AGENT OF CHANGE

Syria: it's not a 'civil war', it's an imperialist war

Mon, 20 May 2013 04:16:43 -0400

‘Civil war’ is a totally inaccurate label for what’s going on in Syria. I think we should start calling it what it is: an imperialist war of destabilisation, where the aggressors’ fighting has been outsourced to sectarian religious terrorists. This outsourcing follows the same logic as any other type of outsourcing: it’s cheaper. The political and economic cost of pushing thousands of Iraqi, Libyan and Saudi (etc) terrorists in Syria’s direction is extremely low, at least in the short term. Imagine if it was European and North American soldiers coming home in body bags - there might actually be a viable anti-war movement in the west! And people the world over would know exactly who was to blame for the shameful destruction of a beautiful nation - for the needless deaths of thousands, for the forced migration of hundreds of thousands, for the reversal of decades of progress, for the brutal attack on thousands of years of civilisation.

And of course the ‘civil war’ narrative has another very important function: it contributes to our general prejudice that “these Arabs” (much like “these Africans” and “these Asians”) are inherently barbaric people who simply can’t get along. And it sends out a message that any attempt by a third world nation to follow a path of resistance to imperialism and zionism will inevitably end in murderous in-fighting - for which the civilised, sophisticated, modern imperialist states of course cannot reasonably be blamed.

So to call it a civil war is to take part in a vast deception.

Happy birthday to Ho Chi Minh and Malcolm X

Sun, 19 May 2013 14:42:45 -0400

Happy birthday to Ho Chi Minh and Malcolm X, born on this day in 1890 and 1925 respectively. The two are linked by more than the relative position of earth and sun at the time of their birth: they were both among the most important revolutionary anti-imperialist leaders of their time. Ho Chi Minh was a communist and an atheist; Malcolm X was a black nationalist and a Muslim. But, in spite of differing ideological/spiritual traditions, they were absolutely on the same side in the historic global struggle against imperialism - a struggle Malcolm defined as “a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter”.

Nyerere: we do not judge people on the basis of skin colour

Wed, 15 May 2013 17:33:07 -0400

“The basis of socialism is a belief in the oneness of man and the common historical destiny of mankind. Its basis, in other words, is human equality. Socialism is not for the benefit of black men, nor brown men, nor white men, nor yellow men. The purpose of socialism is the service of man, regardless of colour, size, shape, skill, ability, or anything else…

“The colour or origin of the man who is working [towards the abolition of exploitation] does not matter in the very least. And each one of us must fight, in himself, the racialist habits of thought which were part of our inheritance from colonialism…

“All those who stand for the interests of the workers and peasants, anywhere in the world, are our friends. This means that we must judge the character and ability of each individual, not put each person into a prearranged category of race or national origin and judge them accordingly.

“Let us always remember two things: 1) We have dedicated ourselves to build a socialist society in Tanzania; and 2) socialism and racialism are incompatible.”

Julius Nyerere, ‘Socialism is not Racialism’, 1967

ASG's counter-hegemony unit: Excerpts on Syria from Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah's latest speech

Fri, 10 May 2013 03:27:16 -0400

ASG's counter-hegemony unit: Excerpts on Syria from Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah's latest speech:

resistance-episteme:

“On the latest Israeli aggression on Syria:

Unfortunately, the Israelis talked of their “enemy’s enemy” and “friend’s friend”. Isn’t the Israeli enemy the benchmark? Isn’t this rudimentary? This is part of our Islamic lexicon.

Of course there were objectives behind Israel’s attacks which it…

If Israel is bombing Damascus, it should be obvious what side to take in Syria

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:52:43 -0400

What do I think of Seumas Milne’s latest article on Syria? Funny you should ask.

On the one hand, it is probably the best article on Syria you’ll see in the mainstream press. Unlike most other journalists, Seumas strongly condemns the illegal aerial attacks by Israel, and recognises that it is an intervention on the side of the ‘rebels’ (contras is a better term, for those that remember Nicaragua). Further, he accepts that the situation is now a “vicious sectarian war, manipulated by outside forces to change the regional balance of power”. If we ignore the slightly strange idea that Cameron is backing the rebellion in order to “ingratiate himself with the Gulf dictators” (a bit like a slavemaster ingratiating himself with his overseers), it is essentially a solid representation of what imperialism is up to in Syria.

This is all increasingly well understood by the left (some understood it two years ago, but hey, let’s not sweat the small stuff). But how should it affect the political position of anti-imperialists? If it is an imperialist war (what else is it, if it is “manipulated by outside forces to change the regional balance of power”?), then isn’t it quite obvious that we should actively take the side that is under attack from the imperialists and their henchmen? That is to say: we should support the Syrian patriotic front, led by the Syrian government. Yup, that’s right. Even if Syria doesn’t correspond to our own special definition of democracy; even if Syrian prisons are extremely unpleasant places; even if, with our ever-so-refined political culture, we don’t think Hafez al-Assad’s son should have become President; even if we think Syria should really have defeated one of the best-equipped armies in the world (Israel) by now; etc etc. Put as many ‘even ifs’ in as you like, but you can’t escape the inescapable: anti-imperialists should support Syria against imperialist destabilisation, slander and regime change. Chávez was a big supporter of Syria - damn it, be more like Chávez!

And that is exactly where Seumas’ article falls down. Instead of encouraging unity against the main enemy, he says that “the Assad regime bears responsibility” for it all, and that the situation started because of the “brutal repression” of a “popular uprising”. No supporting evidence, of course - by now, the early stories spread by phoney ‘news’ organisations such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights have become accepted truth and there is no longer any burden of evidence. And can we please stop using the word ‘regime’, which implies a blind acceptance of the mainstream narrative on democracy (if nothing else, we can say that Assad has infinitely more support and legitimacy than David Cameron).

Seumas’ regurgitation of the neither-Assad-nor-imperialism line leaves his article being little better than the usual demobilising, misleading rubbish that the SWP and others have been coming out with for the past two years. It doesn’t promote unity; it doesn’t mobilise people; it just spreads defeatism. For goodness sake, if Israel is bombing Damascus and the contras are being supplied with weapons and money by the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, then it should be pretty bloody obvious which side to take!

End of rant.

Samora Machel on women's liberation

Fri, 03 May 2013 18:33:56 -0400

“The liberation of women is not an act of charity. It is not the result of a humanitarian or compassionate position. It is a fundamental necessity for the Revolution, a guarantee of its continuity, and a condition for its success.

“The Revolution’s main objective is to destroy the system of the exploitation of man by man, the construction of a new society which will free human potentialities and reconcile work and nature. It is within this context that the question of women’s liberation arises.

“In general, the women are the most oppressed, the most exploited beings in our society. She is exploited even by him who is exploited himself, beaten by him who is tortured by the palmatorio, humiliated by him who is trod underfoot by the boss or the settler. How may our Revolution succeed without liberating women? Is it possible to liquidate a system of exploitation and still leave a part of society exploited? Can we get rid of only one part of exploitation and oppression? Can we clear away half the weeds without the risk that the surviving half will grow even stronger? Can we then make the Revolution without the mobilization of women? If women compose over half of the exploited and oppressed population, can we leave them on the fringes of the struggle?

“In order for the Revolution to succeed, we must mobilize all of the exploited and oppressed, and consequently the women also. In order for the Revolution to triumph, it must liquidate the totality of the exploitative and oppressive system, it must liberate all the exploited and oppressed people, and thus it must liquidate women’s exploitation and oppression. It is obliged to liberate women.”

Samora Machel, 1973

China in Africa - a very strange form of colonialism

Wed, 01 May 2013 18:31:44 -0400

It’s a very strange form of colonialism, China’s new colonisation of Africa. Unlike British, French, Belgian, Portuguese and US colonialism, it doesn’t involve military bases, armies, assassinations, massacres, pillaging, destabilisation campaigns, divide and rule campaigns, or any coercion as such.

Even at the economic level, it’s quite different: for example it doesn’t do the whole enforced-structural-adjustment thing, and it has developed this cunning trick of building important infrastructure like schools, hospitals and roads, just to make people believe that it’s not simply interested in stealing natural resources.

In fact, given that Chinese colonialism in Africa is based on mutually-agreed trade and aid contracts, you could almost say that it’s not really colonialism at all. More like just… trade and aid.

Still, these are just petty nuances, hardly worth talking about. Down with evil China, the new coloniser of Africa! Come back, Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal, all is forgiven!

The beautiful history of Cuban support for revolution in Guinea Bissau

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:09:32 -0400

Cuba was the only country that provided military advisors and doctors to support the revolution in Guinea Bissau, led by Amilcar Cabral. Cabral wanted liberation to be won by the efforts of the Guinea-Bissauans themselves, but he made an exception for Cuba, whose revolution he deeply respected and with which he felt a special affinity (USSR supplied weapons and supplies, but not people). Most of the personnel sent by Cuba were black, so they wouldn’t be too obviously foreign.

Thanking these Cuban-Africans, Cabral said: “I don’t believe there is life after death, but if there is, we can be sure that the souls of our forefathers who were taken away to America to be slaves are rejoicing today to see their children reunited and working together to help us be independent and free.”

Beautiful. This ‘Conflicting Missions’ book (about Cuba’s engagement with Africa between 59 and 76) is absolutely brilliant, strongly recommended. A great reminder of what anti-imperialist solidarity means.

Solidarity against imperialism: Ben Bella in Cuba with Fidel and Che.

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:54:20 -0400

After attending a UN General Assembly meeting in October 1962, just a few months after Algeria won its independence, Ben Bella flew directly to Havana, in spite of strong protests from the US. He commented:

“What I missed most in the United States was the warmth of human companionship. America is a wall … a wall that separates people. What is lacking is communication among people. I was struck by the absence of that human warmth that is, for us Algerians, an essential element of life, without which we cannot breathe. With what delight we immersed ourselves, as soon as we had boarded the plane, in the warmth of the Cubans. We had just sat down when they served us an excellent cafecito, very strong, very sweet, very fragrant, which was a welcome change from the pale brew they call coffee in the United States. We began talking at once - I don’t know in what language because they didn’t speak Arabic and I only knew a little Spanish. But friendship overcame everything. Between Cubans and Algerians the communication proved to be immediate and deep.”

Castro responded:

“The peoples of Algeria and Cuba have faced huge obstacles and fought hard and beautiful battles for their independence and self-determination. Both revolutions are irreversible. We greet you and your delegation as the representatives of a people that has freed itself from the shame of colonialism, and spared no sacrifice. We greet the brave guerrillas who for seven years fought gloriously against a powerful army equipped with all the latest weapons. We greet all those who suffered persecution, torture, imprisonment and exile during those seven tragic years. We greet those who represent the indomitable spirit of the National Liberation Front.”

(Cited in Piero Gleijeses ‘Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976’)

Tribute to Chris Hani on the twentieth anniversary of his assassination

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:45:00 -0400

10 April 2013 marks the twentieth anniversary of the tragic assassination of Chris Hani, a legendary freedom fighter and one of the most courageous and talented leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle. Although he was only 50 at the time of his death, Hani’s contribution to the struggle was that of several lifetimes.

Born in 1942 in the Transkei, he was politicised by the sheer poverty that he saw around him in his early life. He joined the ANC’s Youth League at the age of 15, and quickly went on to become a dedicated organiser. As a student radical at the University of Fort Hare (whose alumni include Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo, Robert Mugabe, Julius Nyerere and Kenneth Kaunda), he was recruited to the South African Communist Party (SACP) by the veteran anti-apartheid leader, Govan Mbeki. In 1962, Hani became a member of the newly- formed Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) - the military wing of the ANC - and it was above all his heroic activities in this organisation over the course of three decades that led to his well-deserved reputation as one of the most important figures in the history of the anti-apartheid struggle.

Regenerating the struggle

Throughout the 1950s, the ANC’s stock had grown as a result of its effective disobedience and defiance campaigns along with its propaganda work. The Freedom Charter, which put forward the core principles of the Congress Alliance (which included the ANC, the SACP, the South African Indian Congress, the South African Congress of Democrats and the Coloured People’s Congress), was adopted in 1955 at the Congress of the People and became a rallying cry for opponents of apartheid across the country.

However, with the banning of the ANC, the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and other organisations of the liberation movement in 1960, following the Sharpeville Massacre, the introduction of ever more repressive laws, and the Rivonia Trial of 1963 that saw the imprisonment of almost the entire leadership of the MK (including Mandela, Govan Mbeki and Walter Sisulu), the movement had hit a low point by the mid-1960s. Underground activity inside South Africa was almost non-existent, and the exile movement had not yet become very effective.

At this point, a critical lifeline was offered by the Soviet Union, which provided extensive military training to hundreds of MK cadres, including Hani (as detailed at length in Vladimir Shubin’s very useful book, ‘ANC - A View From Moscow’). Tanzania and Zambia, which gained their independence from Britain in 1961 and 1964 respectively, allowed the ANC and MK to set up bases in their newly liberated territories, and Hani was involved in setting up the first military camps of South African liberation fighters.

In 1967, Hani led an operation to insert ANC and ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People’s Union) troops into Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), with a view to opening up infiltration roots into South Africa. Militarily the campaign was far from successful - ending as it did in the loss of more than half the cadres and a forced retreat into Botswana - and yet it raised the spirits of black South Africans at an exceptionally difficult period for the liberation struggle. As Nelson Mandela says in ‘Long Walk to Freedom’, “it was a milestone in the struggle” to see MK cadres engaged militarily with the enemy for the first time, even killing some soldiers of the racist Rhodesian regime.

Hani noted at the time:

“This was a virgin victory for us, since we had never fought with modern weapons against the enemy. For us that day was a day of celebration because with our own eyes we had seen the enemy run. We had seen the enemy frozen with fear … We had also seen and observed each other reacting to the enemy’s attack. A feeling of faith in one another and recognition of the courage of the unit developed.” (cited in Shubin)

Veteran people’s lawyer Albie Sachs noted that this operation (known as the Wankie Campaign, owing to its location in the Wankie Game Reserve) turned Hani into “an admired leader … he’d been in combat and now had an unofficial, intangible sense of authority”. (More can be read about the campaign here)

Deepening the armed struggle

By the mid-1970s, Hani was at the head of an MK base in Lesotho, the purpose of which was to reinfiltrate small groups of cadres back into South Africa for short periods in order to organise armed sabotage cells. Hani was one of the first to be reinfiltrated, in 1974, successfully avoiding the South African intelligence services and setting up several cells in Johannesburg, before making his way back over the border four months later. Chris wrote of that period:

“Now we were actually building a number of units from Lesotho into South Africa … We built a network of structures inside the country. We trained people in guerrilla affairs, in politics, in intelligence and everything else … Those were exciting days for me because I was receiving these cadres coming from the Transvaal, from the Orange Free State, from the Cape and Natal. I was in touch with trade unions. I used to go in and out. Meet comrades at Sterkspruit in Transkei. I used to send some of my colleagues from our collective in Lesotho to Cape Town, to Johannesburg, to Durban for a few days. We had little meetings and discussed strategy… We began to build education groups inside Lesotho. We prepared them in terms of understanding the ANC and our struggle. We would select the best to send back into the country underground. We would say: go and form a cell or two, then come back. We are giving you a week … all the theory that we had acquired in our training and our limited experience we began to apply creatively in a new situation. And for me that was a turning point in terms of our struggle.” (Smith and Beauregard)

This activity quickly became the main theatre of the armed struggle. The operations stepped up in a serious way after 1976, as thousands of young militant South Africans were forced out of the country, or chose to leave, in the aftermath of the Soweto Uprising. These young people were ready to fight, and eagerly joined the MK’s camps in Tanzania and Zambia. Chris, who by this time had been placed on the ANC’s Revolutionary Council (and was Assistant General Secretary of the SACP), was at the forefront of providing military training and political education for these new recruits.

“All those who worked with Hani noted his humility, his charm, his deep concern for the troops, and his incorruptibility - refusing to enjoy the privileges that his reputation might have earned him, and eating, sleeping and training with his comrades” (Smith and Beauregard).

In an interview with the ANC journal Mayibuye in 1985, Hani spoke of the need to extend the war into the white areas in order to create greater pressure for the dismantling of apartheid:

“It’s a situation of complete ruthlessness, of acts of atrocities against the blacks in our country. Now, in the face of that situation, it is important that the whites should realise that our country is in a state of civil war, because nothing is taking place where they stay. Their suburbs are still pictures of peace and stability and the usual rhythm of life continues. Their lives are not disturbed… Life for white South Africans is good. They go to their cinemas, they go to their barbecues, they go to their five-star hotels. That’s why they are supporting the system. It guarantees a happy life for them, a sweet life. Part of our campaign is to prevent that sweet life.”

Through this revolutionary upsurge in South Africa, the liberation forces started to break the back of apartheid. Hani’s brilliant leadership was noted, and he was made MK’s political commissar in 1982 and its chief of staff four years later.

Return to South Africa

In April 1990, Hani was able to return to South Africa on a provisional amnesty order from the white government, as it inched towards a negotiated settlement. He immediately began working tirelessly, travelling the country to educate people about the political process taking place and also to raise their socialist consciousness. He was everywhere received with undisguised joy, perhaps second only to Nelson Mandela in popularity.

Although he had been a military man for nearly thirty years, Chris strongly believed in the peace process. He understood only too well that the revolutionary forces were not strong enough to defeat the South African state outright, but that the combination of armed and mass struggle, described by Nelson Mandela as the liberation movement’s hammer and anvil, could together force a negotiated solution which would move the overall freedom struggle many important steps forward. Hani stated: “In the current political situation, the decision by our organisation to suspend armed action is correct and is an important contribution in maintaining the momentum of negotiation”. And just a few days before his death, he said : “The issue now is not armed struggle but elections. That needs a climate of peace and stability; we cannot afford to have that process delayed and disrupted by violent elements … Every ANC supporter should be a combatant, but a combatant now for peace.”

In December 1991, Hani was elected to the post of general secretary of the SACP, and gave up his post as MK chief of staff in order to focus on grassroots development of the party. By this time it was fairly clear that the apartheid era was coming to an end, and Chris saw the need to consolidate the position of the left within the Congress alliance, in order to push for the specific interests of the workers and peasants in the post-apartheid era. This was consistent with the vision he had always had, articulated in some brief autobiographical notes he wrote in 1991: “In 1961 I joined the underground South African Communist Party as I realised that national liberation, though essential, would not bring about total economic liberation.”

Communism and the struggle against apartheid

Hani described his enduring commitment to socialism and the SACP in the following terms:

“Why did I join the SACP? Why was I not just satisfied with the ANC? I belonged to a world, in terms of my background, which suffered I think the worst extremes of apartheid. A poor rural area where the majority of working people spent their time in the compounds, in the hostels, away from their families. A rural area where there were no clinics and probably the nearest hospital was 50kms away - generally a life of poverty with the basic things unavailable. Where our mothers and our sisters would walk 3km and even 6km whenever there was a drought to fetch water. Where the only fuel available was going 5-6 km away to cut wood and bring it back.

“I had seen the lot of black workers, extreme forms of exploitation. Slave wages, no trade union rights, and for me the appeal of socialism was extremely great. Where it was said that workers create wealth, but in the final analysis they get nothing - they get peanuts in order to survive and continue working for the capitalists. I didn’t get involved with the workers’ struggle out of theory alone. It was a combination of theory and my own class background. I never faltered in my belief in socialism despite all the problems currently. For me that belief is strong because that is still the life of the majority of the people with whom I share a common background.” (cited in Smith and Tromp)

One important - and controversial - issue related to the life of Chris Hani is the relationship between the struggle for socialism and the struggle for national liberation; and more specifically, between the ANC and the SACP. This relationship has been under almost constant attack from the 1930s onwards. The apartheid regime and its western imperialist backers used the relationship to ‘prove’ that the anti-apartheid struggle was simply part of an evil Soviet plot against western-style freedom and democracy. Meanwhile, there were plenty of people within the anti-apartheid camp who opposed the relationship on the basis that the SACP was allegedly white-dominated and that Marxism was an imported ideology that was not relevant for Africans.

Nelson Mandela comments on this issue in ‘Long Walk to Freedom’:

“It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accepted communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression are a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with and work with us. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism.”

The fact is that the communists were extremely consistent in their support of the national liberation goals of the Congress movement, and proved themselves in struggle to be capable, courageous fighters and strategists. Indeed, the SACP “has the distinction of being the first organisation in the history of Africa to call unambiguously for black majority rule on the basis of universal suffrage. This was at a time when even the ANC stopped short of this demand.” (Statement of the SACP Central Committee in 1976)

Longtime ANC President Oliver Tambo notes:

“There was a time when anti-communism reared its head in the ANC and there were often moves for the removal of communists from ANC ranks, but … to all intents and purposes we are running a common struggle together.” Pointing out that the leading members of the Party were also leading members of the ANC, Tambo said: “From my experience, you could not have asked for more loyalty.” (cited in Shubin)

In another interview, in response to the question “is the ANC under the undue influence of white communists?”, Tambo responded:

“I don’t know where these white communists are. When I ask who they mean, they reply: Joe Slovo. When I ask who else, they are silent. It is extraordinary how white communists are credited with so much power and influence and supremacy and superiority. Why are we not being influenced by black communists? And why can’t the influence go the other way? Individual members of the Communist Party are like any member of the ANC … Our movement has never hidden the fact that there is a relationship between the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party on those questions of policy which both organisations share in common. In particular both organisations believe that in the present stage of the revolutionary process in South Africa, the primary aim is the national liberation of the most exploited and most oppressed section of the South African people - the Africans.”

Naturally, the ANC-SACP alliance also helped to cement Soviet, Eastern European and Cuban support for the liberation struggle, which proved to be invaluable.

Looking towards a non-racial future

Another important and controversial issue that is worth raising when we talk about Chris Hani is that of the ANC/SACP policy of non-racialism: the idea that the struggle against apartheid, whilst primarily fought in the interests of the most oppressed group (black Africans), was also a struggle to transcend the division of society along racial lines, and that therefore the struggle should embrace people of all races, so long as they were genuinely committed to a non-racial democracy.

The ANC’s Strategy and Tactics document - one of its defining documents - is extremely clear on this issue:

“This confrontation on the lines of colour is not of our choosing; it is of the enemy’s making. It will not be easy to eliminate some of its more tragic consequences. But it does not follow that this will be so for all time. It is not altogether impossible that in a different situation the white working class, or a substantial section of it, may come to see that their true long term interest coincides with that of the non-white workers. We must miss no opportunity to try and make them aware of this truth and to win over those who are ready to break with the policy of racial domination … Our policy must continually stress in the future (as it has in the past) that there is room in South Africa for all who live in it but only on the basis of absolute democracy … Committed revolutionaries are our brothers, regardless of the group to which they belong. There can be no second class participants in our Movement. It is for the enemy we reserve our assertiveness and our justified sense of grievance.”

Tambo also elaborated on this idea: “We call upon those in the white community who stand ready to live a life of real equality and nonracialism to make common cause with our struggle for genuine liberation … In sharp contrast to the racists who have sought to divide our country and people into racial and ethnic compartments, we have upheld the ideal of one country, one people and one democratic and nonracial destiny for all who live in it, black and white.”

The close links between the liberation movement and the Soviet Union very likely had an important role in affirming the ANC’s non-racial perspective. In their biography of Hani, Smith and Tromp describe his first visit to the Soviet Union (in the early 1960s):

“In the USSR now, the men were witnesses to the way a powerful nation was run. For Hani, having joined the Communist Party a mere two years earlier, but having read extensively on socialism and Marxism, it was the culmination of theory, reading, imagining… There were no beggars and no blatant poverty. The activity in the city was frenetic: houses being built on one side, flats on the other. Later the men marvelled at the fact that education and medical attention were free to all. This was the product of the revolution. All the propaganda, the lies cranked out by the Western imperialists denouncing life in the Soviet Union, had been disproved.

“For some of the cadres, this was the first time they had experienced compassion, understanding and support from white people. This treatment strengthened their will to fight for a nonracial society.

“With three square meals a day cooked by white women, and being taught by white instructors, this was ‘a new world of equality where our colour seems to be of no consequence … where our humanity is recognised,’ wrote Hani.”

Although the policy of non-racialism was criticised harshly and frequently by separatist elements within the movement, it proved its value in practice: creating a highly effective fighting alliance, and inspiring the broad masses of the people with a vision of a brighter future.

The legacy of Chris Hani

Chris Hani was murdered on 10 April 1993 in Johannesburg by a fascist gunman by the name of Janusz Waluś, who was working with a senior South African Conservative Party MP on a plot to assassinate a number of prominent liberation fighters and thereby spark a civil war along race lines, derailing the negotiations to end apartheid. Their plot was unsuccessful, as the massive wave of shock and grief at Hani’s death was channelled towards a new momentum in the peace process. South Africa’s first democratic election - one of the most historic events of the twentieth century - took place a year later, on 27 April 1994.

Looking at some of the problems that South Africa still suffers today, it seems obvious that Hani would have been hugely important in the search for solutions. His words just two weeks before his death were prophetic:

“I think finally the ANC will have to fight a new enemy. That enemy would be another struggle to make freedom and democracy worthwhile to ordinary South Africans. Our biggest enemy would be what we do in the field of socio-economic restructuring. Creation of jobs; building houses, schools, medical facilities; overhauling our education; eliminating illiteracy, building a society which cares, and fighting corruption and moving into the gravy train of using power, government position to enrich individuals. We must build a different culture in this country… and that culture should be one of service to the people”.

Chris was a relentless voice for the poor and oppressed, a legend of the struggle, a man of the people who had the confidence and support of the radical youth. As Nelson Mandela wrote in his autobiography: “He was a great hero among the youth of South Africa, a man who spoke their language and to whom they listened. South Africa was now deprived of one of its greatest sons, a man who would have been invaluable in transforming the country into a new nation.”

Mandela’s moving words at Hani’s funeral perhaps give an indication of the type of man that the world lost on 10 April 1993:

“I would like to address a final word to Chris himself - comrade, friend and confidant. We worked together in the National Executive Committee of the ANC. We had vigorous debates and an intense exchange of ideas. You were completely unafraid. No task was too small for you to perform. Your ready smile and warm friendship was a source of strength and companionship. You lived in my home, and I loved you like the true son you were. In our heart, as in the heart of all our people, you are irreplaceable. We have been struck a blow that wounds so deeply that the scars will remain forever. You laid down your life so that we may know freedom. No greater sacrifice is possible.

“We lay you to rest with the pledge that the day of freedom you lived and died for will dawn. We all owe you a debt that can only be repaid through the achievement of the liberation of our people, which was the passion of your life. Fighter, revolutionary, soldier for peace, we mourn deeply for you. You will remain in our hearts forever!”

In remembering Chris Hani, we must resolve to be more like him.

Amandla!

Not shedding any tears, but why is Margaret Thatcher the most hated of all British Prime Ministers?

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:25:42 -0400

Thatcher died? OK. I mean, heck, she was evil and I’m not shedding any tears, but to be honest I think the near-universal obsession with her is slightly misplaced. Yes, she led the attack on the working class in Britain and fiercely represented British imperialist interests abroad. That was her job. That is the job of any Prime Minister of this country. Where are the great and wonderful British PMs that we should hold up as alternatives? Churchill? He was a vicious racist and murderous colonialist. Blair? The wars he led in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia were among the most significant attacks on the world’s oppressed masses in modern history. How about Earl Clement Attlee, that great hero of the left who partnered with the US to bring about the deaths of three million Koreans?

On a numbers basis, you could argue that by comparison, Thatcher was relatively peaceful! Yes, she brought in privatisation and liberalisation; she attacked the trade unions; she introduced racist anti-immigration policies; she supported torture and murder in Ireland; she went to war to protect Britain’s obscure ownership of Las Malvinas (‘The Falklands’); she supported the apartheid regime in South Africa; she was a close friend of the murderer Pinochet; she attacked the welfare state; and she took our milk away. In short, she was an enemy of the people. But I honestly believe that the reasons she’s hated so much more than any other British PM are:

1) She happened to be a Tory Prime Minister at a time when Labour were at least making an effort to pretend that they were on the side of the workers, and therefore the unions and the mainstream left made a big noise about everything she ever did;

2) People care more about the welfare state in Britain than they do about the murder of millions of innocent civilians abroad. Which, I would argue, is largely a result of having internalised the prevailing racist empire ideology.

Why do we accept things as they are? Why don't we do something real?

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 04:18:10 -0400

Why do we accept things as they are? This country, like so many others, is run by a tiny minority of wealthy people, and run in their own interests. Benefits are cut, schools are closed down, colonial wars are fought, jobs are lost, immigrants are deported, communities are victimised, people suffer from malnutrition, drug abuse spreads, depression spreads, insecurity spreads, and we do almost nothing about it. At best, we protest, but how many campaigns achieve their aims? A few little left groups talk about revolution, but nobody takes it seriously (I don’t think even they do). Some people simply integrate into the system as it is, in the hope of making things a little bit better (and, much as I disagree with this as a long-term strategy, I have to recognise that they are probably making more real-world difference than anyone else). Some people retreat into an individualist-isolationist “starting with the man in the mirror” approach. Some people simply turn “by any means necessary” into a justification for selling crack.

Why don’t we do something real?

Well, firstly, because we’re scared. The power of the elite is protected with the permanent threat of violence. The police, the army, the prison service, the intelligence services are paid to keep things just as they are. If your movement is really effective, it’ll be mercilessly repressed (look at how the Panthers were dealt with). Subconsciously at least, we know that. It’s one thing to have a poster of Nelson Mandela, but it’s another thing to get beaten up and to go to prison for your beliefs.

Secondly, we’re ignorant. Any idiot can see that things are basically crap, but the state goes to great lengths to make sure people don’t find out why they’re crap and how they could be changed. Where revolutionary movements have risen up and turned things around, those movements are subjected to endless, systematic slander (eagerly helped out by much of the western left, it has to be said). Meanwhile, an amazing job has been done of creating a youth culture where knowledge is ‘geeky’ and ignorance is cool. The education we get is basic, the news we’re fed is pure propaganda, and we’re not in any way encouraged to learn for ourselves.

3: we’re diverted with bullshit. Across all media, there is endless, freely-accessible, easily-digestible, instantly-gratifying nonsense to keep our minds occupied. Bread and circuses.

4: we have got no idea how to organise for change. Communities are broken down. Even families are broken down. We fear one another. Trade unions are weakened. Many community organisations have become institutionalised. The culture of serious workplace and community mobilisation seems to be a distant memory.

5: we have no unity. We’re divided by race, gender, religion, age, sexual preference and more. Deliberately. As policy. “Capitalism is impossible without racism”, as Malcolm X said.

6: let’s face it, those few radical people and organisations around are mostly divorced from the masses of the people and have no clue how to mobilise them.

7: any time there is a promising grassroots movement, it gets swallowed up and diverted by liberals, who are much better organised than us and who have plenty of money and resources (eg the Democrats’ occupation of Occupy Wall Street, or the SWP’s ‘leadership’ of the anti-war movement).

8: oppressed people generally suffer from a deep-rooted inferiority complex that is constantly reinforced by mainstream culture. Working class people are thick, black people are lazy, women are ruled by their emotions. The only possible conclusion is that only Rich White Men are fit to run society.

So there’s a few little problems that are kinda gettin’ in the way. Anyone got any bright ideas about how to solve them?

Poor patients retaining access to generic medicine - real-world anti-imperialism worth celebrating

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:35:39 -0400

“India’s Supreme Court rejected a patent application by Novartis for a major cancer drug on Monday, in a landmark ruling that will permit poor patients continued access to many of the world’s best medicines” Patent’s Defeat in India Is Key Victory for Generic Drugs.

This actually is a really important, meaningful thing for millions of poor people around the world who rely on generic medicines, typically available for a fraction of the price of their big pharma counterparts. It’s real-world anti-imperialism, the kind that saves lives. But most leftists will probably ignore it, since it’s not accompanied by loud revolutionary sloganeering.

Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro. Revolutionary geniuses and...

Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:36:39 -0400

Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro. Revolutionary geniuses and elder statesmen of the liberation struggle. Thoughts with Madiba today. Wishing him a speedy recovery.

BRICS and the changing face of progress

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:07:54 -0400

Progress comes in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. There is no blueprint for change. I’m a big fan of Lenin and would recommend anyone to seriously study his ideas, but it’s been a while since anyone stormed the Winter Palace, and perhaps that’s just not what the revolutionary process looks like in 2013. I’m a big fan of Che and would recommend anyone to take inspiration from his courage and creative intelligence, but the current process of building popular power and economic/social justice in Bolivia is very different to what Che must have imagined when he and his comrades were waging guerilla warfare in the Santa Cruz jungle back in the 60s.

By comparison with guerilla struggles in the jungle, a vision of global progress based on the growth of a multipolar world, the reform of the international institutions and the establishment of power bases such as BRICS and CELAC probably feels unbearably tame to a lot of people. But who can deny that these changes are fundamentally progressive and represent a great opportunity for the oppressed of the world?

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. In spite of degeneration and problems, it was the number one counterweight to imperialism right up to the end, supporting the struggle for freedom in South Africa, Vietnam, Namibia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. Its collapse was a major setback, and led to a 10-to-15-year period of near-total US dominance. That period is coming to an end with the rising strength of BRICS and with the ever-increasing economic, political, cultural and military ties between the progressive family of nations - from Venezuela to Iran, South Africa to Vietnam, China to Cuba, Nicaragua to Syria.

Such forces, led by China, are putting an end to the stranglehold of the IMF and offering an alternative development path for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Increasingly they are challenging the military dominance of the west and are developing a more confident strategy on the world stage (for example with the series of China-Russia vetoes at the UN over military intervention in Syria). The centre of scientific and technical progress is shifting. Serious inroads are being made in the fight against poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition. Global apartheid is being broken down. At the same time, the major imperialist countries have become stagnant, characterised by rising poverty, rising social unrest, political corruption and intellectual nihilism.

At the very minimum, “the formation of such alliances is constraining the ambitions of USA, NATO and the world reactionary forces behind them. This process gives an additional chance to win time before the new forces of resistance to imperialism, forces of socialist choice grow up and become stronger”. That has to be a good thing. So don’t be a hater. Embrace change :-)

Central African Republic - basketcase state or victim of global apartheid?

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:49:14 -0400

“The Central African Republic is placed 178th out of 179 in the United Nations human development index (HDI), which measures length and quality of life, access to knowledge, and standard of living. Life expectancy is 48 years, and the average resident receives 3.5 years of education. Two-thirds of CAR’s inhabitants live below the official poverty line, on less than $1.25 per day.” - source

When most people see these kind of statistics, they assume that CAR is just another “basketcase African state”. The common prejudice is reinforced: these poor blacks are great at music and dance, but they simply cannot run a country. Nobody says that in polite company, of course, but nearly everybody thinks it.

The relationship between Central African Republic and the west is a prime example of a global apartheid that keeps a handful of imperialist nations rich whilst imposing poverty, destabilisation and dependency on resource-rich countries like CAR. Look at what’s happening now, where France and the US support a coup purely because the existing government wanted to break its dependence on the west by increasing economic links with China. This is exactly “how Europe underdevelops Africa”.

In the 21st century, for any country in the world to have a life expectancy of 48 is a crime. The perpetrators of this crime live in London, Paris, Washington and New York. They hide these crimes by 1) keeping quiet about them; 2) blaming others (eg writing endlessly about “emerging Chinese colonialism” whilst being strangely quiet about continuing western colonialism).

If you don’t understand the processes of imperialism and neocolonialism, I don’t think you can really avoid having racist views about why so much of Africa is in a miserable state.

Nelson Mandela on Marxism and the relationship between socialism and national liberation

Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:50:48 -0400

“I had little knowledge of Marxism, and in political discussions with my communist friends I found myself handicapped by my ignorance of their philosophy. I decided to remedy this.

I acquired the complete works of Marx and Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and others, and probed the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism. I had little time to study these works properly. While I was stimulated by the Communist Manifesto, I was exhausted by Das Kapital. But I found myself strongly drawn to the idea of a classless society which, to my mind, was similar to traditional African culture where life was shared and communal. I subscribed to Marx’s basic dictum, which has the simplicity and generosity of the Golden Rule: ‛From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.’

Dialectical materialism seemed to offer both a searchlight illuminating the dark night of racial oppression and a tool that could be used to end it. It helped me to see the situation other than through the prism of black and white relations, for if our struggle was to succeed, we had to transcend black and white. I was attracted to the scientific underpinnings of dialectical materialism, for I am always inclined to trust what I can verify. Its materialistic analysis of economics rang true to me. The idea that the value of goods was based on the amount of labour that went into them seemed particularly appropriate for South Africa. The ruling class paid African labour a subsistence wage and then added value to the cost of the goods, which they retained for themselves.

Marxism’s call to revolutionary action was music to the ears of a freedom fighter. The idea that history progresses through struggle and that change occurs in revolutionary jumps was similarly appealing. In my reading of Marxist works, I found a great deal of information that bore on the types of problems that face a practical politician. Marxists gave serious attention to national liberation movements, and the Soviet Union in particular supported the national struggles of many colonial peoples. This was another reason why I amended my view of communists and accepted the ANC position of welcoming Marxists into its ranks.

A friend once asked me how I could reconcile my creed of African nationalism with a belief in dialectical materialism. For me, there was no contradiction. I was first and foremost an African nationalist fighting for our emancipation from minority rule and the right to control our own destiny. But, at the same time, South Africa and the African continent were part of the larger world. Our problems, while distinctive and special, were not unique, and a philosophy that placed those problems in an international and historical context of the greater world and the course of history was valuable. I was prepared to use whatever means necessary to speed up the erasure of human prejudice and the end of chauvinistic and violent nationalism. I did not need to become a communist in order to work with them. I found that African nationalists and African communists generally had far more to unite them than to divide them.”

(A Long Walk to Freedom)

A century of western imperialism in Iraq

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:29:40 -0400

Today marks 10 years since the start of the war on Iraq, but really western imperialism has been at war with Iraq for a century. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British took over colonial rule of Iraq in order to safeguard trade routes to India. They installed a king, Faisal, who himself admitted that he was “nothing more than an instrument of British policy”. In 1920, a major nationalist uprising was suppressed by the British with gas attacks (something that’s not mentioned quite so often as Saddam’s use of gas). When Faisal’s successor (and son), Ghazi, set up a pan-Arab anti-colonial radio station and made bold statements against the British, he died suddenly in a car ‘accident’ - almost certainly at the hands of the British intelligence services.

Independence was finally won by the Free Officers coup of 1958, led by Abdel Karim Kassem with the support of the Iraqi Communist Party - at the time the largest non-government communist party in the world. The US was immediately hostile to Kassem on account of his alliance with communists, his nationalisation programme and his progressive social views. The CIA conspired to bring the Ba’ath Party to power in 1963, thinking that they would be easier to control than Kassem. They were wrong. The Ba’ath government nationalised Iraq’s oil and used the proceeds to develop a very advanced social welfare system and to build a modern army with advanced military technology, capable of being an independent force. Before the international demonisation started in earnest in the late 80s, Saddam Hussein was awarded UNESCO prizes for Iraq’s literacy and public health programmes. The Iraqi Ba’ath was also among the most consistent supports of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. Yasser Arafat famously said: “I can’t sleep peacefully except in Baghdad”.

Concerned that Iraq was becoming too independent - too much of an example for the rest of the third world - the western powers pushed Saddam into a war with the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran. Supplying arms to both sides, the US was able to engineer the massive weakening of both sides, in a totally needless war that lasted nine years, created around 1.5 million casualties and almost bankrupted both sides.

The US and British then baited Saddam into occupying Kuwait (a region of Iraq that was split off by the British due to the vastness of its oil wealth). They ignored his very reasonable offer for withdrawal (he offered complete unilateral withdrawal on the condition that Israel withdrew from the Occupied Territories), and proceeded to unleash what was at the time “the most concentrated air war in history”, in January 1991. Weapons caches were wiped out and the army was reduced to a shadow of its former self.

Britain and the US then pushed for a brutal, immoral sanctions regime that is responsible for at least 1.5 million deaths between 1991 and 2003. By the time of the invasion of March 2003, the Iraqi people had already suffered 23 years of full-scale attack on their living standards. This is the punishment for an oil-rich country pursuing true independence.

Every person in Britain and the US should feel the utmost shame at what has been done to Iraq in our names. We have a moral debt to the Iraqi people to do everything within our power to oppose imperialism from within the belly of the beast.

Unity, not separatism, is the answer to divide-and-rule

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:08:41 -0400

Expose and attack white privilege, yes. Expose and attack white supremacy, yes. Expose and attack patriarchy, yes. Expose and attack all forms of oppression, yes. But always be mindful of the fact that racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and misogyny are forms of divide and rule; the cultural-social-political creations of a SYSTEM of economic exploitation and domination that stops at nothing to preserve the status quo. If we entrench these divisions, if we refuse to engage with anyone who doesn’t look like us, and if we give up on the idea of educating people and defeating their prejudices, then the game’s already over. We lost.

People’s ideas and actions are not determined by biological accidents; they are determined by their life experiences (including learning). That is to say: people are capable of change. The context to create that type of change - the context in which people can work together and learn to understand one another - is the shared struggle for a better humanity. Unity is acheived through action. Yes, all the ills of society can be found lurking within that struggle too, and wiping them out is just another part of the struggle.

Vo Nguyen Giap tribute to Hugo Chávez

Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:27:00 -0400

Message from the legendary Vietnam War hero, General Vo Nguyen Giap, regarding the death of Hugo Chávez. (Via Aporrea (Spanish))

Government and people of Venezuela, family of President Hugo Chávez Frias, and Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Vietnam.

I express my deepest sympathy to the government and people of Venezuela, on having received the news of the regrettable death of President Hugo Chavez, a great friend of the Vietnamese people.

The departure of President Chávez, the hero of Venezuela, has been a great loss for the revolution and the struggle for human liberation, not only in Latin America but also in the world. Although the heart of this excellent son of Latin America stopped beating, his work and his noble ideals will live forever in the hearts of the progressive peoples of the world.

I am of the firm conviction that the heroic Venezuelan people will overcome this great pain in order to to continue to reap ever greater successes in the cause of the construction and development of the country. The world will see changes, but the relations of friendship and sincere cooperation for peace, stability and development between Vietnam and Venezuela will strengthen sustainable forever.