Thursday, September 28, 2006

Poetry for Marxists

This is a short poem I wrote in 2001, shortly after 9-11. It's about the rise of George. W. Bush in Afghanistan, and the months leading up to the war in Iraq. I also hint at those that pull the strings of the Presidency. I think it is just as relevant now as it was then.

" The puppeteer controls the puppets, he pulls their strings through force and fear,
Though the puppets can not help but wonder: who controls the puppeteer?"
- J. Brenevich

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Abandon ship!

President Hugo Chavez of the Bolivarian republic of Venezuela made a quite controversial speech at the United Nations a few days ago.

By now, this is old news. I applaud president Chavez on his remarks and the courage needed to say them. However, as a longtime Chavista, I braced for the fallout from the political right-wing.

Of course all of the venomous tongues of the political right-wing and bourgeoisie media immediately lashed out at Chavez for his statements. This was a predictable reaction, and I thought nothing of it.


What did surprise me, however, was the fallout from the political LEFT-wing.

I received several e-mails from other members of the political left through various lists, and I heard various individuals criticizing Hugo Chavez, and urging all of their comrades to join them in doing so. Most of the focus of anger came from Chavez's support for Iran, and therefore his silent compliance with patriarchy, the oppression of women, etc.

I have to say, this is one of the most sickening examples I have ever seen of the incredible self-destructive powers of the Social-Democratic/ Liberal left wing. The waverers, the reformists and self-styled "feminists" pounced upon President Chavez like lions on a crippled deer, rather than applauding him for standing tall in the face of American imperialism.

Now some may say, the oppression of women in Iran is a legitimate problem, and needs to be recognized. Perhaps this is so, but in this case it is irrelevant. Don't be fooled by this so called
"Feminist" concern, comrades. It's all just a smokescreen, just a distraction to get the wishy-washy reformists to turn their backs on Chavez.

Saudi Arabia also oppresses women. I don't see these so called "Feminists" criticizing Saudi Arabia. As long as I have been involved in the political left, as long as I have been associating with the feminist movement, I have actually never heard any of us attack any government in particular. I think the reason for this is that most true feminists realize that, in one sense of the word or another, women of ALL countries are subjugated. There is not one particular country that has a monopoly on patriarchy.

In this case though, these "feminists" choose to criticize Chavez, not because he is head of a country that oppresses women, but because he supports the right to self determination of a country that is said to oppress women. It is kind of flimsy, don't you think?
Chavez only stands by Iran's right to self-determination, an inherent right of ALL nations, and these self-styled "feminists" try to draw a dotted line between President Chavez and an alleged patriarchal society in Iran. This is a very imperialist tactic. It is reminiscent of the Invasion of Iraq ,for their alleged support of Al-quaeda.

As with anything, the question is always "Who benefits.". One has to wonder, who is benefiting from the chaos and disarray sown within the political left community by these social-democratic reformists and "feminists". President Chavez also talked about concepts such as the renewal of the United Nations, and condemned Israeli fascist aggression against Lebanon in his speech. Of course, that isn't mentioned. To be honest, from what I gathered from an english transcript of his speech,I can not see that he even mentioned Iran that much. And yet, this is the point that the "Feminists" latched upon.

Who benefits, comrades?

I am not concerned though. An event like this only polarizes the Left-wing movement, between the Liberal/Social Democratic waverers and the truly progressive, truly revolutionary elements.
Let these "Feminists", these wreckers and subversives, spread their slander and sow their seeds of discontent. Let them insinuate connections to vile activities, and rally the reformists to abandon all things revolutionary; In the end, this can only strengthen the revolutionary movement by purging it of all capitalist cronies and spineless waverers.

The wreckers are drawing a line in the sand, and let it be known that me and my comrades have chosen our side. If they want to find people who agree with them, they'll have nowhere to go but the bourgeois parties, which is probably the point of it all, anyway.

What doesn't kill a revolutionary movement, makes it stronger. I salute President Chavez for his remarks, and stand firmly, never wavering, on the side of revolution.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Drink your sorrows away

A few weeks ago I moved into an apartment along with my younger brother, a former drug user.

Lately we have been catching up a lot. He talks a lot about his life back in the working class neighbourhood in Wembley. He talks about many of his experiences with drugs, alcohol and crime.

What I find disturbing is the way he glorifies the life of the lumpenproletariat, the criminal elements of all classes, who suck the life blood of our society.

His fondest memories are of getting high, squatting for a night in public buildings, stealing from businesses, meaningless sex, and fraternizing with other lumpen criminals and drug users.
I would probably sympathize with him if he came from a more underprivileged background, but my brother, like myself, spent most of his life in the middle class of Canadian society. He has never wanted for anything, never went without his basic needs. Truly, my brother aspires to be criminal.

It is in my conversations with Canadian citizens that I glean a lot of my perspectives on the effects of Capitalism. In the case of my brother, he is being affected by several factors:
The consequences of a culture of obsessive individualism, the effects of dealing with a hopeless world and the pressures of capitalist hegemony.

First and foremost, like most others, my brother is a victim of obsessive individual-centric behavior, a by product of the culture of dog-eat-dog capitalist economics forced upon him since birth. Truly, is there anything more selfish than nursing several drug addictions, stealing out of want rather than need, and becoming a criminal for personal gain? This is the logical outcome of a society that above all glorifies the whims of the few, at the price of the many.

Of course, his habitual drug use also has other motivations, that lie in the roots of the system of capitalism itself. Contrary to Capitalism accusing Communism of being a system "without hope", it is capitalism which offers no hope for the overwhelming majority. Like myself, my brother grew up in a utilitarian Northern Albertan town, with a low population, rampant poverty and next to nothing in the way of productive activities for the youth. Under a system, in a part of the world ( Which is experiencing an "economic boom", or so I'm told) where there is no hope, no future, it is quite easy to succumb to the pressures of hopelessness and be broken by it.
Many from my home town coped with this hopelessness in different ways, the most obvious, and preferred, method being drug and alcohol abuse. The only retail business that truly flourishes in my hometown are the liquor merchants, peddlers of apathy as a false solution to the crisis in our system. Of course alcohol and drugs do not fix the crisis of capitalism, but they certainly help one to forget it.

And then there is capitalist hegemony. The media outlets of the bourgeoisie have convinced the alienated youth to idolize criminals and aspire to be drug abusers. In order to serve the dual bourgeoisie need of pacifying the population and turning a profit from the drug industry, legal and otherwise, the bourgeoisie promote drug and alcohol use in their media, especially entertainment. In order to justify the gradual erosion of freedoms and encroaching claws of the capitalist police state, the capitalist class glorifies crimes of all kinds in their media outlets.
From these media sources, the masses, especially the youth, are presented with many a false solution to their problems: Either get rich through crime, or get so drunk/high that you just don't care anymore.

My brother is the youth of today. He has been stripped of culture by hegemonistic mass media, he has been alienated socially by the education institutions of the capitalist state, he has been exploited as labour by the ruthless monopoly capitalists, pushed into drug and alcohol abuse by
capitalist social norms, and processed by the state police forces as "another deviant youth", another young "monster".

To the youth of today, the image of a criminal, who is wealthy, successful and free from the oppression of the police state, is handsome in comparison to their bleak reality.

For this to change, the material and social factors affecting the people of today must be tackled.
A true solution must be offered to all people, a solution to their problems.

As I reminisce, I found my solution a long time ago. When my friends picked up a bottle of rye, I picked up " the manifesto of the communist party."

There is an escape from this world. I truly hope that it will be my brother and his generation who wake up and realize this goal, and that it is his generation that begins to build a new world, a new society, out of the ashes of the old.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

How to make a monster

This is an interesting article, a party statement from the Communist party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) on the recent violence in montreal, where a school shooting has taken place. Unlike most of the other talking heads of Bourgeosie political analysis, this statement focuses on the
underlying causes of school shootings and their relation to this growing culture of imperialist militarism, rather than simply announcing that there should be armed guards at every school and strict regulation of violent TV shows and music, and other such nonsense.
- Comrade RavenBlade

Shooting at Dawson College, Montreal -- Another Columbine?
We Must Together Avert Such Tragedies
- Statement of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist),September 14, 2006 -

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) expresses its deepest condolences to the family of Anastasia DeSousa, the young woman killed in the shooting at Dawson College in Montreal. We express our sympathies to the some 10,000 students, college staff, their families and all Montrealers who have been so profoundly affected by this tragedy. We express our appreciation for the actions of the first responders, including police and paramedics, as well as the student union at Concordia University, professors and hospitals who took charge of the situation and played the role which befits them. They managed to impart some coherence and confidence within a dreadful situation. The antidote to succumbing to fear is to take up one's social responsibility, especially in exceptional circumstances. In this regard, having mechanisms and arrangements which enable people to deal with such events and with the ensuing psychological trauma make the difference between coherence and incoherence and stop a bad situation from becoming worse.
The recurrence of brutal, insane acts such as the shooting at Dawson are a great shock for any society. Immediately one wants to know: Who was the shooter? Why did he do it? But most importantly, what conclusions do we draw from such a shocking event and how do we orient ourselves to ensure that together we can go to the heart of the problem?
In this regard, we condemn the statement of Prime Minister Stephen Harper who declared the shooting a "cowardly and senseless act of violence." What does he know that we don't know? We live in a society which forces people to fend for themselves and many are driven to commit all kinds of desperate acts. Is it suitable to say such acts are "cowardly"? Even though the acts may be "senseless," does it mean we cannot make sense of them?
The very same day this Columbine-type tragedy occurred in Montreal, news agencies reported that a nurse in Alberta who sedated several of her colleagues to defraud them was found to suffer from bi-polar disorder. She was given two years probation with community service. Nothing was said to indicate she is getting appropriate treatment and will not commit similar crimes in the future. Such reports lead us to question the Prime Minister's statement. Why is he content with dismissing what took place at Dawson with a phrase? In our opinion, it is a cowardly statement which indicates that he has no intention of taking responsibility for a society in which such things take place.
In the same vein, there is already speculation in the media that this event will lead to a more heated debate about the gun registry. Various media outlets are also introducing a discourse about the need to profile certain youth to identify "violent behaviour" or to say that it is the fault of violent video games and movies. In this way, a very serious problem facing society and our younger generation is immediately reduced to so-called solutions which are unhelpful at best -- parents and teachers should "monitor behaviour," we need increased police presence to take more law and order measures and other such things.
Social, political, economic and cultural problems cannot be ruled out of existence with law and order campaigns, feel-good statements or facile explanations and measures which solve nothing and often make matters worse. The very idea that now young men with piercings and dressed in black are to be profiled precisely underscores that our society is in trouble. It is no different to being criminalized for being Muslim. People who look and dress in a particular way are fair game -- for our protection and security of course!
How is it that before people have even had a chance to sit and think, they are already told what the issue is and how it will be dealt with? Who decides how we should proceed?
Following the events of 9/11 we saw how an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty about the future was created and then used as a pretext to introduce the "war on terror" and invade Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, as well as justify crimes against the Palestinian people. It was used to introduce police-state measures in Canada and the U.S., amongst other countries. We are now seeing the consequences of the kinds of arrangements that have been put in place while Americans were mourning their loss of innocence and trying to sort out how to move on. The agenda these arrangements serve is not to be questioned. Meanwhile, even though insecurity and uncertainty have become the new normal, the widespread belief that these measures have not sorted out any of the problems the world was facing before September 11 or after is ignored by the official circles. The criminalization of political views, national origin, religion and behaviour have become widespread. Now U.S. President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Harper and others are paving the way to criminalize any ideology or belief that lies contrary to theirs.
The events at Dawson show how some youth are being driven into a disconnect, leading to truly crazy and barbaric acts. We are not surprised that such things are taking place when the leaders in the U.S. and Canada act in the same fashion in the name of the highest ideals. In the case of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, these leaders openly promote torture and mass killings as acts of great courage and valour. They declare that they will continue doing this because they can. When the tragic consequences of such a culture are revealed, they declare that some individual has a behaviour problem and refuse to take social responsibility.
On the same day that this act took place at Dawson, the Canadian Army released a new set of ads to recruit the youth to join the Armed Forces. They depict scenes from a battlefield in Afghanistan with the words "Fight fear, fight distress, fight chaos." General Rick Hillier, Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, described the role of the military this way: "Our job is to kill people."
A hooligan culture is being promoted right from the top and it is presented as okay for the youth when it is done in pursuit of "scumbags," but not okay when it harms fellow citizens. This is the disconnect which is leading to tragedies.
When the killings took place at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, then U.S. President Bill Clinton said: "We do know that we must do more to reach out to our children and teach them to express their anger and to resolve their conflicts with words, not weapons."
This is the same President Clinton who former White House aide George Stephanopoulos quoted in his book All Too Human from the time Clinton ordered the bombing of civilian targets in Somalia:
"We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers," Clinton said, softly at first. "When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers." Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake, then his national security adviser], as if it was his fault. "I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks."
When the future presented to the youth is one of chaos, violence and anarchy, who is going to take responsibility for this disconnect in which some of our youth live? In considering what leads some youth to take desperate measures, such as occurred at Dawson yesterday, should we not take into account the present and future of war, militarism and the hooligan culture devoid of any social responsibility which is being forced onto society as the only way to sort out problems?
This society is creating great problems for the youth. Law and order and military solutions and facile explanations will not deal with these problems; they will only make them worse. Whatever happens, we should not let these events be used for partisan political gain, or to impose an agenda that goes against the interests of the society. Solutions must come out of a broad discussion amongst the polity on the overall direction of the society and how to turn things around.

Monday, September 11, 2006

An eye for an eye

Five years of war.

Five years of slaughter, Invasion, military occupation, rape, pillaging and fascism.

In this "war on terror" there are martyrs on both sides, one of the worst features of a holy war.
In the west it is the "War on Terror"; In the east, this conflict is just an extension of the crusades.

They estimate that 3000 people died in the attacks on the World Trade center of September 11th. On the other hand, at least 6,000 people died in the initial attack on Afghanistan.
Did the people of Afghanistan ask for death any more than the people in the world trade center?
Of course, many more have died in Afghanistan since. Afghani women have been raped by occupying forces, babies are being born deformed due to depleted uranium used in the Allied
forces bombs and ammunition, Afghani resistance against the occupation are labeled "Taliban
fighters", even when there is no evidence that they support the Taliban government, to demonize them in the press.

So three thousand people died in the United States on 9/11, so now thousands more need to die in the Muslim world. This is an acceptable logic to most of the North American population. Blinded by revenge, a large section of the American population continues to turn a blind eye to American fascism at home and over seas, as well as firmly supporting all wars of imperialistic expansion.

While the developments in Iraq are well publicized by the political left, Afghanistan is rarely and barely mentioned. Many liberals and Social-democratic reformists have put forward the viewpoint that " The war in Iraq is unjust, but the war in Afghanistan is okay." This shows the completely slanted effect of bourgeoisie propaganda on the liberal left, as there is so little attention given to Afghanistan by the left wing. Many among the political left hold the viewpoint
that Afghanistan "Asked for it", and that Afghanistan was a "terrorist state", and that the Taliban was "reactionary". Of course the government of Afghanistan was not necessarily progressive, but that isn't for us to decide. Regime change starts at home. Invasion of a sovereign nation to "liberate the people from their tyrannical government" is Imperialism,
nothing more, nothing less. Even the revolutionary left, the Marxist-Leninist left, often mentions Afghanistan as a mere footnote.

So the only information on Afghanistan comes from the bourgeoisie owned media. The Imperialist news sources publish a sob story every time an allied soldier is killed, and patriotic
war-mongering every time that allied soldiers kill "Taliban" insurgents. No analysis of the imperialist nature of allied soldiers in Afghanistan is provided by the mainstream news, and the involvement of Canada in this war of imperialism is very rarely questioned. How can you compare killing a soldier, who is part of an occupation force, to killing civilians who are native to the occupied nation? Killing an invader is a right, killing a native insurgent is a crime.

Although it is very unpopular to say, this must be said: The United States asked for the events of September 11, 2001. The victims of the world trade center didn't ask for it, and neither did many of the broad masses of the American people, but the United States Government has been asking for an ass-kicking for a very long time. It is strange to find how everyone was shocked by 9/11. The events of September 11th were a perfectly logical,and
predictable, result of an aggressive foreign policy and Imperialist agenda put forward by the United States on every continent, in every country. A nation can not become a successful imperialist power without creating enemies in the peoples of many nations, in many lands.
Someone was bound to do it. Even if the US did manage to completely avert 9/11 , arresting all of the hijackers before they left their homes, It was bound to happen again.
Someone who had seen his family blown to bits by an Apache helicopter, someone who had seen the president he voted for "removed" by the United States military, someone who's children pick bananas 16 hours a day for an American company, anyone with anger against the United States, was bound to do it. Even an American citizen, born and raised, would have done something, as has been proven at Waco, at Oklahoma city, by the Montana freemen, the
Uni-bomber,etc. These elements may not be progressive, but the fact remains that they have released some anger against the United States.

Also, not to sound like a conspiracy nut, the United States government made a lot of gains from the martyrdom of the World Trade Center. They most likely had a hand in the attack, as they seem to be the sole beneficiaries of this attack. Even on the slim chance that they were in no way involved, it makes no difference. The principal stays the same. A terrorist attack was the logical outcome of their countries Imperialist foreign policy.

Some people compare 9/11 to Pearl harbor; this is not a proper comparison. Pearl harbor was a military strike, a conflict between two Imperialist states. 9/11 also may have been an imperialist venture, but to many peoples of the world, 9/11 was the ass kicking that the American imperialists richly deserved. This shows the millions upon millions ( If not billions) who are enraged with United States Imperialism.

As usual, the American Imperialists will commemorate this occasion to try to rekindle patriotism, and rekindle public support for United States militarism in the Middle East, as well as many other countries.

Is there a ceremony for all of the thousands that have been killed in Afghanistan?
Is there a ceremony for the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq?
Is there a ceremony for all of those that have been killed, on all continents, in all countries, by United States Imperialism?

This "War on terror", this Crusade, is only further irritating the problem. Spectacular strikes against the United States of America will take place in the future, from forces both external and internal. In the meantime, the United States military trains a new generation of orphans, a new generation of widowed and crippled, to harbor a hatred that words can not explain for American Imperialism.

As the Capitalist class creates their own grave diggers, Imperialism also creates it's own grave diggers in every land that it touches. Imperialism can not survive in the face of national liberation struggles and peoples war.

Five years of Imperialist war. Only the will of the masses will prevent another five years from happening.

Friday, September 08, 2006

North Korea: fact and fiction

My personal opinions on the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, commonly referred to as North Korea, have done a complete turn around within only a few short years. I guess I actually had to meet some North Koreans, at the 16th World Festival of Democratic Youth and students in Venezuela, for me to realize the extent of the vicious propaganda against the people of North Korea.

Anyways, now I find myself bristling at all Anti-Korean propaganda, slander that I once voiced myself.

Now, at this time I'm still admittedly not the most qualified person to defend the sovereign nation of Korea against slander, but I can't be any worse qualified than those that slander it.
I have never been to the DPRK, but neither have many prominent figures who speak against it, so this is not necessarily a requirement.

Of course we have all heard allegations about North Korea: Everyone is starving, The government arrests people and tortures them in gulags, and people have to worship giant statues of Kim Il Sung, and there are thousands of orphans, and they are preparing for nuclear war, and they're cannibals, and Kim Jong Il kidnaps women to be his prostitutes, etc, etc.

Wow, if I thought any of these allegations were true, I would be calling for the immediate invasion of the DPRK too. I mean, any state that disfunctional and un-realistically sinister
would require immediate removal. I think that my description fits the allegations against North Korea very well: Un-realistically sinister. The evil attributed to the DPRK is not the type of plausible malice attributed to Hitlers Germany, but rather ridiculous comic book villainy, and
un-necessary gore for added shock value.

The biggest flaw with the Anti-Korean propaganda being disseminated is that the various factions of the Anti- Korean movement can not present one unified view of "Stalinist Korea".
All of the allegations against the DPRK are not necessarily accepted by all of the Anti-Korean
analysts. In the last year alone, I have watched at least four or five separate Anti-Korean documentaries, all from different sources, and with the exception of the allegations of starvation (which I will come back to), these five documentaries shared very few common allegations against the DPRK.

Every one of these documentaries was made so anecdotally, with a complete absence of evidence
and an over-abundance of speculation. One film maker in the documentary Children of the Secret state ( Note the blatantly biased title,) repeatedly fills his documentary with pure baseless allegations such as "there may be 200,000 street children in North Korea..." What do you mean there "may be""? "Up to three million people have starved to death in the last ten years." What do you mean "up to"?If you can not confirm this statistic, then why have you put into your film? This is the film makers way of spreading baseless notions against the DPRK, without assuming any responsibility for their legitimacy. It is truly a diabolical and vulgar act. This documentary also bases allegations of the existence of gulags entirely on Art work that was allegedly drawn by prisoners who escaped from these alleged gulags. Anyone who scans this documentary for a shred of evidence will be sorely disappointed.

The CNN network documentary Inside the Secret state, another obscene example of negative imagery worked into the title to influence viewer opinion before any arguments are made, featured alleged footage of a prisoner execution, which was much more blurry and grainy than any videos of the loch ness monster that I have seen to date. In the footage, you see a small figure, possibly a human, fall down in the distance. From this, CNN deduces that a prisoner has been executed by firing squad. The rest of the film focuses around a few shots of a person putting a sign (In Korean) on a bridge, and this is supposed to signify that "The writing is on the wall" So to speak, and that the winds of change are blowing in North Korea. Pretty pathetic, even if the footage is authentic. There are some interviews with those that "escaped" from the DPRK, which Ironically prove to be the most damning against the documentary, as an "escaped" North Korean woman reveals how disillusioned she is with capitalism and the reality of "Paradise" in South Korea. In every one of these documentaries, the actual testimony of the Korean people always casts doubt on the Film makers allegations, no matter how they try to twist this testimony to their favor.

I especially love allegations about cannibalism. Since the days of ancient Rome, one of the most effective ways to dehumanize a rival culture in the eyes of your people is to accuse them of acts cannibalism, arguably one of the only universal social taboos. Allegations of cannibalism have the power to equate any culture with savage barbarism instantaneously, and are rarely ever investigated for legitimacy. The Aboriginal peoples of North and South America, as well as numerous other countries, have been accused of cannibalism several times by colonial occupiers, whether these acts are actually practiced or not. Can anyone prove that the caribe people of Haiti and Cuba committed acts of cannibalism, when they are now extinct and the source of these accusations was the imperialist Spaniards? The same goes for the people of the DPRK, and these accusations of cannibalism have just as much foundation as the rest of the allegations made against the DPRK.

The allegations of Kim Jong Il's harem of kidnapped women is also an unfounded allegation based on social taboo. In this case, the dear leader is accused of the social taboo of sexual slavery, and is therefore uncivilized. The allegations of sexual slavery are even more anecdotal
than previous allegations, lacking even former "Sex slaves" to come forward and tell their sad story to the grateful film makers. Basically, we have to take the film makers word for it, that
women are being kidnapped and forced into Kim jong Il's harem.

The ever present criticism of the "Cult of personality" in North Korea is Hypocrisy, especially when coming from the United States, which is quasi-religious about their own revolution. While the DPRK has a giant statue of Kim Il Sung in Pyonyang, the US has a giant statue of Lincoln in Washington, as well as the monolithic faces of some of their former leaders inscribed into the face of a mountain. The DPRK celebrates the birthdays of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, while the US celebrates Lincoln's birthday and Washington's birthday, as well as a national holiday on the anniversary of their country's revolutionary triumph. While the DPRK refers to their former president as the "Great leader", the United States refers to their former Presidents as "the founding fathers". Monarchist countries like Great Britain, which has an actual despot rather than a perceived despot, can not comment on this alleged North Korean "cult of personality" either.

And then of course, there is the nuclear issue. This is the lowest common denominator in Imperialist fear-mongering , used against Iraq, Iran, Cuba, the USSR, etc, in the past.
Because the mouthpieces of anti-Korean propaganda can't Sufficiently convince the peoples of the world that the people of the DPRK are suffering at the hands of their government, they have to
spread fear of hostile actions, especially nuclear exercises, by the DPRK against other nations.
As I have already stated, this is the ultimate hypocrisy. It is the United States and other Imperialist powers that are hostile to the DPRK, not the other way around. Besides, the meager
nuclear weapons capabilities of the DPRK pale in comparison to the vast arsenal of the United States, and many others that criticize North Korea, all of which posses more advanced nuclear weapons, greater stockpiles and a worse nuclear track record than the DPRK.

The only argument against the DPRK with any shred of truth is the allegations of national food crisis, which I am getting back to now. First of all, this isn't a secret. The Workers party of Korea has admitted their food shortage. The only problem with this allegation are the motivations behind it. The anti-Korean forces seek to blame the current government, the socialist government, of the DPRK for the food crisis. This is absolutely ridiculous, swinging back to the capitalist notion that "communist countries are often poor, therefore communism generates poverty."This is a deliberate twisting of cause and effect; Countries are not poor because they are communist, they are communist because they are poor. If these countries were so prosperous before communism , why did they turn to communism in the first place? As far as agricultural production is concerned, the USSR and China topped the list of produce and livestock producing countries during most of of the duration of the cold war, and both had socialist governments like the DPRK. Besides ,Plant growth is influenced by factors such as precipitation, soil fertility and sunlight, not political climate. There is also the allegations of elitism on the part of the Workers Party of Korea, saying that all of the food is diverted to the elite from the peasants, an allegation without foundation. The actual causes, the materialist causes, of the North Korean food crisis are overlooked by the forces of media reaction, as they are not beneficial to the cause of DPRK regime change. The DPRK is about 120,540 sq km, and only about 22.4% is arable land. This means that it can produce only around 27000 .96 km of crops, and in addition to this there are frequent droughts in the spring, followed by floods. The other major factor in the Korean food crisis are the economic sanctions and trade embargo of the United States of America, limiting food aid and constricting international trade. These things there is tangible evidence of, and mostly I just got my information from the CIA world fact book, a reactionary source.

I hope that I have set down a working model of self defense in response to the allegations of Anti-Korean forces. If nothing else, the reactionary forces must be told that it is the right of the peoples of Korea and all other nations to enjoy national sovereignty, free of the ambitions of Imperialism. No matter what slander you may throw at them, the DPRK stands tall in the face of aggression, and the people of Korea will not cower to global imperialism.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Life in a glass house



For a very long time now, I've found myself having to constantly defend my ideology (Marxism-Leninism) against criticism. Of course, the people who are criticizing my ideology subscribe to Bourgeois ideologies, all of which have more than a few skeletons in their own closets. Does that seem right?

How can a member of the Liberal party of Canada criticize my party,The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), for anything? The Liberal party has robbed the people of Canada over the course of many administrations, is responsible for the continued subjugation of the Aboriginal peoples of what is now Canada, as well as the continued stranglehold of un-wanted Canadian federalism on Quebec, and French minorities in the other provinces, getting us into the war in Afghanistan in the first place, and yet they feel that they can throw stones?

The Social Democratic NDP is no better in this respect ( Bingogate*, anyone?), and the disgustingly Bourgeois Bloc Quebecois not only supports the most superficial brand of
Quebec sovereignty, but also the ratification of NORAD, bringing Canada and Quebec deeper into the grasp of American global imperialism. Sadly, both of these sides claim to be progressive.

But the one party/political ideal that always takes the moral high ground, for reasons that continue to elude me, are the Conservatives.

Now when, I speak of the conservatives, understand my full meaning. Usually I am referring to the Conservative party of Canada, but I also sometimes include the other flavours of Canadian conservatism as well, such as the Progressive Canadian party, the fledgling Alberta Alliance,the remenants of the Social Credit party, reactionary rags like the Western Standard, and various other think-tanks and political organizations.

Even when referring to the Conservative party of Canada, I include all of the various incarnations of the Conservative party, past to present, from their early reactionary stance of towing the line of British Imperialism, to their various mergers with the Progressives and then Canadian alliance/reform party, to the current party of Stephen Harper.

As I have stated many times before, I can not understand the allure of conservatism, and I most likely never will. Conservatism is a system that makes no promises to the working class majority. The most reactionary elements of the working class tow the line of the bourgeoisie , and yet do not seem to benefit from it in any way, and probably never will.

My Conservative friend tells me that the Conservative party of Canada has done so many good things for Canada. I ask her to give me an example, and she says that they have lowered taxes, to which I say "Where do you think Social programs come from?" as is one of the slogans of the Marxist-Leninist party, "Stop paying the rich, increase funding for social programs." She replied "Oh yeah, I forgot; you're a Socialist.", and the disgust was apparent in her voice. The conversation ended as though she had somehow made a remarkable insight or snappy argument, when in actuality she had not answered my question, nor provided me with insight into her point of view. Truly an interesting demonstration of Conservative ideological hegemony.

What does conservatism offer to any person who is not a member of the capitalist class?
Conservatism only offers financial breaks for the obscenely wealthy, dissolution of any existing social programs, a hostile foreign policy and an equally hostile domestic policy. Even worse, the crisis of modern conservatism is so desperate that conservatism has had to merge with the most reactionary wings of Christianity to try to appeal to the people, which is a necessity, given their elitist economic policies, and pseudo-facist agenda. The modern conservative movement has had to adopt the puritanical ideals of a religion that shares absolutely nothing in common with conservatism, all in the name of continuing to propagate a failed economic system. Homophobic tendencies, opposition to evolutionary theory and abortion, as well as the promotion of a puritanical moral code illustrate the recent priorities of the modern conservative movement in many nations, as well as the complete bankruptcy of it's ideology. Truly, upholding the agenda of religious zealotry is a new low for a constantly mutating, bourgeois political ideology.

The Conservative party of Canada is a party that has opposed homosexual marriage, continued to involve Canada in the quagmires of Afghanistan and Haiti, tried to destroy what remains of nationalized health care in Alberta(and is still trying), bowed to all pressures of the United States of America, drastically slashed social programs, drastically slashed environmental protection legislation and passed the devious Bill C2, which allows the state to interfere in the internal workings of political parties under the guise of "federal accountability". All of this in addition to the standard misappropriation of funds, backroom dealing, etc. Not bad for a party that came into office most recently on less than 40% of the vote. Ugh.

People hassle me about alleged crimes committed in a country across an ocean, decades ago, by parties with similar political ideals to my own, and yet they ignore the actual crimes committed against the peoples of Canada and Quebec by the Canadian capitalist parties.

Still, I guess I can't complain. The conservative party continues to pursue un-popular policies
and staunchly uphold reactionary zealotry and American imperialism, desperately clinging to their paltry base of supporters. Conservatism is in crisis, and from here it will either give way to Liberal reformism, or full blown fascism.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

*Bingogate was a scandal that occurred during the administration of former Premier of British Columbia Michael Harcourt, involving the skimming of charity funds for use by the ruling NDP.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Off with his head!

These days it really is quite amazing when I look back at some of my early political developments. At first I wasn't very progressive at all. I repeated a lot of second hand opinions from my conservative step-father, opinions that were not my own, with a complete lack of political consciousness.

As I moved on, I started to become more Social-democratic in practice, a fan of the Reformist/liberal Michael Moore. I watched his Labour-aristocratic documentaries, I read his
Liberal-reformist analysis of global politics, and basically adopted his outlook of world politics.
It wasn't Marxism, but it was a shove in the general direction of the political left.

From there, thankfully, there were other developments that pushed me even farther to the left.
I became a Marxist, albeit an Intellectual one. My orthodox, ivory tower approach to Marxism, which shunned the deviational revisionism of Leninism, and the alleged atrocities of Anti-revisionism, eventually gave way to adoption of the Leninist interpretation of Marxism after further studying and organizing.

From this watered down, parliamentary democratic outlook on Leninism, I finally metamorphosized into my present incarnation, into an Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist.
thankfully, I have continued to progress to a more revolutionary level each time.

From looking back at my own political development, I look at the political development of others who are close to me, and it is somewhat surreal, especially those who are now at a level I left behind a long time ago.

Most recently, as I stated in my previous post, I have become very aware of my own distaste with the general criticism of the American fascist leader George W Bush. This is strange for me, as at one time I was doing the exact same thing. Criticizing Bush doesn't seem incorrect, as it is undoubtedly well deserved, it just seems to have ulterior motives, which I have not noticed before.

The mass media, the talking-heads of bourgeoisie political analysis, and pop-culture in general are all promoting criticism of George Bush. Even his own republican party cronies are betraying him. This is very strange, as George W Bush is made out to be one of the principal leaders, or at least a frontman, of the capitalist class.

Why would the capitalist class, which owns all media, controls all political analysis, and has roots in all of the major political parties, not suppress the rampant criticism of the "president", let along encourage it?

As Chairman Mao Tse Tung wrote, "In the world today, all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines." The mass media of the bourgeoisie promotes the interests of the bourgeoisie, so why would the bourgeoisie be blaming all of their problems on one of their own, a man that they blatantly stole an election in order to install as their president.

Who is benefiting from this culture of Bush Bashing? How is the Capitalist class benefiting from the popular criticism of their man in Washington?

As near as I can see, the actions of this "President" seem to be in line with the interests of the Capitalist class: realization of a long awaited plan for war in Iraq, unconditional support for the state of Israel and the Cuban exiles, harnessing the reactionary masses by appealing to their religious fundamentalism, promotion of corporate interests in every corner of the globe, amnesty for reactionary terrorists, vigilant action against socialism, etc. As near as I can see, George W Bush has upheld the agenda of the capitalist class very well.

So why are they disowning him now?

I think the most likely reason that the capitalist class is turning on the fascist war chief ,that they themselves put into power, is for the purposes of damage control. Things have not gone according to plan. American Imperialism in Iraq is spiraling out of control, the economy of the USA is in crisis, the puritanical laws passed by the Bush administration are being met with more resistance than was expected, the heroic forces of the Lebanese people are receiving more support against the fascist Israelis than they predicted, corporate criminals and war criminals are being faced with the overwhelming demands of the people to answer for their crimes, and on May Day millions of illegal immigrants, the back bone of the American way of life, took a stand against the fascist measures of the bourgeoisie.

Things have gone very wrong indeed. The people are angry with their leaders, but more importantly, they are angry with the system itself. At this time, the masses are very close to awakening, to the realization of social and political consciousness. This must be averted at all costs, hence the capitalist class has chosen a whipping boy. The mighty warchief has become the international scapegoat, and he is now actively shunned by those that benefited the most from his regime. Or at least, he is publicly shunned. Behind closed doors, who knows what dealings still take place.

The whipping boy has been presented to the masses, in desperate hopes that he will be blamed for all the problems and spectacular failures of the policies of the capitalist classes. So far this tactic seems to be working, as the guilt for all crimes Political, military, environmental and economic, has been thrust onto the shoulders of the hapless warchief, completely absolving the Republican party, the Democratic party, the multi-national corporations, the CIA, Special interest organizations and the entire state and imperialist class of America from the responsibility of their failed agenda.

Personally, I blame the puppeteers before I cast blame on the puppet.