) Similarly, we urge the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain present the corresponding public apologies for the serious incidents that occurred.

(5) We support the complaint filed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for the serious violation of human rights and specific endangerment of the life of President Evo Morales; we also support the right of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to take all actions it deems necessary to the courts and relevant agencies.

(6) We agreed to form a monitoring committee, entrusting the task to our foreign ministries to perform the actions necessary to shed light on the facts.”

“Finally, in the spirit of the principles set forth in the treaty establishing UNASUR, we urge all the heads of state of the union to stand by (accompany) this declaration.

Similarly, we call on the United Nations and regional organizations that have not done so yet, to make a pronouncement on this unjustifiable and arbitrary event.

Cochabamba, July 4, 2013”

On Friday, Maduro accused CIA officials of “order(ing) to the air traffic authorities, which gave the alert that Snowden was going in (Morales’) plane.”

He said Washington sent an extradition request. It came while Evo Morales was still in Moscow. Venezuela rejected it. Maduro was blunt and unequivocal saying:

Washington has “no moral authority to request the extradition of a young man who exposed the illegality under which the Pentagon, the CIA and the power of the US work. I reject any request they are making for extradition.”

He justifiably wants Luis Posada Carriles extradited. He conspired with Orlando Bosch. They’re responsible for downing Cubana flight 455. In 1976, all 78 passengers aboard died.

Bosch died in April 2011. Carriles remains free in Miami. He’s a former CIA operative. He admitted responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks. Washington protects him. It rejects Venezuela’s request for justice.

Bolivia got America’s extradition request. Its Foreign Ministry called it “strange, illegal and unfounded.”  At the same time, Morales threatened to expel US diplomats and close Washington’s embassy, saying:

“We don’t need the pretext of cooperation and diplomatic relations so that they can come and spy on us.”

Washington unjustifiably claims Snowden “unlawfully released classified information and documents to international media outlets.”

“The United States seeks Snowden’s provisional arrest should Snowden seek to travel to or transit through Venezuela. Snowden is a flight risk because of the substantial charges he is facing and his current and active attempts to remain a fugitive.”

It explained charges against him. They include:

• “Theft of Government Property

• Unauthorized Communication of National Defense

Information (and)

• Willful Communication of Classified Intelligence Information to

an Unauthorized Person.”

Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine.

Snowden’s called “a fugitive who is currently in Russia. It urged Venezuela to arrest and hold him in custody. It wants items he has seized. Maduro rejected Washington’s charges. He did so responsibly. He exposed lawless NSA spying. He told the truth, Maduro said.  He deserves his just reward. He’s free at last. Or is he? Traveling safely to Venezuela won’t be easy. His flight route’s important.

Attempting to overfly EU countries risks trouble. Flying east perhaps avoids it. A potentially safe route might be Moscow to Hong Kong, Beijing or Shanghai, then Caracas. He needs proper travel documents. Without identity papers, they’ll him cross international borders legally. Russia must approve. So must an airline carrier. Private non-commercial travel’s simpler. At issue is who’ll cover costs either way. Traveling from Moscow to Caracas isn’t cheap.

Commercial flights are expensive. Cost exceeds $1,000. Who’ll pay if Snowden can’t? Wherever he goes, he’s unsafe. Washington’s long arm threatens him. Obama wants him silenced, imprisoned or dead. Snowden knows and said so.  He’ll live every free day ahead like his last. Hopefully he’ll avoid US injustice. He deserves his just reward.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/venezuela-grants-snowden-amnesty/

by Stephen Lendman

America’s High Court lacks legitimacy. It’s supremely pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor, and anti-rule of law fairness. It mocks democratic principles. It does so shamelessly. On June 25, it eviscerated Voting Rights Act enforcement. It usurped congressional authority. It did so unconscionably. In  Shelby County v. Holder, it ruled 5 – 4. More on this below.

A previous article said America’s Supremes are notoriously hard right. Equal justice under law is more illusion than reality. Rule of law principles and egalitarian fairness don’t matter. Power politics corrupts the High Court. It lacks legitimacy.

[pullquote] America’s duopoly and judicial rulings mock legitimate governance. High-minded rhetoric is duplicitous. It belies supporting wealth, power and privilege. Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Farcical elections reflect it. Big money controls them. Winner-take-all subverts proportional representation.  [/pullquote]

Five justices are Federalist Society (FS) members. They include Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. They’re ideological extremists.

FS began 30 years ago at Harvard, Yale and University of Chicago law schools. They’re neocon bastions. Initially it was a student organization. It challenges orthodox liberalism. It corrupts itself in the process.

It menaces freedom. It advocates rolling back civil liberties. It wants New Deal social policies ended. It supports imperial wars, corporatism, and police state harshness.  It wants reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights, and environmental protections ended. It spurns justice in defense of privilege. It defiles constitutional protections doing so.

US voting rights were constitutionally flawed by design. America’s founders enfranchised adult white male property owners only. Laborers were excluded. So were women. Slaves were considered property, not people. Native Americans, some free Black men, apprentices, felons, and persons considered incompetent were denied.  In 1810, the last religious prerequisite was eliminated. In 1850, property ownership and tax requirements no longer applied. In 1855, Connecticut adopted the first qualifying voting literacy test. Other states followed.

In 1870, the 15th Amendment enfranchised freed slaves and adult males of all races. In 1889, Florida adopted a poll tax. Ten other southern states followed. In 1913, the 17th Amendment allowed voters to elect senators for the first time. State legislatures did earlier. In Guinn v. United (1915), the Supreme Court ruled grandfather clause exemptions to literacy tests unconstitutional. They violate 15th Amendment rights.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment enfranchised women for the first time. America’s founders denied them.  They considered them homemakers and child-bearers alone. They denied them fundamental rights in the process.

In 1924, Native Americans were enfranchised for the first time. The Indian Citizenship Act made them citizens. Doing so included federal election voting rights. In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled all white primaries unconstitutional. The 1957 Civil Rights Act was the first voting rights bill since Reconstruction. Southern opposition made it largely ineffective.  In Gormillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Supreme Court ruled a gerrymandered Alabama district unconstitutional. It disenfranchised Blacks.

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment let District of Columbia voters participate in presidential elections. It stopped short of granting statehood and congressional representation. In 1964, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law. It followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It prohibits racial, ethnic, religious and gender discrimination. It does so in schools, workplaces and other institutions. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.

On August 6, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. Section 5 requires states with prior discriminatory enfranchisement histories to obtain federal “pre-clearance” before enacting voting laws or regulations.

At issue is precluding discriminatory practices. Since 1982, pre-clearance provisions were invoked hundreds of times. In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts lied.

“(T)hings have changed in the South,” he claimed. Jim Crow’s very much alive. It flourishes. It’s true across America. It’s reflected in how people of color are mistreated. It extends way beyond voting.  Shelby County, AL challenged the Voting Rights Act. It did so irresponsibly. It alleged the enacted 2006 Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization was unconstitutional.

Congress passed it overwhelmingly. Senators voted 92 – 0. House members concurred 390 – 33. So did George Bush. He signed it into law.  America’s 15th Amendment demands it. It’s the law of the land. Section 1 states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2 states:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

High Courts can’t change it. Constitutional amendments alone permit it. Doing so requires two-thirds congressional approval. Two-thirds of the states may do it by constitutional convention.

In November 2012, Supreme Court justices accepted Shelby County’s legal challenge. On February 27, 2013, they heard arguments. On June 25, they ruled. At issue is the constitutionality of Section 5 pre-clearance requirements.

Justices called Section 4(b) unconstitutional. It no longer may be used to enforce pre-clearances. Doing so guts fundamental voting rights. They’re disturbingly weak already.

US elections are farcical. They lack legitimacy. Money power runs things. Duopoly power rules. Voters have no say. High Court justices further disenfranchised them.

Doing so reflects America’s deplorable state. Jim Crow lives. The law of the land is lawlessness. It rages out-of-control. Constitutional rights don’t matter. They lie in history’s dustbin.

Rogues run America. Government of, by, and for them alone exists. No one else matters. Striking down Voting Rights Act enforcement is unconscionable. It reflects watershed anti-democratic harshness.

Without teeth, voting rights no longer matter. Pretense is gone. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s no profile in courage. Her dissent concealed her support for privilege, saying:

Congress “with overwhelming support in both houses” agreed the pre-clearance should “continue in force unabated.”

Retaining it “facilitate(s) completion of the impressive gains thus far made.” Continuance guards “against backsliding.” Congress alone should decide. It’s “well within (its) province to (do so) and should elicit this court’s unstinting approbation.”

She addressed racially motivated voting barriers, adding:

“Early attempts to cope with this vile infection resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place.”

“When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’s power to act is at its height.”

America’s duopoly and judicial rulings mock legitimate governance. High-minded rhetoric is duplicitous. It belies supporting wealth, power and privilege. Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Farcical elections reflect it. Big money controls them. Winner-take-all subverts proportional representation. So do deplorable voting rights. States largely go their own way. Automatically enfranchising all citizens at birth is verboten.

Uniform national election law doesn’t exist. Local prohibitions are discriminatory. Ex-felons, current inmates, wrongfully imprisoned ones, others guilty of minor transgressions are denied.  Many citizens are intimidated not to vote. Other voters are lawlessly stricken from rolls. It’s done with technological ease. Voting is made hard, not easy.

America’s process is deeply flawed. It’s too broken to fix. It has no legitimacy whatever. Things are bad enough already. High Court justices made it worse.  Doing so reflects political Washington consensus. It bears repeating. Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. It’s the American way.

 

A Final Comment

An unprincipled Wall Street Journal editorial headlined “Voting Rights Progress,” saying:

“(O)n Tuesday, the Supreme Court marked a milestone worth celebrating when it ruled that a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness.”

Civil rights advocates know otherwise. Hard won earlier gains were lost. Right-wing politics triumphed. Bipartisan ruthlessness assured it. Profiles in courage don’t exist. Rogue state governance is policy.

Not according to Journal editors. They claim racial fairness when none exists. “Far from a civil rights defeat,” they said, “Tuesday’s ruling is a triumph of racial progress and corrective politics.”

What else would Murdoch editors say.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.  

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Collapse of Social-Democracy

2. Even though the classical right has suffered too, the consequences of the alienation of citizens mainly impacted the social-democracy. Social democratic parties are collapsing everywhere in Europe (Greece, Spain, Italy and France) and – a sign of the times – they’re no longer capable of taking profit of the natural wearing out of the right when it’s in power. They strongly decline even when they are in the opposition!

In fact, we are witnessing an unprecedented crisis of social democracy which bears all the characteristics of a… terminal one! The consequence is historic and cataclysmic: having lost one of its two legs, the two-party system, which used to ensure political stability and the smooth running of a system based on the changeover of political power between the neoliberal parties, hangs in suspense and has stopped functioning. Under these circumstances, the regime crisis is not far away.

3. We have to acknowledge that the European Left is not in a state such as to embody the hopes of angry citizens who are deserting the parties that once used to prevail. Apart from Greece (Syriza), nowhere in Europe has the left got neither the credibility, nor the organized strength and social foothold, nor, above all, the capacity to inspire the masses that have been turning away from the main bourgeois parties while radicalizing their rejection of the established order.

The consequence of Europe’s Left powerlessness in facing the generalized crisis of the bourgeois domination system cannot be summed up to the prediction that the left will not take advantage of this cataclysmic crisis of capitalism. Alas! There is much worse to it. What is already looming on the horizon is that this historic crisis, along with the left’s current powerlessness, could all too well lead to whole sections of a confused and disorientated society turning, in the end, to the far right or even neo-fascist and neo-Nazi forces in an attempt to express their anti-system revolt!

4. Is this a mere working hypothesis? No, this is exactly what is happening in a continuously growing number of European countries. Now, it has nothing to do anymore with the “Greek exception” that has seen the hatching and stunning development of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. Now it is about a real far right tidal wave, or at least of the reactionary Euro skepticism (Germany, UK), even in North European countries so far relatively spared by the debt crisis and austerity policies!

Even more important than the quasi generalization of the phenomenon is the fact that the far right is now operating a historic breakthrough in such a great country as France, which has always marked our continent’s history. And even in countries where the far right remains marginalized (Italy, Spain, Belgium…), social crisis and political fragility are such that the situation might as well evolve in favour of the emergence of a far right force in no time, all the more taking into account the risk of contagion.

Unprecedented Political and Social Crisis

5. In fact, all the ingredients of an unprecedented since World War II political and social crisis are now put together in Europe so that we are getting closer and closer to the interwar period and its “devils,” even though the world has gone through tremendous changes since the 1930s.

However, similarities with the interwar period are not limited to the “objective” situation. Unfortunately, we see the “subjective factor,” the non social-democratic left, displaying the very same incapacity than the left in those days to understand what is going on in the deepest layers of society, and to react accordingly. The conclusion has to be categorical: it is not the rise of the far right – however impetuous it may be – that causes fear. What is frightening and determines today’s and tomorrow’s tasks is rather the incapacity or impossibility for the left not only to resolve the crisis to its own profit, but also to stand in the way of this rising reaction and far right!

6. Supposing that the diagnosis is right, what should we do, provided that, of course, we rule out any passive and fatalistic attitude and choose to fight before it’s too late? The answer seems obvious: we need to gather as quickly as possible all the available forces throughout Europe, Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern, in order to start a long term fight against the rising far right, including neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.

7. In order to make sense and above all to be able to bring tangible results, this European anti-fascist gathering must be altogether unitary and radical, massive and democratic. Any sectarian approach, dividing rather than uniting, reveals a deep misunderstanding or understating of the gravity of the situation, which requires the constitution of a unitary front gathering all those, without any exclusions, who are willing to fight the brown plague. The lessons of the interwar period, those of Italy of the 1920s and those of Germany of the 1920s and the 30s are here to remind us that the shortest way to suicide for the workers’ and socialist movement goes through its own sectarianisms and splits in front of the rising racist, fascist and Nazi far right.

United and Radical Anti-Fascism

8. In order to be able to inspire the anti-fascists and meet the people’s expectations in these times of prolonged social war, this anti-fascist gathering has to be unitary as well as radical. Here we have not only to ascertain that the fights against the people’s starvers and the far right are organically linked, since the far right supports – in ultimate analysis – the system and its economic foundations. Here we have to take into account the revolt, however confused and partial, of the victims of austerity policies against the system which generates them and the politicians who implement them. For it is the moderation of a certain left, perceived – understandably – as a kind of “softness” and a refusal to put into acts the left’s fine words that makes the impoverished and desperate masses turn to fascists and other right extremists nearly everywhere in Europe.

9. This unitary and radical European anti-fascist gathering must imperatively be democratic as well, based on the citizens’ self organization. Why? Because only mobilized citizens can fight and beat the far right and because the indispensable condition for their mobilization is that they themselves determine their fights, their goals and their forms of action. In other words, they have to take over their fate.

10. But there is more than this. If we want to fight with some chance of success against the far right, we have to do so everywhere, constantly and above all globally, on every ground, without ignoring any battlefield. Because it is not only about confronting the storm troops, the militia and other racist and neo-fascist gangs in the streets, but also facing the tremendous ravages caused in the minds and behaviors by the neoconservative counter revolution, the comeback of the worst racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-feminist and chauvinist reaction. And all this because the current rise of a mass far right does not fall out of the sky: it was prepared via the methodic poisoning of our societies by the selfish and anti-human “values” of the neoliberal, patriarchal and, finally, misanthropic and barbarous counter revolution.

11. In other words, nobody can claim to be anti-fascist as long as they are not in war against the pillars and the raison d’être of the far right, that is racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, sexism, as well as the worship of blind violence, machismo and intolerance. A political or other organization cannot practice a consistent form of anti-fascism so long as it remains homophobic, jingoist, sexist, or even keeps making its militants goose-step parade.

So, who else than the directly concerned people – the citizens themselves – can give these everyday battles where they work, live, study, express themselves, build up relationships, love each other? The conclusion seems to be obvious: in order to be effective, anti-fascism must not be the apparatuses’ business. It has to be the business of self-organized citizens wherever they exercise their activities as social beings. An anti-fascism that would not attack all the aspects of the ongoing reactionary counter revolution and would restrict itself to fighting only its epiphenomena would be already doomed to powerlessness.

12. However, be careful: given the extreme emergency of an already critical situation, the true dilemma is no more “to act or not to act” against the growing far right threat, but to decide and act quickly, as quickly as possible, for too much time has already been wasted in Greece – as well as in Hungary and elsewhere. Therefore, it’s time to stop warning us saying that we must not let the brown serpent get out of its egg. Unfortunately, this warning is no more useful because the serpent not only has already left its egg long ago but it has become a monster parading in the streets and sowing terror at least in many European countries!

Consequently, let’s decide and act quickly! Being the result of an at least atypical initiative, the European Antifascist Manifesto has the great merit of existing and forcing us to face our responsibilities. Time is no longer for the indecisiveness of the ones neither for the fatalism and the passivity of the others. It is not as well for the sectarianism of those who do not want to understand that only united we could be credible enough to inspire the anti-fascist will of the large citizens’ masses. Now, it is time for anti-fascist unity and action, it is time for building the European anti-fascist movement. Today! Tomorrow could be too late… •

European Antifascist Manifesto:

• Spain campaign: www.antifascismeuropa.org
• Greece campaign: www.antifascismeuropa-ellada.gr
• France campaign: www.manifesteantifascisteeuropeen.fr
• Slovenia campaign: www.odbor.si/antifa

Yorgos Mitralias is a founding member of the Greek Committee Against the Debt, which is affiliated to the international network of CADTM (www.cadtm.org), where this article first appeared.