Terjemahan Revolusioner, dll (Revolutionary Translation, etc)

this page no longer update, go to my myspace

2006-12-02T11:20:00.000-08:00

In case anyone still come by here...

I'm no longer updating this page, exclusively on myspace now (with music too!), so check it out.

(Previously I thought myspace did not archive old blogs, but actually that's not true so now I have no reason to keep the blogspot thing going. You need a myspace to comment, but anyone can read. If you really wanna comment on something, & really don't wanna join myspace, go ahead & do it here, I get e-mail alert when comment here so I'll still know...)

book review: "Evolution, Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist World-View" by Greg Graffin

2006-08-10T15:33:00.000-07:00

Greg Graffin (that's right, the guy from punk band Bad Religion) has written an excellent book on the beliefs of the world's top evolutionary scientists. To clear things up, one must point out that he is very much in his element here; in fact his academic/scientific career was cut short to deal with the unexpected success of his equally excellent endeavors in music through Bad Religion, but he has returned to pursue his academics as well in recent years, & this is the result. Basically he sent out a questionnaire to recognised, preeminent scientists in the most "directly" evolutionary fields (such as biology, etc) about their views on evolution & how evolution has influenced their worldview in general. The book contains the questionnaire, the results, an analysis of what the results mean, & several in-depth interviews with individuals (incl. such heavyweights as Dick Lewontin, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, & more).

To start off I'll just put the questionnaire itself here, with my answers to it. Now I'm not a top evolutionary scientist, to be clear, but I have learned quite a bit about evolution & religion. When questions arise about "teaching of evolution" or similar scenarios, I will answer them in the sense of "if I was a science professor" or "when I tell others about evolution", etc. The questionnaire is in normal text, my answers in bold italics. My criticisms of some of the choices & wording in the questionnaire is under the comments section (number 18).

SECTION ONE: Statement of Belief

1) Do you consider yourself a religious person?
    * YES
    * NO

2) [If "yes" to Q1,] Which best describes your religion?
    * Christian
    * Islamic
    * Judaism
    * Buddhism
    * Other

3) [If "no" to Q1,]Which best describes your belief system?
    * Atheist
    * Agnostic
    * Naturalist
    * Other

4) Do you believe in God, or an entity that exists beyond the scope of our observations that is responsible for designing and maintaining life on earth?
    * I believe in God as described in this question.
    * I believe in God, but my God merely started the processes of the universe, and of life on earth, and does not intervene on a day-to-day basis.
    * I don't believe in God in any traditional sense of the word.
    * I don't believe in God, but I do believe that there are entities in the universe that are beyond the scope of science and are forever going to remain so.

5) What role does evidence play for you in determining your belief in God?
    * I believe that there is a God no matter how insubstantial the evidence.
    * I believe that there is not enough evidence to justify a belief in God.
    * I don't apply scientific methodology or principles to my beliefs.

6) I believe that there is something, not known to science, in human beings that lives on after the body dies.
    * Agree with this statement
    * Disagree with this statement

7) Please choose only one of the following:
    * All biological organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment but humans still possess free will.
    * All biological organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment and humans have no free will.

SECTION TWO: What Evolution Studies, What It Ignores

8) Organisms, including humans, consist of the following:
    * Material properties [Properties are here defined as determining factors.]
    * Spiritual/Non-material properties
    * BOTH material and spiritual/non-material properties

9) I believe that the findings of evolutionary biology can influence and alter morality.
    * Agree with this statement
    * Disagree with this statement

10) Do you believe that evolution teaches us something about the objective reality of life on earth or is such a topic better left for philosophers to debate?
    * I am committed to teaching about the objective reality of life on earth.
    * I am content to let philosophers debate about objective reality, without addressing it in my teaching.
    * I don't believe that there is such a thing as objective reality, we all create our own reality.

11) What is your view of purpose and progress in evolution?
    * Neither purpose nor progress plays any ultimate role in evolution. ["Ultimate" refers to any of the following concepts: intelligent design, teleology, or determining factors that science does not study.]
    * Evolution exhibits no ultimate purpose, but progress does occur in evolution.
    * Ultimate purpose plays a role in evolution and progress is a part of that purpose.
    * Ultimate purpose plays a role in evolution, but it doesn't entail progress.

12) What is your opinion on the relationship between evolution and religion?
    * They are non-overlapping magisteria [teaching bodies] whose tenets are not in conflict.
    * Religion is a social phenomenon that has developed with the biological evolution of Homo sapiens. Therefore religion should be considered as a part of our biological heritage and its tenets should be seen as a labile social adaptation, subject to change and reinterpretation.
    * They are mutually exclusive magisteria whose tenets indicate mutually exclusive conclusions.
    * They are totally harmonious. Evolution is one of many ways to elucidate the evidences of God's designs.

SECTION THREE: Religious Belief and Practice of Evolution

13) I keep my beliefs about morality and ethics separate from my practice and teaching of evolution.
    * Agree with this statement
    * Disagree with this statement

14) Look at the following diagram. Choose the letter that corresponds to your philosophical preference. For instance, if you are a naturalist* choose "A" if you are a Deist*, choose "I" and so on. If your philosophical position is intermediate between the end points, there are lettered fields you can choose. For instance "C" corresponds to a philosophy that is predominantly naturalist but includes some leanings toward deism. "H" is a deistic philosophy with some leanings toward theism*. "J", "K", and "L" are neutral positions along their respective axes. "M" is a totally neutral position, a philosophy without any leanings toward naturalism, deism, or theism.

- Naturalism, the philosophical position that matter, energy, and natural laws make up the total composition of the universe, and that no God created or designed it, truth is found through the empirical procedure of exploration and verification.

- Deism, the philosophical position that God exists and created the universe and its forces and matter but does not intervene in daily events; he is an uncaring God who started the evolutionary process but plays no role in its outcome; truth is revealed by design.

- Theism, the philosophical position that God exists and cares for humans, and intervenes in daily events and processes to affect outcomes for the good of mankind, and that truth is revealed by such goodness.

Choose on the letter of your choice:

    * A
    * B
    * C
    * D
    * E
    * F
    * G
    * H
    * I
    * J
    * K
    * L
    * M

15) Do you think that your body of work in evolutionary biology reflects your position on the diagram of Q14?
    * Yes
    * No

16) Do you consider yourself a naturalist in the metaphysical sense? [One who subscribes to metaphysical naturalism, the notion that the only reliable method of discovering truth comes from empirical investigation.]
    * YES
    * NO

17) What kind of belief system would you advocate, if pressed, as being the most consonant with a lifelong practice of evolution?
    * One of the traditional religions (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc.)
    * A naturalistic one that is based on materialism, and incorporates advances in scientific knowledge
    * One that incorporates some aspects of traditional religion and some aspects of modern science
    * Other

SECTION FOUR: Comments (optional)

18) If you would like to qualify any of your answers, or comment on any of the questions, please use this page to do so.

Q4: There should also be a choice for "I don't believe in God at all", whether in a "traditional sense of the word" or not.

Q7: I agree with parts of both these choices. I chose the second one to highlight that humans are no more specially gifted with "free will" than any other organisms. We are able to see freedom & choices more easily, & act on them more consciously, because of our better mental abilities. However there is freedom & necessity for everything. There are always constraints of some kind on every overall freedom. Many organisms rely more on instinct than conscious analysis in making choices, but if you define "free will" as the ability to make choices using consciousness (even regardless of consequences), then humans are also not unique in that. Also humans do have some instincts & automatic processes. The main thing is what is "free will", obviously if it means absolute freedom then there are no organisms that have that, e.g. humans can't fly no matter how much one "wills" it. I feel that the main thrust of the question is whether humans are special & "above" other organisms -- other than the various things which make us a separate species after all -- & that "free will" is too vague. Therefore it should be two separate questions: one, multiple choice on what is your definition of free will; & two, do humans have this exclusively, does every organism have it, or does nothing have it.

Q12: I wanted to choose both B & C for this question. Religion is mutually exclusive to science, but one can & should use scientific methods to study religion. One of the conclusions of such study being that religion is a social phenomenon which developed as part of our evolutionary process -- but this doesn't mean that we are "hardwired", born, or stuck with religion permanently. Rather, in my opinion, humans are born with ability & tendency to create a world outlook, to answer "big questions", & so on: tens of thousands of years ago guesswork & chance combined to make our answer religion, but with the development of science we now are able to have more accurate answers.

Q16: "Philosophical" would be a much better choice of word than "metaphysical". "Metaphysical" means "beyond the physical" or "non-material" & this usage suggests that ideas have no root in reality. This term "naturalism" that you are promoting is actually in opposition to metaphysics, which is idealism & belief in existence of supernatural forces & so on.

GENERAL COMMENTS: Please don't make up new words because you're scared to talk about the old ones. (I mean you're a punk rocker, for crying out loud! But mainly it's not an identity thing, but the principle of the matter.) "Atheism" & "materialism" are perfectly good words. If you don't believe in God or gods then you are an atheist; there are different kinds of atheists with different overall worldviews, different styles ("militant" or not etc), but atheism is atheism & not something else. Similarly if you think that there is only one objective reality & that there is no such thing as "supernatural" forces or beings, then you are a materialist. Just as "intelligent design" is nothing but creationism, your "naturalism" is just atheism & your "monism" is just materialism. (Though I will concede that "monism" is a good term when contrasting it to "dualism". Also intelligent design is a specific kind of creationism & naturalism is a specific kind of atheism -- but the problem is when you offer atheism & naturalism as two separate choices & you can't choose both.)

SECTION FIVE: Biographical Information (optional)

19) Your Name:
Institution of highest academic degree: some university
Area of research concentration and classes taught: languages
Age: 25
Country of citizenship: U.S.
Country of primary education: Malaysia
Were you formally introduced to any religion in a ceremony or rite of passage?
    * Yes
    * No
    * N/A
If yes, which? Christianity, & then Islam
Are you practicing in that religion now?
    * Yes
    * No (neither one)
    * N/A
For those who answered NO: Did the study and teaching of Evolution have an ideological impact on your decision to discontinue practicing that religion?
    * Yes
    * No
    * N/A
Are you practicing in any religion now?
    * Yes
    * No
    * N/A
Explain: I had already become an atheist for other reasons before I learned anything deep about evolution. However, knowledge of evolution has solidified & reaffirmed my being an atheist.

One last note of the top of my head, I wanted to respond to some discussion (especially in the interviews) on "first cause" & notions of some kind of amorphous supernatural force which one may call "God" though not in the traditional sense. That is, the deist rather than theist position. (Or in popular terms, being "spiritual" rather than "religious".) And I don't have expertise/knowledge to say whether the Big Bang Theory in particular is correct or not. But look this whole "first cause" thing, or the idea that something "must" be behind it all, at least kick-starting everything, one "creation" act & then it all takes place according to evolutionary laws etc -- it's just bullshit. If you can't believe that the universe "just happened", then how the hell could you believe that a god/creator "just happened"? I mean where did God come from then? Or is there some other "first cause" for that too, did "God2" create "God" who then created the universe? Come on it's all too stupid. At some point, something just happened! I doubt we'll ever find out the answer to the how & why of that (I mean even if you figure out how "something" comes out of "nothing", well where does the "nothing" with such potential come from?, etc) So obviously there will always be wonder, awe, & mystery -- but it's no reason to make up new "God"s, "Easter Bunny"s, & the rest under the cover of bogus "scientific" & "scholarly" jargon.

Now that I've put all these criticisms up, let me make clear that the main thing of this book is extremely positive, & I strongly recommend it. Especially, it not only puts the lie to the story that evolution is up for debate, but shows that evolutionists are overwhelming not religious at all. Even those who are "religious" are mainly deists, i.e. they believe in spiritual/supernatural things in a general sense, but don't believe in traditional organised religion & certainly don't mix such things with their science.

GO TO CORNELLEVOLUTIONPROJECT.ORG to read the results of the survey, view a video, & get info for ordering a copy for yourself.

Finally, as long as we're on the subject of evolution books, I'd like to promote the upcoming book The Science of Evolution and The Myth of Creationism: Knowing What's Real and Why It Matters by Ardea Skybreak. CHECK IT OUT HERE! (Click on the "download the series" link to read it online for free; but please support & buy a copy, hardcover available now & paperback in mid-August.) Richard Leakey, the fucking legendary anthropologist, recommends it by saying it is " of tremendous benefit to many, especially those in the teaching profession where there are frequent opportunities to defend science against the ridiculous assertions by religious zealots and fundamentalists."

On today's shooting of Jews in Seattle

2006-07-28T21:08:00.000-07:00

Today somebody walked into Jewish Federation in downtown Seattle & opened fire, killing one person & wounding five. The shooter, who is originally from Pakistan, then surrendered to police without resistance. Witnesses/victims said the shooter was making statements to the effect that he was angry with Israel's current actions. [Facts are according to mainstream TV news; click here for example.]

Some brief points of common sense for everyone:

1) This was a stupid thing to do. Isolated armed actions (or isolated unarmed actions, for that matter) will always stay isolated. And even if one was to do an armed action, a civilian religious institution is not a proper target for the actions of a government & its military. The JF's politics are on the wrong side of history by supporting the state of Israel (which is not a universal position amongst Jews), but they are definitely not a military enemy.

2) This stupid thing is not representative of Muslims in general, Islam in general, Pakistanis in general, or anything else except frustrated fools with no ability to distinguish who is an enemy & who is not.

3) This stupid thing does not give any legitimacy to Israel's unjust war on Lebanon or its 58-year occupation of Palestine & ongoing genocide & mass imprisonment of an entire people. Nor does it give excuses for any individual or group to be confused on this out of "sympathy".

4) This stupid thing is similar to other stupid attacks on civilians going about their daily business; it is not similar to completely justified attacks on invading soldiers fighting for the existence of an oppressive hell on earth.

book reviews: "Gao Village" & "Some of Us"

2006-07-11T13:28:00.000-07:00

(This is more a quick recommendation than a comprehensive review. I neglected writing this for a while, I finished reading these a over a month ago, so I forget some of their details. Whether you've read the books yet or not, feel free to comment or message me, including if you have questions about the authors' positions on various things or other contents of the books I've left out. And go read them, they're not that long.)

These books are similar so I put 'em in the same blog entry. Both are written recently by Chinese academics who grew up during the Mao period. They are neither Maoist nor anti-Maoist, but honestly trying to analyse the truth of what happened during that incredibly important period of history. They have the benefits of having both the status of first-hand experience of the events, as well as the standards of academic scholars. For a contemporary Maoist perspective (which includes acknowledging & analysing the real errors as well as celebrating advances & exposing lies) check out Set The Record Straight.

Gao Village by Gao C.F. "Mobo"

Mr Gao (everyone from Gao village has the family name Gao by the way) was an average peasant in rural Jiangxi province during most of the Mao years. He liked & did well in school, becoming a "barefoot teacher" & eventually was able to go on to university when the exams were abolished & students were let in on the basis of [low] class, community need, & desire (as opposed to the exams which favoured the higher classes because of their priviledge to study under the old society as well as having more free time & better-educated parents to help). He was involved in the Red Guard student movement, for a short time & not as a leader. He currently is a professor in Australia. He made special trips back to his village for writing this book, interviewing many people & doing lots of research to supplement his own decades-old personal memories. The bulk of this book is about the Mao era, but it has a brief chapter on pre-1949 times, & quite a bit on the new capitalist period (1977-now). Also it is completely focused on Gao village as a case study, though broader issues come up & are discussed (he does a wonderful job of weighing the pluses & minuses of this approach in the intro, by the way).

Two things stand out most about this book. First, his heart is solidly with the general masses of people. Second, he is honest, straightforward, & has a wonderful academic method (of science rather than hot air). He squarely states the facts, that the Mao era was the best ever in China's history. Not perfect, but way better than anything before or since. Also, it was moving forward. This is what I always emphasise to people. No, it was not a utopia -- but things were getting better, the situation was improving by leaps (with of course stumbling blocks & small backsteps along the way), until the overthrow by Deng Xiaoping & co., whereupon it got worse again. Again Mr Gao is very non-partisan about all this, talking in neutral tones about some of the good side-effects about the new period of commune dismantlement & migrant labour.

Another highlight of this book is its treatment of clan politics, how this aspect of village life has sustained its influence (which is a negative, unfair influence on communities' & individuals' lives) throughout. During the Mao period it was more hidden (even the author was subjectively unaware of its continued existence, though in hindsight & by talking with others it became obvious how it benefitted & harmed him at various points). And once socialism was thrown away, it is much more open, even to the point of armed battles between clans & villages, which the government does nothing about.

In fact much of the negative aspects of the Mao era, in a rural place like Gao village at least, are attributed to this continued power of clans, tradition, & other leftovers from "the old society" (feudalism & semi-capitalism). For instance, the reason he didn't really get into the Red Guard movement much is that he felt most of the participants were not genuine, that you advanced in leadership based on personal connections, that conflicts were created & dealt with on a surface & flashy level, etc. Many of the victims (and to be clear, these victims lost status, not lives) in Gao village were targeted for ulterior motives such as to settle a score over an extra-marital affair (or being related to someone who did that!). And there's one of the tricky things about giving power to the people -- they won't do it right all the time, especially with tens of thousands of years of class society's inertia pushing them in certain directions. One thing the author cites is that under socialism & new democracy, the main thing is majority rule, to do what most people want. Well that lets big villages & clans bully smaller ones. Although there were mechanisms to prevent this, it happened anyway a lot. For example some dams were built taking much of Gao village's irrigation water away & giving it to Xu village (which is much larger, & thus with elections etc is where much of the area's leadership was from). This problem grew exponentially in effect when the whole cooperative system of socialism was dismantled. In fact it is to the point that small Gao village children are brutalised on their way to & from school by older kids from dominant villages & clans (at the bidding & influence of their parents no doubt), which of course leads to less Gao villagers actually going to school, especially girls. And let's not forget that they only have to leave their village for school because most schools have been closed by the new capitalist regime, under the excuse of "quality not quantity", in other words a few elite schools in the cities & not even elementary schools for much of the countryside.

Well I won't go through a blow-by-blow of the whole book. I had some disagreements with some of his conclusions, & (as is common) the parts on the Hua Guofeng period were rather murky & indecisive. But much of the shortcomings in terms of not seeing the bigger picture & so on are actually acknowledged by the author himself, that this is what happens when you do a case study basically. Overall it is a great book, I recommend it to everyone. It is honest, intellectually sound, & on the side of the masses of people. Folks who are accustomed to the typical story about Maoist China (horror & starvation & all that) will be able to hear a refutation of that in level-headed, proof-filled terms that is a combination of both personal experience & qualified research. Maoist revolutionaries will be able to find out about some of the shortcomings, & be certain that what they are reading is true. (After all, even if Jung Chang said a couple true things how could you tell amidst all the bullshit?) And one last thing, it's easy to read. It's somewhat "academic", but not unintelligable Chomsky-type jargon -- you can tell it's an average guy writing this, & when he uses academic or China-specific terminology he lets you know what it means.

Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era by Zhong Xueping, Wang Zheng, Bai Di, et al

And with this book we see how the other half lived. This book is a compilation of short memoirs by women who grew up during the Cultural Revolution. It is in chronological order of oldest to youngest, so some were in their late teens whilst others were just little kids during the GPCR (late '60s to early '70s). All are city folk of middle to upper class origin, some of communist parentage and some not. The book was motivated to be published by these women, who are also all currently academics in the West, feeling the "odd one out" as they listened & read the horror-story type memoirs of the GPCR [Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution]. These women have fond memories of that time, overall, & found each other & decided to set the record straight that doom & gloom is simply not all that went on then.

A highlight is many of their recollections of being "sent down", or going to the countryside with the goal of both helping the peasantry as well as learning from them. In fact a couple of them volunteered for it, not under pressure but genuinely, in one case against pressure (she was younger than most participants). Even the couple who didn't like it didn't see it as a punishment. Many view it as the high point of their lives so far.

This book is much more personal than Gao Village, & as it is also by women, it deals with issues such as learning gender roles (or not), growing up & issues of love & sexuality, marriage, & more. Many of these things were up for debate in society at large, changing even the language such as being a "youth" vs a "girl" or a "woman".

Overall I didn't personally like this book as much as Mr Gao's. Especially having read that one first with all its description of rural hardships (even with the improvements under Mao), the immediate reaction to some of the middle class city folks' complaints is like "who cares, it all pales in comparison". Especially a couple of them seemed at first out of place as they were more subjectively anti-GPCR. But compared to what's out there with Wild Swans & Red Violin & all the rest, even those chapters with an overall negative view of the era are good. I say this because they are honest. Also, across the board & without exception, the authors note that women were much more equal during the Mao period. Women were able to achieve more, & they were able to be in leadership positions at all levels of society, & they were able to just walk around without being degraded, & in a genuine way too, not just a superficial "this is what's p.c. on t.v." type of way either.

On a nitpicky note, some of the authors use the normal style of family name first, then individual name while others reverse it to English style. As they do this not just with their names, but everyone -- except famous people like Mao Zedong or Zhou Enlai etc, it gets rather annoying and confusing. (By the way I've listed all the authors in this blog entry Chinese-style [& "Mobo" is a nickname], so when you're looking for it at the bookstore/library/online, "Gao" & "Zhong" are the surnames to look under.)

Anyway this book is really a must-read. Given the variety you will like & dislike some of the chapters no matter what. But it is extemely important that these women are asserting themselves basically to say: "I'm not delusional, I know what I lived & I know from study that I'm not the only one. This is what happened, deal with it."

Regarding such an intense period of class struggle, of course some will have a negative & some will have a positive view of it. And of course, especially when the bourgeoisie (capitalists) win out, there will be all kinds of lies & distortions. But we should also not just wish for, but expect there to be honest voices from various perspectives. When those voices make themselves heard, listen to them.

pamphlet (pdf) - "IRAN: the threat of another war" from AWTWNS

2006-06-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

click here to download pdf for freeI R A N
the threat of another war
A series of articles from A World To Win News Service:

What the US wants
Possible US tactics to serve its strategic goals in Iran
The Iranian regime
The US plan and its contradictions
5. What the people need to do

This series is an extremely valuable, in-depth source of information & analysis that everyone needs to read.

click here to download pdf for free

Boots (of The Coup) on the proper role of music

2006-06-10T21:03:00.000-07:00

[excerpt from a recent interview -- can read the whole thing here; The Coup's webpage is here & its myspace page is here.]

JR: How did you come up wit' the concept of the Coup? And how did the Coup become a rap group?

Boots: Everybody was always rappin' in high school. I had thought about doin' it. I was already an organizer. How could I put some of those ideas in? I was kind of skeptical on if it could work.

One day, we were doing some organizing in Double Rock projects (in Hunters Point, San Francisco). We did that constantly there at that time. This was in '89. There was a woman there named Rossy Hawkins and her two twin 8-year-old sons that were gettin' beat down by the police. I wasn't there at the time, but this is the story that was told to me; tens, almost hundreds of people told me a story similar to this, and I personally also knew Rossy Hawkins.

Her and her two sons got beat down by the police in the middle of Double Rock projects, and immediately the whole projects came out. Rossy Hawkins and her sons were bloody. There had recently been a case where the police beat someone down and then didnt even take them to the hospital, and he died in custody in the car.

So the neighborhood was like "let's get her away from them and take her to the hospital ourself." So they started to charge the police. The police got scared and started shootin' up in the air. If you've ever had a gun shot right around you, the first thing that you think is that I could die right now. So everybody ran.

At some point people turned back around, and by the end of the night, they had got Rossy Hawkins and her sons away, got her to the hospital. And there were three police cars turned over, and the police ran out on foot without guns.

Needless to say that none of this was in the news the next day. Not even a story about it was in the news anywhere. But when we went back, everybody told their story, and the parts that I'm telling you are the parts that everybody had the same. So everybody had other little details; some of them matched up, and some of them didnt match up. But this part that I'm telling you matched up.

The other part that matched up was when everybody was running away from the police, somebody started chanting, "Fight the Power!" "Fight the Power!" "Fight the Power!" And this was in the summer of 1989, and Public Enemy's song "Fight the Power" was all over the radio at the time.

Everybody said that made them know what they was supposed to do. So even though the police were shootin' up in the air, people charged the police and did what they had to do.

That let me know what music is supposed to do. It's supposed to be a rallying cry, it's supposed to be a theme, a chant, an anthem that lets people understand that there is a unity of thought goin' on, that if you like this song and it is sayin' something to you, it's probably saying that same thing to thousands of other people, and it gives you what you need to go into battle.

"X-Men 3": the bad guys are better than the good guys!

2006-06-05T10:54:00.000-07:00

CAUTION: THE BELOW REVIEW CONTAINS PLOT SPOILERS!
(You might not want to read this until after you've seen the film.)

I went into the theatre being hopeful. Not that the first two movies were perfect, but overall they were good, & the previews for this one looked really good as well.

One of the reasons, politically, that I don't uphold the series overall is its whole thing of Professor X as an MLK caricature & Magneto as a Malcolm X caricature -- caricatures drawn with bourgeois hands of course. (That is, MLK/Prof.X is full of love & tolerance, only struggling when absolutely forced to, whilst Malcolm/Magneto is full of hate & vengeance, using terrorist methods but you can understand his motivations at least.) I think I even read an interview where Stan Lee (the creator of the comic books) actually said this analogy himself.

The mutants' situation, especially in these recent movies, actually seems to have more in common with homosexuals than Blacks, though. There's the "coming out to the parents" scenes, the way that many can easily blend in with "normal people", & in this 3rd movie the "cure" (like Christian de-gayification camps).

Now let's talk about why I didn't like this. I didn't like it because its line is counter-revolutionary. What happens in the film?

First, we discover there is a "cure" for mutation, that is permanent. So that's very bad, especially because it could be made mandatory.

Then what are the reactions of our "heroes" & "villains"? The X-Men develop worry warts, & the Brotherhood declares it to be wrong, & they will put a stop to it. They get their team ready for action, go to community meetings to debate that direct action by the people is needed not lobbying the enemy's congress, & hack the airwaves for Magneto to give an address to the public. He calls on mutants to join him, the government & corporation to stop, & for others to get out of the way. Not "meddling X-Men I will kill you for disagreeing" but "We're going to do this for everyone's benefit, don't stop us". Oh that horrible fiend.

Then, as the Brotherhood is freeing a POW, the "cure" is used as a weapon, which is not exactly "voluntary". Now Magneto does do something fucked up here, by ditching Mystique (& we see later how not only is that morally wrong, but it hurts their mission practically as well). This increases their determination to get rid of the "cure", & increases the popular sentiment against it. But the X-Men pay no nevermind to this, other than Beast quitting his do-nothing government post to help the rest of his buddies do nothing outside the government.

Another mistake Magneto made was trying to use Jean Grey for the cause, even though she's a total destructive psycho at this point. I think this can be analogous to nuclear weapons. He does try to stop her from killing Professor X, but he's not powerful enough.

Then what? Now it's one thing if you're a vacillating (or "wishy washy") middle strata force, you can't decide if the ruling class & its government is really the enemy or not, so you're paralysed & do nothing. That's one thing, it's called neutrality. Now it's quite another thing if you do like the X-Men & despite your bragging about "unity" & "peace" go out to violently prevent folks from enacting positive change.

The Brotherhood goes to shut down a chemical weapons factory, weapons which have already been used on the people, & the X-Men come to the aid of genocidal reactionaries to stop them.

So in this case it's quite accurate portrayal of MLK, calling to mind when he supported the calling in of National Guard to violently suppress the urban uprisings by Black people in the mid-'60s.

And of course all throughout the movie, it's not portrayed as even equal, where the viewer is encouraged to decide who's right & who's wrong. No, there's the triumphant soundtrack behind it all whenever the X-Men perpetrate another fucked-up pro-government deed.

Basically it boils down to this:
- Magneto & co. were doing the right thing (with some mistakes)
- the X-Men did the reactionaries' dirty work for them, stopping revolutionaries & protecting a genocidal arsenal in the US imperialists' hands

The first two movies were not, of course, shining examples of the revolutionary communist line or whatever. But this one crosses the line into reactionary territory. In fact it may be worse than your run-of-the-mill reactionary flick in that the reactionary heroes are not the US Marine Corps but supposed "rebels".

Thus the overall purpose of the movie seems to be an attempt at convincing rebellious-minded folks to at all costs stay within the bounds set by the ruling class, & be pacifist when opposing the government but violent when supporting it.

"An Inconvenient Truth": great! (except last 10 min.)

2006-06-04T23:50:00.000-07:00

This film has a lot of hype around it. For the most part it lives up to it. Basically this is a presentation by Al Gore, he's been giving slideshow/speeches in hundreds of cities for the last couple years about global warming, this movie is basically that presentation plus a bit extra so it's more of a documentary film than just the speech & slides.

I am an environmentalist (I'm a revolutionary communist). I am not a liberal or a Democrat (I'm a revolutionary communist).

So I wasn't surprised by any of the films contents, both in terms of the severity of the environmental situation as well as Gore's political misunderstandings. That said, much of the material was nonetheless shocking in the many details, for example state-sized chunks of ice shelf falling off Antarctica in a matter of weeks (that's past tense mind you, not one of those "projected possibility" things). Also Gore -- whilst wrong in his individual-based (fill the bucket with many rain drops) solution & stupid patriotism -- seems to be a very honest person. He even showcases some disillusionment with the political system, talking about how he would go to congress with these hearings on global warming, & come home shocked that they didn't care etc.

He does talk about how ignoring global warming is bad for the economy also, & that the popularised notion of "trees vs. jobs" or whatever is wrong-headed. Of course in his mind the only possible economy is a capitalist one, even if he means a more "benevolent" capitalism, & you can tell this by some of the examples he uses in that section of the film. However you can't reduce this to some dogmatic thing of "Gore represents the environmentally aware section of the bourgeoisie, they only want to save the environment to make more profits". Surely this is true to a point, & I don't know if he is still involved in this anymore, but Gore personally was owner of a company that took land from the U'wa people in Colombia to get natural gas. So Gore is certainly a capitalist & certainly not a saint, but he also seems to genuinely care about the humanity's future survival.

And that's worth thinking about, everybody, this is survival we are talking about, there will be neither communism nor fascism, nor anything in between, if we don't have an environment fit for human beings. And similar to the stance taken by revolutionaries faced with nuclear holocaust in the '80s, we can say that we may try to rip a revolution out of huge devastation & death, but it's really better to do it beforehand &/or otherwise prevent the catastrophe.

The film is well-made & Gore's presentation is well-delivered. Some Seattle Weekly idiot reviewer said they were bored or whatever, only liked the 3 minute cartoon part, but they suck. It's very interesting to watch & moving, whether you know a lot or a little on the subject. The science is easy to understand, without being too simplified or condescending. As I said above though, the last ten minutes or so is a real let-down, he starts talking about "America's greatness" for who knows what dumbass reason, & then gives small individual-based solutions mainly aimed at the middle class, like "buy a hybrid car" etc.

(There's an analogy there too I guess, you can read some Democrats' articles exposing the Bush Regime's fascist actions & imperial blunders, but if you follow their line & solutions, you will get nowhere.)

Lively debate on communism & reality

2006-06-01T16:39:00.000-07:00

Alright, so posted here (with everyone's permission of course) is a discussion I been having with this guy; his personal page is here & his music page is here. We thought it would be good for others to read & think about this stuff too.

My words are green text, his are black text.

Feel free to join in the debate by posting a comment...

where do you stand politically? i agree with a lot of the basic marxist premise but i'd never follow stalin or mao. what about you?

Well I support the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, which is to say I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. (Not that I therefore agree with every last word every genuine MLMer says, much less self-described "maoists" or "communists", contrary to "popular belief" we ain't all "groupthink" or whatever.)

But anyway, to give you a short answer, Stalin -- & he himself was important but "Stalin" is also kinda shorthand for the party, government, mass movement, etc going on in his place & time, no individual is all-powerful whether they have positive or negative impact -- was like a 50/50 kinda deal in sum. Lots of negative experience (but not to the extent you've probably heard) but lots of positive things happening too, overall in the Stalin era the USSR was a socialist country but with lots of problems; not something to repeat but to learn from.

Mao on the other hand -- & again that's shorthand for "the leading revolutionaries in China of that era as well as Mao" or whatever -- was more like 90/10 mostly positive. Mainly positive experience there, obviously there were still problems to be overcome & then there were also some problems they created but that's secondary in an objective analysis. If you are thinking of the whole "cult of personality" hoopla -- not just respecting him as a good leader but worship kind of shit --, a lot of that was stirred up by (a) counterrevolutionaries who literally turned around to criticise him for it a few months or years later (much like Khrushchev who called Stalin "great father" numerous occasions only to after he's dead decry "cult of personality" etc) & (b) honest people who liked Mao but were still stuck in a feudal/religious/hero-worship mindset even though subjectively they wanted to be communists. So overall the Mao era is a model to look up to; but again not something to repeat but to learn from.

Alright well so much for my "short answer" I guess that's more a medium answer.

Hey so you live in Wales? I wonder, what's your take on Welsh people in terms of revolution; should it be independent or just be an autonomous region in a socialist "former-UK" or what? The case of oppressed nationalities in Europe is interesting -- of course it's somewhat different for each one, but -- on the one hand they are oppressed as nationalities & usually have much worse economic situations (not that English or French proletarians are livin' the dream or whatever!) in addition to the cultural oppression, but on the other hand it ain't on the same level at all as Native Americans or Australian Aborigines.

Please forgive me, today I'm having a run-on sentence marathon apparently. But in closing I'd love to hear what you think about stuff, & as you're in the UK I'd encourage you to hook up with the World People's Resistance Movement (they don't have a chapter yet in Wales, but do in London & Belfast), that is an activist organisation supporting people's antiimperialist struggles around the world, e.g. Palestine, Nepal, Iraq as well as trying to heighten the antiimperialist struggle in their own locations; it's not specifically communist or anarchist or others, but is open to all antiimperialists.

gotta disagree about the stalin and mao governments. especially mao. i've been to china and seen the look in people's eyes when you mention the cultural revolution. both governments missed the point. i thought the point of communism was to govern by and for the people. as it turned out, the soviets were lost in the stalin system, and the cultural revolution was hardly what the people of china were crying out for. in fact, when the chinese people tried to take matters into their own hands we have the massare of tienmen square. so yeh, basically what i think is that any government that oppresses and disappears its own people has missed the point.

not being communist i wouldn't be in a position to comment on revolution in wales, except for the fact that almost no-one here cares about politics or world issues, let alone a revolution. it's hard enough to get them to get off their arses and protest a corrupt welsh assembly (check myspace.com/strippingthecitizens), let alone overthrow anyone. but for a start lose the idea that wales is oppressed by england. that's what a lot of welsh people like to think but really it's not true. for a start most "welsh" people are the grandkids of miners who moved here from england, and they love to hate the english, but if you actually ask them why they never have a legitimate reason. mostly they'll say the english people hate them, which is bullshit. secondly, yeah although the valleys are quite poor, that is not due to english oppression. if the welsh assembly government wanted to do something about that it's had loads of opportunities.

so basically the way i see it, the climate in the usa seems to be changing gradually in favor of some schism or revolution. but in the uk, no way. we can't even elect a left wing government.

Hi,

First on China. Well I've been there & talked with people too (& I speak Chinese, I don't know if that might effect what kind of people we each have opportunity to talk with...?). Not that anecdotes are the main thing -- look at the statistics, the revolutionary period (49-76) was good for the masses of people by any measure (freedoms, economy, standard of living, health, etc). Not perfect, but good & more importantly moving in the right direction rapidly. For example, it became self-sustainable in food for the first time. On Tian'anmen Square massacre, of course that was horrible, but to remind you that was not socialist country by then -- there was a counterrevolutionary coup in 1976. The guy in charge of the country then ('89), Deng Xiao-ping, was probably the most (in)famous & exposed counterrevolutionaries who was dethroned during the Cultural Revolution. So right there you can see the importance of that struggle to weed out the fake "communists" from the real ones -- when the revisionists like Deng Xiao-ping come to power you get things like that massacre. To read more about modern China (incl. Tian'anmen 89) from a revolutionary perspective, click here.

And as is obvious from your opinions, revisionism is double-bad becasue not only does it oppress people in the immediate sense when in power, but gives communism a bad name overall. "A rose by any other name is still a rose", same with weeds. Just like Bush & Blair aren't liberators nor spreading democracy, the rulers of China since '76 are not communists.

As far as Wales, well yeah I don't know much but that's why I'm asking. But I will say that trusting parliament to change things, whether there's national oppression going on particular to Wales or just the normal oppression of the capitalists against everyone else, is not going to work.

course it's not gonna work. my point is it's not specific oppression of the welsh.

as far as china's concerned i don't favor that style of communism over what we have at the moment because there was still all sorts of oppression going on, disappearences, reeducation etc. though i do take your point about the post '76 government. i just think that unless a government serves what the majority of people actually want it doesn't matter what doctrine it adhere's to, it's just as useless. that's why i feel communism as a whole misses the point. it has its revolution and may or may not improve stuff here and there, but the majority of what it does is to protect itself from successive coups which, lets face it, would not be so succesful unless they had some kind of popular support. so the communist government fears its people instead of serving them, becomes paranoid and gets overthrown by something which turns out to be worse.

Well the difference between a coup & a revolution (communist or not) is huge. A revolution is exactly what most people want, if it is a real revolution (like those in China & Russia back in the day, or Nepal now) it takes huge numbers of ordinary people to do it. Whereas a coup is done by a handful working conspiratorially, isolated from the masses (like not only China '76 but for example Pinochet in Chile or other things like that). Not all attempted coups are reactionary, there have been some in Africa that subjectively wanted to be helping the people, but they never worked out because that method is not appropriate for really changing the system & society. My point is that coups can be successful without popular support, like Pinochet in Chile, or Franco in Spain -- there was a whole civil war, the whole country against him & his fascists, incl communists & anarchists & liberals, even international brigades came, but they still not only lost but fascism was in place for many decades there, way past WW2.

Obviously if people had been more resolute, willing to act, & had a good strategy to carry it out succesfully then the coups in China or Spain would've been defeated. So it's not pure & simple a matter of people supporting the reactionaries, the problem to me seems more that they are passive. Which is very similar to today actually, I don't know about in the UK but over here just about everyone hates Bush (even those poll things say like 29% approval ratings), & such situation has been going on for a few years already, yet he is still in power. This is because for various reasons, which I certainly haven't figured them all out, people are not acting on their wants & needs. Bush staying in power doesn't mean popular support for him.

That was also the educational & organisational side of the Cultural Revolution, to get the masses aware & involved. So they can tell the difference themselves between a real communist & a fake one, & so they can do something about it should sections of the Party or army or government be taken over by the revisionists. As I said before, such takeovers & re-takeovers happened numerous times successfully during the CR but obviously the capitalists eventually won overall power. So there's definitely truth to that people were not willing &/or able to stop the coup (some were, there was fighting & protesting etc going on, but they lost).

It's a very tricky thing, dealing with revisionists. They don't just come out & say "we're for capitalism!", if they did that in a socialist country nobody would follow them. Rather they use socialist language & talk about workers & equality & all the rest, but when you dig deeper their actual content & plans are capitalist in substance. Like the Labour Party, they are not really helping labourers. Or the SWP, they are not going to lead a socialist revolution to put workers in power.

One last thing to point out. Part of the great thing about having socialism, as opposed to the anarchist idea that you can have revolution & then forget about the state right away, is the ability to make mistakes. If we're going to try to make a whole new world, we won't know how to do it all perfectly right away, especially growing up with all these thousands of years of class society's traditions etc on our backs. So with socialism, if something goes a bit wrong, not completely wrong, but a bit, then you still have an army & a structure & laws to keep things in place whilst you figure it out better. Whereas without that the imperialists from another country or the capitalists in your own country who've been waiting for an opportunity will jump in & smash you. For example, you try collectivising an area of agriculture, or a certain industry or whatever & you do it in a certain way with certain procedures &amp; whatnot; but it doesn't work out right, not enough food gets produced or it turns out to not work fairly so people don't like it -- well instead of scrapping it all or instead of letting saboteurs take advantage or instead of keeping on going with not enough food so everyone starves, the socialist system gives breathing room to improve it or try it from a different angle or whatever.

That to me is one of the main things that makes socialism without question way way better then what we have now. It won't make everything into a perfect utopia overnight, but it will make a better world possible. Wouldn't you rather deal with the problems of how to achieve e.g. economic equality & plenty for all the quickest & fairest, rather then as currently whether or not tens of thousands will ever have a home or enough food at all? There are no guarantees of complete victory, but communist revolution makes things possible whereas the current setup guarantees an impossiblity of positive change, in fact at this point it pretty much guarantees the end of humanity in a few decades due to environmental issues.

well i won't go into china, just agree to disagree. the only thing i will say is that to me, a state should not see its people as its enemy. you talk about revisionists being identified and weeded out, but if that's what people want to be, as individuals, why stop them? only because the state was so paranoid. so then you have a situation where people are scared to express themselves and have to tow the party line. anyone who doesn't disappears eventually. now how is that state serving its people? where in that situation is the ideal of the soviet?

is that state creating an atmosphere that promotes positive change? no. the state has become the whole point of the state, all resistence is crushed and no-one has any right to an opinion.

anyway, at least we're talking the same language and agreeing that change is necessary. i agree totaly about new labour. they've gone right wing, somehow. i think the problem in the usa is greater than in the uk though. the uk at least has some semblance of sanity even though i personally don't agree with most of the things they've done, whereas bush and co are so increadibly dangerous they must be overcome as soon as possible. also, i think the mood of the people in the usa reflects how insane their government is. there's no mood for revolution in the uk, just a change of government. maybe. (though no-one's yet realised the conservatives - the only party likely to win - are exactly the same as new labour.) but in the states, i can tell there's a lot of anger and a rising movement to oust bush whatever it takes. in the next 20-30 years, certainly, i'd expect to see major social change.

but still i see communism as a type of society like democracy and anarchism that can only ever work properly in a very small society like a city state or commune. it's been proven time and time again that superstates don't work.

OK well sometimes we're not talking the same language, in the case of "weeding out revisionists" it's apparent I wasn't clear enough. That doesn't mean just anybody who wants capitalism but talks like a socialist. The only threats which would need to be stopped are those who actually have some power & are organising to overthrow socialism. In China for example Lin Biao was found to be organising a military coup (this was unsuccesful & he ran away after being found out). Or in USSR Khrushchev, before he became in charge of the whole country, he was one of the main leaders of Ukraine they basically ran it like capitalist plantations; unlike in China with its Cultural Revolution the masses were not being mobilised & relied on much, so this just went on, & this was the area where there were actual food shortages. Which is ironic because the bourgeois historians cry about collectivisation causing famine, when the reverse is true: the collectivised areas did much better than the capitalist-style areas.

On the contrary, under socialism there will be way more freedom of ideas than there is now. Because communism is a scientific ideology based on objective reality, getting at the truth no matter what to better the people's condition, we actually want debate etc. So if there is a wrong idea out there, we want it not to be swept under a rug but to exposed & disproven. And if there is a correct idea out there which is not the Party's line, well it should become the Party's line (once it's figured out to be correct of course).

Bob Avakian, chairman of RCPUSA, says "All truths are good for the proletariat." Notice that it's "all truths" not "all truths said by communists", & that he cares about what's "good for the proletariat" not just what's "good for the proletarian party"...

Some of this approach -- not just allowing but valuing dissent, & so on -- was practised in the previous socialist countries, & some of it is new. That's why I said in my first reply to you that although revolutionary periods of China & USSR were positive overall, we don't want to repeat it but rather learn from & improve upon it.

Another quote we Maoists promote is "I uphold very firmly the experience of the socialist revolution so far, but I wouldn't want to live in those countries" (the comrade who said this is anonymous).

As far as the "superstates don't work" thing, I'm curious where you read/heard that? Because I've heard that not a whole lot, but enough that it seems to be more than some people's guessing. My response on one level is that, hey, city states & other small formations have been proven to not work also. So that's not really the issue. What we are aiming for as communists -- what we'd have when we can say "this is a fully communist (not just socialist) society" -- is a worldwide society of freely associating individuals. In other words, no borders, no states, no governments, no classes, no oppressive divisions of any kind. Now I don't know exactly what it will look like, I know it sounds like a bit of a cop-out but it's the truth, that's part of what we need socialism for is to figure it all out. We need the freedom to try things out, "we" meaning humanity, collectively. We need to make revolution to get that freedom to breathe & to try, & since this isn't a perfect silver-platter situation we won't get it all at once & the capitalists won't just start playing nice. So we're forced to do it unevenly, in a few countries at a time, & we'll need a state with an army to protect what we've gained. At the same time we need to guard against forces in that same state or party or army, from taking advantage of their positions & dragging us all back to capitalism. Another note, the revisionists are not just bad apples but are representatives of actual class forces, given that even if you have a socialist country there is still capitalism internationally, & seeds of capitalism within your own socialist society since it's not fully communist yet (& can't be until it's worldwide with no state etc etc). So it's a very tricky road to manoeuvre, but it's also the only road that leads at all to where we need to go.

But back to the size question. First, the bigger the collective, the more there is to cooperate on & to share; a sharp specific example would be sharing water with a desert area. Second, bigger size protects against revisionist take-overs; if some bastards succeed in restoring capitalist practises in the Welsh countryside for example, a cohesive larger society of the whole British island or even all of Europe would be more likely, & more able, to help out. Of course as I said above this is a double-edged sword because in the event of seizure of power at the centre, it's that much harder to prevent a capitalist restoration -- for example if Wales was the only place people were able to hold out, everywhere else was under capitalists' control, you'd basically be talking about a whole new revolution at that point. In any case smaller size won't solve any of the tricky contradictions.

Anarchy & democracy wouldn't work on a small scale either, at least not in terms of the whole world. Which is kind of the main problem with those ideologies, or the way they're promoted at least. See, all of humanity has these horrible problems to deal with, right? Some anarchists might like to say that you just need a small village collective, & everybody should just do that their own way, but that's disconnected from reality because it simply ignores all the interconnectedness of the world's people, both good & bad. And some democrats might like to say that it's all about the democratic method, but divorced from actual conditions does it mean anything? No. Anarchism is nothing more than a benign form of pre-capitalism feudalism if it were ever carried out in practise worldwide, there's nothing more than faith to prevent all these small "collectives" from first oppressing within themselves & then turning outwards -- if that sounds familiar, good, because that's how slavery, feudalism, & capitalism developed in the first place, out of various egalitarian tribes & small communities. And democracy has always had class content -- sure there was democracy in ancient Athens, amongst the slaveowners! Sure there's democracy in the US & UK, amongst the capitalists! (In fact fascism is when there stops being even such democracy, one section of the ruling class starts dictating to everyone, including their fellow bourgeois.) So in sum it's not purely about size or some magical set of rules -- though those are important, under socialism we shouldn't just jump & declare the entire population as one big collective, & we do need to have some established laws & protections of individual rights & processes of government etc etc -- they're important factors but not the main thing, & certainly not something to rule out socialism, the only tool we have to take any steps towards that global society of freely associating individuals.

So I know I been throwing links at you all the time, but I really encourage you to read some:
* Draft [i.e. not finalised] Programme of the RCPUSA is a well-organised document that goes point-by-point into an analysis of what's wrong with capitalism, how we can get rid of it, & how we should run things in a new socialist society -- again this plan isn't just a regurgitation of China in the 1960s or whatever, but learning from & improving that
* Set The Record Straight gets into the history of socialism so far
* A World To Win is an internationally written & distributed maoist journal (it's actually published in the UK, even though there's currently no maoist party there)
* Revolution newspaper is the newspaper of the RCPUSA, although obviously a lot of the content is US-specific, as communists & members of an international class a lot of the content is theory applicable universally as well as content specific to other countries or global issues; you can click on "topics" & browse around for whatever you're looking for if it's not in the recent issues

On the possibility of revolution in the US & UK... Well there's a lot of pissed off people here but whether they act on it or not is still an open question. There is definitely a very very noticeable increase in people's receptiveness to the idea of revolution, but at the same time you have to wonder when Bush's approval rating is at 29% but a few tens of thousands (in a country of 300 million) consistently even show face on the streets to call for him to resign or be driven out. Even the massive May Day this year, mainly fueled by immigrants' issues -- which, don't get me wrong, are central to this country -- had about 3 million total in the country, which is 1%. You don't need 90% of the country consciously behind you to make revolution, & peaceful protest is not going to overthrow capitalism, but still we're not quite where we need to be, that's for sure.

On the other hand, in an interview in 1912 Lenin said he thought he'd never see revolution in his lifetime, yet only 5 years later he was leading one! So things change very quickly, or as we communists would put it, contradictions are resolved in leaps not in a steady linear advance. (Kind of like punctuated equilibrium, if you are familiar with evolutionary science.)

Well I think I've been more than long-winded enough today. But then again I doubt you'd get much out of "socialism better, end of story", so I decided to explain longer.

Y'know what's really funny is all this talk is going on under title of "re: re: re: no subject".

nah, see, this is exactly the problem. as soon as you have One Accepted Truth that can be proved or disproved you lose the capacity for multiple truths, and it's this sort of reductionism that leads to a lot of the problems of any type of government. people are complex. there shouldn't be a party line - if the system works it'll stay in place through the power of public opinion. this is why dictators come and go relatively quickly but as soon as people are given a choice and made to feel as if they have some control over their situation, as soon as they start thinking the system works, the system becomes relatively hard to replace. hence the success of "democracy".

that, in my view, is what communism lacks. the people don't feel like they have a voice. in fact, in many communist situations, they haven't.

i'm not saying this is why communism has failed so far - there are other factors such as lack of support from the international community. but people are the most powerful thing in a country, and in my opinion to focus on worldwide communist revolution when the people aren't literally crying out for it is trying to run before you can walk.

all the communists i've ever talked to seem to see the construction of a communist state as the objective. this is why i say they're missing the point - shouldn't the construction of a system that fully represents the best interests of the majority of people be the objective? because history has taught us that these are not one and the same, and science has taught us that with modern communications technology the latter is possible.

this is why i favor the idea of small democracies. i didn't hear or read it though i'm sure i'm not the only one to have thought of it. imagine a bunch of small semi-independant city states and local governments which sanction and trade with each other through a large, democratic community presided over by a politically weak central bureaucracy. there are only, say, a few thousand people in each state, which means everyone feels they have a voice, and they do because they are able to vote for and against individual policies via the internet, mobile (cell)phones, interactive tv, ballot and soviets in which everyone is a member. each state is governed by the people but presided over by a policy-suggesting cabinet of officials voted for and against in real time by the people. this means if an official becomes unpopular they are kicked out as soon as they drop below 50pproval rating. no waiting for elections.

what i just described is a democratic network of democratic states that have to trade and cooperate with each other to survive because each state will only control a small amount of resources. a bad government is extremely rare because they just get kicked out, everyone gets a meaningful vote, everyone's happy. it's like athenian democracy except everyone can vote.

how about that?

If the truths people (or parties, or whatever else) believe can be proven or disproven, that is wonderful. That is the scietific method & being grounded in reality. This communist approach is basically the opposite of what is implied by saying "One Accepted Truth". The only "accepted truth" of communism is that there is objective reality & people are fully capable of figuring it out & changing it to their collective betterment. (Not that we will ever figure literally everything out about the universe...)

Using the scientific method (of investigating & interacting with reality, making conclusions based on that, testing & checking these ideas in reality, repeat) there are certainly many conclusions we can & have reached, that can be called facts or truths. For example, capitalism is bad for people & most other life-forms, evolution is how nature works, the US is founded on slavery & genocide, water turns to ice when the temperature drops below zero making the molecules stop moving around so much, & more. All of these could, theoretically, be disproven -- but they're quite well established after much investigation & testing so they're facts. There are other facts too, that may be more controversial but in my opinion still true, e.g. people need a new type of state to fully & successfully dismantle capitalism & build a new system.

As for multiple truths, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you mean that people should be able to look at things from different angles, have different opinions on what the facts are or what the best thing to do is, etc, then I couldn't agree more. However the main thing is that there is only one reality that we all live in (even if we experience it differently, objectively it's just one reality), so if there is a conflict of ideas, here are some of the main possibilities:
1) they're all wrong
2) one is right & one is wrong
3) one is mostly right & one is mostly wrong
4) parts of each are right, but neither has got the whole picture

So again the point is to figure out the reality, & differences of opinion usually help rather than hurt that effort. At the same time it's not just "everybody can be right all the time even if they're mutually exclusive". Everybody can think what they want, but (1) they aren't necessarily correct, & (2) if they act on it other people with opposing ideas have every right to counter-act. And if the "counter-acters" are communists, the level should be appropriate e.g. ideas countered with debate, harmless symbolic actions countered with debate or maybe our own symbolic actions, only illegal/violent/etc actions to be countered with actual repression.

As for your outline of a society of small but interconnected communities but with at least some kind of central organising power, it sounds wonderful! I really mean that.

The difference come in though, in how do we get to that?

It's very frustrating because on the one hand, it is possible right away in terms of having the technology, productive capacity, etc for people to do this. But on the other hand it isn't possible because there are obstacles in the way. As you pointed out the whole world is not subjectively (i.e. consciously) calling for anti-capitalist revolution right now. Even in Nepal where most people are & tens of millions have been actively participating in it, they haven't won because of domestic & international enemies. And when you consider the cases of not just China & USSR, but any large progressive movement whether it seizes state power or not, there will be people who drop out or even become saboteurs. So even beyond making revolution against the current masters of capitalism in one's own locale, there are plenty of things that will destroy a fledgling communist society if there is not a state & army to protect it.

PS. The other thing I forgot to clarify about the Cultural Revolution, "weeding out revisionists", etc, is that the targets were party members in power & the most common punishment was simply denouncement & removal from their post. Quite logical really, if they're not about implementing socialism why should they have authority & responsibility in a socialist system?

too simple. what i meant by multiple truths is that some more complex things can be explained equally well in 2 ways. i'm not a philosopher so i can't give an example, but my dad could give you loads. the point is, the idea of the party line cannot account for this. in fact the idea of one truth which is either right or mostly right completely denies most of philosophy, so our understanding of concepts more complex than the physical and scientific examples you described would be crippled or killed. not everything can be reduce to this notion of a universal scientifically proven truth.

as for my proposed society, yeah of course there are problems getting there. but that's equally if not more true for communism, not least because the word communism has been so thoroughly associated with bad things in capitalist society. i'm not fighting for the introduction of my society cos quite frankly there are bigger, more immediate problems. like corporations and the environment and wars which are happening right now. human rights violations. the little things. i just think if everyone was to put aside 'labour' or 'communist' or 'republican', 'green', 'democrat', 'conservative', whatever divides them, and just pull together on things they agree on as individuals rather than waiting for their party to make the first move everyone would be better off. the democrats won't impeach bush if they win a majority. well fuck it, get out and occupy washington.

Although there is only one reality, there are multiple schools of philosophy. I don't think that anything anyone says would completely deny philosophy. But look, the reason I got into the scientific method is that it's not just for microscopes etc. It is the best way to understand reality, social reality included.

And by the way the "party line" is not a static thing, all the term means is "what the party thinks at this time".

Anyway, there is only one objective reality.

That's the main thing, as far as philosophical basis goes. I do agree with what you're saying that "some more complex things can be explained equally well in 2 ways". What I'm pointing out is that whilst there may be many ways to explain or describe it, there's still just the one thing. And in terms of solutions, there may also be more than one way to do something & still have it turn out good. But there is a definite line (or philosophical trend, or way of thinking) out there -- not that you are upholding this line, but I want to contrast against it anyway -- that basically says that everyone has their own reality, or some other words to the same effect.

From another angle, what would we do if not act on proven truths or scientific facts? If something is proven false, do we cling to it anyway (like fundamentalists & creationism)? And if something is proven true, do we reject it anyway (like fundamentalists & evolution)? And if we don't try to see if things are true or false, how would we decide what to do at all? (Not that you investigate every last little detail to death, you'd never leave your room that way, but I think you get my general meaning.)

With the scientific method any conclusion should be falsifiable, i.e. you can prove it wrong somehow. So, literally speaking, everything is tentative at some point & not a completely hard 100% fact. But if it is a 99% fact & the probability of that 1% ever appearing is next to nothing, then we should treat it as a fact, as far as how we think & act in the world.

The point of "only one objective reality" is not to say that we communists know what it all is, merely that it is there. If we are wrong, that's because our position doesn't match up with objective reality. But objective reality can't be wrong, it just is. And if one thinks they're right but you really aren't, that's one thing; whereas if one has been proven wrong & is capable of understanding it, but chooses to go on thinking they're right anyway because that's just "their take on things" or "their perspective" or "their personal opinion" or whatever, well that's quite another thing.

And again, if someone acts like that under socialism, fine, they can do that if they want; but if the party or government or other forces with a big effect on society act like that, it's a problem which needs to be fixed.

As for the tossing aside differences bit...

When we unite or do short-term-oriented actions, genuine communists still think it's correct to keep our final goals in mind & to be open & honest with people about that. This doesn't prevent us from working with anyone, but at the same time just because someone is on our side in a certain struggle, or even in many struggles or overall, doesn't mean that they are necessarily a communist also. To give an example, some "communists" allow progressive religious people to be in their parties & call themselves "communists". Of course we should unite with progressive religious people, but we should also be honest that there is no God or other superstitious stuff, & that much of what's in religious texts is quite reactionary & not something to consider divine. Similarly we'd hope the progressive religious people to be willing to cooperate with us to achieve common goals, but we aren't going to tell them to "shut up with their god nonsense" (as opposed to having intelligent discussion about our differences within an atmosphere of unity).

Communists call this approach the "united front". Which brings me to another thing which is different about us now from even Maoist China. One of the main new things Bob Avakian has brought forward in communist theory is that the united front should continue in, & in fact be a big part of, socialism. Previously the idea was that you unite with other trends to get rid of the capitalists, & there's some kind of transition period, but then you basically have communism as the be-all & end-all philosophy. Which interestingly is what you seem to be so opposed to. Well we're fixing that! Socialism is a transition phase all throughout, until we can get to that global communism which will probably be very similar to your "proposed society". Whilst there is a role for coercion (e.g. rapists will be punished not just argued against), if you do too much of it -- even with a "good excuse" -- the whole character of your society will turn wrong. As I've said before, a big part of socialism is figuring out how to run things (not like we know it all & just need to impose it). Marx said that in addition to overthrowing the capitalists the proletariat must change itself too, & I'd add that that includes the communists also, not just "a few ignorant workers" as some would interperet that quote.

So to bring it all back to the facts thing. Nobody can possibly know right now, under current conditions & with current experience, exactly how to run communism. But we do know that to even have a chance at it, we need to make revolution & for a while at least we need to utilise the state as an organisational form.

the idea of one objective reality is too simplistic. some people so firmly believe in their religion, for example, that that is reality for them, and totally provable under their terms, while for you and me it's a load of bollocks.

one thing you do deny which in my reality does seem relevant is stuff like tarot and the i-ching. i'm not big into that stuff but i've seen it work repeatedly. it's what people call non-ordinary reality, stuff that has a bearing on the physical world but cannot be explained by scientific methods. yet in your reality it's a load of bollocks.

all i'm saying is reality is too broad a concept for this seeking of universal truths. no truth is universal.

also, i oppose the idea that any state should have an opinion about what it's right or wrong for me to think. a government's place should be to keep peace and facilitate decisions within society. the moment the party has its own line its 'accepted' truths become the norm, and that creates an atmosphere that encourages people not to question. then if you're questioning does that mean you're not a communist? because you're going against the accepted communist view. then it's too small a step from that to the party making it illegal to take a 'disproven' view, and from that we get purges and orwellian thought police. i'm not saying communism advocates that, it just starts us down the wrong road. too much control.

"To give an example, some "communists" allow progressive religious people to be in their parties & call themselves "communists"."

from the way you use speach marks i take it that you disagree that progressive religious people can be communists. this evidences what i said above - there seems to be a feeling that if you hold different views to the party that you can't be a communist. in a one party state that can be an extremely dangerous position. anyway if these views are not harming people (with some religious people they may even be driving charitable or egalitarian acts) why challenge them?

gotta ask yourself, why should a government seek to control as opposed to keeping the peace? because they are not the same thing.

You said: "...stuff that has a bearing on the physical world but cannot be explained by scientific methods." I think you're not understanding everything I'm saying (& then there are parts where you understand but disagree, of course). The point that there is only one objective reality has nothing to do with whether we understand it or not, whether communists are right about it, etc etc. The point is that it exists. The very fact that you needed to say that something "has a bearing on the physical world" is in alignment with this. If something has a bearing on the physical world, then it is part of objective reality. The obvious example is gravity: whether you "believe" in gravity or not, whether you "think it is correct" or not, even whether you have "disproven" it using "scientific methods" or not, gravity is a real force & it will act upon you regardless of opinions or beliefs.

We can debate & investigate etc whether Tarot cards & related beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality, whether acting upon that is the best course of action, etc -- but there does exist objective reality, regardless. That is the philosophical point I'm making, that the correctness of Tarot or anything else depends on how it &/or its conclusions play out in objective (or "physical") reality.

Religion is not consistent with communist ideology, which again is based on reality, things that really exist. Communists are atheists. Now it's not about who's "better" or certainly what should be legal, etc; but if there are two different things there needs to be two different names. I, as an atheist, should not get to call myself a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu, etc. Similarly a religious person should not call themself a communist, nor should an anarchist or a fascist or a libertarian.

As for whether the government or the party should have a line or an opinion, that's not really a choice. Your idea that a government should simply keep the peace is itself a line/opinion, the definition of what constitutes "the peace" & how it should be "kept" would need to be decided & this would need some thinking, i.e. a line, behind it, etc etc. So the issue is not whether to have a line, but what line to have.

It's kind of like "think for yourself": you have your own brain, you will think for yourself no matter what, literally speaking -- the question is what will you think with that brain of yours & how much influence will other brains' thoughts have on it.

Another thing I don't think I've made clear is that there is a big difference between saying who is or isn't a "communist", by which I mean they can & should be a member of a genuine communist party, between that & who just is not an enemy of the communists, as well as who is in the government.

Nobody is an outright enemy of the communists except for those who are actively, especially violently, stopping or overthrowing socialism or otherwise hurting the masses of people -- so that would be both those in charge right now (& of course they are staying in charge through force of arms) which is the capitalists & feudalists etc, as well as those under socialism who are overthrowing it (again, not even someone who "thinks socialism is bad" but people who are actively plotting &/or carrying out coups, sabotage, & other actual physical attacks). There is an "in-between" category I suppose, of people who communists would want to expose or debate with sharply, e.g. we want to use education & reason to promote science & discredit religion (mainly I should add, as many religions of course have various beliefs or morals that are quite good & should not be "discredited"). Some people do consider debate or any questioning to be oppression -- & that's not a sarcastic remark of mine, here in the US anyway lots of Christians who are quite willing to talk shit about other religions or atheism or women or anti-war folks or anything, they will whine & run away screaming "disrespect" & "oppression" if you even politely ask, not tell but ask them why they think God exists or to say why they agree with certain things in the Bible; but anyway... -- aside from that "walk on egg-shells" (& hypocritical!) view of "oppression", there is what's real, & in reality there is plenty of ways for different-minded folk to interact & debate, sometimes even argue sharply, without it constituting oppression by either side.

And the party is not the same as the government. Even in revolutionary China you did not have to be a communist to hold a government post. (I don't know all the specifics, you might have had to be a communist to hold a top-level post like premier or general etc, but for the low- & mid-level not only was being a non-communist "allowed", it was true in practise also & many government officials were not communists.) I must also point out that contrary to "public opinion", which is shaped by three decades now of capitalist media & education lies with no major force to counter it, communism was popular: many people were communists, & many people wanted communists as their leaders. Communist revolution is not successful if it is not popular. But even though it is popular, it is not the be-all & end-all, & it is not a "one-party state". Fascist parties & so on would be illegal, though. Under capitalism -- not just fascism but capitalist democracy -- you will be declared illegal if you step out of certain bounds & procedures that prove you are a real imminent threat (or can be usefully construed as such); that's how it works in that class society, with the capitalist class in charge. Similary, under socialism which is a class society (not by choice but by inheritance) with the proletariat in charge, if you are a real threat to our new non-oppressive society then you won't be allowed to continue those kind of activities. You won't be killed either but you just can't do that anymore. You can't set up sweatshops, you can't be a pimp, you can't rove the streets in racist gangs, you can't sit on your arse all day & make a living by being a slumlord, & you can't raise a militia with the purpose of overthrowing the people's government to reinstate capitalism. We maoists have a slogan, "No one is free when exploiters are free to exploit".

But as far as why communists want to do more than "keep the peace", has to do with what I've been talking about with not being able to go straight-away/overnight to communism, we need a transition phase called socialism with state power etc. I won't bore you by repeating everything but there is so much to overcome, so many big tasks to accomplish if we are to get to a situation where "keeping the peace" will be sufficient & will be able to be done by every human collectively without power hierarchies of any kind, that it is the responsibility of those who see the possibility for such a world to struggle for it, to work for it. Without massive effort it just won't be accomplished; at the same time, there must be a balance between this determination & pushing, & the principles that the means don't justify the ends & that like you said "don't run before you can walk".

you're a weird one, you. you've talked like a communist all the way through but your last paragraph revealed you as an anarchist at heart. you see socialism as a means to the end of communism, and communism as a means to the end of "a situation where "keeping the peace" will be sufficient & will be able to be done by every human collectively without power hierarchies of any kind" - a world without government. ie anarchy.

but yeah back to our conversation, most of your points are answerable by rereading some of what i said earlier. what i said i meant. i have understood you but i disagree. yes i did mean more than one reality. every person lives in their own reality and provable fact to one person is utter bullshit to another. and most people in the world don't accept science as a way of proving anything. not saying this is a good thing; it's just what is. in my reality. lol.

i take your point about party lines. but it is possible to have a party line that is to not have a party line about anything more than the basic morals of the majority. eg: hate, murder, rape, fascism, human rights abuses etc are bad. peace and the happiness of the majority of people are good. the latter should not be acheived by using the former. simple.

this takes me back to my original point. you're choosing a system where the government has an opinion and a rule about everything to acheive a society where the government has no opinion because it doesn't exist. that's odd.

one party states. yeah fine it's technically not a one party state, but since only communists can be premiers and all counter-revolutionary attempts are punished, it may as well be. in other words, you can have an opinion but don't you dare try and enact it. this strikes me as not only hypocritical as revolution is the method you're proposing to use against the present system, but also extremely paranoid since if communism really was preferred by the majority of society there would be no risk of popular counter revolution anyway.

and yes you'll come back and say it's necessary to prevent capitalist coups, but a coup performed by an armed minority is not something you can prevent by limiting the power of popular parties or punishing popular uprisings. all you'd have to do is keep the military on a tight leash.

all i can say is decide if you're a communist or an anarchist, and try to remember reality is way too complex to be explained by true or false, correct or incorrect, real or unreal...

sometimes it's both. or neither.

As for the so-called "anarchist" statement, I've said such things to you before, I'm not sure why all of a sudden you mistake it for anarchism when you didn't before. (Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm not weird, haha...) But anyway communism is not a means to the end of no-government situation, that is communism. Socialism does have a government, & that is how you can get to communism. Surely communism will not be a motionless "utopia" but that's as far as we can realistically talk about (unless you want to write sci-fi, which would be cool).

There is only one reality. Different individuals -- & especially different classes, cultures, genders, etc -- see it differently, but it's all the same reality. Not every aspect of this reality is black & white, nor is there only one exact solution to a given problem, nor would various people even view certain things as "problems", & so on & so on. But the gravity example remains valid. Surely you accept that everyone experiences the same rules of gravity? And if you accept that but not other things, what are these other things that are not the same in the different "realities"? (And if you don't accept it, well good luck trying to float around in the air...)

Your list of good & bad things is fine, but in practise how do you do that? What are "human rights", what constitutes "hate" or "happiness", etc etc? It is not like we can or should write every last possible scenario down & have a line on the virtues of proper tooth-brushing methods or whatever, but the fact is that for a society to function you need more details than a 10-point programme. But then, that right there is a line: to be organised yet not micromanage everything. Your line seems to be, let's have a few guiding principles & the rest can be worked out as we go along. (Again, there are 2 related but different issues: whether that is a line at all, & whether that line is correct or not.)

Under socialism the government does not have a rule about everything.

You said, "a coup performed by an armed minority is not something you can prevent by limiting the power of popular parties or punishing popular uprisings. all you'd have to do is keep the military on a tight leash." OK let's do this one by one. "Limiting the power of popular parties", well again I must point out it's not really correct to phrase it like there's "popular parties" on one side & the communist party (presumably "not popular") on the other. Then, like I've said, there's only 2 restrictions: {1} legal restrictions (no killing, cocaine-dealing, spying, etc, etc) & {2} very liberal political restrictions, e.g. in the communist-led areas of Nepal (now about 80% of the country) they have a policy of "political competition within the constitutional limits of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist democratic state", in other words you can have all kinds of leftist or even centrist political organisations but fascists, monarchists, etc are out of question. And again, even that is just as political organisations, if an individual wants to think something & express themselves, that's fine but they will have to be prepared to get into debate about it & defend their position (not in a formal hearing or anything at all, just by their fellow citizens who disagree with them) -- which is true under any system.

See that's another thing about communists, we are open & up-front about things. If you hold a certain opinion, right or wrong, reactionary or revolutionary, naughty or nice, etc, it's almost universal that you will end up talking with somebody about it, & if that somebody has a disagreement you will have to defend your position. This doesn't have to involve oppression at all, yet somehow stating such simple facts makes some think that we are forcing people to think certain things.

It's the same principle with saying we want a class dictatorship by the proletariat. Some people get all shocked by that, how can you put one class on top, shouldn't they all be equal, blah blah blah? No it's not about "should". What we "should" do, & what the communist goal is, is to get rid of the existence of classes in the first place. But as long as they exist, there will be some form of class society, & one class or another will have the upper hand. We have a bourgeois (capitalist) class dictatorship now, but it's mostly hidden, especially in the "democratic" imperialist countries like UK, US, Germany, etc etc. So we are being open about the situation, & saying that the proletariat (rather than the bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie ("middle-class")) should be in charge -- as a class -- because that is the class in whose material interests it is to get rid of all classes' existence, including their own.

Back to your statement though. ("a coup performed by an armed minority is not something you can prevent by limiting the power of popular parties or punishing popular uprisings. all you'd have to do is keep the military on a tight leash.") There have been no popular uprisings under socialism, except for the Cultural Revolution, which once the first few incidents had occurred, was popularised & encouraged by the revolutionary leadership (which was by no means a solid majority of the communist party, unfortunately). So far from being punished, popular uprisings are encouraged. The government under socialism is just a form for the proletariat to exercise power, so if it's doing a bad job, the proletariat is well within its rights to fire that employee, so to speak. But to continue the analogy, until things can be run smoothly without it, that position will need to be refilled.

As for the military, the communists' policy has always been "the party controls the gun & never the other way around". That's the policy, that's usually been the practise, but having a certain policy in place is not fool-proof prevention. So basically we agree on that point, but I'm just adding that unfortunately just saying that is not the end of the story. Not that it's inevitable that the some army folks will try a coup, either, it's not like everything that can go wrong will go wrong.

On reality, come on really? Again the issue is not whether I am correct about various things aspects of reality, or whether communists are correct about various aspects of reality -- though those are important issues --, the issue at hand is whether there is one reality or not which affects us all regardless. And whether opinions can be measured in relation to that one reality, if they reflect it accurately or not, which for shorthand we can use words like "correct" or "true" or "fact". Now you could very well say that certain people or groups can't measure that, can't say what's correct or not, because they have no grip on reality. For instance somebody who is on acid at the moment, may not really be trustworthy to ask about what's going on even right in front of them. Which brings up another "reality issue", I suppose. Is their hallucination "real"? Well yes & no. It's real in that they are really experiencing it, there are different chemical reactions going on in their brain, various signals bouncing around their head & being interpreted as, let's say, there's a big dragon eating fish & chips with Kurt Cobain over in the corner of the room. But in reality there is no big dragon, Kurt Cobain is dead, etc. So what is objectively real is that those things are not going on, but also objectively real is that the acid-taker is having a trip i.e. there are certain processes going in his head.

Now what about reality in relation to our political conversation? The reality is that people all over the world are being oppressed & exploited & murdered, that the cause of this is the capitalist system, that the best solution is to make armed revolution installing socialism as a transition phase to communism. It's also reality that socialism so far has been mainly positive but also had many things wrong with it, & that nobody has all the answers of step-by-step how to get to communism or what it'll look like exactly. So maybe you disagree with these conclusions I've made about reality. Well then I need to be proven wrong, either through discussion about or experience of reality, in other words shown somehow that my conclusions are actually not an accurate reflection of reality. It's not black & white either, as I said, I could be partly wrong & partly right, or maybe somebody can prove me wrong but their different conclusions are wrong also (in a different way), etc, etc. But no matter how you spin it, there is only one reality, & we all take part in it whether we like it or not. (And if we make successful communist revolution there'll be more people liking it than not...)

To emphasise a last point, though, someone with your opinions will have much more freedom under socialism than under capitalism. (Or compared with anarchy too I guess, in the sense that anarchy is impossible in practise for more than a year or two at the most before it gets crushed by capitalists...) See, because socialism is not about the government's self-preservation, but about empowering the proletarian class & the people as a whole, obliterating class distinctions entirely, until there is no need for a government -- because of that genuine socialism not only tolerates but values dissent & questioning of all kinds. We want what will accomplish those goals, not the betterment of individuals or groups who first proclaimed those goals or whatever.

Oh, & before I forget, would you mind if I posted our discussion up as a blog entry? I think lots of people would find it interesting &/or informative, whether they are more agreeing with me or with you (or have some other opinion entirely). I could put it up with or without your name, with or without link to your page, & of course I could just not put it up at all, your choice.

sure you can post it as a blog. lol i was about to ask if i could do the same. and yeah link to me, i don't mind :)

right, the way i see this neither of us are going to win this. i see it as a perfect example of 2 truths. in my reality i am more or less right because i have thought through political systems and thought about where they go wrong. in my reality communism can't work for a variety of reasons, not least that it denies human nature. in my reality it would probably not be a good thing if it did work because of some of the things you've said like "the party controls the gun" (ie not 'the people control the gun' because they are NOT necessarily the same thing), and because there have been seriously ugly incidents in communist history that you've glossed over, like what happened to 'intellectuals' in the cultural revolution. in your reality you are right because you're following an established, tried and tested political philosophy which to you sounds great. everyone's equal and in the long run no-one will need a government (anarchist lol), but for the moment what better government could you have than one made up of the proletariat?

2 separate realities. neither is objectively true, yet subjectively we are both right and both wrong.

so lets just agree to disagree, k?

btw what i meant about popular revolutions or parties or whatever was that it would be a revolution or party of the people. it is possible to have a people's movement for democracy, so that would be a popular democratic party.

didn't think i'd ever say this but no more political discussion here!! pleeeeeaaaaaase cos we're not getting anywhere..

OK, real quick (for once)...

Those 2 "realities" you are describing are not realities, they are views of reality. We can agree to disagree, that's fine. I could get into specifics of why I think my view is objectively true & blah blah blah, but the main point on the "reality issue" is that although our views are different, the reality we're talking about is the same.

Oh yeah & to clarify, under socialism the people control the party, the party controls the army, & there are other armed people outside the army also (people's militias).

Alright I'll stop, hey I finally wrote you a short message, cool.

So if you want to continue discussing, it'll be a blog on my page entitled "Lively debate on communism & reality", I'll put it up in a couple minutes...

This blog is being updated again (as you can see)

2006-05-31T12:55:00.000-07:00

So I found out that actually on myspace the blog entries get deleted once there's more than 15. So, although I'm still mainly doing myspace, I'm gonna repost all my blog entries here also, so they stay online. My myspace-page is much cooler, though, it's got a new playlist (usually about an hour's worth) of revolutionary & rebellious music (various genres) up every friday. Anybody can read & listen on myspace but I think you need an account (free) to post comments.

factsheet on MK Gandhi, the imperialist lap-dog

2006-05-29T11:47:00.000-07:00

This is a short article I found a bit ago, it focuses mainly on his activities in South Africa (where he lived ages 24-35). There's certainly much, much more bad shit about Mr. "Not-such-a-mahatma" Gandhi to be learnt ("mahatma" is not his name, but a word meaning "great soul"), but this is a good concise starting point, especially since it shows how he was not even non-violent. Source: http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ghandi.htm

The Myth of Mahatma GandhiBy: Velu Annamalai, Ph.D. velu@home.com

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. might have heard the word of non-violence from Gandhi, but it is certain that Dr. King did not know the true colors of Mr. Gandhi. From the beginning to the end, M.K. Gandhi was loyal to imperialism. The Western news media and their Indian allies by a massive propaganda exercise created the illusion of sainthood around Gandhi and made people believe that he fought Apartheid in South Africa, and in the process of doing so developed a new method of non-violent struggle called satyagraha. Nothing is farther from the truth. Gandhi, for the major part of his life, worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. He was Kipling's Gunga Din in flesh and blood.

To understand Gandhi's politics in South Africa, it is essential to note the three fundamental trends which all along persisted underneath all his activities. They were:

(1) his loyalty to the British Empire,
(2) his apathy with regard to the Indian "lower castes", India's indigenous population [adivasis], and
(3) his virulent anti-African racism.

Gandhi was once thrown out of a train compartment which was reserved exclusively for the Whites. It was not that Gandhi was fighting on behalf of the local Africans that he broke the rule in getting into a Whites' compartment. No! that was not the reason. Gandhi was so furious that he and his merchant caste Indians (Banias) were treated on par with the local Africans. This is the real reason for his fighting race discrimination in South Africa, and he had absolutely no concern about the pitiable way the Africans were treated by the Whites.

On June 2, 1906 he commented in the Indian Opinion that "Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trains."

During the 'Kaffir Wars' in South Africa he was a regular Gunga Din, who volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down the Zulu uprising and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

Gandhi said on September 26, 1896 about the African people: "Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

Again in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, in the Indian Opinion of March 18, 1905, Gandhi wrote: "Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough.

One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians...?" Again on September 9, 1905, Gandhi wrote about the local Africans as: "in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year" (meaning that the locals are lazy).

Nothing could be farther from the truth that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe.

He was all in favor of continuation of White domination and the oppression of Blacks in South Africa.

In the Indian Opinion of March 25, 1905, Gandhi wrote on a Bill regulating fire-arms: "In the instance of fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there the slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indians?"

Gandhi always advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either colored or African communities. He was strongly opposed to the commingling of races.

In the Indian Opinion of September 4, 1904, Gandhi wrote: "Under my suggestion, the Town Council (of Johannesburg) must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. It think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do... by advocating the purity of all races."

Again on December 24, 1903, in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that: "so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is purity of type."

When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!

In the Anglo-Boer War of 1899, Gandhi, in spite of his own belief that truth was on the side of the Boers, formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces. He was very earnest about taking up arms and laying down his life for his beloved Queen. He led his men on to the battlefield and received a War Medal.

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi's nazi war crimes in its proper perspective.

revolutionary translation: May Day report from Colombia

2006-05-26T18:54:00.000-07:00

[ for original Spanish & pictures, see below text; unofficial translation by me; source Revolutionary Communist Group of Colombia, their page is here ]

COLOMBIA -- 1 May 2006

Hundreds of thousands of protesters marched this 1 May in the principal cities of Colombia. Although, because of the nearness of the presidential elections, the bulk of the marches in the whole country was characterised by anti-Uribe sentiment and support for the candidate of the traditional "left" (Carlos Gaviria), not all was yellow, the colour of the Alternative Democratic Pole, Gaviria's party. The class-conscious proletariat made itself felt in close to ten cities big and small. From Bogotá, Medellín, and Cali passing through Bucaramanga, Cúcuta, and Pereira, to Barrancabermeja and Sincelejo the internationalist and revolutionary block tinted the landscape red.

Despite the environment of growing fascistisation, of control of the marches by anti-riot police and army, of cameras everywhere, dozens of anti-imperialists and revolutionaries, including Maoists marched raising banners and agitating slogans against imperialist exploitation, oppression, and military aggression in the whole world, as well as in support of the peoples struggles in the whole world, principally the people's wars.

In Bogotá, Medellín, and Pereira the internationalist and revolutionary block, composed primarily of worker, unemployed, and student youths, amongst them many women, numbered more than a hundred people in each of those cities, carrying banners of the World Peoples Resistance Movement (WPRM), the Anti-imperialist Brigades (BA), the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), and in the case of Bogotá, a hundred of the 1 May posters of the Revolutionary Communist Group [of Colombia] (GCR).

In the majority of the cities, a good part of the participants in the internationalist and revolutionary block were wearing red shirts with the hammer and sickle or images of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, or shirts with the WPRM symbol and in support of the Nepali revolution, which has been very much popularised in the midst of the current Latin American [speaking] tour in support of the revolution in Nepal, which in April came to some cities and rural zones of Venezuela and at the end of May will be in Bolivia.

In cities such as Cúcuta and Barrancabermeja, under strong control of the paramilitary death squads, the masses participating in small marches (between 1000 and 1500 people) valued and became animated at the appearance of detachments of Maoists which were spreading the WPRM and GCR flyers.

Tens of thousands of GCR and RIM flyers were handed out in the whole country not only during the marches but also in the preparatory events carried out in the ghettos and universities.

(to see images below at full size, do right-click & "view image"...)

NEW Outernational songs! (exclusively streaming on their myspace-page)

2006-05-24T11:56:00.000-07:00

From Outernational, those revolutionary rockers from NYC:

NEW SONGS PRODUCED BY TOM MORELLO!!

That's right, Outernational just recorded with Tom Morello (Audioslave, Rage Against The Machine) as producer. ARISE and FOR IT ALL NOW are streaming exclusively on MySpace.

Listen. Spread the word.

Go listen right now!:

Enter to win a copy of a kick-ass revolutionary book by Bob Avakian

2006-05-22T21:58:00.000-07:00

CLICK HERE!
from Utne magazine:

ENTER TO WIN FROM IKE TO MAO AND BEYOND

Looking for a great summer read? Enter to win one of 10 free copies of From Ike to Mao and Beyond, a memoir by Bob Avakian containing three unique but interwoven stories. The first tells of a white middle-class kid in 50s America who goes to an integrated high school; the second of a young man who overcomes a near-fatal disease and jumps into the swirl of Berkeley in the 60s; the third of a radical activist who matures into a revolutionary communist leader. Highly recommended by Cornel West, Howard Zinn, San Francisco Chronicle. Hear Avakian read selected chapters from his book at www.insight-press.com. Enter now!

(It's free to enter but unfortunately only open to legal US residents 18 & over.)
CLICK HERE!

DaVinci Code -- Key to a door that don't exist

2006-05-19T18:44:00.000-07:00

Look everyone. Jesus is a fucking myth.

This stupid Tom Hanks movie (has he ever not been lame as hell?) is about some cover-up that he was really married but the Church doesn't want you to know that. Not that the Church won't cover things up, for example WIDESPREAD CHILD MOLESTATION. Not that the Church isn't wrong about things, for example "GOD" IS NOT A REAL THING.

For a film about the real Christian cover-up, check out "The God Who Wasn't There" (preview & clips available on the webpage for free).

letter from a TX youth to WCW on the road forward

2006-05-14T13:28:00.000-07:00

[The following was sent out by World Can't Wait with the encouragement to seriously think & discuss the issues raised. I don't have any fully formulated thoughts at the moment, but below I did highlight what seem to be the most thought-provoking parts to me. A few days and I will post some things on the subject here & on the forum.]

"I Felt More and More that I was Living in a Time of Great Potential Change"

Excerpts of a letter from a youth in Texas after hearing Sunsara Taylor speak.

Please write your comments and views on this thought provoking letter by clicking here. If you are not on Myspace-please send comments to youth_students@worldcantwait.org

I felt more and more that I was living in a time of great potential change. Seeing the immigration protests, and hearing about youth victories in France, inspired me in particular, I do believe that, despite the general defeated atmosphere this country is mired in, and despite all the impoverished and despairing developments in the world, that there is also such raw potential at this time for something absolutely unprecedented to occur. And I want to be a part of it.

I think that one of the greatest challenges facing this movement, and something that is so crucial to its development and maturation into a force that can really have an impact, is whether or not we can inspire and motivate individuals and communities for whom politics is an abstraction, something that is witnessed, on the television and in the newspapers, but never actually experienced or lived out in our day to day lives.

We have grown used to being the spectators. I'd say we are taught to be spectators in almost every aspect of our lives. And it is easy to be a spectator for a lot of these people, because the majority of them are relatively privileged, and therefore not readily equipped to associate the events occurring in their world with their everyday lives, or they are people whose energies have been focused, as pointed out by a man in our discussion, on just day to day survival, on getting by in a world that is increasingly competitive, and in a way that inherently alienates the individual from themselves, the choices they make and the consequences that follow, and from each other and an overall reaching sense of community.

Somehow it has to be brought home to them that this is their world we're talking about, and that no amount of silence or patience will keep away the future that is steadily approaching them. Somehow an atmosphere has to be created that brings home the immediacy and the urgency of the situation, an atmosphere in which the old diffusing safety valves no longer can keep them from taking charge of the situation and empowering themselves and each other to act.

But there's another side to it.

Everywhere I go, I hear the issues being brought up and discussed. I'm often surrounded by young people, and I'm shocked at how often the conversation turns to the Bush administration. There's a common language developing among the youth in this country. And even with the more conservative of youth, I hear a common tone between them and their more progressive-minded peers when it comes to the government in general, and to authority in general, actually. Whether they're bitching about the police cracking down on pot or the economy or corporate control or the army committing atrocities overseas, there's a common tone, and it's one of disgust and defiance.

But here's the thing: even when there does seem to be an atmosphere of outrage, there is always a reluctance on their part to actually do something. And I think that, while consumerism and a culture of passive spectacle-watching are a big part of it, a great part of it has to do with the nature of political movements in general over the years.

I think there has developed a strong lack of spontaneity, of immediacy, of even joyful activity in political movements over the past few decades. I know what a lot of people think of when they hear the word "protest." They think of a bunch of people gathering signs and marching from point A to point B, with the permission and under the careful guidance of some authority, usually the local police force, at which point they are all subjected to speech after speech, filled with the same fiery rhetoric they've heard a thousand times over, before being told to disperse peacefully once more. Are they any more empowered, after these rallies, to take that collective energy and spirit and apply it to their day to day lives?

I certainly am for mass demonstrations. Any movement with the stated intention of World Can't Wait is going to need, obviously, the participation of millions of individuals from all walks of life, and often in nationally co-ordinated actions that will really lend to the atmosphere we need. But I think that the old forms of demonstrations have grown meaningless for a lot of people, and the general activist spirit has stagnated significantly.

But I think that if we round up a bunch of people and ask them all to be spectators once more, this time watching a bunch of organizers and endorsing intellectuals speak at their rallies, then they will never be evoked or empowered or equipped to bring about substantial societal change. And the taking on of not just a president and his administration, but of their entire program, is a huge shift. You're asking people to do something that is truly terrifying, and something the majority of them have probably never imagined themselves capable of doing.

I really think that new possibilities for what a movement of people could look like have to be considered. I think that if all the energy of the organization is focused on intermittent mass demonstrations then it just won't draw as many people out of their doorsteps as is needed. Or, worse, it may draw people out in mass numbers we could never have imagined, only to have those people find themselves participating in the same politics they've seen before.

If we're really talking about creating this intended environment, I really think that we have to push ourselves to continually exploring new tactics, new ways in which people can contribute, both collectively and as individuals. How many artists and musicians are out there, for example, with amazing resources and local connections who could really give something of value? Are there, alongside solemn or defiant demonstrations, street parties that could be had? Not just acts against this administration, but acts for our communities, acts that create community in a deep and long-lasting yet immediately felt way? What could we do that called for, not just the creativity and organizing skills of a few individuals, but for what everyone has to contribute? Librarians, grandmothers, prisoners, nurses, students, businessmen and women, the homeless?

It's a borrowed phrase, but what could we do to make resistance irresistible?

The actions and demonstrations that so impacted this country during the 60s and 70s were varied and diverse. Some were legal, others were not. Some were planned and organized. Others were more spontaneous and unregulated. There seemed to be room for rage and joy, solemnity and laughter. The whole breadth of human experience and expression.

revolutionary translation: May 1st statement by Revolutionary Communist Group of Colombia

2006-05-10T11:39:00.000-07:00

(Unofficial translation. To read original in Spanish click here.)

Long live proletarian internationalism!
1 May 2006

Proletarian internationalism must be the mark which characterises the 1st of May. Since almost 120 years ago when it was declared as a day for global actions of the proleatariat, the meaning of 1 May has developed and enlargened: as a day on which class conscious proletarians of the whole world not only evaluate their situation and make plans for the short term but also celebrate proletarian internationalism and declare their decision to bring their struggle to the final goal of communism worldwide.

However, in many parts and for many years, the battle to recover the day's tradition of revolutionary struggle is hard, after decades in which the revisionists (fake communists) have stepped on its character. It's not simply from "wickedness". Wrong ideas do not come from a "bad character" of people, the immense propaganda apparatus of the exploiters plays a key part in putting lie after lie into the heads of the exploited themselves, principally with the mass media which influence other forms of creating public opinion.

They say that "communism is dead", that marxism, which today is marxism-leninism-maoism, is "out of style", that the proletariat doesn't need a revolutionary party because that is "imposing ideas", that the dictatorship of the proletariat (which is dicatorship against the exploiters and democracy for the people) like all dictatorship "is totalitarianism", that the people don't have the right to use revolutionary violence to free themselves from exploitation and oppression because that brings one to "authoritarianism".

All these lies, and stupidities, have soaked the workers' and peoples' movement itself and amongst many intellectuals that it has converted into its preachers, not only from superficiality but because the defeat of the great proletarian revolutions of the 20th century, the Russian and the Chinese (which were maintained from 1917 to 1956 for the former and from 1949 to 1976 for the latter) when analysed by bourgeois philosophy, by pragmatism, it brought them to skepticism, to distrust in that a really new world might be possible.

The lies that accompany the political and military offensives of the imperialists and reactionaries obey the necessity to remain in power. And there is no question that in the realm of ideas, because as Voltaire (a radical French philosopher of the 18th century) correctly said: "those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities". Not only do they want to put behind them generations of revolutionary and even progressive thought. Their slander of socialism and communism as "imposing one thought", "only permitting one party", "authoritarianism", "control over individuals' lives", "obsolete", not only is it a string of lies but a grand show of hypocrisy. All this applies to the imperialists and reactionaries! One only has to look to find the Bushes and the Uribes and the atrocities they have committed and have had committed.

***

The true sum-up of proletarian revolutions of the 20th century is opposed to the sum-up manipulated by the exploiters, the positive was much much more than the errors (that there were) in the first attempts at building socialism.

Today more than valid it is urgent to develop real revolutions lead by the proletariat in the two types of countries, the imperialist countries and the oppressed countries. And it is more necessary to build on the foundations established by the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution (the new democratic and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution).

In the 21st century there already exist many more material bases for building a completely different type of society in all the world, in a process which can and must be international even as it develops within the framework of the current division into countries and in accord with the particularities of each country.

In the ideological, political, organisational, and military spheres, in the mass work, the line struggle and forging of leadership, the working out of revolutionary theory and practise demand a development on the national level as much as on the international. And this can only be done with the strengthening of an organic centre. Such a centre exists at the international level, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the embyo of the International of a new type which is required. And in Colombia also that centre has come to be forged, the Revolutionary Communist Group (GCR), by means of class struggle and line struggle inside the revolutionary movement.

This 1 May, the GCR renews its promise before the proletariat and the people to advance in the construction of the tools for the Colombian revolution as part of the world proletarian revolution, the principal of which is the Party; renews its promise to struggle for the unity of the communists, not as a patchwork quilt but around a truly Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line against the wrong tendencies not only about unity but also about strategy and tactics for the revolution; and renews its promise to elevate its preparation to lead the struggle against the current system based on exploitation and oppression at the same time as resistance against those.

***

This 1 May brings an acute situation of class struggle at the world level. New waves of resistance are appearing, from the opposition to the yankee imperialists' threats of nuclear attack against Iran, through the struggles of the youth in France or the immigrants in the US, to the struggle against the feudal monarchy in Nepal.

The lessons of the people's struggle in Nepal are many. On the one hand it clearly shows the importance of a proletarian leadership for real advances of the people. The revolutionary war in Nepal, under the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), cleared the path for the peak of the grandiose people's movement against the monarchy which occurred during the greater part of the month of April, and was able to clear the path for truly revolutionary transformations which the people have gained in the revolutionary base areas of support in the countryside under the control of the people's army lead by its Party. And at the same time it shows how the grandiose people's struggle can lose its impetus if the revolutionary edge is smoothed out as in the case of the alliance of the seven parliamentary parties who postpone the democratic yearnings of the people, succumbing to the pressure of the of the imperialist powers and India.

The Colombian people have a common enemy with the people of France, the United States, and Nepal: global imperialism and reaction. The imperialist bourgeoisie in some countries and the ruling class lackeys of imperialism in others, have everything in common and allie themselves to exploit and oppress. For example, Uribe and the classes which he serves are complicit in the crimes of imperialism and are its servants not only in their own country. The proletariat has no fatherland and no doubt the Colombian proletariat will be at the height of its internationalist responsabilities, from the Andean countries to South Asia and further. Because, we only want the world! And we will conquer it with our class sisters and brothers of the whole planet!

switching to myspace completely

2006-05-09T10:41:00.000-07:00

AS OF TODAY THIS BLOG IS OUT-OF-DATE
If you want to read my shit, go to my myspace page -- click on the banner below. I'm leaving this page up online but from now on will not change it. So any information might be out of date, links might be broken etc. Anybody can read & listen on myspace but I think you need an account (free) to post comments.

excerpt from Petals of blood by Ngugi wa Thiong'o

2006-05-06T14:43:00.000-07:00

[This is actually from the last page, but I don't think it spoils any of the plot. Source: Petals of blood by Ngugi wa Thiong'o, (c)1977.]

Her voice only agitated further images in motion by her revelations. Imperialism: capitalism: landlords: earthworms. A system that bred hordes of round-bellied jiggers and bedbugs with parasitism and cannibalism as the highest goal in society. This system and its profiteering gods and its ministering angels had hounded his mother to her grave. These parasites would always demand the sacrifice of blood from the working masses. These few who had prostituted the whole land turning it over to foreigners for thorough exploitation, would drink people's blood and say hypocritical prayers of devotion to skin oneness and to nationalism even as skeletons of bones walked to lonely graves. The system and its gods and its angels had to be fought consciously, consistently and resolutely by all the working people! From Koitalel through Kang'ethe to Kimathi it had been the peasants, aided by the workers, small traders and small landowners, who had mapped out the path. Tomorrow it would be the workers and the peasants leading the struggle and seizing power to overturn the system and all its prying bloodthirsty gods and gnomic angels, bringing to an end the reign of the few over the many and the era of drinking blood and feasting on human flesh. Then, only then, would the kingdom of man and woman really begin, they joying and loving in creative labour ... For a minute he was so carried on the waves of this vision and of the possibilities it opened up for all the Kenyan working and peasant masses that he forgot the woman beside him.

my transfer from reserves to active duty

2006-05-05T16:48:00.000-07:00

finally on active duty, no longer in the industrial reserve army of the proletariat.

(that means i'm not unemployed anymore.)

yea for me, now i'm directly producing profit for some capitalist instead of indirectly driving wages down & thereby raising profit margins of some capitalists.

(ha ha title got your attention eh?)
(and just to be clear my new employment is not with the military.)

Thoughts/debate on "V for Vendetta"

2006-04-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

This is in response to an article "Putting Our Hopes Into Leaders: V for Vendetta vs. The Battle of Algiers" by Jamilah Hoffman on the website of World Can't Wait.

I very much disagree with this viewpoint. Unfortunately I don't have time to write a complete article about it (something I had wanted to do weeks ago, actually, & it's still not done now, so thank you for the motivation & here's some quick thoughts...)

Look, the movie isn't perfect. But it's pretty close. As the article points out, V does involve the masses. Yes it leans too much towards just him calling all the shots. But the fact is that his calls are simply for people to take action. Some do, some don't in the interim year. But on that second 5 Nov, *everybody* comes out in the streets. One should remember too that it's not as though everything is resolved at the end of the movie. In my mind at least the struggle would need to leap to a whole other level to completely take down the government, the events in the movie are just the beginning and a battle won but not the war. There is also to consider that movies generally focus on individuals and single events, for easier storytelling & as symbols. Which is a problem, though (1) not unique to V, (2) I'm not sure how you'd get around it in a 2 hour movie format, & (3) individual leaders & single cataclysmic events are important, after all. And yes there is a big question as to whether he is mainly motivated by justice or revenge, though clearly both are in the mix. But who said that just because it's fiction it has to be neat & tidy? These contradictions are real & I think it's much better viewing than some flat heroic stereotype.

As for "Battle of Algiers", that's one of my favourites too. I'd point out that it also focuses on a few individuals to follow the story, although yes it is obvious that there are many more involved, but I'm not sure to what extent this is obvious from the storytelling or to what extent it's from the historical knowledge that the viewer has. However the statement in Jamilah's article "The real life story of the Algerian people, as shown in The Battle of Algiers, answers that question in the freedom of the Algerian people from colonial rule," is really disturbing to me. The real life story is that despite their heroic triumph over the colonialists, they did not achieve freedom. Rather they traded oppressive colonialism for oppressive religious rule & eventually neo-colonialism under the very same French imperialists. Especially on the WCW site it is bad to promote the idea that the Algerian people achieved freedom, full stop, no disclaimers or further explanation. I say especially because one of the big questions/criticisms people have is "what happens after Bush is driven out, won't it be worse?" Now I disagree with that criticism of WCW, and also as a supporter of the RCPUSA I agree with its plan for revolution which is certainly something to set up a just society with, beyond the revolt against the unjust. But Algeria is exactly an example which would support the criticism, because maybe it wasn't worse but it certainly ain't good there now.

Back to V. I think that the demoralisaton of the people is actually quite a realistic portrayal. It is one reason why it's so necessary to stop fascism before it becomes full-blown. Look at the White Rose movement, people in Germany weren't scrambling to help out, neither were they all pro-Nazi, mostly they were scared &/or thought nothing was possible to be done. The main question in V is violence. This is what people are talking about after seeing it. This is what affected when the audience clapped or not, when they had shocked and thoughtful moments of silence. It even made Natalie Portman reconsider her thoughts on the Palestinian struggle. Is violence justified? Is there more than one kind of violence? V answers both these questions in a revolutionary way: violence is justified in certain conditions & in certain forms, that is revolutionary violence by the people against the oppressor.

"Battle of Algiers" is a great movie, but the history there is not what we want to repeat. On the one hand we want to forge our own path & not attempt to fit circles into squares or repeat mistakes, but also there are much better historical & contemporary examples anyway (Russia, China, Nepal...).

Frankly "V for Vendetta" is the best movie ever made. It doesn't have a perfect political line, but it has a damn good one. And its combination of that with wonderful artistic skill makes it extremely powerful.

documentary "The God Who Wasn't There"

2006-04-21T23:24:00.000-07:00

(sometimes video doesn't work above, but always works on the film's homepage, click link below)
Haven't seen it, but looks pretty good...
That's the trailer, there's also some more clips from the film at its homepage.
Anybody seen it? Please comment...

for your viewing pleasure...

2006-04-11T21:07:00.000-07:00

Here's some cool music videos for y'all to check out...

myspace empire expands its territory...

2006-04-11T20:18:00.000-07:00

lihatlah lamanku di myspace...
http://www.myspace.com/revolusi_boleh
try see my page on myspace...

Some words from a Mao supporter in modern China / Beberapa kata daripada seorang penyokong Mao di Cina moden

2006-03-22T15:48:00.000-08:00

[quotes below from "An Interview with Yan Yuanzhang" by Stephen Philion in Monthly Review 13.03.06; click here for entire thing]

...
Q: Now, why would the Chinese government, a socialist government in name, be concerned about a website run by leftists discussing the kinds of things that were discussed on the China Workers Website?
A: Well, because the government is not making socialism.
Q: Of course. I'm asking because outside China there are still some leftists who see China as a socialist country.
A: Well, hearing such nonsense would reduce a pig to tearful fits of laughter!
...
Q: Do liberals show up to participate in the discussions often?
A: Rarely, very rarely.
Q: Why?
A: Well, when liberals encounter Chinese workers and their problems, they suddenly have difficulty expressing themselves. They have little to contribute. They can express sympathy for workers, but the thing is that the Chinese workers on these lists generally are against capitalism. Also, workers in these discussions express nostalgia for the Maoist period, which liberals naturally don't share. Of course, liberals believe that today's economic problems are a product of economic policies pursued by Mao.
Also, workers have conflicting feelings about the Communist Party. Today's Chinese workers in discussions express the belief that the Party is dictatorial and is their enemy. Liberals' main slogan is "Down with the Communist Party." But workers differentiate between the Communist Party of the Maoist period and today's Party, which further puts them at odds with liberals.
At the same time, a fair proportion of workers in the discussions also have considerable illusions about capitalist democracy. So, ideologically, Chinese workers are all over the map. They have contradictory feelings about the CCP and about capitalist democracy.
But this is to be expected, since so much of what happened during the Maoist period has been completely repudiated by the media.
...

[petik-petik di bawah diambil dari "Temuduga dengan Yan Yuanzhang" oleh Stephen Philion dalam Monthly Review 13.03.06; terjemahan tak rasmi oleh saya (dari bahasa inggeris, walau asal ini sangat mungkin bahasa cina...)]

...
SP: Jadi kenapa kerajaan Cina, yang punya nama sosialis, mempedulikan laman web diurusi orang-orang sayap kiri membicara hal-hal terbicara di Laman Web Pekerja-pekerja Cina?
YYz: Kerana kerajaan tak menjadikan sosialisme lah.
SP: Tentulah. Saya bertanya kerana di luar Cina masih ada beberapa orang sayap kiri yang melihat Cina sebagai negeri sosialis.
YYz: Mendengar bukan-bukan begitu akan biar seekor babi ketawa penuh tak tahan tangis lah!
...
SP: Liberal-liberal seringkali ambil bahagian dalam pembicaraan ke?
YYz: Jaranglah, amat jarang.
SP: Kenapa?
YYz: Begini, ketika liberal-liberal bertemu pekerja Cina dan masalah-masalahnya, mereka tiba-tiba dapat susahan merangkan diri. Sumbangannya sangat sedikit. Mereka boleh menyatakan simpati untuk pekerja-pekerja, tapi ada putus, iaitu pekerja-pekerja di semua e-list ini pada umumnya melawan kapitalisme. Ada juga, pekerja-pekerja dalam bicara-bicara ini menyatakan nostalgia perasaan rindu untuk zaman Mao, yang liberal-liberal tentu tak ada.
Ada juga, pekerja-pekerja merasa dengan berbeza tentang Parti Komunis. Pekerja-pekerja Cina sekarang dalam pembicaraan menyatakan kepercayaan Parti berdiktatur dan jadi musuh mereka. Cogankata utama liberal-liberal "Punuh Parti Komunis". Tapi pekerja-pekerja memperbezakan Parti Komunis zaman Mao dan Parti sekarang, ini berselisih mereka lagi.
Sementara itu, bahagian bahantara pekerja dalam pembicaraan pun ada khayalan-khayalan benar mengenai demokrasi kapitalis. Jadi, pekerja-pekerja Cina duduk pelbagai tempat seluruh peta ideoloji. Mereka merasa saling berbeza mengenai PKC dan mengenai demokrasi kapitalis.
Tapi ini hanya disangka, kerana betapa banyak yang terjadi sewaktu zaman Mao sudah selengkapnya dibuangkan oleh media.
...

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #7

2006-03-22T09:11:00.000-08:00

Revolution, the only solution,
The armed response of an entire nation,
Revolution, the only solution,
We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.

System Of A Down
"P.L.U.C.K. (Politically Lying Unholy Cowardly Killers)"
1998

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

2006-03-19T09:46:00.000-08:00

"V FOR VENDETTA"

Best movie ever.

See it now.

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #6

2006-03-15T18:11:00.000-08:00

Ven, vas a conocer nuestra civilización
la presunción de igualdad con aires de libertad
qué hipocresía moral, producto del bienestar
qué bonito es vivir si has nacido aquí*

Ska-P
"Planeta Eskoria"
2000
*“aquí”: Ska-P es de España

_________ english translation by me _________

Come on, I'll introduce you to our civilisation
the presumption of equality with airs of freedom
what moral hipocrisy, product of well-being
how beautiful it is to be alive if you were born here*

Ska-P
"Cancer Planet"
2000
*“here”: Ska-P is from Spain

Don't forget about AFGHANISTAN!

2006-03-12T15:23:00.000-08:00

It's always the war in Iraq on the news (incl. leftist/progressive news). Which is very important. But don't forget, folks in Afghanistan are still getting mowed down by US troops (AND Canadian troops, German troops, UK troops, etc etc), & the ones who ain't killed yet being forced to choke down poisonous Shariah+Poverty cocktails.

Reprinted below is the statement of Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) on occasion of 8 March (International Women's Day) 2006.

Let’s rise united and resolute for liberation and against the fundamentalism!

Another Eighth of March has arrived but still the Afghan women are hostage to the fundamentalists’ claws. The continuation of traitor-loving policies of Mr. Karzai and his sympathetic friends by the indication of US government is still like spears entering deeper and deeper into the injured face of our unfortunate people. Whenever the criminal “Emirs” and their commanders commit another heinous crime, instead of being sued, they are rewarded and receive higher posts.

Murder, robbery, kidnapping and the rape of women and children has become the routine. There is a high rate of women committing suicide and an ever expanding cultivation and trafficking of narcotics, all while billions of dollars of foreign aid and public resources are squandered away. Unemployment and homelessness is on the rise. Opening of Kabul Serina Hotel and other hotels of this type in a country with the lowest rate of income per capita in the world doesn’t mean development but it is indeed providing sensual environment for criminals and mocking about the miserable life condition of majority of our nation. The compromising government is unable even to solve smallest of these issues. The country is in chaos.

The last four years of experience in our Afghan nation has confirmed the point that for the government of Karzai, the will of our oppressed nation is not the priority but it is the interests of criminals. Mr. Karzai doesn’t want to and can’t destroy the band of criminals from Afghanistan because the interests of both parties are intertwined.

In the presidential elections the majority of our people gave their votes to Mr. Karzai in the hope that he will prosecute and punish all the criminal fundamentalists for their crimes and atrocities. But he betrayed the vote of the people. That is why in the parliamentary elections, our deceived and hopeless people knew whether they vote or not, the composition of parliament will be made behind the scenes. Jehadi executioners were placed into parliament in order to guarantee the ability to pass and enforce laws that oppress the common people and the country, legitimize the signing of the "Strategic treaty between USA and Afghanistan" and other similar oppressive treaties.

RAWA has stated several times that the government, the court and parliament under the domination of the criminal “Northern Alliance”, the Taliban, Gulbuddini, Parchami and Khaliqi traitors, will never do any good for our bereaved people. Against the unsubstantiated accusations of collaborators that RAWA’s criticisms and attacks on government are always from a negative point of view, treacherousness and corruption has meshed around the roots of government so deeply that its nasty smell has not only been published in the world’s most respected publications; but even Habibullah Qaderi the so called minister of anti-narcotics and Ali Ahmad Jalali, former interior minister, have been forced to confirm that the government is dominated by the mafia.

It is clear in these circumstances, that the grant of more than 10 billion dollars promised during the London Conference will not be used for the masses, but instead like the previous 12 billion dollars, will fill the pockets of the “Northern Alliance” to buy their loyalty to the US.

In the situation when, by the support of criminals the innocent blood of Rahimas, Aminas, Nadias, Gulbers, Saimas and … pours on the ground, the presence of pro-fundamentalist women in the cabinet is nothing but a tool in the hand of government to say to the world and people, “Look at Afghanistan, Women have gained so much freedom!” The mentioned women, like most of the women in the parliament, are as much indifferent to the plight of Afghan people as Sayyaf, Rabbani, Qanonni, Gulbuddin, Mullah Omar and their partners.

The “Northern Alliance”, who gave shelter to Assadullah Sarwari until now, today they want that by punishing him to death, the Afghan peoples’ desire to prosecute the filthier criminals than him, will willow in despair and vanish forever.

Our people and especially the mournful women will not abandon the pursuit of the trial and punishment of religious fascist and Soviet puppets for any price or condition, because they have realized this now more than ever before, that until these unchaste felons are thrown off the throne, they will not be witness to the dawn of freedom, democracy and prosperity in their Afghanistan.

We are not alone in our difficult and tumultuous struggle against the “Northern Alliance” and their Gulbuddini, Talibi and Al-Qaeda brothers. Women of Iran, Kurdistan, Palestine, Turkey, Latin America and other countries are in combat for democracy and against the plague of fundamentalism and war. We sympathize with them and we must assist the movement of women in rest of the world by intensifying our decisive struggle against fundamentalism and their supporters in the region.

Regards to the imprisoned freedom-loving women in Iran and all over the world!

Long live the solidarity between the resilient women of Afghanistan and other countries!

Down with all fundamentalists, the most evil enemies of Afghanistan and human beings!

Hold high the glorious flag of RAWA and all organizations and persons supporting democracy against criminal fundamentalists!

read this statement in Farsi
read this statement in Japanese
read this statement in Pashto
read this statement in Portuguese
read this statement in Spanish
(translations by RAWA)

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #5

2006-01-19T13:15:00.000-08:00

Hustlin's in my blood my father's name is Britain
His history consisted of robbery killin' and pimpin'
Filthy rich and the biggest killer that you ever seen
Once I'm older I'm takin' over ima be king
I was locked up in jail when he got the new land
Opened his cells I guess that's how the story began
First mission was to clear it out and claim it as mine
Indigenous people were peaceful it took no time
Great grandmother Africa was blind and disabled
Sons was traitors we played divide and conquer invaded
Sold her children into slavery and profited quick
Started makin' side deals and that's how I got rich
Daddy Britain found out and tried to put me in check
He don't understand I'm a man and I deserve some respect
Tried to bring it to me but I play for keeps and I won
Still my daddy but you ain't the only man with a gun
More money more problems little brother is wild
They call 'im The South he's country with a big ass mouth
Tried to show 'im new business but he don't wanna change
I love 'im but I knew eventually I'd blow out his brains
I'm America!

Flipsyde
"U.S. History"
2005

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #4

2006-01-12T11:30:00.000-08:00

Biotechnology, it ain't so bad
Like all technology, it's in the wrong hands

Sepultura
"Biotech Is Godzilla"
1993

List-o-rama #1: 2005 Top Ten Albums

2006-01-11T10:38:00.000-08:00

notes: These are not numbered because they're not ranked -- that's too hard to decide. Also, these are just out of the albums I've actually heard; there's probably great stuff out there I didn't get to hear, including stuff I've heard one song of but not the whole album -- I'm not gonna put my opinion on what I don't know. Comments more than welcome as always...

AK47 - The Fucking Enemy
Asian Dub Foundation - Tank
Blue Scholars - The Long March
Disturbed - Ten Thousand Fists
KMFDM - Hau Ruck
The Living Things - Ahead Of The Lions
Outernational - Outernational
The Suicide Machines - War Profiteering Is Killing Us All
System Of A Down - Mezmerize / Hypnotize
(comp.) - Indestructible African Beats

PS. Armed Love by The (International) Noise Conspiracy was released in 2005 in the US, but actually it came out a year earlier in their native Sweden & the rest of Europe. That's only reason why it's not on the top ten list.

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #3

2006-01-05T23:47:00.000-08:00

Our hungry hearts and this old world's about to collide
Let it begin tonight we'll win
Let's all share our dreams under a communist moon

The (International) Noise Conspiracy
"Communist Moon"
2005

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #2

2005-12-30T09:22:00.000-08:00

Do you see the lies falling from the mouths of politicians
like turds filling a litterbox, they scratch
but each new movement pushes up an old lie

Ten Foot Pole
"Wake Up (and Smell the Fascism)"
2004

Random kick-ass lyric of the week #1

2005-12-22T15:05:00.000-08:00

Fuck your US pride
You were born into it

Jimmy the child molester down the block
Has got the same fucking pride

River City Rebels
"U.S. Crush"
2002

This blog is being renovated

2005-12-15T13:47:00.000-08:00

I am changing this blog, it will also have opinions & recommendations on cultural stuff, like movies, music, books, etc (probably only in english).

I will still post translations (at least once a month).

* * * * * * * * * *

Aku tengah menggantikan blog ini, sini akan ada pendapat2 dan rekomendasi2 tentang hal berbudaya, iaitu wayang gambar, muzik, buku, dll (mungkin dalam bhs inggeris saja).

Aku masih kan menge-pos terjemahan2 (sekurang-kurangnya satu kali setiap bulan).

"Service de nouvelles Un Monde A Gagner" sur LA RÉVOLTE EN FRANCE

2005-12-06T23:15:00.000-08:00

THIS IS NOT MY TRANSLATION. IT WAS DONE BY AWTWNS THEMSELF. JUST THOUGHT IT OUGHT TO BE ONLINE SOMEWHERE.

La révolte en France : la « racaille » illumine le ciel

Le 7 novembre 2005. Service de nouvelles d'Un Monde A Gagner. La classe dominante française fait face à la plus importante crise qu’a connue ce pays depuis des décennies. Le Premier ministre Dominique de Villepin a dû recourir à une loi vieille d’un demi-siècle n’ayant pas été invoquée depuis l’époque de la guerre coloniale contre l’Algérie, qui permet aux autorités locales de décréter l’état d’urgence et d’imposer un couvre-feu aux heures qui leur conviennent. Bien que de Villepin ait renoncé, pour le moment, à recourir à l’armée, ses opposants soulignent qu’à partir du moment où ces mesures adoptées, elles seront probablement considérées comme un défi par les rebelles; dès lors, si une force suffisante n’est pas déployée pour les imposer, la situation pourrait se détériorer encore plus. Le problème, pour le gouvernement, c’est la révolte d’une partie du peuple français, que le ministre de l’Intérieur Nicolas Sarkozy a traité de « racaille ». La jeunesse des cités, qui jusque là était plutôt silencieuse, s’est propulsée au cœur de l’actualité, obligeant tout le monde à se positionner par rapport à elle.

Peu de temps après son entrée en fonction, Sarkozy a prétendu déclarer une « guerre sans merci » contre la « canaille » des banlieues françaises. Il est allé jusqu’à dire qu’il utiliserait un Karcher – un véhicule muni d’un boyau à haute pression, utilisé en France pour nettoyer les excréments de chien sur les trottoirs – et qu’il « nettoierait » les cités, là où réside une grande majorité de la population immigrante ainsi que les couches les plus défavorisées de la classe ouvrière multinationale. Ce n’était pas simplement des mots en l’air. Sarkozy a lancé sa police, qui s’est mise à harceler et humilier la jeunesse encore plus systématiquement qu’elle le fait habituellement. C’est chose commune, la nuit, pour de jeunes hommes se promenant seul sur la rue d’être soudainement interpellé par une camionnette pleine de flics, pour un « contrôle d’identité ». Le plus souvent, cela signifie être jeté par terre, menotté et battu à la moindre résistance. Au cours des dernières semaines, la police a nettement intensifié ce type de persécution. À certaines occasions, des jeunes ont répondu à ce harcèlement en brûlant au hasard des voitures; depuis quelques années, ce geste est devenu un phénomène de plus en plus fréquent en France, qui symbolise la révolte.

La colère rampante des jeunes aura donc finalement explosé le 27 octobre à Clichy-sous-Bois, une banlieue située à l’est de Paris autrefois considérée comme un bled plutôt tranquille. Un groupe de jeunes adolescents revenaient à la maison après un après-midi à jouer au foot. Éventuellement, la police a prétendu que quelqu’un avait tenté de pénétrer par effraction dans le bureau d’un chantier de construction situé sur un terrain vacant qui se trouvait comme par hasard sur le chemin parcouru par ces jeunes, alors qu’il n’y a pourtant jamais eu de bureau sur ce terrain, ni même quelque objet de valeur. Un car rempli de policiers s’est présenté sur les lieux; ces flics faisaient partie de la BAC – la Brigade anti-criminalité, dont l’essentiel du job consiste à brutaliser les jeunes des cités. Les jeunes ont donc pris la poudre d’escampette. Trois d’entre eux ont tenté de fuir en escaladant un mur haut d’un mètre et demi. D’autres jeunes, qui avaient été mis en état d’arrestation un peu plus tôt et qui étaient retenus dans des voitures de police, ont témoigné avoir entendu très clairement un message radio dans lequel un flic rapportait avoir vu des adolescents escalader le mur et pénétrer dans une station abritant un transformateur. « Ils sont en danger de mort », l’ont-ils entendu dire; puis, la réponse est venue, brutale : « Eh! bien, comme ça, ils ne pourront pas aller bien loin! » Environ une heure plus tard, l’escouade d’urgence des sapeurs-pompiers s’est finalement présentée et a procédé à la coupure du courant électrique. C’est alors qu’ils ont trouvé deux garçons décédés, tandis qu’un troisième était sévèrement brûlé.

Ce soir-là, des petits groupes de jeunes ont commencé à incendier des boîtes à ordures et des voitures; ils et elles ont aussi lancé des bouteilles et des pierres à la police. Le lendemain après-midi se tenait une marche silencieuse en solidarité avec les familles des deux jeunes victimes, Bouna Traore et Zyed Benna. Les médias ont dit qu’ils étaient âgés de 15 et de 17 ans, mais certains de leurs voisins disent qu’ils étaient en fait tous deux plus jeunes que ce qu’on a rapporté. Bouna, dont la famille est originaire de Mauritanie, était connu comme un bon footballeur. Zyed, d’origine tunisienne, était considéré comme un gentil gosse par les personnes âgées du voisinage, notamment parce qu’il en aidait plusieurs à faire leurs courses. Le soir suivant, il y a eu d’autres débordements à Clichy et aux alentours, d’une intensité comparable à la nuit précédente.

Dans les jours qui ont suivi, Sarkozy est venu par hélicoptère dans une ville toute proche – les jeunes du coin disent qu’il n’a simplement pas osé se pointer à Clichy. Prenant sa plus belle gestuelle machiste, il a fulminé contre les « voyous » et la « racaille » – ce que ses opposants, et même ses partisans, ont perçu comme une provocation délibérée. Le 31 octobre, la police a lancé une grenade lacrymogène dans une mosquée remplie de musulmans qui célébraient le Ramadan. L’effet de ces gestes et de ces déclarations s’est fait sentir tout le reste de la semaine. Les autorités ont refusé de s’excuser. Quant à eux, les parents des deux victimes sont demeurés fermes face aux tentatives du gouvernement d’apaiser leur colère.

Plutôt que de s’éteindre au terme du week-end, le foyer d’incendie s’est intensifié et s’est répandu. Des centaines de voitures ont été brûlées, alors qu’on assistait à chaque nuit à un nombre record d’arrestations. Une semaine plus tard, alors que les combats étaient terminés dans le secteur, une confrontation de plus grande envergure prenait place entre les jeunes et la police, tout près à Aulnay-sous-Bois. De petits groupes de très jeunes d’adolescents mettaient le feu aux voitures dans plus d’une vingtaine de villes autour de Paris, dont plusieurs dans le département 93, à l’est et au nord de la capitale. Un poste de police, un centre d’emploi, de grands et plus petits magasins, et un stationnement d’autocars furent également incendiés. En date du 5 novembre, 900 véhicules automobiles avaient été brûlées dans la région parisienne; la nuit suivante, les flammes consumaient 500 voitures, uniquement dans la région parisienne, et plus de 800 autres dans une douzaine de villes à travers le pays.

À une exception près (un retraité de l’automobile décédé dans un stationnement dans des circonstances nébuleuses), on rapporte très peu de cas où des jeunes se seraient délibérément attaqués à des gens ordinaires, quelque soit leur nationalité, dans les cités ou ailleurs – bien qu’une poignée de passants aient été blessés. En fait, il semble que les affrontements entre les jeunes des différents quartiers ont même diminué en intensité au cours des dernières semaines. En général, leurs cibles sont très claires et pas du tout aléatoires : la police, le gouvernement et tout ce qui les représente, ainsi que l’ordre social dominant. Brûler des voitures est une forme de désordre et de défi à l’autorité que les forces de l’ordre, comme on les appelle en France, ne peuvent tolérer.

La police a répliqué en utilisant des canons à eau – les fameux « Karcher » de Sarkozy – et plus particulièrement, des balles en caoutchouc, les gaz lacrymogènes et les matraques. Les jeunes rapportent que les balles de type « flash ball » sont vraiment dangereuses, surtout lorsqu’elles atteignent le visage ou le cou. Le 4 novembre, pour la première fois en France, des hélicoptères ont survolé le dessus des toits des énormes complexes de logements sociaux de Paris et dans une autre ville au moins. Ils ont braqué leurs projecteurs dans les entrées et les fenêtres des logements, filmant tout ce qui se passait et coordonnant les escouades mobiles de la police au sol. La tactique des autorités est passée par quelques étapes. Au départ, la police n’a pas procédé à beaucoup d’arrestations. Les flics interceptaient systématiquement ceux et celles qu’ils réussissaient à attraper à un endroit donné, pour ensuite les libérer, la plupart du temps. Les autorités semblent avoir simplement espéré que le soulèvement s’atténuerait, et elles craignaient sans doute d’enflammer encore plus la situation en intervenant de manière plus répressive.

Une semaine et demie plus tard, alors que les jeunes devenaient de plus en plus audacieux, Sarkozy a toutefois lancé le mot d’ordre : « Arrestations – voilà la clé. » Suivant cet appel, des centaines de jeunes ont donc été mis en état d’arrestation, quotidiennement. En date du 7 novembre, environ 20 personnes avaient déjà été condamnées à la prison, et plus de d’une trentaine d’autres attendaient de subir leur procès sous ce que le gouvernement menace d’être de très sérieuses accusations. Selon les chiffres officiels, la moitié de ceux qui sont en prison en ce moment sont âgés de moins de 18 ans, et presque tous ont moins de 25 ans.

Les autorités hurlent à l’effet que les jeunes « utilisent de vrais pistolets », ce qui serait plutôt inusité en France. À Grigny, au sud de Paris, dans le seul incident ayant été rapporté, des flics ont dit avoir été attirés dans un « guet-apens » par des groupes de jeunes hommes armés de gourdins et de pistolets. Il s’est avéré que deux officiers ont été légèrement blessés par de la chevrotine non mortelle. La police a déclaré avoir trouvé plus tard une vraie cartouche de fusil vide sur le sol. Cela est peut être une manière pour l’État de justifier l’utilisation d’une force bien plus mortelle.

Dans un éditorial, le soi-disant quotidien de gauche Libération a prétendu que le soulèvement est « organisé » par des « des caïds protégeant leurs trafics [et des] islamistes en mal de chair à jihad ». En ce qui concerne la première accusation, la presse elle-même a cité les témoignages de nombreux résidants des cités précisant que les revendeurs sérieux n’allaient jamais organiser quoi que ce soit qui soit susceptible de déranger leurs affaires. Comme l’a indiqué un homme d’Aulnay, « c’est plutôt l’État qui est heureux de voir les drogues inonder les ghettos ». Bien que l’économie souterraine sous toutes ses formes prospère dans les cités, ce n’est pas ce qui sous-tend cette révolte.

Certains politiciens ont prétendu voir la main d’Al-Qaida derrière la crise actuelle, ce qui est une façon édulcorée de laisser entendre que la réponse appropriée aux actions des jeunes serait carrément de procéder à un massacre. Mais les accusations qui prétendent qu’il s’agit d’une révolte consciemment islamique ou que ce sont les imams qui la mènent en sous-main sont totalement sans fondement. Le fait est que depuis le début, les principaux chefs musulmans ont envoyé leurs fidèles pour tenter d’éteindre les manifestations. Même s’ils sympathisent avec les jeunes en lutte contre le gouvernement, les chefs musulmans s’opposent à ce qu’ils considèrent comme des comportements contraires aux règles de l’Islam. L’Union des organisations islamiques de France a même émis une fatwa (décret religieux) interdisant aux musulmans de participer ou contribuer à « quelque action qui frappe de façon aveugle des biens privés ou publics ou qui peuvent attenter à la vie d’autrui ».

L’attitude du gouvernement français envers l’Islam est à deux visages. Le gouvernement attaque les droits des musulmans au nom de la laïcité. Il interdit aux filles et aux jeunes femmes musulmanes de porter le voile à l’école – comme si le fait de les priver de l’accès à l’éducation était autre chose que du racisme et signifiait autre chose qu’une oppression accrue pour les femmes. En même temps, Sarkozy a consacré d’énormes efforts pour attirer les imams sous l’aile du gouvernement, en assurant notamment leurs salaires et leur financement et d’une certaine manière, en les transformant en bras organisé de l’État utilisé pour contrôler les communautés immigrées. À Aulnay, une femme faisait remarquer que « chaque fois que quelque chose comme cela se produit, ils construisent une nouvelle mosquée. Ce n’est pourtant pas ce que nous voulons. »

La crise a produit des effets contradictoires sur la classe dominante et sur ce qu’on appelle, en France, la « classe politique » – ceux qui se relaient à la tête du gouvernement. À certains moments, elle les a divisés, tandis qu’à d’autres, elle les a carrément amenés à s’entre-déchirer. Dans un premier temps, le Premier ministre Dominique de Villepin a tenté de se dissocier de son ministre de l’Intérieur Sarkozy, qui est aussi son rival politique, en le critiquant pour ses excès de langage. Dans les premiers jours, et même après jusqu’à un certain point, le président Jacques Chirac s’est lui-même dissocié des deux, en choisissant de garder le silence. La critique des excès de langage de Sarkozy est même venue d’un membre du cabinet – un Arabe de service titulaire d’un ministère junior destiné à la « Promotion de l’égalité des chances ». Un des nombreux syndicats de policiers a même demandé à Sarkozy de se la fermer parce que ses interventions mettent les flics en danger. Dix jours plus tard toutefois, bien peu de membres de l’« establishment » formulent encore publiquement des critiques à l’endroit de Sarkozy – sa grande gueule étant devenue le moindre de leurs soucis.

Les jeunes exigent massivement la démission de Sarkozy. Cette revendication est reprise quasi unanimement par les masses d’origine immigrante et elle est largement appuyée par les masses de toutes les nationalités présentes dans les cités, y compris par une partie importante de la classe moyenne. Sarkozy est le visage qui symbolise le plus clairement la répression; cet homme aime bien se présenter comme un politicien de style « américain », en affichant très ouvertement son côté réactionnaire. Ce style semble tout à fait approprié pour son job de ministre de l’Intérieur, et c’est d’ailleurs vraisemblablement pour cela que ses rivaux lui ont accordé cette fonction. Son travail consiste à représenter la force brute de l’État et à l’utiliser contre le peuple, non seulement contre les immigrantEs et leurs enfants, mais aussi contre les grévistes, et de manière générale. Peut-être que de Villepin et Chirac ont pu, au début, souhaiter que l’arrogance de Sarkozy cause sa chute. Mais au fond, personne parmi la classe politique n’aurait pu accepter que ce soit la « racaille » qui force la démission du flic numéro un du pays.

Le Parti socialiste, de son côté, n’a même pas osé tenter de tirer profit de la situation, politiquement, pour stopper son propre déclin – du moins pour l’instant, et même si ses membres à la base seraient bien heureux de se lancer dans la bataille contre Sarkozy. Les dirigeants du PS affirment que le « rétablissement de la paix » est une condition sine qua non avant d’entreprendre quelque discussion ou action que ce soit sur les questions de fond qui sont en jeu, et ils ont explicitement refusé l’appel à la démission de ministre de l’Intérieur.

Quant au parti révisionniste, le PCF, il n’est pas moins malheureux de la situation. Les révisionnistes tentent de faire porter tout le blâme sur Sarkozy et sur la droite, comme si lorsque la soi-disant « gauche » était au pouvoir, celle-ci n’avait pas elle aussi adopté la même attitude vis-à-vis les jeunes des cités. À l’époque, le ministre socialiste de l’Éducation les avait même qualifiés de « sauvages ». Le PCF veut faire oublier le fait que ce sont précisément les partis « de gauche », pendant toutes ces années où ils ont été au pouvoir, qui ont façonné la société française, telle qu’on la connaît aujourd’hui. Le parti révisionniste appelle à la démission de Sarkozy, mais il a tenu en même temps à se distancer le plus possible des jeunes des cités. Questionnée à la radio à savoir si les jeunes qui incendient des voitures sont des « victimes ou des criminels », la chef du parti Marie-Georges Buffet a spontanément répondu : « des criminels ». La presse du PCF a caractérisé la rébellion comme étant « le résultat désastreux de politiques désastreuses ». Le PCF demande une enquête sur la mort des deux adolescents, comme si celle-ci n’était pas déjà suffisamment claire; comme si on était dans une situation où on ne sait pas qui a tort et qui a raison; et comme si les masses populaires n’avaient pas déjà rendu leur verdict sur cette affaire. Pendant que les élus du Parti communiste ont tenu une « manifestation pour la paix » devant les bureaux du Premier ministre, les sections locales du PCF ont tenté d’organiser de telles manifestations « pacifistes » dans les cités et les quartiers ouvriers. Depuis deux semaines, les jeunes se sont soulevés à peu près partout, sans faire de distinction entre les municipalités dirigées par des socialistes, des communistes ou des maires de droite, parce que quel que soit le parti au pouvoir, cela ne fait aucune différence dans leurs vies de tous les jours.

La vérité, c’est que la France a connu beaucoup trop d’années de « calme » et de paix sociale, en dépit de l’oppression grandissante qui sévit, et qu’à cette « tranquillité » a correspondu une détérioration systématique des conditions des oppriméEs. Qu’y a-t-il de si fantastique dans le fait d’accepter ce type de vie qu’on impose non seulement aux jeunes, mais à la grande majorité de la population française? Depuis quelques jours, la violence au sein du peuple a diminué considérablement, et l’esprit de la jeunesse est en ébullition. La révolte des jeunes est loin d’être un « désastre »! Au contraire, elle est parfaitement justifiée. Elle introduit enfin un peu d’air frais pour éviter la suffocation politique et sociale – en somme, elle représente quelque chose de positif dans l’atmosphère cynique et perverse qui amenait les gens à faire l’autruche depuis trop longtemps déjà, soit depuis la défaite de la rébellion de Mai 1968 et la trahison des espoirs populaires par les gouvernements dirigés par les socialistes et appuyé par les révisionnistes. Les jeunes qui se révoltent veulent se battre et ne veulent pas voter : ils vont ainsi à contre-courant de l’idée dominante qui prétend qu’on ne peut rien changer dans un pays où l’électorat s’est uni pour faire échec au candidat ouvertement fasciste Jean-Marie Le Pen il y a quelques années, mais uniquement pour élire Chirac et amener Sarkozy au pouvoir. Quelques soient les erreurs que les jeunes peuvent commettre en ce moment, leur révolte représente le plus bel espoir que la France ait connu depuis des décennies – l’espoir d’une société nouvelle et différente.

Il est important de souligner qu’un des principaux bonbons offerts par le Premier ministre de Villepin, qui joue le rôle du « gentil flic » au côté de Sarkozy-la-matraque, est la mise sur pied d’un programme qui permettrait aux jeunes de quitter l’école à 14 ans plutôt qu’à 16 comme c’est le cas actuellement, pour qu’ils et elles puissent commencer à travailler comme « apprentis » en dessous du salaire minimum, dans ces filières cul-de-sac réservées aux décrocheurs. En d’autres mots, ce qu’on leur propose de mieux, c’est de vivre la même chose que ce que leurs parents ont enduré, alors que ceux-ci ont accepté de supporter cette misère justement parce qu’ils espéraient un avenir meilleur pour leurs enfants. Ce que les faux socialistes et les révisionnistes refusent d’admettre, c’est que même si les capitalistes et leur gouvernement le voulaient, ils ne pourraient offrir à ces jeunes des emplois décents, tout en préservant les immenses profits qu’ils engrangent en les exploitant ainsi. Voilà pourquoi la classe dominante considère les sans-emplois, et particulièrement les immigrantEs et leurs enfants, comme des « bons-à-rien inutiles », destinés à être écrasés avant de s’en débarrassern autant que faire se peut. Les politiques de Sarkozy ne sont que l’expression de cette réalité économique sous-jacente.

Le leitmotiv qui revient constamment chez les principales personnalités politiques du pays (y compris même celles « d’extrême gauche ») et dont ils se plaignent constamment, c’est que les jeunes qui se révoltent sont « dépolitisés ». Mais c’est carrément absurde! Car même si ces jeunes n’ont pas encore atteint une conscience suffisante de ce qui serait nécessaire pour aller plus loin, ils et elles savent quand même très bien qui sont leurs ennemis, et ils cherchent aussi à se trouver des alliés. Il n’y a rien d’« apolitique » dans le fait de rejeter la vie minable qui est la seule que le système puisse leur offrir – cela représente au contraire une rupture avec la définition de ce qui est permis dans le cadre de la politique bourgeoise, et c’est aussi un point de départ (comme le disait aussi un autre article du quotidien Libération) vers une rupture avec l’idée que le système actuel est le seul possible et envisageable. En fait, non seulement les jeunes refusent-ils d’accepter les circonstances dans lesquelles on les enferme, mais ils prêtent également beaucoup d’attention aux événements mondiaux les plus importants, comme ceux qui se déroule en Irak ou en Palestine; à tout le moins, ils et elles ressentent plus profondément ce qui se passe ailleurs que plusieurs de leurs aînés, qui ont laissé leur opposition aux crimes de l’impérialisme se dégonfler parce que « leur » gouvernement a réussi à apparaître comme étant « blanc comme neige » face à ces crimes.

Ces jeunes ne sont ni des « victimes », ni des « criminels ». Ils et elles sont simplement devenuEs des acteurs et des actrices de l’histoire, des pionniers qui sont passés à l’action à une échelle où personne n’était encore allé, dans un pays où la majorité de la population se sent écrasée, dans le meilleur des cas. Ces jeunes sont entréEs sur la scène politique, qui leur avait été jusque là interdite. Il y a un consensus parmi les principaux partis politiques et l’opposition officielle comme quoi ce soulèvement doit être réprimé et/ou écrasé – qu’avant toute chose, l’État doit y mettre fin, rapidement. Ces jeunes se battent pour réveiller un pays rempli de gens endormis; il était plus que temps que ça se produise.

De notre reporter : conversations à Clichy-sous-Bois

Le 7 novembre 2005. Service de nouvelles d'Un Monde A Gagner. Nous sommes en début de soirée à Clichy-sous-Bois, environ une semaine après la mort de Bouna Traore et de Zyed Benna, au pied d’une colline où la cité prend fin et où commence un quartier de petites maisons unifamiliales, dans un bar-tabac rempli de travailleurs ayant fini leur journée et qui est en fait le seul établissement de ce genre à des kilomètres à la ronde.

J’ai décidé d’y entrer et de demander aux gens de me raconter ce qu’ils ont à dire à propos des événements actuels. La seule femme présente à l’intérieur est la jeune caissière. Les hommes à l’avant du bar sont tous blancs. Un homme âgé d’une trentaine d’années et son ami dans la soixantaine sont les premiers à accepter de me parler. Le plus jeune se plaint du fait que les gens ont besoin de leur voiture pour aller travailler, et que de les brûler ne fait que causer du tort aux gens du voisinage. Personnellement, son automobile n’a subi aucun dommage, mais il craint que sa prime d’assurance n’explose. Comme beaucoup de locataires appartenant à la classe ouvrière, il a vécu toute sa vie dans cette cité – dans son cas, pratiquement depuis la construction de la première d’entre elles au début des années 1970. Au début, c’était bien, il y avait de jolis parterres avec des fleurs, mais petit à petit, tout s’est mis à tomber en ruines. Les propriétaires n’ont jamais rien fait pour assurer un entretien décent des immeubles, mais le jeune homme blâme aussi ses voisins. Selon lui, il y a beaucoup trop de gens qui ne veulent pas réellement trouver un emploi; ils se satisfont des quelques centaines d’euros par mois que leur procure l’assistance publique. « Pratiquement aucun des ces jeunes n’a d’emploi permanent », dit-il d’un ton critique.

Au premier abord, son compagnon plus âgé semble être d’accord avec lui. « Comme tout le monde dans ce temps-la, j’ai commencé à travailler dans la construction quand j’avais 15 ans. Quand j’ai pris ma retraite, j’avais accumulé 50 ans de cotisation à la sécurité sociale! De nos jours, les jeunes ne trouvent pas d’emploi stable avant l’âge de 30 ans, et c’est vraiment difficile pour eux. Comme toi, par exemple [s’adressant à son compagnon], tu viens juste de commencer à travailler comme chauffeur de camion, et c’est moi qui t’ai aidé à obtenir ce boulot. » Pratiquement tout le monde à Clichy – autant dans les grandes tours que dans les maisons unifamiliales – est ouvrier. La différence entre les uns et les autres ne réside pas tant dans l’employeur pour lequel ils travaillent que dans le niveau de qualification ou la précarité de l’emploi qu’ils occupent. Les pères de la vieille génération travaillaient en grande partie dans la construction et les mères, pour celles qui avaient un emploi rémunéré, travaillaient comme femmes de ménage. Pour ce qui est de leurs enfants, spécialement chez les jeunes d’origine maghrébine ou africaine, jusqu’à la moitié d’entre eux sont sans-travail, et la plupart des emplois leurs apparaissent tout simplement inaccessibles.

La douzaine d’hommes accoudés au bar se disent tous renversés par la mort de Bouna et Zyed. Ils ont tous le sentiment qu’un véritable crime a été commis et que quelqu’un devrait être puni pour ces meurtres. Le jeune camionneur de tantôt reprend le crachoir, pour dire que si ces garçons n’avaient rien fait de mal – ce que tout le monde affirme et qui a même été admis par un des officiers – ils n’auraient pas dû se sauver de la police. La serveuse, âgée d’une vingtaine d’années tout au plus et possiblement d’origine portugaise, l’interrompt : « Tu sais bien que les flics les auraient intimidés de toutes façons. C’est ce qu’ils font avec tout le monde ici. Moi aussi, à leur place, je me serais enfuie. » Les autres hochent de la tête en signe d’approbation : « Si Sarkozy accède à la présidence, on est tous baisés! » Néanmoins, les gens expriment leur désaccord avec le fait que des biens appartenant à la population soient incendiées. « Ce ne sont pas eux qui vont payer », s’exclame le camionneur, en pointant en direction de Paris, qui symbolise la richesse et le pouvoir : « C’est nous qui paierons la facture. »

Un jeune homme quitte alors le bar pour aller dans l’arrière-boutique, amenant avec une tasse de café. Il y a là 15 ou 20 jeunes hommes, des adolescents jusqu’à des types dans la trentaine, qui jouent sur des flippers plutôt rétro. Aucun d’eux ne consomme d’alcool. « Nous ne sommes pas du coin », répondent-ils sur un ton peu amical, en réponse à mes questions. Ils commencent par affirmer qu’ils sont des visiteurs en provenance de Bretagne : « Tout le monde dans le coin va bien; il n’y a pas de problèmes. » Ils finissent par m’expliquer que ne pas « être du coin » signifie être de « là-haut », c’est-à-dire de la cité située juste en haut de la colline. « Le coin » correspond quant à lui aux quartiers situés dans le voisinage du bar, avec leurs petites maisons unifamiliales. Ils sont descendus « en bas », ce soir, parce qu’il n’y a nulle part, « là-haut », où ils peuvent se rassembler en ce moment. Lorsqu’ils se serrent la main, ces jeunes ont l’habitude de toucher le cœur de leur interlocuteur avec leur poing droit, selon une gestuelle islamique adoptée par les jeunes des milieux défavorisés qui est très répandue dans toute la France, un peu comme le « high five » afro-américain a été adopté au Royaume-Uni. Ces jeunes se sont retrouvés à cet endroit afin de relaxer un peu, avant de sortir dans une boîte de nuit.

Au bout de quelques minutes, ils ont fini par me parler de la situation du logement. Leur cité appartient à des intérêts privés. D’après eux, c’est ce qui explique qu’on ait laissé les logements se détériorer à ce point. Ce n’est quand même pas si mal, néanmoins, étant donné que la plupart des immeubles où ils habitent ne logent que quelques centaines de résidants, contrairement à ces gigantesques tours de HLM (habitations à loyers modiques) invivables, qui appartiennent à l’État et peuvent loger jusqu’à plusieurs milliers de personnes. Cependant, étant donné que leurs logements appartiennent à des intérêts privés, les loyers y sont plus élevés. Il faut compter environ 600 euros par famille pour s’y loger, ce qui laisse bien peu d’argent pour payer le reste, quand on sait qu’un travailleur gagne, en moyenne, autour de 1 000 euros pour un emploi à temps plein. « Croyez-vous qu’il est normal pour une ville entière de n’avoir aucune bibliothèque et aucun cinéma? » Souvent, dans les banlieues, on entend les gens se plaindre du fait que ces complexes immobiliers aient délibérément été installés loin de tout, loin de tous ces endroits où les gens pourraient avoir envie de se rendre. Les transports publics ne sont prévus que pour vous emmener au travail. Il n’y a pas moyen de sortir la nuit, surtout pas à Paris. « Même si vous possédez un véhicule, les plaques d’immatriculation provenant du département 93 vous trahissent. Elles servent de signal pour la police afin de vous humilier », nous explique un jeune. « Pourquoi ont-ils construit des blockhaus où on se sent prisonniers, plutôt que des logements normaux? », ajoute un autre. Ces jeunes nous disent que la cité est un véritable ghetto, non pas parce qu’elle n’est habitée que par des gens issus d’une ou deux nationalités comme c’est le cas dans les ghettos qu’on retrouve aux États-Unis, mais bien dans le sens premier du terme : un endroit où les gens sont forcés d’habiter et dont il est difficile de sortir.

« Tout ça, c’est à cause de ce que nous sommes : des étrangers provenant d’Algérie, du Maroc, du Mali et de Turquie. » Comme les Portugais, les Espagnols et les autres jeunes blancs qui vivent dans la cité vous le diront – le barman, par exemple – les flics détestent vraiment tout le monde dans ces quartiers.

L’un de ces jeunes nous a notamment parlé du meurtre de Zyed, qui était son voisin. Plusieurs nous ont décrit les récents raids policiers effectués dans des immeubles occupés par des immigrants récemment arrivés qui squattaient les lieux. On nous a également parlé de Sarkozy, qui promet des déportations massives. Tous ces coups de gueule nous ont donné une indication de ce à quoi ces jeunes s’opposent. La haute société les perçoit, en fait, comme étant moins que des êtres humains – pire encore, ils sont moins bien traités que des animaux, parce qu’on les considère plus dangereux. Ces jeunes que nous avons rencontrés possédaient tous la citoyenneté française mais pour eux, cela ne fait pas une grande différence. « S’ils disent que notre communauté doit être nettoyée, c’est qu’ils croient que nous sommes des ordures, que l’on doit se débarrasser de nous », nous explique l’un d’entre eux avec amertume. Un de ses potes ajoute : « Si t’as un nom à consonance étrangère, la plupart des entreprises ne t’engageront pas. Et si ton adresse se trouve quelque part dans le 93 ou dans un endroit comme Clichy, tu ne pourras même pas avoir droit à une simple entrevue. Le seul endroit où la majorité d’entre nous pouvons travailler, c’est dans un atelier de vêtements illégal installé dans un logement privé. Et en ce moment, même ces emplois se font de plus en plus rares. De toutes manières, nous n’en voulons plus de ces emplois de merde. » Si certains, plus âgés, ont un emploi, les plus jeunes, quant à eux, ne voient pas le jour où leur tour viendra.

Les jeunes qui fréquentent ce bar se perçoivent comme des islamistes. C’est de cette façon qu’ils se définissent, mais c’est aussi de cette façon qu’ils se sentent jugés par le monde autour d’eux. Pourtant, leur façon de penser, ainsi que leurs espoirs, n’ont rien de tellement religieux. Plusieurs personnes de la région ont été spécialement choquées par l’attaque que la police a faite contre une mosquée (en fait, un entrepôt converti en lieu de culte) à l’aide de gaz lacrymogènes. Les gens considèrent ce geste comme une insulte à leur humanité, plus que comme une attaque envers leur religion. Ces jeunes nous l’ont expliqué ainsi : « Il y a deux ou trois églises dans les environs, ainsi qu’une synagogue » – cette synagogue, en fait, est pratiquement adjacente à la cité. « Personne ici n’a jamais attaqué l’un de ces lieux de culte. Nous respectons les gens, peu importe leur religion. S’ils ont attaqué une mosquée, c’est pour nous montrer qu’ils n’ont aucun respect pour nous. »

Nous leur avons demandé ce qu’ils comptaient accomplir grâce à ces actions. « S’ils ne nous donnent pas ce que nous désirons » nous a dit l’un d’eux, « ce sera la guerre ». Quelqu’un leur a fait remarquer que l’ennemi possède une véritable armée et qu’il ne pourra être défait par des pierres et des cocktails Molotov, mais ces jeunes ne voyaient pas l’affaire ainsi. Le gouvernement ne sera pas capable de leur faire face, particulièrement si la révolte s’étend dans tout le pays. La police devra retraiter, éventuellement. Les jeunes à qui nous avons parlé n’avaient que peu de choses à dire à propos d’une éventuelle intervention de l’armée.

« On va les forcer à nous écouter! », nous a dit le voisin de Zyed. « Quand vous retournerez chez vous ce soir, jetez un coup d’œil à votre téléviseur – vous verrez que c’est toute la France qui brûle. »

Ceci a mis un terme à notre conversation. Le bar fermait et les jeunes s’apprêtaient à partir. C’est à ce moment que l’un eux a ajouté quelque chose de très éclairant. Je leur avais posé la question, à chacun : « Ce gars-là, au bar, disait tantôt que vous ne devriez pas brûler les véhicules de vos voisins qui en ont besoin pour se rendre au travail. Qu’en dites-vous? »

« Nous incendions des automobiles, monsieur, parce que ce sont les automobiles qui brûlent le mieux », a vivement répondu un jeune homme qui avait joué un rôle de leader depuis maintenant plusieurs heures. Cette simple phrase nous permet de voir à la fois ce qu’il y a de mieux chez ces jeunes, mais aussi leurs insuffisances. Ces jeunes sont déterminés à se révolter contre l’injustice, par tous les moyens possibles; ils sentent qu’ils n’ont rien à perdre et, à certains moments, ils sont vraiment sans peur. Toutefois, ils ont aussi besoin de la science révolutionnaire afin de comprendre plus clairement ce contre quoi ils se battent et ce qui devrait être fait afin de réaliser un changement radical. Mao Zedong disait que la vérité la plus importante du marxisme, c’est qu’on a raison de se révolter. Quand ces deux éléments se rencontreront – la révolte des prolétaires et la conception du monde scientifique – l’avenir de la France, et celui des autres pays européens, prendra un tout autre visage.

France : quelques signes pour l’avenir

Le 14 novembre 2005. Service de nouvelles d'Un Monde A Gagner. Après 18 nuits d’incendies de voitures et d’escarmouches avec la police, de même que quelques batailles de grande intensité, on peut sans hésitation prévoir une chose : la France ne sera plus jamais comme avant.
La révolte a commencé le 27 octobre, quand la police a poursuivi deux adolescents, Bouna Traore et Zyed Benna, jusqu’à une station électrique et les a laissés mourir électrocutés. À partir de ce moment, plusieurs localités dans la région parisienne se sont embrasées, de même que plus de 40 villes et localités à travers le pays. Un des incidents les plus embêtants pour les autorités s’est produit le 12 novembre à Lyon – la troisième plus grande ville de France. Des jeunes des cités ont convergé vers le centre historique de la ville, la place Bellecour, qui est aussi une importante zone commerciale de luxe. Les rebelles ont combattu la police qui s’était concentrée à cet endroit dans le but de les repousser et ont incendié plusieurs magasins. La même nuit, il y a aussi eu des combats près de Saint-Étienne et de Toulouse dans le sud-ouest de la France, et aussi à Strasbourg, dans l’est.

Les autorités prétendent que la rébellion est pratiquement terminée, mais elles n’agissent certainement pas comme si elles s’attendaient vraiment à ce qu’elle s’éteigne. Un projet de loi autorisant une prolongation de 90 jours de l’état d’urgence décrété temporairement la semaine dernière a été soumis au Parlement le 14 novembre. L’état d’urgence a été décrété au moyen d’une loi qui remonte à 1955 : cette loi avait été promulguée dans le but de stopper le soulèvement anticolonial en Algérie, qui faisait alors légalement partie de la France. Elle a par la suite été utilisée sur le territoire français lui-même en 1961, pour réprimer le mouvement contre la guerre coloniale qui s’inspirait de ce soulèvement. Le 17 octobre 1961 à Paris, des milliers d’immigrantEs AlgérienNEs défièrent le couvre-feu et l’interdiction de manifester et organisèrent une marche en appui à la guerre de libération nationale. Les flics reçurent l’ordre de mettre fin à la marche et de pourchasser et punir ceux et celles qui avaient osé sortir de leur résidence. L’État avait donné carte blanche à ses « agents de la paix » pour qu’ils répriment les AlgérienNEs. Cette nuit-là, des centaines d’hommes, de femmes et d’enfants furent battus à mort et jetés dans la Seine.

Aujourd’hui, cette même loi est utilisée de nouveau – pour la première fois en France depuis cette époque – contre les enfants et petits-enfants de ceux-là même qui furent tués, blessés, arrêtés ou détenus dans des camps en 1961, ainsi que d’autres personnes issues de l’immigration et en général, contre tous les habitantEs des cités qui ont désormais remplacé les bidonvilles des années 1950 et 1960. Le couvre-feu n’est pas en vigueur à l’échelle nationale, mais il est appliqué dans les secteurs jugés potentiellement agités. Grâce à cette loi, les autorités locales peuvent limiter les déplacements comme bon leur semble. Dans certaines zones, les jeunes de moins de 16 ou 18 ans sont officiellement banniEs des rues après 22 ou 23 heures. À d’autres endroits encore plus nombreux, des couvre-feux non officiels ont été instaurés. La police n’hésite même pas à ordonner aux personnes âgées de quitter la rue.

À certains endroits, un blocage complet a été décrété. Ainsi, à Evreux – une ville de banlieue située au nord de Paris – la police a établi un périmètre entourant une cité entière de 18 000 habitantEs, appelée La Madeleine. L’escouade anti-émeute (les CRS) a littéralement verrouillé les entrées de La Madeleine et ne laisse personne rentrer ou sortir entre dix heures du soir et cinq heures du matin, sauf en cas d’urgence médicale et pour les gens qui vont travailler. Les résidantEs n’ont même pas le droit d’aller fumer une cigarette ou promener leur chien en face de chez eux. Un hélicoptère braquait ses projecteurs sur les flancs des habitations et sur les trottoirs. La même procédure a été imposée la nuit suivante.

Il y a un bon nombre de cités où la police évite d’aller la nuit, même en temps normal. Maintenant, il arrive que des jeunes lancent des pierres et des cocktails Molotov à la police puis courent se réfugier dans une tour à logements. Même si les flics les poursuivent à l’intérieur, des locataires ouvrent leurs portes aux jeunes pour leur venir en aide. L’appui aux jeunes rebelles est loin d’être universel et la tactique de brûler des voitures n’est pas toujours bienvenue; mais en prenant ainsi des mesures s’appliquant contre des cités entières et en leur infligeant des représailles collectives, le gouvernement en vient à clarifier lui-même le fait que sa cible n’est pas seulement la jeunesse, mais bien une section complète du peuple, avec pour conséquence que plusieurs personnes sont passées du bord des jeunes.

Jusqu’à date, les principales expressions publiques de sympathie envers les rebelles sont venues de la part de personnalités sportives. Quelques personnes issues de la petite-bourgeoisie ont aussi participé à des actions. Toute manifestation ou rassemblement public non autorisé a été interdit à Paris durant le week-end. Malgré cela, au moins trois rassemblements ont eu lieu, dont un sur la très majoritairement blanche Rive Gauche de Paris (là même où ont eu lieu des batailles historiques entre les étudiantEs et la police en mai 1968), ainsi que dans d’autres lieux touristiques très achalandés. C’est le groupe de désobéissance civile anti-SIDA Act Up qui a pris l’initiative de défier l’interdiction et d’appeler la population à prendre la rue en soutien aux jeunes. Des militantEs pour le droit au logement, des activistes anti-racistes, des supporters de la Palestine, etc. ont également pris part à des rassemblements illégaux spontanés et nécessairement assez bref, sur des coins de rues très passants. Certains de ces rassemblements ont réuni jusqu’à un millier de personnes, malgré une présence policière considérable et les fortes probabilités d’arrestations et de blessures.

En même temps, malgré le déploiement de policiers à chaque station de train en banlieue et à chaque station de métro importante en ville (cela, dans le but d’empêcher les jeunes de sortir des ghettos), des groupes énormes de jeunes prolétaires, des banlieues et d’ailleurs, ont envahi le centre de Paris samedi après-midi pour profiter de la force du nombre et des difficultés que cet endroit pose à la police pour pouvoir tabasser ou gazer la foule sans faire de victimes collatérales. Ces initiatives dynamiques et fluides ont semblé rendre la police plutôt inconfortable. Le centre de Paris avait rarement été si bondé et si tendu – et pour bien des jeunes, si agréable – bien que la situation n’ait pas vraiment glissé hors du contrôle des flics. C’est exactement ce genre de situation volatile que les autorités veulent éviter; sauf que ce faisant, les mesures qu’elles doivent nécessairement prendre pourraient avoir pour effet d’élargir la répression à un bien plus grand nombre et d’établir en conséquence un type de climat bien différent dans la capitale.

Il est très probable que les couvre-feux et l’interdiction des rassemblements vont constituer un enjeu central dans les prochains jours, dans la mesure où leur étendue représente une intensification et un élargissement des attaques antipopulaires.

Une autre question importante est la position du ministre de l’Intérieur Nicolas Sarkozy, qui menace d’expulser hors de France tous les immigrantEs interpelléEs par la police, peu importe s’ils ont des papiers en règle ou pas. Plusieurs experts juridiques et militants pour les droits de la personne ont déclaré que cela serait illégal en vertu des lois françaises et celles de l’Union européenne, qui interdisent les punitions collectives et les sanctions sans procès juste et équitable. Mais au lieu de se rétracter, Sarkozy a annoncé que 120 personnes seront déportées d’une manière ou d’une autre, à partir du 14 novembre. De telles menaces peuvent effectivement avoir effet dissuasif, dans la mesure où ces déportations visent souvent des personnes ayant vécu presque toute leur vie en France, et même certaines qui y sont nées mais qui n’ont pas encore obtenu leur citoyenneté. Mais alors que Sarkozy essaie de dresser une bonne partie de la petite-bourgeoisie contre la jeunesse des cités, cette polarisation pourrait aussi bien aller d’un côté comme de l’autre. Les déportations de masse d’étrangers ont une réputation particulièrement mauvaise dans ce pays, où on se souvient encore de l’occupation nazie. De plus, les jeunes rebelles sont majoritairement FrançaisES, et non immigrantEs. Plusieurs considèrent donc cette manœuvre comme une tentative de dévier le sujet et d’éviter de présenter cette rébellion sous son vrai jour, c’est-à-dire comme une révolte légitime d’une partie du prolétariat français. Les provocations de Sarkozy pourraient aider à clarifier les enjeux pour de nombreux éléments au sein de la petite-bourgeoisie, créant ainsi les conditions pour qu’ils en viennent à appuyer la jeunesse rebelle.

Petik-petik oleh Bob Avakian dan Prachanda tentang Parti bawah sosialisme

2005-07-27T20:45:00.000-07:00

[read complete original of Bob Avakian's article in English here]
[read complete original of Prachanda's article in English here]

Yang di bawah dari "Tentang Demokrasi Proletarier dan Kediktaturan Proletarier: kelihatan memimpin masyarakat yang seluruhnya berbeza, bahagian 12: Menyimpan kekuasaan -- dan meneruskan revolusi -- prinsip-prinsip berfilsafat dan berpolitik" oleh Bob Avakian, pengerusi Parti Komunis Revolusioner AS. Asal: suratkhabar Revolutionary Worker #1225, 18 Januari 2004. Terjemahan tak rasmi.

Khususnya perhatian ini: "Kata pendik, [parti proletarier dalam masyarakat sosialis harus]* jadi partai berkuasa dan perintis juang revolusioner terhadap mana-mana bahagian kuasa yang menghalang jalan ke pembebasan keseluruhan."** Ini, sekali lagi, akan jadi kontradiksi sangat tajam yang sangat susah diuruskan dan muncul dengan berulang-ulang secara rumit dan kuat sepanjang peralihan sosialis. Keupayaan, sebenarnya, jadi parti berkuasa dan serentaknya perintis tengah juang revolusioner terhadap mana-mana bahagian kuasa yang menghalang jalan ke pembebasan keseluruhan -- tetap inilah prinsip yang Mao bawa ke depan dan beri pemimpinan untuk penggunaannya amat kuat dalam Maha Revolusi Budaya Proletarier (MHBP). Tapi, bersama kepentingan besar dilekatkan Mao ke MHBP dan barang-barang baru dicipta melaluinya, dia menegaskan satu Revolusi Budaya, ataupun beberapa Revolusi Budaya, akhirnya tak boleh bertekad kontradiksi-kontradiksi ini.

Yang di bawah dari "Kami tengah cuba punah autokrasi feudal" oleh Prachanda, pengerusi Parti Komunis Nepal (Maois). Karangan ini temuduga dengan Alex Perry, ketua biro Asia Timur magazin TIME. Asal: magazin TIME Asia, 25 April 2005. Terjemahan tak rasmi.

TIME: Berapa pentingnya tatatertib parti dan ketaatan? Adakah bahaya totalitarianisme, atau pemujaan tokoh kepada kamu?

Prachanda: Parti kami menganalisa ajaran-ajaran sejarah dengan berat, khususnya dari pengalaman-pengalaman maha revolusi dan revolusi balas abad ke-20. Selepas pembicaraan saksama, kami sudah melahirkan cadangan bersejarah baru dipanggil "kemajuan demokrasi dalam abad ke-21", menjamin negeri baru akan di bawah pengawasan, kendali, dan kekuasaan tunggal orang ramai umum. Akan ada pertandingan bebas antara parti-parti berpolitik, [bersyarat mereka] menentang feudalisme dan imperialisme dan bekerja supaya berkhidmat orang ramai. Kami juga mencadangkan parti harus membahagi: satu bahagian bekerja tengah orang ramai dan bahagian lain menguruskan kerja negeri. Selepas beberapa masa berdua bahagian akan bergilir supaya memeriksa parti dan negeri dari bahaya kapitalisme berbirokrat dan totalitarianisme. Walaubagaimanapun, perhatian utamalah kami sedang cuba bangun parti jenis baru yang seterus-terusnya mengerevolusikan diri secara sentiasa menceburi juang ideolojik dan kelas. Di seberang keperluan menumpukan pemimpinan, tak ada soal apa-apa pemujaan tokoh. Kami sedang cuba dengan usaha penuh memajukan sistem pemimpinan kolektif dan aliran pengganti-pengganti.

______________________________
catatan-catatan penerjemah:
* kata-kata antara [tanda-tanda kurungan] yang tak beritalik, ditulis oleh pengarang magazin Revolution atau TIME dalam teks asli bahasa inggeris
** petik dari "Catatan terakhir" oleh Bob Avakian, magazin Revolution musim gugur 1990.

Revolutionary May 1st in Berlin

2005-06-23T15:52:00.000-07:00

This is an excerpt from an Indymedia report, by a non-Maoist, on the International Workers' Day demos in Berlin, Germany. The excerpt is about the Maoist contingent. Overall there seem to have been 5 or 6000 participants, but it's hard to tell with many people going to more than one event of course. Click below for the whole thing, including many pictures.

[lest das ganze Original in Deutsch hier]

"Unite Under Maoism! — the 1pm Demo"

At the same time the "Revolutionary May 1st Demonstration" organised by the Maoist and Turkish Communist groups under the usual "There's No Liberation Without Revolution" front banner pulled an estimated 1000 participants (2004 had 300) through Neukölln and then back towards Kottbusser Gate. As they came upon Kotti*, the demo was stopped by a massive Police detachment. At the closing rally the meaning of the right to demonstrate was again emphasised and the banning of the 6pm Demo and partial-banning of the 1pm Demo protested against. Finally a mass of people of various ancestries were dancing a Kurdish folkdance to the Kurdish battle-song "Hello, Guerrillas". After that the banners were rolled up and the Marxist-Leninist & Maoist factions of the Kreuzberg** Left also trickled into the Myfest***.

______________________________
translator notes:
* nickname for the Kottbusser Gate
** Kreuzberg is a proletarian multinational neighbourhood, where skirmishes with the cops break out every May Day
*** a festival celebrating May Day; "Mai" is German for "May" so it's a wordplay

Boston's Disgusting Law

2005-06-14T14:32:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, there's an article in Spanish edition of Revolution which doesn't get into English edition; I'll try to translate those on this site.

[lee lo original en español aquí]

Revolución #004, 29 May 2005, posted at revcom.us [unofficial translation; entire translation from the Spanish article by me, incl. quotes probably said in English originally]

We received the following letter from a reader:

The disgusting history of this country continues to live on. An example: a little while ago the newspaper Boston Globe informed that Boston wants to be the seat of a conference of Black, Latino, and other minority reporters. But it's run into a problem: a law from 1675 which prohibits Native Americans from entering the city is still in effect.

The law warns that the "barbarians" and "foreigners who are not of our nation" could commit "evils" should they be allowed to enter or live in Boston. It orders to post sentries "to impede the entry of all Indians" who have not received permission beforehand from the Governor or from the City Council, and prohibits one to give them lodging... if not they shall be in jail.

The existence of this law has put Boston in a jam. The Boston Globe informed that "the law continues to be in effect despite that in general it is considered unconstitutional" (why is it not considered unconstitutional unanimously?). But what I really ask myself is: why didn't they revoke it immediately? No, the reporters' organisation is in "discussions" with the city and the Mayor has said that "I will continue pressuring the legislature" to approve a law which will revoke it. They say it will possibly be revoked in a week, but it may be delayed more time.

But, why do they have to discuss if this law must be revoked? Why don't they do it immediately? Consider this: in the case of Terri Schiavo, the Congress and the President met at midnight to take dangerous and unprecedented measures, to approve a law which the Christian Right wanted. What does it say about this country, the "best of all", that they still have a law against Native Americans and that, when it comes into the light of day, it has to be discussed to revoke it or not and be delayed by a week or more?

1 hb Mei 2005: Komunisme di abad ke-21

2005-06-14T14:26:00.000-07:00

[read original in English here]

Penyataan oleh Jawatankuasa Gerakan Internasionalis Revolusioner (CoRIM) pada waktu Hari Pemburuh Antarabangsa 2005. [terjemahan tak rasmi]

Dunia menggelegak dan mengeluh dengan ketidakpuashatian dan penentangan oleh rakyat. Melalui perang di Iraq dan ancaman perang-perang di Timur Tengah dan tempat lain, kuasa-kuasa imperialis, khususnya Amerika Syarikat (AS), tanpa harapan sedang cuba memperkukuhkan orde dunia baru dengan dia sendiri sebagai raja longgok. Darah menitik dari tangan-tangannya.

Ramai orang berasa fikir dalam-dalam, termarah sebab juang-juang jutaan untuk berhentikan perang sudah gagal. Penentangan berani tengah berlaku di tanah Iraq. Penuh sesal, penuh sakit, sasarannya bukan selalu imperialis punya tentera pendudukan dan penindasan atau pemerintahan reaksioner.

Pertama Mei adalah waktu mengukur letak kita dalam juang menumbangkan kelas-kelas memeras memerintah. Kita perlu dunia di mana kepentingan manusia dan bukan carian tak berkesudahan untuk faedah duduk di pusat masyarakat; di mana orang ramai tak tersembunyi lagi, kena tanggap sebagai haiwan penghela, tanpa kemungkinan yang mana berguna daya cipta supaya sesedarnya mengubah dunia dan mereka sendiri.

Rancangan penduniaan imperialisme AS jahat — satu dunia, satu kerajaan. Mereka tengah membebaskan gangguan penenteraan terhulus secara lebih besar daripada yang boleh dijadikan oleh kuasa-kuasa lain, supaya menguatkuasa dan bertubuh pemerasan terglobalisasi. Satu seri kemungkinan berwujud untuk rakyat dunia, dari kalah-kalah berbinasa ke maju-maju besar, termasuk revolusi di sebilangan negara. Hasilnya bergantung pada kita semua.

Kena gerak ke penentangan, angkatan-angkatan baru sudah mara ke depan. Mereka tanpa pengetahuan pencapaian-pencapaian kita dulu. Atau mereka hanya dengar jentera propaganda kelas pemerintah muntah, "Komunisme dah gagal".

Orang ramai perlu wawasan terang Marxisme-Leninisme-Maoisme (MLM) memimpin mereka dalam juang-juangnya. Mereka perlu pimpinan pelopor menggunakan ideologi ini dalam tiap-tiap negara, dan Internasional komunis baru supaya bantu lain-lain arus revolusi membentuk curahan seluruh dunia menentangi sistem kapitalis.

Seperti semua macam ilmu, MLM tak boleh tahan terpaku. Ia harus adalah alat berhidup dan berkembang yang boleh menganalisa hal-hal dan soal-soal baru. Ideologi komunis bermaju melalui proses bergelora. Fahaman-fahaman baru harus mengatasi inersi cara-cara lama melihat dunia, dan pendapatan-pendapatan betul dan tak betul harus diasingkan. Ide-ide dari pelbagai lapangan pengalaman manusia akan diuji dan dikembang lagi sedang dalam mengubah dunia. Seluruh proses ini berlambang dengan yang disebut komunis-komunis seperti "juang dua garis".

Ramai pemberontak-pemberontak dan pemimpi-pemimpi dulu terkorban supaya cuba mengubah masyarakat. Marx dan Engels telah berkembang fahaman berilmu perangai sistem kapitalis. Dalam Manifesto Parti Komunis mereka berseru memutus dengan hubungan-hubungan milik tradisional, hubungan-hubunguan kemasyarakatan yang berdasarkan hubungan-hubunguan milik itu, dan fikiran-fikiran dan peubuhan-penubuhan tradisional yang memperkukuhkan hubungan-hubunguan kemasyarakatan itu di seluruh dunia. Itulah intisari komunisme. Lenin dan Mao Zedong telah berkembang dan mempergunakan ilmu ini lagi.

Kemenangan-kemenangan besar dicapai selama Komun Paris, Revolusi Oktober di Rusia, dan Cina sosialis bawa pemimpinan Mao dengan Revolusi Budaya Proletarier Besar sebagai mercu pada 1960an dan '70an. Lompatan-lompatan ini dipunah oleh kuasa-kuasa reaksioner pada umumnya dan oleh berat ribuan tahun pemerasan kelas dan fikiran-fikiran dan penubuhan-penubuhan tradisional yang berkhidmat dan memperkukuhkannya. Kuasa-kuasa Maois seluruh dunia menganalisa coup d'etat tahun 1976 di Cina, dan berjalan ke depan, bersatu dan tubuhkan Gerakan Internasionalis Revolusioner (RIM), pusat lembaga kuasa-kuasa Maois dunia.

RIM sudah berseru pembicaraan dan perdebatan luas di dalam dan di luar anggota-anggotanya tentang isu-isu paling penting tersua revolusioner-revolusioner komunis hari ini, misalnya meringkaskan pengalaman menjalankan pemerintahan proletarier (USSR dan Cina), memahami dinamik-dinamik macamana sistem imperialis berlaku, menganalisa kemajuan-kemajuan kemasyarakat-ekonomian yang tengah berlaku di lain-lain negara dan memahami implikasinya untuk strategi revolusioner, dan soal-soal penting yang lain juga. Melalui proses ini RIM sendiri sudah dan akan berterusan terbaja dan dikuasai. Hari ini saudara-saudara kami di Nepal sudah melangkah besar sepanjang jalan juang mereka. Kaum miskin dan ditindas Nepal sudah menubuhkan mereka sendiri punya kekuasaan politik revolusioner di 80 peratus negara dan sedang guna daerah-daerah alas merah ini menyerang benteng-benteng musuh supaya merebut kekuasaan politik seluruh negara.

Komunisme tinggal harapan tunggal untuk manusia. Tapi hadapan tinggi ini hanya boleh dihasil melalui juang, juang keras, di tiap-tiap lapangan. Gerakan komunis antarabangsa sudah bawa ke depan ribuan pahlawan yang bergagah ketika tersua dengan pemenjaraan, penyiksaan, dan pembunuhan oleh musuh. Ia harus tunjuk keberanian sama pada pemeriksaan sendiri tanpa belas dan ketegasan ideologinya tinggal penuh hidup; berupaya memahami semakin dalam kerumitan subur masyarakat manusia dan juang kelas; dan berupaya hulur tangan kepada, belajar daripada, dan bersatu dengan jutaan orang lain selama berjuang segigihnya mendukung, mempergunakan, dan menawan hati orang-orang lain ke ideologi kemerdekaan.

Kami perlu bermaju lagi arah ke tujuan bina internasional komunis jenis baru, dan bersatu dengan semua kuasa-kuasa Maois yang benar di seluruh dunia dalam proses ini, dan menghulur tangan juga kepada aktivis-aktivis revolusioner yang belum tertawan hati ke kebenaran berbebas ideologi komunis.

Hari ini RIM bertegas mengimpal alat-alat berilmu MLM kami dengan air pasang baru revolusi.