The Governments Of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales And Rafael Correa

Steve Ellner,  Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 589
January 24, 2012

 

Top to bottom: Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales And Rafael Correa

Most political analysts place the governments of Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador) in the same category but without defining their common characteristics. Beginning with the publication of Leftovers in 2008, critics of the left sought to overcome the shortcoming by characterizing the three presidents as “populist leftists,” which they distinguished from the “good leftists” taking in such moderates as Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. According to the book’s co-editors Jorge Castañeda and Marco Morales, the salient features of the populist left consist of a radical discourse devoid of ideological substance, disrespect for democratic institutions, pronounced authoritarian tendencies and vituperations against the United States designed to pay political dividends at the expense of their nation’s economic interests (Castañeda and Morales, 2008).

On the other side of the political spectrum, the long-time political analyst and activist Marta Harnecker has proclaimed the emergence of a “new left” in Latin America represented by all three leaders. Harnecker associates the new left with “twenty-first century socialism” embraced by the three presidents, while recognizing that both concepts are vague and will be defined over a period of time in large part through practice (Harnecker, 2010: 35-50). Another expression of the common thrust of the three governments was the call by President Chávez in late 2009 for the formation of a “Fifth International” which would constitute a new international movement in favor of radical change. The proposal sought to analyze and apply the novel experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, as well as other occurrences, in order to break with traditions stemming from the previous four socialist internationals.

Beyond the Rhetoric

These developments make clear the need to go beyond the rhetoric of many of the left’s detractors and defenders, and to examine the wide range of similarities in order to determine just how new the new left is. One common feature of all three governments was the election of a constituent assembly at the outset of each presidency, which corresponded to a moderate political stage followed by the implementation of more radical socio-economic policies. All three governments came to power with an absolute majority of votes and counted on congressional majorities, advantages that facilitated the democratic road to far-reaching change. Other common characteristics that this article will examine include the emphasis on social participation and incorporation over considerations of economic productivity, modifications of the Marxist notion of class, diversification of economic relations, preference for radical democracy over liberal democracy, and the celebration of national symbols.

The article’s focus on a common model helps distinguish the three experiences from other ideologies and governments on the left in Latin America. Castañeda, for instance, labels the Argentine governments of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández as “populist left” and alleges that their discourse and policies are as irresponsible as those of Chávez and Morales (Castañeda, 2006: 38-40). By examining the salient characteristics of the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the article will test the accuracy of these broad categorizations. The article’s analysis of novel features and approaches also addresses the reservations and critical stands of traditional leftist organizations such as Communist parties and Trotskyist groups in the three nations. Finally, in spite of close relations between the three governments and Cuba and predictions that they will eventually replicate the Cuban model, the article sheds light on fundamental differences between the two paths to socialism followed in two distinct international settings, namely the Cold War and the post-Cold War.

The Radical Democracy Model

The political model embraced by the three governments, all of which were committed to socialism, represents a thorough break with the socialism of the past. One distinctive characteristic was the frequency of electoral contests, including party primaries, recall elections and national referendums, which were marked by high levels of voter turnout. The left in power generally emerged triumphant, sometimes by margins without precedent in the nation’s history. In April 1999, for example, 88 per cent of Venezuelan voters ratified the government-sponsored referendum in favor of a constituent assembly. Venezuelans reelected Chávez for the second time in December 2007 with 63 per cent, the highest of any presidential candidate in the nation’s modern democratic period. Similarly, Morales received 64 per cent of the vote in his bid for reelection in December 2009 at the same time that his supporters garnered an unprecedented two-thirds majority in both houses of congress. Chávez and Morales also emerged victorious in recall elections with 58 and 67 per cent of the vote respectively. Finally, in all three nations an overwhelming majority of voters approved new constitutions opposed by leading government adversaries.

These sizeable majorities provided the three governments with greater options to carry out radical reform than were available to other leftist presidents, such as Salvador Allende, who reached power in 1970 with 36 per cent of the vote and the Sandinista Daniel Ortega, who returned to the presidency in 2006 with 38 per cent. Nevertheless, given the acute political tensions and extreme polarization in all three countries, the strategy of holding frequent elections as a means to affirm legitimacy was risky since any defeat would have provided an intransigent opposition a platform to wage battle against the government.

Another characteristic of the political life in the three nations was the avoidance of intense repression, even though the opposition accused the government of laying the foundation for dictatorial rule. Party competition in the context of the acute political conflict that characterizes the three countries contrasts with the traditionally low level of tolerance on the part of fragile third-world democracies toward “disloyal oppositions.” As a whole, government opponents as a whole in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador represent a “disloyal opposition,” which by definition questions the legitimacy of those in power. By refusing to support virtually all government initiatives and by accusing it of authoritarianism, the opposition, in effect, seeks to delegitimize the government’s legitimacy. Moreover, at certain key junctures, important sectors of the opposition have been implicated in violent actions that other anti-government organizations failed to repudiate at the time. In the case of Venezuela, opposition leaders in 2004 openly advocated urban foquista actions called “la guarimba” seeking to create conditions of ungovernability. In Bolivia paramilitary groups tied to various governors attacked pro-government mobilizations in 2008, blew up gas pipelines to Brazil and destroyed government offices in the eastern lowland region.

Another distinguishing political feature of the three governments was their defense of radical democracy in the tradition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and rejection of many of the basic precepts of liberal democracy. Radical democracy emphasizes social incorporation and direct participation. In contrast, liberal democracy, with its central concern for the rights and prerogatives of minorities (which is often synonymous with elites), places a premium on the system of checks and balances and diffusion of authority. The adherence to two distinct paradigms contributed to the intense polarization, and explains why the opposition questioned the democratic credentials of the three governments (Curato, 2010: 36-38).

The differences between the two approaches manifested themselves in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in concrete ways. In the first place, radical democracy champions the principle of majority rule in which decision making on all matters requires 50 per cent of the vote plus one. In contrast, the concern for minority rights by the advocates of liberal democracy leads them to insist on the need for consensuses between governing parties and the opposition on important decisions. Indeed, the opposition in all three countries praised the model of “pacted” democracy, which in the case of Venezuela and Bolivia had prevailed under the old regime (Smith, 2009: 108-109).

In addition, the defenders of liberal democracy often demand percentages significantly higher than 50 per cent for legislation. The clash between the two concepts occurred at the constituent assembly in Bolivia in 2006 when the opposition demanded that the vote of two-thirds of the delegates be required for approval of each article of the constitution as well as the final document. After seven months of resistance to the notion of providing the “minority” with a “veto,” Morales’ Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) accepted the two-thirds arrangement. Nevertheless, MAS’s position on the matter led it to take advantage of a temporary boycott of the assembly by two main opposition parties in order to ratify the constitution in December 2007 with the support of a simple majority of the delegates, who represented two thirds of those in attendance that day. Former president Jorge Quiroga who headed the main opposition party called the move “a national disgrace” at the same time that violence broke out throughout the nation. In Ecuador, Correa insisted that a simple majority of the delegates to the constituent assembly be required to approve articles, rather than the 66 per cent requirement which he claimed would have obstructed meaningful change (Conaghan, 2008: 56-57). Similarly, the Venezuelan opposition harshly criticized the Chávez-dominated National Assembly for stipulating that appointment of supreme court judges require the approval of a simple majority of the chamber’s deputies, rather than a two-thirds vote (Hawkins, 2010: 22).

The system of referendums and recall elections incorporated in the constitution of all three countries is also in line with the concept of majority rule, which is a basic component of radical democracy. In Bolivia and Venezuela the recall proved to be an effective mechanism to deal with crisis situations by moving the locus of political confrontation from the streets to the electoral arena. In Venezuela, the presidential recall election in August 2004 served to defuse tensions dating back to the 2002 coup and ushered in several years of relative stability. In Bolivia, Morales appealed to voting majorities in the face of insurgency by holding recall elections in August 2008 for the national executive and the nation’s governorships, some of which were promoting the internecine conflict.

Swayed by liberal democracy’s line of reasoning, the opposition in all three countries, as well as many political analysts, called the referendums examples of “plebiscitary democracy.” According to this model, the national executive frames issues in accordance with its own agenda without input from the opposition, and the public is presented with an “all or nothing” proposition. Government adversaries in Venezuelan, for instance, lashed out at Chávez’s proposed constitutional reform for being procedurally flawed. They argued that most of its 69 articles should have been incorporated into legislation to be considered by congress on an individual basis, rather than voted on as a package in a national referendum. In Ecuador, both the opposition and some political analysts accused Correa of promoting “plebiscitary democracy” on grounds that he presented the referendum on the nation’s new constitution in April 2007 as a vote of confidence on his government and threatened to “go home” if he lost (Conaghan, 2008: 46-47).

In the second place, popular mobilization and participation on a mass scale and an ongoing basis are basic features of radical democracy (but are viewed with suspicion by defenders of liberal democracy) and have proved essential for the political survival of all three presidents. Social movement protests paved the way for the rise to power of Morales and Correa (as well as Néstor Kirchner in the case of Argentina). The endorsement of the powerful Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenes del Ecuador (CONAIE) and other social movements for the candidacy of Correa sealed his triumph in the second round of the presidential election of 2006. In Venezuela, the rallying of massive numbers of poor people on April 13, 2002 made possible Chávez’s return to power after his ouster two days before.

In both Venezuela and Bolivia the mobilization of government supporters was designed to guarantee order in the face of opposition insurgency. Thus, for instance, the concentration of Chavistas in downtown Caracas on the day of the April 2002 coup was intended to serve as a buffer between violent members of the opposition and the presidential palace; and during the two-month general strike beginning in December, brigades consisting of members of surrounding communities protected oil instillations. In Bolivia, peasants and miners converged on the city of Sucre to ensure the personal security of constituent assembly delegates, who faced threats from paramilitary units shortly prior to the final vote on the new constitution. Finally, on September 30, 2010, thousands of Ecuadorians took to the streets and impeded the possible deployment of military forces in support of coup rebels who had virtually kidnapped President Correa.

In the third place, Chávez, Morales and Correa are charismatic leaders whose governments have strengthened the executive branch at the expense of corporatist institutions as well as the checks and balances that had underpinned liberal democracy in the past. Furthermore, the three governments favor the incorporation and direct participation of the non-privileged over corporatist mechanisms and political party prerogatives, and in doing so have broken with long-standing practices, accepted by some leftist parties, which facilitated elite input in decision making (Dominguez, 2008: 50). Along these lines, the governing leaders in all three countries reject the Leninst party model and instead favor, in the words of Bolivian vice-president Alvaro García Linera, “a more flexible and fluid model” (García Linera, 2010: 32). Finally, the governing political parties lack the influence, strength and independence to serve as checks on executive authority. Thus, for instance, the governing Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) is largely controlled at the regional level by cabinet ministers and, at local levels, by Chavista governors and mayors. Correa’s political organization, the Alianza País (PAIS), founded by about a dozen groups shortly prior to his election in 2006, is too heterogeneous to wield significant power.

Some government supporters justify the preponderant role of the national executive by claiming that the president maintains a “dialectic” exchange with the general population in which he formulates positions and then modifies them after receiving feedback from below (Raby, 2006: 100, 190-91; see also Laclau, 1978: 228-238). The opposition has responded to the centralization of power by raising the banner of decentralization and (in the case of Bolivia’s eastern lowland departments as well as the state of Guayas in Ecuador) territorial autonomy.

The political model that has emerged in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador is unique in fundamental ways that clearly differentiate it from both Communist nations and social democratic ones. On the one hand, the electoral democracy and party competition that prevail in the three nations are the antithesis of the closed political system of “really existing socialism.” In addition, unlike the Soviet Union and China, there was no tight-knit vanguard party in the Leninist tradition (or powerful political party of any type) that played a central role both before and after reaching power. On the other hand, the confrontational discourse of the leftists in power, the ongoing intensity of political conflict, the acute social and political polarization and steady radicalization have no equivalents among nations in Europe and Africa governed by parties committed to democratic socialism. Finally, popular participation in social programs and political mobilization in such massive numbers and over such an extended period of time in favor of the governing leadership have rarely been matched in other Latin American nations (Ellner, 2011).

The emerging hybrid model combining dimensions of both radical democracy and the representative democracy inherited from the past is also in many ways sui generis. Features associated with radical democracy include referendums, party primaries, frequent elections, numerous public works projects undertaken by community councils, the active role of social movements in the political life of the nation, a strong national executive and an official discourse exalting direct participation and attacking the representative democracy of the past. Nevertheless, the old system and structures have not been dismantled. Even though in Venezuela the specter of community councils displacing the elected municipal government has been raised, representative institutions at all levels have been left largely intact in the three nations.

The Process of Radicalization

The electoral platform of Chávez, Morales and Correa in their first successful bid for the presidency deemphasized far-reaching, socio-economic transformation and focused on more moderate goals. Their principal campaign offer was the convening of a constituent assembly in order to “refound” the nation’s democracy on the basis of popular participation. During his campaign in 1998, for instance, Chávez calmed fears regarding a possible unilateral moratorium on the foreign debt by calling for a negotiated solution. In the period prior to his election in 2005, Morales toned down the radical demands on coca cultivation and hydrocarbon nationalization that had been formulated by the social movements of the 1990s, from which MAS emerged, as he reached out beyond his regional base of northern Cochabamba (Crabtree, 2008: 95-97). Prior to embracing “communitarian socialism,” President Morales and his vice-president García Linera defended “Andean capitalism,” which was to prevail for one century. Correa, for his part, in 2006 criticized human rights violation in Colombia but pledged to capture FARC guerrillas and turn them over to Colombian authorities, denied that he formed part of Chávez’s Bolivarian movement even though he was a friend of the Venezuelan president and criticized the dollarization of the Ecuadorian economy but claimed it was unfeasible to change the system.

The three presidencies have been characterized by gradual but steady radicalization which was not held back by the types of concessions associated with the consensus politics and liberal democracy of previous years (Katz, 2008: 103-106). All three parlayed the widespread popular support for their initial constitutional proposals into consolidation of power and political and economic renovation. In general, the presidents followed a strategy of taking advantage of the momentum created by each political victory by introducing reforms designed to deepen the process of change. They also interpreted their electoral triumphs as popular mandates in favor of socialism. In Venezuela, Chávez’s decrees of land reform and state control of mixed companies in the oil industry in 2001, his redefinition of private property in 2005 and expropriation of companies in strategic sectors in 2007 and 2008 set the stage for more radical stages (Ellner, 2008: 109-131). In a surprisingly confrontational move just months after taking office, Morales ordered troops to take over 56 natural gas installations and the nation’s two major oil refineries in order to pressure foreign companies to accept new nationalistic legislation. In the months after his election, Correa radicalized his position on the proposed constituent assembly by insisting that it had the right to dissolve congress, thus placing him on a collision course with the congressional majority which represented the traditional political elite. The dynamic of initial moderation followed by gradual radicalization differs from the Soviet Union and China, where Communist Parties came to power with explicit far-reaching structural goals stemming from Marxist ideology, and Cuba where radicalization occurred at a more accelerated pace during the first three years of the revolution.

The governing left raised the banner of anti-neoliberalism and was thus in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the opposition to its right, which lacked a well-defined program to dispel fears that its assumption of power would signify a return to the past. A major issue of differentiation between the government and its adversaries to its right was privatization. While the leftists in power affirmed their anti-neoliberal credentials by largely halting and reversing privatization schemes, the major parties of the opposition upheld ambiguous positions, or no position at all, on the topic. Political polarization, in which all parties to the right of the government converged in criticizing virtually all of its actions, ruled out critical support for nationalist measures from a center-left perspective, and in doing so hurt the opposition which forfeited space on the left side of the political spectrum. In Venezuela, for instance, former leftist parties such as the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), Causa R and Podemos abandoned any appearance of following an independent line within the anti-Chavista bloc as they blended in with the rest of the opposition. Similarly, in Ecuador the social-democratic Izquierda Democrática (ID), which had supported Correa in the second round of the 2006 elections, assumed a position of intransigent opposition by his second term in office.[1]

At the same time, the gradual approach to socialism pursued by all three governments has drawn harsh criticism from political actors to their left who consider the state to be “bourgeois” and favor a complete break with the past. The clash between the three leftist governments and their leftist critics also defined the specificity of the emerging new left in power. The defenders of the three governments envision a gradual transformation of the state in accordance with Gramsci’s “war of position” based on the left’s incremental occupation of spaces in the public sphere. According to this strategy, the left takes advantage of the presence of its activists in the public administration and the internal contradictions besetting the state (Bilbao, 2008: 136-137; Geddes, 2010). In contrast, orthodox Marxists such as Trotskysts invoke Lenin’s dictum regarding the need to “smash the state” at the same time that they advocate blanket expropriation of banking, large agricultural estates and monopoly industry (Woods, 2008: 251-252). In addition, Communists and other traditional leftists criticize the term “twenty-first century socialism” for belittling the relevance of the struggles led by leftists over the previous century.

Some critics located to the left of all three governments come out of an anarchist tradition. They posit that the “constituent power,” consisting of autonomous social movements and the rank and file in general, inevitably confronts the “constituted power,” which embodies the state bureaucracy in its entirety as well as the “political class,” and call for a “revolution within the revolution” in order to root out bureaucratic privileges. This position finds expression in the indigenous-based movements in Bolivia and Ecuador which defend the autonomy of their communities and have resisted Morales’ and Correa’s efforts to promote large-scale mining activity that threaten to devastate the areas where their members reside. Some of the movements have embraced “identity politics,” which is at odds with the electoral strategy followed by the leftists in power (Crabtree, 2008: 93-94; Dosh and Kligerman, 2009: 21). Among the indigenous leaders critical of the government on a wide range of issues including cultural identity was Bolivian presidential candidate Felipe Quispe, who fervently opposed Morales’s limitations on coca production and advocated full-fledged nationalization.

When placed alongside the orthodox Marxist, neo-anarchist and new social movement currents on the left, the unique and heterodox character of the three presidents and their closest supporters become evident. Most important they recognize that “bureaucrats” who put the breaks on change are well represented in the state sphere, but stop short of initiating an all out purge and upheaval along the lines of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, as is advocated by political actors further to their left. Furthermore, all three leaderships promote the creation of a broad-based highly diversified movement, but also place a premium on unity among supporters and defend vertical as well as horizontal decision making.

Foreign Relations

The strategy pursued by all three governments in favor of a “multi-polar world” resembles in some ways and contrasts in others with the foreign policies of governments committed to socialism in the twentieth century. The multi-polar world phrase was originally invoked by Chávez at the outset of his presidency as a euphemism for anti-imperialism and opposition to U.S. hegemony. The concept refers to the strengthening of different blocs of nations in order to defend mutual interests, such as OPEC in the case of Venezuela and Ecuador, and UNASUR (grouping all South American nations around common goals), which Correa became the president of shortly after its founding in 2009. The strategy of unity in spite of diversity recalls the Non-Aligned Movement headed by Josip Broz Tito, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah beginning in the early 1960s, which sought to go beyond ethnic, religious and political differences in order to unite the nations of the South around common objectives and demands.

In essence, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have followed a dual approach of uniting among themselves in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America (ALBA) at the same time that they have played active and leading roles in promoting broader continental unity. In this sense, their strategy is comparable to the Cold War foreign policy of the Soviet Union that distinguished between its closest allies, which were committed to Communism, and third-world governments of “national liberation,” which were considered nationalistic and anti-imperialist. Similarly, the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador define themselves as anti-capitalist and have often clashed with Washington but also act in unison with moderate governments, such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

Nevertheless, the initial years of the twenty-first century contrasts with the highly polarized setting of the Cold War and is conducive to a greater degree of autonomy for Latin American nations vis-à-vis the United States (Hershberg, 2010: 241). Thus the “radical” Latin American nations have been able to cement close ties with the “moderates” in contrast with the isolated position of Cuba in the 1960s. Whereas Chávez courts the moderates such as the heads of state of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (French, 2010: 48-51), Cuba promoted guerrilla warfare throughout the continent and in doing so forfeited the possibility of wining over or neutralizing moderate presidents such as Arturo Frondizi of Argentina (Ellner, 2008: 62).

Latin America was never united during the last century to the degree that it has been over the recent past. In the first place, moderate governments have acted firmly to avoid the destabilization and isolation of the countries run by radicals. The governments of Brazil and Argentina, for instance, helped mediate an end to the acute conflict generated by Morales’s “nationalization” of the hydrocarbon industry in 2006, even though their economic interests were at stake. Subsequently, all twelve UNASUR members signed the Moneda Declaration, which deterred possible plans to topple the Morales governments in Bolivia in 2008, and two years later played a similar role in the face of an attempted coup in Ecuador. In the second place, the positions of the “radicals” have been complementary rather than antithetical to those of the “moderates.” Thus, for example, for the first year and a half following the Honduran coup of June 2009, the UNASUR “moderates” and “radicals” blocked the new government’s entrance into the Organization of American States. While the “moderates” placed conditions on entrance, the “radicals” questioned the legitimacy of the new government per se (Valero, 2011). Finally, Latin American unity has brought the “radical” and moderate presidents together with centrist ones around common pursuits, such as the creation of UNASUR and its broader based successor, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

The discourse and content of the foreign policy of all three presidents are shaped by the imperatives of globalization (Arditi, 2010: 145-147). They are also free of the goals of absolute self-sufficiency and autarky that characterized Maoism half a century ago. Programs like ALBA and Petrocaribe (which offers Venezuelan oil to Caribbean and Central American nations under special terms) are justified along these lines. Furthermore, globalization pressures have taken the form of constraints that influence international policy, the fiery nationalistic rhetoric of all three presidents notwithstanding. Chávez, for instance, has refrained from defaulting on foreign loan payments or withdrawing from the International Monetary Fund, while Morales has, in the words of the editors of a recent study on the Latin American left, “tried to maintain access to U.S. markets” (Madrid, Hunter and Weyland, 2010: 156-157). The thrust of these strategies, policies and discourse are at odds with the “socialism in one country” thesis defended by the Soviet leadership under Stalin.

Discourse and Political Vision

Since 2005, Venezuelan, Bolivian and Ecuadorean leaders have espoused support for an alternative to capitalism embodied in the general concept of socialism for the twenty-first century. Following the ratification of Bolivia’s new constitution in January 2009, Morales proclaimed the birth of “communitarian socialism” which was underpinned by the regional autonomy promoted by the new document. Morales, Chávez and Correa have proposed to adapt socialism to the concrete reality faced by Latin America, at a time when the conventional wisdom in the west asserted that this model was all but dead.

In sharp contrast to the socialist trajectory of Cuba after 1959, the political process in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela unfolds within the parameters of a bourgeois democratic society in which capitalist relations of production are still the dominant mode of economic activity. Bolivia’s Vice-President García Linera, for instance, has stated that socialism does not preclude the existence of a market economy and favors dialogue with those who do not share MAS’s long-term structural goals (Postero, 2010: 27-28), while Chávez has called for a “strategic alliance” that would bind his government to the business sector. In effect, Venezuela’s mixed economy consists of state companies that compete with – but are not designed to replace – private ones in certain key sectors as a means to avoid inflation and scarcity of basic commodities. Finally, the economies of all three nations rest in large part on the export of extractive commodities to United States markets.

Along similar lines, cultural and social transformation has failed to keep pace with radical political change. Venezuela, for example, remains a highly consumer oriented society where such values of capitalist society as conspicuous consumption, individualism, and the primacy of private property are still highly valued (Lebowitz, 2006: 113; Alvarez, 2010: 243). Furthermore, the conservative opposition in all three countries relies on a full array of allies including the private media, the Catholic Church and the every present role of the United States.In short, unlike in the Soviet Union after 1917, China after 1949 and Cuba after 1959, efforts to promote socialism for the twenty-first century occur in the highly contested arena of capitalist society, in which most traditional values and institutions, though weakened, are nonetheless present.

Twenty-first century socialism, as Marta Harnecker (2010: 25-26) points out, is born from a reappraisal of past leftist strategies based on long-held assumptions and an acknowledgment of the mistakes of previous efforts at socialist construction in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. The new perspective discards the purported role of a vanguard party and the dogmatic application of theory with little or no application to the Latin American social reality.It questions the preeminent role attributed to the working class, and the inability to incorporate broad segments of the population including the urban poor, the informal sector, religious communities, the indigenous, the afro-descendants, and women.

The rejection of working-class vanguardism has created the political space for working closely with other groups and political forces that advocate change. In the case of Bolivia, a central aspect of this approach, as vice-president Alvaro García Linera states, is the “project of self-representation of the social movements of plebian society” (Rockefeller, 2007: 166). The strategy is particularly relevant in Bolivia and Ecuador where political organizations on the left and the right have historically manipulated indigenous organizations to promote their own political program. In an interview with the German Marxist Heinz Dieterich, Morales assessed past asymmetrical power relations between workers’ organizations grouped in the Central Obrera Boliviana (COB) and the indigenous population by pointing out that COB leaders “always said in their congresses that the Indians would carry the workers to power on our shoulders. We were the builders of the revolution and they were the masters of the revolution. Now things have changed and intellectuals and workers are joining us” (Dieterich, 2006).

In contrast to capitalism’s emphasis on the individual, twenty-first century socialism incorporates a strong moral and ethical component that promotes social well-being, fraternity and social solidarity. The model draws inspiration from Catholic and even Protestant theology of liberation. Indeed, most of its leaders still profess a religious faith. In an interview with British scholar Helen Yaffe, Correa pointed to the compatibility between theology of liberation and socialism and added: “Twenty-first century socialism… can be joined by both atheists and practicing Catholics – because I am a practicing Catholic. It does not contradict my faith which, on the contrary, reinforces the search for social justice” (Correa, 2009).

Twenty-first century socialism draws inspiration from the history, political practices and social-cultural experiences of Latin America. Like radical populism of the past, twenty-first century socialism glorifies the popular will as personified by historical symbols to a greater extent than traditional leftist and social democratic parties, which tended to be more selective and inclined to rely on imported slogans (in what was in many ways a missed opportunity for them). Chávez and the Chavistas, for instance, are willing to overlook the contradictions of nineteenth century and early twentieth century “caudillo” leaders such as Cipriano Castro in order to glorify them and emphasize their nationalist behavior, much as the Peronistas reinterpreted Juan Manuel Rosas and Juan Facundo Quiroga (Raby, 2006: 112-121, 231; Ellner, 1999: 130-131).

Leaders in all three nations have created a new narrative of nationhood that challenges long held assumptions and previous representations of culture, history, race, gender, citizenship and identity.Thus, the new political movements offer an alternative reading of the past that challenges the conventional wisdoms that had previously legitimated the old order.This dynamic process links contemporary social movements and political forces to a tradition of political and social struggle.Re-envisioning the past serves to incorporate previously marginalized peoples including indigenous, afro-descendants, peasants, women and workers who historically struggled to change social conditions in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela.The indigenous movements in Bolivia see themselves as inheritors of the struggles led by Tupac Katari and Tupac Amaru that led mass movements against Spanish colonial authorities. By forging connections between past and current struggles, these movements build on a legacy of resistance previously excluded from the official historical record. The process, which is described among Bolivia’s Aymara as “to walk ahead while looking back,” incorporates historically marginalized voices and creates a sense of empowerment among those contemporary forces engaged in the process of social change (Hylton and Thompson, 2007: 149). When Morales announced the nationalization of Bolivian gas on May 1, 2006, he explicitly drew inspiration from the past, insisting that “the struggles of our ancestors like Tupac Katari, Tupac Amaru, Barotlina Sisa ….were not in vain” (Hylton and Thompson, 2007: 131).

The intellectual tenets of twenty-first century socialism can be found in the works of Peruvian intellectual José Carlos Mariátegui, which are frequently cited by Chávez and other pro-government leaders in the three nations. Mariátegui proposed an Indo-American socialism, adapted to the social and political reality of the continent. While recognizing the importance of the working class, he promoted the incorporation of the indigenous and rural communities as part of the broader class and national struggle. Along these lines, Mariategui argued that the indigenous heritage of collectivism dating back prior to the Spanish conquest would facilitate socialist construction under a revolutionary government. He also recognized the interrelation between race and class within an economic system inherited from the colonial experience and the importance of incorporating a broad front with which to confront the forces of capital (Mariátegui, 1970: 9, 38-48).

In all three countries, there is also an effort underway to incorporate women traditionally overlooked by the male dominated historical accounts. As a result, women’s role in the independence process, their contributions to the social and political struggles in the nineteenth century and their participation in the labour and political struggles of the twentieth century have been highlighted. In Ecuador, as part of a process dating back several decades, the independence leader Manuela Sáenz has undergone a reassessment and has emerged as an important figure in her own right, and not viewed simply for her relations with Simón Bolívar. Her contributions to the South American independence movements, including her courageous actions at the Battles of Pichincha and Ayacucho where she acquired the rank of colonel, has earned her the admiration of some social movements. Similarly, Bartolina Sisa, who led an indigenous rebellion in La Paz in 1781 that served as inspiration for the establishment in 1983 of the International Day of Indigenous Women celebrated on September 5th, has in the twenty-first century become even more revered. The cases of Sáenz and Sisa, one criolla and the other indigenous, highlight the incorporation of large numbers of women in the social struggles taking place in the region.

In the case of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez and his followers have called into question the traditional representations of Venezuelan history and its most dominant figure Simón Bolívar. The new political discourse has created a space where scholars and others have celebrated the role of criollo elites such as Francisco Miranda, Andrés Bello and Simón Rodríguez, while giving increased emphasis to other figures who had asserted equality of the races. Among the latter are “el Negro” Miguel, who led a rebellion in Buría in the state of Lara, Afro Venezuelans Juan Andrés López del Rosario (Andresote) and José Leonardo Chirinos, who headed uprisings against the Spanish in 1730 and 1795 respectively and Manuel Gual, and José España, who conspired against Spain in 1797. Bolívar’s views are now a source of public discussion concerning the past and present course of Venezuelan politics and society. His divergent opinions on democracy, race, international relations, social conditions and public policy serve to bolster positions taken by both the government and the opposition.

Social and Economic Dimensions

The social and economic conditions that paved the way for the left’s assumption of power in the three countries did not accord with the orthodox Marxist vision of a socialist revolution. In contrast to what Marxist theory predicts, the organized working class did not constitute the vanguard or the major driving social force in the confrontations leading up to the left’s advent to power. Non-proletarian, underprivileged classes played leading roles and belonged to powerful social movements in the case of Bolivia and Ecuador, while in Venezuela they participated in the disruptions that shook the nation in February 1989.[2] In urban areas, they took in workers in the informal economy and unorganized ones employed by small firms in the formal economy. These sectors “marginalized” and “semi-marginalized” in that the political and cultural elite had long ignored them and they lacked representation at the national level as well as the benefits of collective bargaining agreements and (in many cases) labour legislation. The social upheavals in the years prior to the left’s initial electoral triumphs help explain the more radical course of events in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador as compared to Brazil and Uruguay under moderate governments.

Neoliberal policies along with globalization-induced structural changes in the 1980s and 1990s fueled the growth of the informal economy and weakened the labour movement, whose struggles at the workplace were overshadowed by social movement activism and mass disturbances. The Bolivian mining workers’ Federación Sindical de Trabajadores Mineros (FSTMB), and the COB labour confederation, with a long history of independent, militant unionism largely unmatched in the continent, were weakened by the phasing out of state-controlled enterprises and atomization of the labour force under neoliberal governments beginning in the mid-1980s (Kohl and Farthing, 2006: 125). In Venezuela, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) not only endorsed neoliberal-inspired labour legislation in 1997, but helped draft it as well, and then went on to organize general strikes from 2001 to 2003 in conjunction with the nation’s main business organization in an attempt to oust President Chávez (Murillo, 2001: 62-64).

Chávez reacted to organized labour’s submissiveness and resistance to change by questioning the Marxist insistence on working-class primacy in the revolutionary process (Blanco Muñoz, 1998: 392-393) (although more recently he has modified his position). Twenty-first century socialism theoreticians flatly reject orthodox Marxism’s cult of the proletariat, “a privileging whereby all other workers (including those in the growing informal sector) are seen as lesser… unproductive workers, indeed lumpenproletariat” (Lebowitz 2010a; see also Alvarez, 2010: 114-116; Harnecker, 2007: paragraphs 115-116). The three governments both in policy and discourse emphasize incorporation of marginalized and semi-marginalized sectors of the population in decision making and the cultural life of the nation and their eligibility for the benefits accorded to workers of the formal economy. This orientation contrasts with traditional Marxism’s special appeal to the proletariat, whose salient characteristics were hardly that of an “excluded” sector. Not only was the proletariat incorporated in the economic system, but it was generally represented by a trade union structure. The challenges posed by the goal of incorporation of the marginalized and semi-marginalized sectors, which were to a large extent lacking in organizational experience and discipline, were in many ways more demanding than the task of representing the interests of the organized working class.

The social makeup of the ruling bloc in the three nations embodies diversity, complexity and internal tensions. This pattern is contrary to Marx’s prediction, which has influenced orthodox Marxist movements over the years, of industry-driven polarization pitting an increasingly large, concentrated and powerful proletariat against the bourgeoisie. According to the traditional Marxist vision of polarization, non-proletarian, non-privileged social sectors eventually become virtually extinct, or else form an alliance with the proletariat without creating sharp internal conflicts over distinct priorities or interests. The profundity of the fissures in the leftist bloc in the three nations also calls to question the concept of “multitude,” which takes for granted the unity and convergence of the social groups and sectors resistant to the established order.[3]

Social heterogeneity and conflicting interests are particularly evident in the case of Bolivia. It was easier for the left to maintain the unity and support of the indigenous movements, peasant unions, labour unions and the cocalero movement in the Water War (2000) and the Gas War (2003), which shook the nation, than it has been for the Morales government since 2006. In spite of similar roots, indigenous groups and unionized peasants have clashed as a result of adherence to distinct paradigms. While the former defend the sacredness of indigenous self-government and traditions, including in some cases prohibition on property inheritance, the latter come out of the tradition of the 1952 revolution favoring individual property ownership. In reality, however, the indigenous communitarian ideal (known as the ayllu) often clashes with the self-interests of indigenous community members, thus putting in evidence the complexity of the internal contradictions within the governing movement in Bolivia (Fabricant, 2010: 93-98). At the same time, the peasant unions criticize Morales’ land distribution program for its bias in favor of the communal property and rights of indigenous groups, which they claim constitute the “new hacendados” of the Bolivian east.

A similar situation of confrontation in spite of similar origins pits those miners who resisted neoliberal reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, and those that acceded to pressure to form worker cooperatives. Some political actors and analysts, such as Vice President Alvaro García Linera, defend the new social movement paradigm by arguing that the traditional working class has been severely weakened, and conclude that the Morales government is “the government of social movements” (Ruiz Arrieta, 2010: 185-186).

The three governments’ class orientation, which does not center on the industrial proletariat, has implications for the strategies they follow. Inclusionary politics and social programs in general are sometimes pursued at the expense of economic objectives. The Venezuelan government, for instance, has assigned large sums of money to community councils and worker cooperatives in popular areas, programs that are often not cost effective but incorporate the previously excluded in decision making and provide them with valuable learning experiences and a sense of empowerment. These priorities contrast with the focus on production targets of really existing socialism, such as during the Soviet all-out industrialization drive in the 1930s and the Great Leap Forward in China beginning in 1959.

Various parties on the left and center-left of the political spectrum implicitly or explicitly criticize the focus on the marginalized and semi-marginalized sectors and the emphasis on social programs over economic objectives, and insist on the primacy of industry, productivity and the working class. Social democratic oriented parties such as the Patria Para Todos (PPT), which dropped out of the pro-Chavista governing coalition in 2010, and the ID of Ecuador embrace this discourse. Both parties have lashed out at the government of their respective nations for belittling the importance of technical competence and efficiency. Further to the left, Trotskyist factions in Venezuela, in accordance with their adherence to proletarian ideology, have expressed skepticism toward government-promoted worker cooperatives which received massive funding more as part of a social strategy in favor of the poor than an economic one to promote development. The cooperatives, which generally grouped only about five members, often hired workers who were not protected by labour legislation, collective bargaining agreements, or union representation (Ellner, 2008: 157, 187). The Communist Parties of all three nations, while more supportive of the government, criticized it for underestimating the importance of the role of the working class and failing to respect its independence vis-à-vis the state (Figuera, 2010; Pérez, 2009).

While the three nations failed to advance significantly in increasing their productive capacity, as did the Soviet Union and China under initial Communist rule, they did make inroads in the diversification of commercial and technological relations. In their international dealings, all three governments privileged relations with state companies and private ones outside of the advanced bloc over the multinationals. Venezuela, for instance, attempted to lesson dependence on the multinationals by signing contracts with state oil companies in Russia, China, Belarus, Iran and various Latin American nations for preliminary exploration of the oil-rich Orinoco Oil Belt for the purpose of obtaining certification. These developments were a reflection of the decline of U.S. political and economic strength at the outset of the twenty-first century.

Expropriations, threats of expropriations, confrontations and greater state control of private (and particularly foreign) owned companies went beyond the actions and discourse of most radical populist and nationalist Latin American governments since the 1930s. The Chavista government reasserted control of the oil industry and expropriated strategic sectors including electricity, steel, cement and telecommunications in 2007 and 2008 and then took over firms accused of price speculation and others in order to limit the practice of outsourcing. In Bolivia, using the threat of expropriation and insisting on the irrevocability of deadlines for compliance of new legislation, the Morales government succeeded in pressuring foreign companies into accepting the law that obliges concessionaries to sell oil and gas to the state-owned Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB).

Conclusions

Scholars and political analysts have long been divided between those who emphasize the uniqueness of conditions in a given nation and those who affirm the scientific nature of the social sciences and tend to generalize and synthesize across national boundaries. Similarly, leftist theoreticians are divided between those influenced by the Hegelian tradition of focusing on national trajectories that underpin distinct “roads to socialism” and those who apply what they allege to be the fixed laws of Marxism. This work has documented the convergences of three Latin American countries which are historically different in many respects, but have adopted various similar policies and approaches to achieve structural change. The common grounds include political and economic strategies that challenge the interests of traditional sectors in fundamental ways; the constellation of social groups and identities, some of which have played a more central role in political struggles than the traditional working class; and the celebration of national symbols associated with rebellions against the old order. The article attempts to underline the similarities between the presidencies of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa by contrasting them with social democratic, really existing socialist and classical populist experiences of the past. The three presidents also stand in sharp contrast with non-socialist, center-left governments in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, where political conflict and polarization are less acute, relations with the United States less confrontational, and socialism has not been proclaimed as a goal.

Some social scientists have cautioned against viewing the “pink tide” in Latin America as a “homogenizing project” and call for a focus on diversity and specificity as a corrective to simplistic explanations (Motta and Chen, 2010; Motta, 2009; Hershberg, 234-235, 244-245; Beasley-Murray, Cameron and Hershberg, 2010: 15). This article has also recognized diversity and complexity, at the same time that it points to the similarities of the roads followed by the three governments and the similar challenges they face. In the first place, the article discusses the diversity of social groups that support transformation, each with distinct interests and goals, and the resultant internal tensions that beset the left. In the second place, the challenges faced by governments stemming from their trial-and-error approach to socialism, which attempts to avoid the perceived errors of “already existing socialism,” defy simple solutions and formulas. In the third place, the article discusses different models of democracy that underlie the clash between government and opposition, and in doing so points to the diversity of criteria that complicates the debate over the boundaries between democratic and nondemocratic behavior.

These conflicting definitions of democracy and their application to concrete conditions have complex implications that are at odds with the simplicity of the thesis of the “bad left,” or “populist,” authoritarian left put forward by Jorge Castañeda (Castañeda 2006; Castañeda and Morales, 2008), Mario Vargas Llosa and other ardent critics of twenty-first century socialism. In short, diversity and complexity characterize the political landscape in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, even while the three countries share basic features, such as sharp political and social polarization, political systems that borrow significantly from radical democracy and governments that embrace an anti-capitalist discourse and nationalist foreign policy. •

Steve Ellner has been a professor at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela since 1977 and is also teaching in the government’s university-based Sucre Mission. This article first published in Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 2012 (pp. 96-114).

* I would like to thank Miguel Tinker Salas for his careful reading of the manuscript at various stages and for his comments that greatly enhanced the quality of the work.

---

Endnotes:

_______________________________________________________________________________

¶

ADVERT PRO NOBIS 

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS!
We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you.
Do your part while you can.
•••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part I: Looking back on the movements that preceded the Arab Spring, the Indignados, and Occupy Wall Street

Camila Vallejo Dowling, leader of the Chilean Student Movement, and a member of the Communist Party Youth, is one of the most charismatic figures to emerge from the worldwide OWS phenomenon.

In 2011, social and political rebellion has re-emerged in the streets and on squares all over the world. It has appeared in new forms and been given new names: the Arab Spring, the Indignados, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. The main regions affected are North Africa and the Middle East (including Israel), Europe and North America. Not all countries in those areas have been equally affected by this new wave of mobilizations and new forms of organization, but everybody has heard about the movement. In the countries in which it has not been massive, active minorities have attempted to give it wider legitimacy with varying results. In the Southern hemisphere, only Chile has experienced a movement that can be compared to that of the Indignados in 2011.

If we try to sum up what has been achieved by the alterglobalist movement over the past two decades, we can distinguish between different phases related to the overall developments in the world.

From 1999 to 2005, in response to a heightening of the neoliberal offensive in Northern countries, large-scale mobilizations occurred against the WTO (Seattle in November 1999), the World Bank, the IMF, and the G8 (Washington in April 2000, Prague in September 2000, Genoa in July 2001). The World Social Forum emerged in that context in Porto Alegre in January 2001. Over the following years the movement spread to several continents (Latin America, Europe, Africa, South Asia, and North America). New international networks were created: Jubilee South (on the issue of debt), ATTAC (against the dictatorship of financial markets), the World March of Women, Our World Is Not for Sale, and others. Older networks (dating back to the first half of the 1990s) such as Via Campesina, CADTM (North/South network that focuses on the debt, the WB and the IMF) were strengthened. The antiglobalization movement developed in these years, mainly within the context of the WSF.

The mobilizations that occurred in 1999-2000 were prepared for by other actions, such as

– the mobilization against the G7 in Paris in July 1989 on the occasion of the bicentenary of the French Revolution, which led to the Appel de la Bastille (Bastille Call) for canceling third world debt (the CADTM’s founding text, see http://www.cadtm.org/Appel-de-la-Bastille-pour-l);

– the (neo)zapatista uprising that irrupted on 1 January 1994 and had a major international impact for several years, particularly during an international meeting in the Chiapas in 1996 with the Surrealist name ‘Intergalactic meeting in defense of humankind’ (in which many international movements participated including the CADTM).

The 50^th anniversary of the World Bank and IMF was commemorated by a huge protest in Madrid in 1994. This demonstration inspired the French when they founded ‘Les autres voix de la planète’ (the other voices of the planet) collectives during the mobilization against the G7 in Lyon in 1996. The Spanish initiative brought together NGOs, the CADTM Belgium and movements such as the 0.7 % platform in which young people struggled to convince their country to devote 0.7 % of the GDP to public aid to development, and also trade unions, feminist and environmental movements (Ecologistas en Accion). Already at the counter-summit in Spain an alliance of movements emerged that would later converge on Seattle in 1999, then on Porto Alegre in 2001, and so on. In 1997, European Marches against unemployment, job insecurity, and social exclusion played a decisive role in Amsterdam, during an EU counter-summit.

See CADTM Les manifestes du possible (Manifestoes of what is possible), Syllepse-CADTM, 2004 http://www.cadtm.org/Les-Manifestes-du-possible    

After 20 years of neoliberal domination in South America, massive uprisings in several countries proved to be successful: the water war in Bolivia in 2000, the Indian uprising in Ecuador that overturned the neoliberal president (2000), the rebellion that overruled Argentine’s neoliberal president (end of 2001) and opened onto a prerevolutionary crisis in December 2001 and on into 2002, the popular uprising in Venezuela in April 2002 to bring Hugo Chavez back to the presidency after a coup (11-13 April 2002), the gas war in Bolivia in 2003 with the pro-Washington neoliberal president being overruled, and similarly the overruling of the pro-US neoliberal president in Ecuador in 2005… In the wake of such mobilizations, governments that at least partly broke off with neoliberalism and opposed the US domination, launched political reforms and partly restored public control over natural resources (Venezuela from 1999, Bolivia in 2006, Ecuador in 2007). Yielding to popular pressure, the Argentine government, which was not particularly left-wing, implemented heterodox measures that contrasted with those taken by the PT government in Brazil and by the   Uruguayan Broad Front, which paradoxically carried on with the same policies of their neoliberal predecessors while adding a significant amount of ‘assistancialism’ that improved the condition of the poorer classes and thus consolidated their voter base. The free trade area of the Americas that Washington wanted to set up was abandoned in 2005 thanks to the opposition of a majority of South American governments and social mobilization.

Meanwhile 9/11 2001 led to a new US war offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq that reeked of oil grabbing and military positioning. The offensive was accompanied by a restriction of democratic liberties, especially in the US and the UK: war on terror was the perfect excuse. Faced with such hard-line imperialism, the alterglobalization movement managed to bring out 12 to 13 million people to march against war all over the world in February 2003, but was unable to prevent the invasion of Iraq one month later. The decline of the WSF started in 2005. One of the reasons was the International Council’s refusal to allow the forum to develop from a forum where activists could meet and exchange ideas to an open and democratic instrument for political action. We should add the institutionalization of the process, dominated as it was by NGOs and leaders of social movements that were all too closely aligned with social liberal governments, such as the Lula government in Brazil and Prodi’s in Italy.

After 2004 there were no more large-scale international mobilizations against the IMF, the WB, the G8, NATO, the WTO, or imperialist wars. The alterglobalization movement was obviously losing momentum though WSFs may have been quite successful, as in Belém (Brazil) in 2009, and to a lesser extent in Dakar in February 2011.

In 2005, when they adopted the EU constitutional treaty against the will of the people, the European ruling classes and governments reinforced the neoliberal capitalist orientation of an integrated Europe within the context of the EU and the euro zone that gradually extended to 17 countries. Industrialized capitalist countries as well as China and commodity exporting countries still seemed quite healthy. The ruling classes led their offensive by imposing more precarious working conditions and greater imbalance in the distribution of wealth, but  consumption sustained through credit and the real estate bubble produced a misleading sense of abundance and well-being in countries such as the US, the UK, Spain, Ireland, Greece, and several central European countries that were new EU members. On the other hand, the perceptible effects of climate change triggered a growing awareness of the deleterious consequences of productivist capitalism.

Eric Toussaint, doctor in political sciences (University of Liège and University of Paris 8), president of CADTM Belgium, member of the president’s commission for auditing the debt in Ecuador (CAIC), member of the scientific council of ATTAC France, coauthor of “La Dette ou la Vie”, Aden-CADTM, 2011, contributor to ATTAC’s book “Le piège de la dette publique. Comment s’en sortir”, published by Les liens qui libèrent, Paris, 2011.

Translated by Christine Pagnoulle in collaboration with Charles La Via.

 

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

By Stephen Lendman

In 2011, Obama continued the destructive pattern he followed in years one and two. Throughout his tenure, he’s done what supporters thought impossible.

Across the board on domestic and foreign issues, he governed to the right of George Bush. He’s waged multiple imperial wars, plans others, looted the nation’s wealth, wrecked the economy, consigned growing millions to impoverishment without jobs, and institutionalized tyranny to target dissenters challenging political corruption, corporate crooks, or abuse of power lawlessness.

He also promotes regime change in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Lebanon, and other independent states. In addition, he targets Russia’s military strength and China’s growing economic might. At the same time, he supports ruthless, corrupt tyrants.

Moreover, he authorized indefinitely detaining anyone called a national security threat without charge (including US citizens). He continues Bush’s rendition and torture policies, authorized killing US citizens abroad, (like Anwar Al-Awaki for opposing America’s belligerency), and deployed Special Forces death squads covertly to 120 or more countries.

Notably, he destroyed hard won labor rights, wants education commodified and made another business profit center, and wages war on whistleblowers, dissenters, Muslims, Latino immigrants, and environmental and animal rights activists called terrorists.

Throughout his tenure, he’s governed lawlessly for the monied interests that own him. He hasn’t disappointed at the expense of core constituents and others deserving better.

Year three: Obama’s destructive agenda continued.
Obama’s Anti-Progressive Agenda

In year three, like years one and two, he’s been anti-progressive, hard-right, reactionary, belligerent, and pro-corporate. He’s pursued anti-populist policies favoring wealth and privilege, not social justice when more than ever it’s needed. 

In contrast, progressive change demands social reforms benefitting ordinary Americans, citizens having more control over government, establishing comprehensive education and universal healthcare as fundamental rights, curbing excessive corporate power, purging corruption and waste, and ending imperial wars that ravage the world one country at a time or in multiples.

It also advocates supporting organized labor, preventing exploitation of children, workers and minorities, environmental conservation, equity and justice, and other democratic values.

In contrast, Obama supports wealth and power, not populist change. Throughout his tenure, he’s been pro-war, pro-business (with Wall Street atop the pecking order), anti-dissent, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, anti-civil and human rights, anti-environmental sanity, and anti-government of, by and for the people. 

After winning the most sweeping non-incumbent victory in over 50 years, he broke every major promise made, imposed austerity when stimulus is needed, escalated imperial wars, and hardened repression to curb popular anger.

James Petras calls him “the perfect incarnation of Melville’s Confidence Man. He catches your eye while he picks your pocket. He gives thanks as he packs you off to war.”

He spurns human need, rule of law principles, other democratic values, and right over wrong. Supporters expecting change in year four or a second term are delusional and misguided. In fact, his worst policies lie ahead. 

Obamanomics: Waging War on American Workers

In April 2011, Obama announced $4 trillion in largely social spending budget cuts over the next 12 years. In December 2010, with Democrats controlling both Houses, he extended Bush’s super-rich tax cuts after saying he’d end them. 

He also agreed to $38 billion in vital social services cuts after promising to preserve them. They include:

• $3.5 billion from Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding; 

• $2.2 billion from nonprofit health insurance cooperatives;

• $600 million from community healthcare centers; 

• $1 billion from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other disease prevention programs; 

• $1.6 billion from EPA’s clean/safe drinking water and other projects; 

• $950 million from community development grants;

• $504 million from nutrition aid for poor Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);

• $500 million from education programs;

• $390 million from home heating subsidies to the poor, as well as $2.5 billion for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) announced in February; 

• $350 million from labor programs, including grants for community service jobs for seniors;

• other social service cuts; 

• $786 million from FEMA first-responder funding; 

• $407 million from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs;

• $260 million from National Institutes of Health (NIH) medical research;

• $127 million from the National Park Service; and

• billions less for public infrastructure and transportation spending, while increasing war appropriations by multiples more, including for conquering and controlling Libya.

Moreover, Obama agreed to more draconian FY 2012 cuts and corporate tax breaks as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling before reaching its mid-May limit. More as well over the next 12 years, including:

• $4 trillion overall;

• $770 billion from education, environmental, transportation, and other infrastructure cuts, as well as lower wages and benefits for federal workers when they need more, not less. 

• $480 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, besides another $1 trillion from Obamacare;

• $360 billion from mandated domestic programs, including food stamps, home heating assistance, income for the poor and disabled, federal pension insurance, and farm subsidies; and

• $400 billion from military-related spending from unneeded weapons, as well as healthcare and other benefits for active service members and veterans.

Priority Pentagon items remain untouched to assure annual budget increases, generous supplemental add-ons, and secret open-checkbook intelligence allocations for numerous nefarious purposes.

As a result, people needs are on the chopping block for elimination to satisfy the insatiable appetites of Wall Street, war profiteers, other corporate favorites, and America’s super-rich. Obama’s fully on board.

Eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Public Pensions 

Political Washington hard-liners want them ended to transfer maximum public and private wealth to the recipients explained above.

Claims about Social Security and Medicare going broke are duplicitous. In fact, both programs are sound when responsibly administered. Nonetheless, they’re on the chopping block for elimination, beginning with benefit cuts, then privatizations to let corporate crooks profit at the expense of beneficiaries. 

Obama tasked two deficit hawks for the job. They head his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRF) – former Senator Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff. They’re part of an 18-member team of like-minded members.

They recommended sharp tax reductions for business and super-rich elites. They also want deep Medicare cuts, co-pay increases, Social Security’s retirement age raised, and lower cost-of-living increases among other draconian proposals harming ordinary people enormously.

They’re coming and much more under bipartisan agreement to slash trillions of dollars from domestic spending over the next decade.

By law, automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years will start in 2013. They’re to be equally divided between defense and domestic programs.

In fact, expect sustained military spending at the expense of gutting America’s social contract. Either way, lost purchasing power means less spending, fewer jobs, and greater public anger than today’s high levels.

In fact, deficit cutting is secondary. Key is protecting corporate handouts and Bush era tax cuts, as well as expanding them for business and upper-bracket earners.

Obama supports making ordinary Americans and seniors bear the burden so corporations and rich folks are spared. As usual, he talks tough, then caves, no matter the harm and injustice caused 

America’s Permanent War Agenda 

In inflation adjusted dollars, annual defense spending more than doubled under George Bush. They’ve kept rising under Obama despite growing budget cutting pressures, at a time America’s national debt burden is much higher than acknowledged. 

It hardly matters, given the military/industrial complex’s power to demand what it wants with Obama in tow to provide it. He also advanced America’s imperium destructively across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia to Russia’s borders.

After a decade, Afghanistan is now America’s longest war. No end of conflict is in sight. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq concealed their regional repositioning and continued presence on major bases America will keep operating.

In fact, increased force levels are planned on one or more Libyan bases, larger contingents in Kuwait, expanded ties with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, and a greater overall regional footprint to establish an enhanced “security architecture” to integrate air, ground, and naval units for future combat missions.

Throughout 2011, Obama bears direct responsibility for committing one of history’s greatest crimes against Libya. NATO’s killing machine under US direction dispatched truth by calling naked aggression against a nonbelligerent country the responsibility to protect.

When is war not war? It’s when cold-blooded killing is called the right thing. It’s when major media scoundrels cheerlead it, lies substitute for truth, and when public apathy lets criminal politicians, crime boss presidents, and NATO killers cause mass deaths, destruction and human misery with impunity.

Objectives included replacing an independent regime with a client one; colonizing, occupying, pillaging, and raping Libya for profit; controlling its resources; excluding China and Russia from access; privatizing its enterprises; exploiting its people; ending Jamahiriya social benefits; and letting America establish strategically located North African bases among other reasons for waging war.

Also at issue is Washington’s Greater Middle East agenda. One country at a time is ravaged toward achieving America’s goal of unchallenged regional dominance to Russia and China’s borders.

Years earlier, constructive chaos was planned to redraw regional lines to achieve key geopolitical goals. Wars followed, shifting from one target to another. Obama’s pursued them more aggressively than Bush and plans more, no matter their lawlessness or body count.

Syria’s now targeted. Washington replicated its Libya model. Heavily armed insurgents are involved. So are Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon’s March 14 alliance, other Arab League partners, and Israel.

Regime change is planned, with or without war. Expect it if other measures fail. Internal and external forces are involved. In Libya, NATO formed the Transitional National Council (TNC) to replace Gaddafi and Jamahiriya government. Proxy Syrian National Council (SNC) members were enlisted to replace Bashar al-Assad’s regime after it’s ousted.

Disturbing reports surfaced about hundreds of US and NATO Special Forces massed on Syria’s border. Using them perhaps with air power is planned if sanctions and internal insurgency fail.

Anti-Iranian rhetoric is also heated. America claims Tehran threatens world peace. In October, Washington falsely charged Iran with plotting to kill Saudi Arabia’s US ambassador. 

In November, outdated, forged, long ago discredited, and perhaps nonexistent documents were used to claim Iran’s developing nuclear weapons. According to America’s latest March 2011 intelligence estimate, no credible evidence proves it. Instead, baseless accusations may precede replicating Libya’s model to target Iran belligerently.

On December 15, Manhattan Federal Judge George Daniels said he’ll sign an order accusing Iran, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda of 9/11 responsibility.

In response to a lawsuit brought by family members of 9/11 victims, he claimed Iran provided material support to Al Qaeda, based on spurious testimonies from three Iranian defectors whose affidavits remained sealed during court proceedings.

Testimonies given were false. Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with a plot hatched in Washington to initiate America’s global war on terror. Ravaging the world one country at a time was planned. Syria and Iran may be next.

Supporting Dangerous Nuclear Power 

Despite Fukushima’s multiples worse disaster than Chernobyl, Obama supports jump-starting nuclear power construction. In 2008, candidate Obama said unless a “safe way to produce (and store) nuclear energy (is found), then absolutely we shouldn’t build more plants….I am much more interested in solar and wind and bio-diesel (to produce) clean energy and (new) jobs.”

At the same time, he accepted generous industry contributions, as well as earlier for his 2004 Senate campaign. As president, he now supports tens of billions of dollars in industry loan guarantees for new facilities – free money. He’s committed to accelerating new construction. It’s been halted since Three Mile Island in 1979. Numerous takers are lining up to take advantage.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other officials downplay the hazards, including 23 US nuclear plants at 16 locations using the same failed GE-designed Mark 1 containment vessels as Fukushima. Earlier, the NRC called them susceptible to explosions and failure because of cost-cutting design features. 

No matter the risks, Obama’s an unabashed nuclear power supporter. He believes no new regulatory oversight is needed. He’s endangering public safety promoting it. It should be abandoned in favor safer, clean, renewable alternatives.

Partnering with Israeli Lawlessness

Obama calls his commitment to Israel “unshakable.” Claiming he’s done more than anyone, he said:

“I am proud to say that no US administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. It is a fact.” America’s “led the way.” Whatever Israel wants it gets, including more military and other foreign aid than all other countries combined.

No wonder James Petras calls him “America’s first Jewish president.” He “crossed the River Jordan,” backing its “colonial power in a strategic region of the” world, no matter how threatening “to world peace (and) democratic values….”

He partners with Israel’s worst crimes and provides assured Security Council vetoes of measures harming its interests. 

Like past administrations, he also supplies annual billions of dollars in aid, state-of-the-art weapons and munitions, the latest technology, intelligence, interest-free loans, special privileges afforded no other nations, and other generous benefits. 

Moreover, despite hard economic times, he approved more in Washington’s FY 2012 budget bill. It provides $236 million for Israel’s missile defense programs, including Arrow-2, Arrow-3, and David’s Sling. 

Beholden to America’s powerful Israeli Lobby, world peace and America’s own interests are threatened.

Jeopardizing Internet Freedom 

Candidate Obama promised to “(s)upport the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”

As president, his FCC, congressional Democrats, and political extremists threaten it. On May 12, Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) introduced “S. 968: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP).” Referred to the Judiciary Committee, May 26 hearings were held. So far, no further action was taken. 

Leahy calls it a measure to “protect the investment American companies make in developing brands and creating content and will protect the jobs associated with those investments.”

In fact, it introduces new censorship provisions that violate First Amendment freedoms, without which all others are at risk. 

If enacted, Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, and other information location tools must block user access to sites accused of very loosely defined copyright infringement.

On October 26, Rep. Lamar Smith (R. TX) introduced “HR 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA): To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of US property, and for other purposes.”

Referred to the House Judiciary Committee, no further action so far was taken. In enacted, SOPA will sabotage the domain name system. It may also eliminate DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) safe harbors that spur economic growth and online creativity.

Along with Leahy’s PROTECT-IP Act, SOPA will force ISPs to disappear certain websites, endangering Internet security. 

At issue is targeting free expression. It’s not about curbing online piracy or promoting prosperity, creativity and entrepreneurship. An appointed Internet czar would decide if US interests are harmed at the expense of user rights and providers serving them. 

After promising to protect Net Neutrality, expect Obama to end it if these measures pass.

Legislating Tyranny 

In mid-December, Congress passed the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. It includes little reported harsh police state provisions. After earlier promising a veto, Obama signed them into law. Another promise made, another broken. His betrayal record stays intact.

Henceforth, anyone anywhere, including US citizens, may be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, spurious allegations or none at all. 

No reasonable proof is needed, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. As a result, indefinite detentions can follow mere membership (past or present) or support for suspect organizations. 

Presidents now have unchecked dictatorial powers to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

Constitutional, statute and international laws won’t apply. Martial law will replace them if so ordered.

As a result, US military personnel anywhere in the world may arrest US citizens and others, throw them in military dungeons, and hold them indefinitely outside constitutionally mandated civil protections, including habeas rights, due process, and other judicial procedures.

In other words, presidents may order anyone arrested and imprisoned for life without charge or trial. Tyranny arrived in America. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections, despite three post-9/11 Supreme Court decisions supporting habeas and other constitutional protections in civil courts for anyone charged with crimes. 

A Final Comment

Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush. With another year in office and likely reelection, he’ll continue waging permanent wars, flaunting democratic values, imposing repressive police state harshness, concentrating wealth and power disproportionately, destroying the nation’s middle class, turning workers into serfs, and making the country more than ever unfit to live in. 

It’s happening under a president promising change unless public outrage stops him. Sustaining pressure without letup is crucial for as long as it takes. There’s no other way.

Quitting’s not an option! There can’t be to have any chance for success!  

The alternative is Orwell’s vision of “a boot stamping on a human face forever.” If preventing that isn’t job one, what is?

Contributing Editor Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays 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/.                                  

 

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

By DAVE LINDORFF

Even as President Obama and War Secretary Leon Panetta announce the “end” of the Iraq War, a US “covert war” against Iran, as the National Journal put it in a December 4 article, has already begun.

This secret war–at least secret from the American people–is being conducted in part directly by the US, as evidenced by the advanced American RQ-170 Sentinel stealth surveillance drone just recently downed–apparently by sophisticated electronic countermeasures that allowed the taking control of, and landing of the vehicle–by Iran. Also conducted in part of proxies, including the Iranian anti-government terrorist organization MEK (for Mujahideen-e Khalq), and of course Israel’s Mossad, this dirty covert war has led to an escalating string of acts of terror inside Iran, including a campaign of assassination against Iranian nuclear scientists, and bombings of Iranian military installations.

Not content to simply engage in such illegal hostilities against a sovereign nation that has not threatened the U.S., and that in fact has not invaded another country in some 200 years, President Obama had the effrontery to demand that the Iranians return the spy drone that they had captured!

Imagine for a moment if an Iranian, or some other nation’s, robot spy plane had been captured or shot down over U.S. territory. Imagine the official response if the nation that owned that plane were to demand its return! First of all, Congressmembers, probably almost unanimously, would be clamoring for the US to launch an attack on whatever company launched the spy plane. But the reaction to a demand to return such a device would be truly explosive! The audacity!

Actually, you don’t need to imagine. Look at the right-wing media and the official US government response to the arrest of two men in New York accused of the hard-to-believe conspiracy of planning, allegedly at the direction of Iranian  government sources, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Forget about proving that this far-fetched alleged plot was real at all, and not just another creation of some FBI informant/provocateur,  or whether Iran was really behind it even if it was. There were open calls for bombing Iran immediately!

President Obama, meanwhile, keeps saying that “all options are on the table” for dealing with what the US government alleges is an Iranian campaign to develop nuclear weapons — itself a very dubious claim. And to back up that threat, the US has actually delivered huge non-nuclear “bunker busting” bombs to Israel, a country which has openly been discussing plans to attack Iran.

These are all war crimes under the UN charter and actual acts of war.

But that’s just Iran.

The US is already at war with Pakistan, too, this country’s nominal ally in the war against Afghanistan’s Taliban. Two weeks ago, American planes, ground forces and helicopters attacked two Pakistani border posts, killing several dozen Pakistani troops. There is considerable evidence that these attacks were deliberate, though the US is claiming lamely that its forces had “incorrect coordinates” that led to the fatal attacks.

Sure.

These days the US doesn’t just rely on Garman GPS devices for its attacks. It sends in drones with high-rez cameras and knows exactly what and who it is killing before it pulls the trigger.

Meanwhile, we’ve been killing people in Yemen for years with planes sent from offshore aircraft carriers, and using missile-firing Predator drones.

In Latin America, American military “trainers” are fighting a war against leftist forces in Colombia, the CIA is supporting opposition groups seeking to oust the elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries, and the US Justice Department is shipping weapons into drug-war-torn Mexico and helping to launder Mexican drug money back in the US.

There are credible charges that the US has also been supporting the latest protests against the Vladimir Putin government in Russia (even as our own Homeland Security and “Justice” Departments coordinate violent police crackdowns on the Occupy protests here at home against our own government’s craven support of the corrupt banks that have been wrecking the US and global economies).

And we Americans wonder: “Why do they hate us?”

If real people around the world weren’t dying from all this criminal US behavior, and if real people here in America weren’t suffering because of all the trillions of dollars being wasted over the years on military spending, spying, covert destabilization campaigns and overt war-making, it would all be laughable.

But real people are dying and are suffering and there is nothing to laugh about.

Someday there will come a reckoning for the US, as there came a reckoning for Rome, for the British Empire, and for the German Reich. A hollowed-out country like this one, which is under-funding education, health care, infrastructure investment, research, and environmental protection, while its governing class steadily disenfranchises, disempowers, and impoverishes the public while systematically taking away their right to protest, is ultimately doomed.

It’s just a question of time, and of course a matter of how it happens.

If we’re lucky, the dramatic awakening that began with the Occupy Movement in September will continue to spread and grow until an enraged public rises up en masse and evicts the entire corrupt gang from Washington, replacing them with genuine representatives of the people and a new commitment to true democratic governance.

If we’re not so lucky, this nation is likely to slide into global irrelevance — a backward relic of faded glory, a place where Chinese, Brazilian and European firms will invest to take advantage of our cheap, uneducated labor to produce goods to sell back in their own countries. Such an economic slide would of course not occur without violent conflicts and struggles over ever diminishing wealth and resources.

By then of course, if our government continues on its present course of militarily meddling in other nations, the US will be almost universally loathed and, instead of being manipulated into fears of nonexistent threats to our “safety,”  we Americans will finally have reason to genuinely fear the actions of other, more powerful, nations, which will find the temptation to compete in meddling in the affairs of what remains of the United States irresistible.

Why They Hate Us in Iraq

Reading the New York Times, an American might have been excused for wondering why Iraqis, and especially the people of Fallujah, would be so happy to see American occupying troops leaving the country at the end of this month and of nine years of war against their country that they were actually celebrating.

The Times made it sound as though Fallujah deserved what happened to it. As the article published Dec. 15 notes dryly, American forces in 2004 twice attacked this largest city in Anbar Province to “pacify” it (there’s a political euphemism for you!) after insurgents there in March of 2004 captured four US “contractors” driving through the city, burned their bodies, and strung them up on a bridge over the Euphrates River.

First of all, let’s also dispense with the euphemistic term “contractors,” which is meant to bring to mind the image of a couple of overweight construction workers. In Iraq, and especially in lawless areas like Anbar at that time, “contractor” means “mercenary,” and we now know that mercenaries in Iraq (and in Afghanistan) were and are a lawless, bloodthirsty, group of former US military personnel and vicious thugs from various foreign fascist states like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, apartheid South Africa and elsewhere, who have killed countless numbers of civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, operating outside of any government monitoring or legal constraints for “security firms” like Blackwater (now Xe) and DynCorp.

What actually happened in Fallujah though, was that because of Pentagon and US media-stoked domestic public outrage at the treatment of the four captured mercenaries, 20,000 US Marines were sent in to the city to level it and to slaughter its male inhabitants in an example of the kind of massive war crime tactic once popular with the Nazi Wehrmacht in World War II, where it was known as “collective punishment.” The Nazis used to burn down villages, particularly in Eastern Europe and the USSR, if even one shot was fired at them. But taking things much further in Iraq, US forces encircled Fallujah, a city of 300,000, in November, 2004, and ordered all non-combatants out of the area. Women and children were allowed to leave through checkpoints, but no males of “combat age”–which was illegally set, according to reports, at the age of 11, or by some accounts, at 14. In either case, the whole thing was criminal. Under Geneva Conventions signed by the US, first of all all civilians are required to be granted free passage to escape from any field of battle or impending battle, and secondly, under those same Conventions, all children under the age of 18 are to be protected from war, not considered combatants. Even those who are found armed or captured while fighting are to be treated not as combatants, but as victims.

Instead of obeying the laws of war (which once approved by the Senate have the force of law under the US Constitution), US forces trapped all males in the city, including old men and young boys, and then went in with assault rifles, cannons, ground attack planes, helicopter and fixed-wing gunships, and with illegal weapons and weapons that cause mass deaths such as white phosphorus bombs, napalm, anti-personnel shells and depleted uranium shells. US forces basically killed everything that moved in numbers ranging upward of 6000 (In contrast the UN is expressing horror that the government in Syria has killed 5000 people in its crackdown on a “democracy movement” there). There were accounts of people being shot in the river as they tried to swim away from the city, of hospitals being raided and ambulances bombed, and there were even videos of seriously wounded and unarmed Iraqi fighters being coldly executed by Marines. What was done to Fallujah was as vile, evil and criminal a campaign of retribution and vengeance, exercised against enemy fighters and trapped civilians alike, as anything Hitler’s SS ever engaged in.

The Times article made no mention about any of this — an exercise in censorship and propaganda made all the more outrageous because the atrocity was well reported at the time it happened by the paper’s own excellent war reporter, Dexter Filkins.

Knowing what really happened, and what the US military really did in Fallujah, would make much more understandable to Americans why the end of US occupation of Iraq has been greeted with a “festival” atmosphere in the still recovering city of Fallujah.

DAVE LINDORFF is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new Project-Censored Award-winning independent online alternative newspaper. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, forthcoming from AK Press.

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

US Ambassador Echoes Cecil Rhodes

¶

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________