Friedrich Engels
November 28th, 1820 – August 5th, 1895
Beloved friend of Karl Marx, Great Theoretician, and Tireless Revolutionary
Friday, November 28, 2014
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
About the Ferguson Decision
Well we have witnessed yet another incident of the racist way in which justice is administered in this nation. People of color are arrested on a massive scale for petty crimes and sentenced to long prison terms. Meanwhile, the white officer who was charged to protect that community shot an unarmed black teenager and was allowed to go free without even so much as a trial. There is a popular phrase used in the media and legal circles that a prosecutor could "try a sandwich" because of the influence that they have over the evidence that is presented to grand juries. The simple fact that the grand jury chose not to bring the case to trial shows that the prosecutor either ignored his basic power to sway the grand jury to any particular side or actively tried to argue in favor of the officer's actions. It is almost unheard of for a grand jury to be given such an independent hand to investigate. The duty of the prosecutor is to work as an advocate in favor of prosecution no matter who the subject of the trial would be. The St. Louis County Prosecutor has vacated this basic requirement of his office. Say what you want about the guilt or innocence of Office Wilson, the case deserved to go to trial where we could see the judicial process in action. Instead we saw the Prosecutor use the Grand Jury as the de facto trial where the innocence or guilt of Officer Wilson was decided in secret, away from the public eye, and without the proper due process of law.
In the wake of this horrible injustice we are confronted with the fact that people of color are valued as being of lower worth than white lives in our society. Hundreds of innocent minorities are shot dead by police with no recourse for the victims' families. We have seen that the police of this country know they can act with impunity against anyone who raises their voice in protest to police brutality. Peaceful protests of all kinds have been met with tear gas and riot gear. How can we have a peaceful dialog when protests are met with violence and repression? John F Kennedy once said that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." We are seeing a build up to that violent revolution because EVERY DAY people who seek change are met with violence. EVERY DAY those working to improve the system from within are met with resistance from entrenched corruption. EVERY DAY we see that in our so-called democracy people are confronted by the reality of our police state. A day of reckoning is coming where those in power will no longer be able to use violence as a means to repress us. We have tried the peaceful route and it has shown to be a fruitless endeavor. If we continue to have our needs ignored and our rights squashed, the powers that be should not be surprised when the peaceful demonstrations turn into a violent uprising. I am not a supporter of violence but when you prevent people from having any peaceful recourse for their grievances, the only remaining option for them to have their voices heard is through rebellion.
In the wake of this horrible injustice we are confronted with the fact that people of color are valued as being of lower worth than white lives in our society. Hundreds of innocent minorities are shot dead by police with no recourse for the victims' families. We have seen that the police of this country know they can act with impunity against anyone who raises their voice in protest to police brutality. Peaceful protests of all kinds have been met with tear gas and riot gear. How can we have a peaceful dialog when protests are met with violence and repression? John F Kennedy once said that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." We are seeing a build up to that violent revolution because EVERY DAY people who seek change are met with violence. EVERY DAY those working to improve the system from within are met with resistance from entrenched corruption. EVERY DAY we see that in our so-called democracy people are confronted by the reality of our police state. A day of reckoning is coming where those in power will no longer be able to use violence as a means to repress us. We have tried the peaceful route and it has shown to be a fruitless endeavor. If we continue to have our needs ignored and our rights squashed, the powers that be should not be surprised when the peaceful demonstrations turn into a violent uprising. I am not a supporter of violence but when you prevent people from having any peaceful recourse for their grievances, the only remaining option for them to have their voices heard is through rebellion.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Reagan did not end the Cold War
Today marks the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event heralded by conservatives and liberals alike as the beginning of the end of communism. I would like to address one of the largest fallacies related to the end of the Cold War.
Ronald Reagan Ended the Cold War
Many conservatives who try to hold up Ronald Reagan as some sort of Cold War capitalist saint try to paint Reagan as one of driving forces behind the collapse of communism and the Berlin Wall in particular. They try to hold up his "Tear Down This Wall" speech as the impetus for tearing down the wall and that is a gross exaggeration. First of all that speech was made in 1987 and was just another in a long line of speeches made by Western leaders that viewed the Berlin Wall as a symbol of communist tyranny. The "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech made by John F Kennedy was another speech in the same vein. Second, there were many reasons why the East German government decided to allow the demolition of the wall, all of which were motivated by internal problems. Third, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, while a potent symbolic gesture, did not cause the subsequent fall of the communist governments in Eastern Europe.
Claims that Reagan ended the Cold War usually hinge on the idea that his constant pressure on the Soviet Bloc led to its internal collapse. While the Soviet Bloc did collapse from internal problems, Reagan was not the cause for this. The Soviet Bloc collapsed because of economic stagnation due to poor management by selfish leaders that couldn't see past their own self interest. They constantly set poor economic targets, liberalized the economy, and refused to allow the socialist system to work properly. Had the Soviet leadership permitted the proper kind of industrial development they could have prevented what was known as the Brezhnev Stagnation. The USSR could have blown past the US in scientific development had they been permitted to properly pursue scientific research. They could have had much more access to consumer goods had proper measures been taken to allow for the development of those industries along with other sectors of the economy.
Another factor that resulted in the collapse of communism was that the USSR was involved in a military debacle in Afghanistan that lasted a decade that further destabilized that nation in much the same way as the Vietnam War effected the US. Almost 10,000 soviet soldiers died in that conflict and it led to mass distrust by Soviet citizens against their government.
The final collapse came when the leaders of the Soviet Bloc countries, let by the USSR, allowed open elections. There had been enough simmering anger against those selfish regimes that most countries immediately took the opportunity to oust those leaders from power. It must be remembered that the USSR led the way on this and had Gorbachev not allowed free elections in the USSR then the rest of the Warsaw Pact would have done the same. It is now quite well known that Gorbachev was not actually a communist but a closet liberal masquerading as a communist. He may not have been actively seeking the downfall of the USSR but was perfectly accepting of the idea of allowing elections that would likely result in the removal of the communists from power. Because of the weak economy and distrust caused by the Afghan War, most Soviet citizens were exited by the possibility to vote against the Communist Party of the USSR. The election of Boris Yeltsin only cemented the end of the Communist Party with the election of a conservative to lead Russia. Yeltsin's actions following the army coup only showed his true colors. When Yeltsin decreed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was now illegal he openly placed himself against communism. Yeltsin's rise to power was the last nail in the coffin of the Soviet Bloc.
Almost all the factors that contributed to the collapse of communist countries in Eastern Europe were internal in nature and had nothing to do with Reagan or American foreign policies. They had great economic stagnation, a hated war, and political destabilization, none of these factors were directly caused by the US. Certainly US policy exacerbated these problems through espionage and direct aid to Afghanis fighting the Soviets (one fun fact we Americans like to forget is that Reagan is directly responsible for the rise of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda because he actively provided bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda with weapons to fight the Soviets without making provisions to prevent them taking political power after the Soviets left. In this way Reagan is indirectly responsible for 9/11 but you won't hear any conservative make any mention of that) but more than likely the Soviet Bloc would have collapsed of its own accord. Even had free elections been prohibited in the USSR it is evident that the military would not have accepted the leadership of Gorbachev and would have moved to seize power itself leading to a military dictatorship or some other political system that did not involve leadership by the Communist Party.
Just as a side note I would like to include that most of the actual collapses occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush but you don't see anyone trying to give him credit for the collapse of communism. This entire narrative surrounding Reagan and the fall of communism is an attempt to sanctify him and put him up on a pedestal as the perfect modern conservative President that cemented the hegemony of the United States.
Ronald Reagan Ended the Cold War
Many conservatives who try to hold up Ronald Reagan as some sort of Cold War capitalist saint try to paint Reagan as one of driving forces behind the collapse of communism and the Berlin Wall in particular. They try to hold up his "Tear Down This Wall" speech as the impetus for tearing down the wall and that is a gross exaggeration. First of all that speech was made in 1987 and was just another in a long line of speeches made by Western leaders that viewed the Berlin Wall as a symbol of communist tyranny. The "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech made by John F Kennedy was another speech in the same vein. Second, there were many reasons why the East German government decided to allow the demolition of the wall, all of which were motivated by internal problems. Third, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, while a potent symbolic gesture, did not cause the subsequent fall of the communist governments in Eastern Europe.
Claims that Reagan ended the Cold War usually hinge on the idea that his constant pressure on the Soviet Bloc led to its internal collapse. While the Soviet Bloc did collapse from internal problems, Reagan was not the cause for this. The Soviet Bloc collapsed because of economic stagnation due to poor management by selfish leaders that couldn't see past their own self interest. They constantly set poor economic targets, liberalized the economy, and refused to allow the socialist system to work properly. Had the Soviet leadership permitted the proper kind of industrial development they could have prevented what was known as the Brezhnev Stagnation. The USSR could have blown past the US in scientific development had they been permitted to properly pursue scientific research. They could have had much more access to consumer goods had proper measures been taken to allow for the development of those industries along with other sectors of the economy.
Another factor that resulted in the collapse of communism was that the USSR was involved in a military debacle in Afghanistan that lasted a decade that further destabilized that nation in much the same way as the Vietnam War effected the US. Almost 10,000 soviet soldiers died in that conflict and it led to mass distrust by Soviet citizens against their government.
The final collapse came when the leaders of the Soviet Bloc countries, let by the USSR, allowed open elections. There had been enough simmering anger against those selfish regimes that most countries immediately took the opportunity to oust those leaders from power. It must be remembered that the USSR led the way on this and had Gorbachev not allowed free elections in the USSR then the rest of the Warsaw Pact would have done the same. It is now quite well known that Gorbachev was not actually a communist but a closet liberal masquerading as a communist. He may not have been actively seeking the downfall of the USSR but was perfectly accepting of the idea of allowing elections that would likely result in the removal of the communists from power. Because of the weak economy and distrust caused by the Afghan War, most Soviet citizens were exited by the possibility to vote against the Communist Party of the USSR. The election of Boris Yeltsin only cemented the end of the Communist Party with the election of a conservative to lead Russia. Yeltsin's actions following the army coup only showed his true colors. When Yeltsin decreed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was now illegal he openly placed himself against communism. Yeltsin's rise to power was the last nail in the coffin of the Soviet Bloc.
Almost all the factors that contributed to the collapse of communist countries in Eastern Europe were internal in nature and had nothing to do with Reagan or American foreign policies. They had great economic stagnation, a hated war, and political destabilization, none of these factors were directly caused by the US. Certainly US policy exacerbated these problems through espionage and direct aid to Afghanis fighting the Soviets (one fun fact we Americans like to forget is that Reagan is directly responsible for the rise of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda because he actively provided bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda with weapons to fight the Soviets without making provisions to prevent them taking political power after the Soviets left. In this way Reagan is indirectly responsible for 9/11 but you won't hear any conservative make any mention of that) but more than likely the Soviet Bloc would have collapsed of its own accord. Even had free elections been prohibited in the USSR it is evident that the military would not have accepted the leadership of Gorbachev and would have moved to seize power itself leading to a military dictatorship or some other political system that did not involve leadership by the Communist Party.
Just as a side note I would like to include that most of the actual collapses occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush but you don't see anyone trying to give him credit for the collapse of communism. This entire narrative surrounding Reagan and the fall of communism is an attempt to sanctify him and put him up on a pedestal as the perfect modern conservative President that cemented the hegemony of the United States.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Looking Past Election Day
Well yesterday the forces of reaction and repression won a resounding victory in the US elections. We will be faced for at least the next two years by a Congress that will work tirelessly to restrict the rights of women and minorities, give tax breaks to millionaires and corporations, and refuse to help the working class. All I can say to my fellow Americans is that you have brought this upon yourself. All those leftists and liberals who refuse, for one random reason or another, to vote against these forces of reaction have allowed them to win. All those people who don't care about politics until the State comes smashing in their door or restricting their rights are equally, if not more, to blame. We have a culture of mass political apathy in this country. We only seem to care when we are placed in the crosshairs by our government.
Young people in particular need to get their heads out of their asses and go make their voices heard. I am 24 and I have no problem saying that most people in my generation could give two shits less about politics. Sure we have issues we care about just like anyone else, but we systematically refuse to act on those beliefs. The Millenial generation is the largest and most left-leaning generation in American history, and yet we don't vote. If we have a 70% turnout rate (comparable to our older and much more conservative parents and grandparents) then we could single-handedly change the course of elections. But instead we are more worried about going to parties, sleeping in, and browsing the internet. 27.4 percent of the population is between the ages of 18 and 35 and yet we only account for roughly 15% of people who turn out to vote in an election and that's in years with Presidential elections. Voters are disproportionally old, white, and male and so their much more conservative views are more strongly represented in our elected officials. This information should not be new to anyone who has studies elections in the slightest.
What frustrates me the most about the fact that my fellow Millenials refuse to vote is that we have the most to lose by not voting. We are strongly effected by political decisions made in Washington in which we take no active interest. Take for example student debt. Until 2005 most student loan debt was dischargable in bankruptcy. In 2005 Congress decided, in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, that students should be held accountable for our debt even if we will never be able to pay it back despite the fact that almost all other forms of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. Today this means that the 1 trillion dollars in current student loan debt can never be discharged and we will forced to pay it back in full even if that means garnishing our wages for the entirety of our lives. This is a political decision that we are directly effected by and yet we refuse to mobilize over. If we as a generation decided to march on Washington and demand that our debt be treated the same as every other kind of debt we could change the law. But instead we are so focused on the here and now that we don't even realize the crushing weight of our student loans until years after we graduate and suddenly find ourselves unable to pay back our debt. We are the most heavily indebted generation in American history and most of us haven't even gotten into the workforce yet. Unless we as a generation decide to act on this issue then we will see another Great Depression caused by our inability to spend money in the economy because we will be more concerned with paying back our huge debts. Keep in mind the current status of student loan debt results from the decades long push by parents, schools, and society at large that "college is the only way to get ahead" and so college, and the massive expenses it entails, have been billed to us as an utter necessity of life. I didn't intend to go on a tirade about student loans (that is a whole series of posts on its own) but it is just one of a million possible examples of what can happen when we refuse to vote.
So for the next two years we get to look forward to more of the same from Congress. I would love to see them get all conservative crazy just so the American people can see just how bad the beast they elected can be. The only saving grace is that the Presidency is still out of Republican hands so hopefully nothing too bad gets through. We just have to hope and pray that 2016 isn't as bad as 2014.
Young people in particular need to get their heads out of their asses and go make their voices heard. I am 24 and I have no problem saying that most people in my generation could give two shits less about politics. Sure we have issues we care about just like anyone else, but we systematically refuse to act on those beliefs. The Millenial generation is the largest and most left-leaning generation in American history, and yet we don't vote. If we have a 70% turnout rate (comparable to our older and much more conservative parents and grandparents) then we could single-handedly change the course of elections. But instead we are more worried about going to parties, sleeping in, and browsing the internet. 27.4 percent of the population is between the ages of 18 and 35 and yet we only account for roughly 15% of people who turn out to vote in an election and that's in years with Presidential elections. Voters are disproportionally old, white, and male and so their much more conservative views are more strongly represented in our elected officials. This information should not be new to anyone who has studies elections in the slightest.
What frustrates me the most about the fact that my fellow Millenials refuse to vote is that we have the most to lose by not voting. We are strongly effected by political decisions made in Washington in which we take no active interest. Take for example student debt. Until 2005 most student loan debt was dischargable in bankruptcy. In 2005 Congress decided, in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, that students should be held accountable for our debt even if we will never be able to pay it back despite the fact that almost all other forms of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. Today this means that the 1 trillion dollars in current student loan debt can never be discharged and we will forced to pay it back in full even if that means garnishing our wages for the entirety of our lives. This is a political decision that we are directly effected by and yet we refuse to mobilize over. If we as a generation decided to march on Washington and demand that our debt be treated the same as every other kind of debt we could change the law. But instead we are so focused on the here and now that we don't even realize the crushing weight of our student loans until years after we graduate and suddenly find ourselves unable to pay back our debt. We are the most heavily indebted generation in American history and most of us haven't even gotten into the workforce yet. Unless we as a generation decide to act on this issue then we will see another Great Depression caused by our inability to spend money in the economy because we will be more concerned with paying back our huge debts. Keep in mind the current status of student loan debt results from the decades long push by parents, schools, and society at large that "college is the only way to get ahead" and so college, and the massive expenses it entails, have been billed to us as an utter necessity of life. I didn't intend to go on a tirade about student loans (that is a whole series of posts on its own) but it is just one of a million possible examples of what can happen when we refuse to vote.
So for the next two years we get to look forward to more of the same from Congress. I would love to see them get all conservative crazy just so the American people can see just how bad the beast they elected can be. The only saving grace is that the Presidency is still out of Republican hands so hopefully nothing too bad gets through. We just have to hope and pray that 2016 isn't as bad as 2014.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Concerning the Ebola Outbreak
Since this topic has been consuming our news cycles in one way or another for the past few months I feel the need to offer my views on the matter. I will ignore the actual human crisis of the outbreak because that is a given and has been covered by news outlets with great depth. Instead I will offer a criticism of the developed world's response to the crisis.
Ever since the Ebola outbreak began, the developed world, which I will refer to as "the West" from here on, has had a stance of distanced concern. However, despite their concern, which is mostly of the economic kind, we have seen little to no actual aid until we saw cases arrive in our respective nations. The US had refused to send any aid of real significance until an African man was admitted to a hospital in Texas. This slow response stems from the inherently racist policies of the US which disregard the developing world unless events in those nations have a profound economic effect on the US or result in the US public getting scared shitless. In the current case the only reason that we seem to care now is that we have seen a case on US soil and the apathetic people of the US are finally screaming bloody murder about "outbreaks."
Everyone must realize that this problem has been going on for a while now and had more drastic aid been given earlier then the outbreak in Western Africa could have been contained before it became a real problem. Instead the international community, led by the West, has systematically ignored the deaths of thousands of Africans because they are considered to not be important by Western leaders. If this outbreak had initially happened in the US or Western Europe you can be guaranteed that it would have been stopped before hitting 100 confirmed cases. Instead we have seen the death toll rise above 4000 and little has been done in the form of considerable amounts of aid. The only nation that has offered considerable aid thus far has been Cuba which sent 165 doctors to help care for Ebola patients and that aid was sent over a month ago back when no body in the West seemed to care about sending more aid.
How can we in the West claim to be compassionate about helping people when in the midst of this crisis we have only sent aid to help a few Western doctors. Even if we as individuals have great compassion for the people affected by this crisis we have not shown much impetus to try to get our governments to help those in the effected areas and those who have raised cries to send aid have had their message fall on deaf ears. It is telling when the US Congress has started discussions about enacting a travel ban before we have begun discussions to send substantial aid.
Ever since the Ebola outbreak began, the developed world, which I will refer to as "the West" from here on, has had a stance of distanced concern. However, despite their concern, which is mostly of the economic kind, we have seen little to no actual aid until we saw cases arrive in our respective nations. The US had refused to send any aid of real significance until an African man was admitted to a hospital in Texas. This slow response stems from the inherently racist policies of the US which disregard the developing world unless events in those nations have a profound economic effect on the US or result in the US public getting scared shitless. In the current case the only reason that we seem to care now is that we have seen a case on US soil and the apathetic people of the US are finally screaming bloody murder about "outbreaks."
Everyone must realize that this problem has been going on for a while now and had more drastic aid been given earlier then the outbreak in Western Africa could have been contained before it became a real problem. Instead the international community, led by the West, has systematically ignored the deaths of thousands of Africans because they are considered to not be important by Western leaders. If this outbreak had initially happened in the US or Western Europe you can be guaranteed that it would have been stopped before hitting 100 confirmed cases. Instead we have seen the death toll rise above 4000 and little has been done in the form of considerable amounts of aid. The only nation that has offered considerable aid thus far has been Cuba which sent 165 doctors to help care for Ebola patients and that aid was sent over a month ago back when no body in the West seemed to care about sending more aid.
How can we in the West claim to be compassionate about helping people when in the midst of this crisis we have only sent aid to help a few Western doctors. Even if we as individuals have great compassion for the people affected by this crisis we have not shown much impetus to try to get our governments to help those in the effected areas and those who have raised cries to send aid have had their message fall on deaf ears. It is telling when the US Congress has started discussions about enacting a travel ban before we have begun discussions to send substantial aid.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Repost: Anti-Israel Does Not Equal Anti-Jew
I have encountered many individuals who seem misguided in their opinions of me and my beliefs. One major point of contention with these people tends to be my views on Israel. It is my firm belief that over the past forty years the state of Israel has systematically committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinian people. Every credible legal authority in the West has concluded that Israel constantly breaches international law regarding "settlements" in Palestinian lands. The settlement policy on its own constitutes genocide. In every conflict since the 1970s Israel disproportionately kills civilians in their military campaigns through "collateral damage" (we need only look at the most recent Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip for evidence of this). If Israel were a signatory of the International Criminal Court then they would undoubtedly have leaders regularly on trial for their actions. Let me include the internationally recognized definition of genocide as agreed to by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (of which Israel is one of the original signatories):
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- (a) Genocide;
- (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
- (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
- (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
- (e) Complicity in genocide. "
I charge that the state of Israel is guilty of genocide based on points a, b, and c of what defines genocide and a, b, d, and e of acts punishable as genocide.
Killing members of the group:
Israel kills Palestinians all the time, and often for trivial reasons. Palestinians show up to protest the Israeli occupation, they get shot. Palestinain children venture too close to an Israeli area, they get shot. Palestinians are regularly killed by the Isreali Defence Force all the time. And that does not include the targeted killings of women and children in UN run facilities during the most recent conflict in Gaza which is a blatant affront to international conduct in war.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group:
Well I'd say this includes death but Israel also has systematically blockaded supplies from reaching the West Bank and Gaza Strip which has led to poverty and starvation on a mass scale. Israel has also prevented Palestinian fishermen from fishing in bountiful waters that territoriality belong to Gaza thus preventing the Palestinian people from being able to provide for themselves. Countless Palestinians die from lack of medical care and starvation. When Israel occupied the Palestinian territories, they implicitly took it upon themselves that by controlling the territory that they would be responsible for the well being of the Palestinian people. They have failed on a systematic level to take care of the Palestinians. At the same time they have denied the Palestinian people the ability to form their own state capable of providing for them. This double edged blade means that Israel, both actively and passively, is causing harm and mental distress to every Palestinian in the occupied territories.
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part:
As stated previously, the blockade of Palestinian lands has had the effect, or at least the intent, of debilitating the Palestinian people into a state whereby the Israelis can get anything that they want out of the Palestinians. The state of Israel believes that since the God gave them the land of Israel that they, and only they, are entitled to it. Anyone else is simply there by the grace of the Israeli state to serve, in one manner or another, the Israeli people. Implicit in this goal is the unstated goal of removing the Palestinian people from land that they have lived in for millennia.
Acts punishable as genocide:
Genocide:
The above actions, at least in my mind and the minds of many others, constitute a full blown genocide. Maybe not as calculated and deliberate as the Holocaust, but still just as evil in its outcome.
Conspiracy to commit genocide:
By undertaking the actions it has already taken, the state of Israel can be said to have conspired to commit genocide in order to gain their "Promised Land" from the "invading" Palestinian peoples.
Attempt to commit genocide:
By actually undertaking their conspired activities and killing and forcibly taking land from the Palestinians, the state of Israel have attempted, whether actively or indirectly, to commit genocide.
Complicity in genocide:
At the very least, by not preventing their own armed forces and radical religious elements from committing genocidal acts against the Palestinians, the state of Israel has been complicit in the genocidal acts committed by those sections of their society without punishing them or forcing them to stop their heinous activities.
For all of these reason it is my earnest belief that the state of Israel is a criminal state whose leaders should be tried for numerous crimes.
Now for the clarification. My beliefs about the state of Israel does not make me anti-Semitic. I know and am friends with many Jews. They are wonderful people. Their faith is beautiful and has a prominent place in the history of western civilization's development. Jews have had many crimes committed against them because of their faith both in modern times and in the past. I sympathize with all the victims of the Holocaust and cry every time I think of the horrible things done to the Jews by the Germans in the name of "racial purity." No one can deny that the Holocaust was the single most horrible thing committed by man against his fellow man. I also know that not all people in Israel agree with the actions their government is taking against the Palestinians and I urge them to continue their fight against injustice in their country. My anger and hatred is directed only against those leaders of the state of Israel, and those elements of Israeli society, that actively push for the destruction of the Palestinian people in order to form a "perfect Israel." It is my belief that too often the Israeli right uses the Holocaust as a crutch to try and remove blame for their own actions and sometimes even justify their actions. The minute you claim to be against the Israeli, or even more alarmingly for the Israeli right for the Palestinians, they label you an anti-Semite who wishes to renew the Holocaust and that is simply not true. If the state of Israel went out tomorrow and tore down all their settlements in the West Bank and the wall along their border, removed their troops from Palestinian lands, and gave the Palestinian people the right to form an independent nation then I would have nothing to complain about. The problem I have is that Israel is doing exactly the opposite. They oppress the Palestinian people at every turn and in every way possible. Until the Israeli state ends its policy of genocide and oppression I, as a Marxist, cannot and will not, under any circumstance, support the Israeli state. I urge the Palestinian people to continue their fight for freedom and justice and I also urge the people of Israel to fight the against the injustices being committed in their names. We must work to end all oppression, wherever it manifests itself.
Repost: Marxist FAQ: Dictatorship of the Proletariat
There has been much confusion among non-Marxists when the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is mentioned. Most people believe that this means dictatorship in the modern sense of an oppressive system led from the top down by one leader or a small group of leaders and they point to the use of the word "dictatorship" as their proof. However I am here to clear up that confusion. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" was coined at a time before the rise of the modern dictatorship and as such has lost the contextual meaning that the phrase meant when the phrase was coined in the 19th century. When the phrase began to be used, "dictatorship" meant absolute leadership. Thus the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant the absolute leadership of the proletariat. In practice however I think that the modern equivalent phrase should be "proletarian democracy" and I will use that phrase in the future.
Proletarian democracy is what Marxists are truly trying to establish. But what is proletarian democracy? In proletarian democracy the State operates on a democratic basis with the caveat that the proletariat is the only class that is allowed to participate. This is in contrast with modern liberal democracy where all classes are permitted to participate. Now is usually the point where liberals and conservatives alike cry out in terror "but you are quashing freedom!" In reality, no we are not. By only allowing the proletariat to participate who is truly being left out: the small group of wealthy people who don't have to work at a job to ensure their livelihood. By removing the influence of the wealthy we can finally realize true democracy. Today the rich contribute to political campaigns and corrupt our political system to the core. By removing their influence we remove the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is not the only part of proletarian democracy for if it was then all we must do to institute proletarian democracy would be to do away with private financing of campaigns. Proletarian democracy would also prevent the rich from being able to be elected or seeking election. This ensures that the proletariat is represented in government by itself. Only by totally removing the wealthy from the political process at all levels can we achieve proletarian democracy. But again this is not all because this political system would be further coupled with the socialist ownership of the means of production. These three prongs together not only take away the influence of the wealthy but eventually ensures that they will become members of the proletariat as well. When there are no rich people left then proletarian democracy becomes true democracy in every sense of the word.
There are numerous schools of thought as to what a proletarian democracy would actually look like. Some view it as a single-party state led by a vanguard party. Some view it as a popular front of all leftist groups banding together to ensure leftist consensus and prevent the emergence of a ruling elite. Others of the more anarchist persuasion would do away with the State entirely and have proletarian democracy on a purely informal basis and only at the local level with participation being voluntary. There have been numerous attempted experiments in proletarian democracy but none has proved to be successful due to the corrupting influences of bureaucratism and the outside influence of capitalism upon socialist states. These influences have the effect of degrading proletarian democracy into bureaucratic, elitist systems that reward party loyalty and loyalty to the State over proletarian democratic initiative. Only when the world is transformed into a world of socialism will we truly be able to begin the great experiment in proletarian democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)