The Internationale

Arise, ye prisoners of starvation! Arise, ye wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation, A better world’s in birth.
No more tradition’s chains shall bind us,
Arise, ye slaves no more in thrall! The earth shall rise on new foundations,
We have been naught, we shall be all.

‘Tis the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place.
The Internationale
Shall be the human race.
‘Tis the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place.
The Internationale
Shall be the human race.

We want no condescending saviors to rule us from their judgement hall.
We workers ask not for their favours, let us consult for all,
To make the thief disgorge his booty, to free the spirit from its cell.
We must ourselves decide our duty, We must decide and do it well.

Toilers from shops and fields united, The union of all who work.
The earth belongs to us the workers, No room here for those who shirk.
How many on our flesh have fattened, But if the bloody birds of prey
Shall vanish from the sky some morning, The golden sunlight will stay.

BREAKDOWN

Two nights ago - another dream.  In this dream, you came to me, looking lost and confused.  I came over, by your side, in a private corner of an incoherent world.  We looked at each other and then, in that moment of us together again, I felt that historic fear which fell upon me like a dagger in my heart - my last moment ever with you.  I leaned over to you and whispered in your right ear what I’ve been wanting to say since our kiss goodbye: I Love You.  I said it twice.  I Love You. You continued to look at me, your eyes full of fear. 

Up until this time, my Armour has weighted me down - I was unable to speak, unable to move, unable to communicate.   Yet now I feel I have been set in Motion.  My Armour - My Love for You - is becoming a Formidable Force.

My dream ended quickly yet Breakdown has begun. 

State of the Union, 2007: Part II

…continued from Part I 

State of the Union, 2007: Part II

Buffalo Forum*
Bush State of the Union
Plan for Expanded Military and Civilian Corps

It is well known and admitted by the Pentagon that U.S. military forces already stretched thin are simply losing in Iraq. Yet Bush plans to escalate war to Iran and elsewhere.  To do so, he is demanding to increase the Army and Marine Corps — the occupying ground forces in any war — by 92,000 troops, over the next five years.  But it is clear that this is not enough, especially given the increasing resistance among the youth to be cannon fodder for imperialist war. So Bush is also calling for a “Civilian Reserve Corps.”

According to Bush, this Civilian Corps “would function much like our military reserve.   It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.” This is an effort to entice yet more youth into war, while claiming to do otherwise.  It very likely will also be directed toward undocumented immigrant youth, with the promise of citizenship for “civilian service.” It could also be used to justify hiring “civilians with critical skills,” from other countries. 

This Corps would be in addition to the existing mercenary army in Iraq, utilizing forces like Blackwater, Inc. There are an estimated 100,000 private “contractors” in Iraq, including at least 48,000 soldiers. Blackwater, with hundreds of millions in government contracts already, also provided mercenaries to occupy New Orleans after Katrina. 

The government mercenaries in Iraq have been responsible for torture and other crimes.  They are considered outside any law and have not been subject to any punishment for known crimes. Given this existing reality, it is very likely that such a Civilian Corps, once established, would serve to create a private army directly controlled by the President. It likely will not come under the authority of Congress, or even the military. And it could be used as a fascist force of the executive inside the country as well.  It represents a significant and dangerous development in government arrangements.

Alongside the call for this Civilian  Corps, Bush proposed what he called a Congressional “advisory council.” Emphasizing the power usurped by the Office of the President that reduces Congress to a consultative body, Bush said “Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It’s why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We’ll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.”

The proposal for an “advisory council,” if implemented, represents an effort by the president to complete new arrangements of governance whereby Congress and the Courts have only an advisory and consultative role, and all power resides with the president. Bush has continued to emphasize that he, and he alone, is the “decision-maker,” and that Congress cannot stop him. He has made the decision about sending more troops to Iraq. By implication, he will also decide about bombing Iran.

A serious clash is underway on this matter. But Bush and the ruling circles generally do not want an open constitutional fight if it can be avoided. An advisory council is a possible means to do this. It could serve to keep Congress as an elected body, but essentially eliminate any power it has.  It could also eliminate the current role of Congressional committees and concentrate them in this “advisory council” of top leaders. This select few would be in on the deal making and decision-making and the rest would simply be consulted with.  It is a significant proposal that bears watching, especially as the current battles over bills and resolutions on Iraq and Iran unfold.

Americans met Bush’s speech with a massive outpouring on Janurary 27, demanding an end to the war now. The action also put Congress on notice. Americans do not want a pro-war government. The failure by Congress to act, like Bush’s failure, will be met with determined resistance, including working step by step to create an anti-war government of the people themselves. 

*Buffalo Forum is a local publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization

State of the Union, 2007: Part I

Since the 2006 midterm elections and the win of the majority of Democrats in Congress, President Bush is still pushing forward the fascist agenda and arrangements to secure monopoly capital and defend the rule of imperialism by announcing that the U.S. is committing more troops to Iraq.   On January 27, 2007 tens of thousands of people from across the United States converged on Washington, DC to demand an end to the war and to bring all the troops home now!  This demand came as a response to Bush’s State of the Union Address for 2007.

Below is an article from the Buffalo Forum*, on the State of the Union.

Bush State of the Union
Preparing Crime of War Against Iran

President George W. Bush gave his state of the Union address January 23 and again made clear U.S. preparations for aggressive war against Iran. Bush also raised the need to expand the military and create an additional “Civilian” Corps of mercenaries to try and rescue U.S. efforts at world domination. He received broad applause for both proposals. Taken as a whole, the speech reflected the exhausted character of the U.S. ruling class, which has no solutions for any problem.  Instead, cornered by failure on all sides, it is desperately trying to save itself by lashing out, imposing fascism and war.

In 2007, Bush again used the justification of September 11 for U.S. crimes.  He declared “The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that’s the case, America is still a nation at war.” He again emphasized the plan for more aggressive wars, saying, “to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.” And, far from striving to solve any problem, he repeated the refrain that “America must not fail in Iraq.”

Despite the broad demand by the peoples to end the war now and thus contribute to solving the problem of ending aggressive wars, Bush claims that repeating, again, the use of more aggression against Iraq is the way to go.  He also more broadly branded “the enmy” by basically saying any form of “extremism” and “violent radicals” are a threat.  And this applied simply to people’s views.  “This war is more than a clash of arms — it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance.” So those with what Bush decides is an “extreme ideology” are also enemies.  In this manner the president is not only warning those he specifically named, such as the resistance movements in Iraq (including Sunnies and Shias) and Lebanon (Hizbollah), but also anyone, inside the country and out, who stands in the way.  Indeed, he even cautioned Congress, saying, “We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies — and the wisdom to face them together.” Few could miss the echo of “you are with us or with the enemy.”  

 Bush directly targeted Iran several times.  He said the U.S. faces “escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America [as al Qaeda], and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.” Hizbollah successfully led the resistance in Lebanon to U.S.-Israeli aggression and continues to do so.  Bush added, “Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region…” He claimed, “Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads [in Iraq].”  He threatened that if the U.S. withdraws, “We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda.”

Bush repeatedly attempts to claim that the cause of the violence and terrorism in Iraq is the Iraqis themselves, when it is clear that it is U.S. occupation.  Now Bush is claiming Iranians are also responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq. No evidence of any kind has been presented.  It is simply asserted over and over by the Pentagon disinformation machine that Iran is responsible for American deaths. 

This emphasis on American deaths is an attempt to push the U.S. movement backward, away from its stand that Iraqis deahs and Iranian deaths and Lebanese deaths are not acceptable.  The movement stands as one with the peoples of the world against all the death and destruction of U.S. imperialist wars.  It also makes clear that there would be no U.S. deaths if all U.S. troops were brought home.

The Iraqis and Iranians are not the source of the problem, occupation is.  The Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese and Palestinians are all capable of governing themselves and living in peace if they are left to do so by the U.S. and its client state of Israel. Respect for sovereignty and non-interference by all the big powers, the U.S. first and foremost, is necessary. 

Bush rejects withdrawal of all U.S. troops as the solution for success and instead outlines the U.S. plan for revenge against the Iraqi resistance, focused on Baghdad.  Increased U.S. troops will be organized as gangs to go into neighborhoods to “find the terrorists and clear them out,” and then “hold” the neighborhood.  Using the U.S.-Israeli model in Palestine and that of Falluja and elsewhere, this can only mean more mass civilian killings, destruction of housing, hospitals and civilian infrastructure, terrorizing the population, especially women and children, and then making neighborhoods prisons, with checkpoints, restricted movement and dusk to dawn curfews.  This is what U.S.-style democracy looks like in Iraq. 

Part II: Plan for Expanded Military and Civilian Corps

To be continued…

*Buffalo Forum is a local publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization

FLASH 2006: State of the Union

Sunday, February 12, 2006

The State of the Union

On January 31, 2006, U.S. President Bush gave his State of the Union Address to the U.S. Congress. The speech was marked by some considerable changes than what the President had been saying since September 11, 2001 and since the U.S. aggressive invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.One of the things that has been revealed in this speech was the fact of the inner turmoil and conflict between the ruling classes themselves. Here is what he states:

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another — and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong — and together we will make it stronger…

The issue of differences and debate is important I feel. What possible difference could the adminstration and government have except differences of opinion concerning the direction in which society and nation are going? In response to this, Bush told Congress:

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country [italics mine]. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom — or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life…The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership — so the United States of America will continue to lead.

What Bush means of course by “America will continue to lead” is more of the same that is taking place today. More war abroad, more repressive measures at home, more decimating the rule of law and principled stands. The only way to “secure” the peace, and mind you, the peace within the government and ruling bodies itself (two parties, two chambers, two elected branches) is through the policies of his adminstration itself. Everyone must line up to this. It is the only option that Bush gives to Congress.

Furthermore, the State of the Union was used to emphasize the “only option” for the world is for all to stand behind the “U.S. Military and it’s vital mission.” What is the role of the U.S. Military today and what is it’s vital mission? To secure empire. “The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world.” How fascist.

In 1935, Georgi Dimitrov at the Seventh Congress of the Communist International defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” Dimitrov also mentioned that fascism was a ferocious but unstable power.

The lacking for recognizing the equality of nations could clearly be seen in this State of the Union speech. This administration completely can not stand for nations and for national rights. With the Occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq under their belt, the US specifically mentions that military rule will come to the “failed states” - Syria, Iran, the Democratic Peoples’ Republick of Korea (DPRK), Myanmar and Zimbabwe. “The United State will not retreat from the world we will never surrender to evil.”

Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission.

Bush was quite insistent that decisions about Iraq will not be made by politicians in Washington - that is decisions will not be made by any government that is civilian and particularly Congress itself, but that decisions will be made by the military.

Throughout the entire speech decision-making itself was attacked. Only the President and his “leadership” can make decisions - only the military can make decisions. Thinking itself was attacked - a fascist characteristic. If people thought and if bodies of people thought and discussed things and debated them they might actually come to some sort of rational decision that the present war and policies are not in our interests. The very act of disagreeing is all part of this, but even so, Bush wants none of that.

In light of this and in light of the problems that U.S. imperialism is facing, the State of the Union Speech was quite desperate, a reflection of the state of the ruling class itself.