“The North-South Division”

The following is an excerpt from a essay titled The Socialist Project in a Disintegrated Capitalist World, written by Greek writer Arghiri Emmanuel in 1976.

The North-South division

It is largely accepted today that development and under-development are not autonomous and juxtaposed phenomena which can be examined each within its own terms, but that they are phenomena organically and functionally interrelated.

That is a common place. What is less familiar is the observation that not only is development of the periphery blocked by the very existence of the center, and the growth of the center reinforced by the resources drawn from the periphery, but that this center is today over-developed to the very same extent that the periphery is under-developed.

What can this over or under-development be measured against? It may be measured in relation to the level of development which the existing economic system, in this case the capitalist mode of production, can, under present historical conditions, secure at the level of the whole of mankind.

This means that the United States can be the United States and Sweden can be Sweden only because others, that is, the two billion inhabitants of the Third World, are not.

This also means that every material equalization from the top down is excluded. If, by some miracle, a socialist and fraternal system, regardless of its type or model, were introduced tomorrow morning the world over, and if it wanted to integrate, to homogenize mankind by equalizing living standards, then to do this it would not only have to expropriate the capitalists of the entire world, but also dispossess large sections of the working class of the industrialized countries, of the amount of surplus value these sections appropriate today. It seems this is reason enough for these working classes not to desire this ‘socialist and fraternal’ system and to express their opposition by either openly integrating into the existing system, as in the United States of America or the Federal Republic of Germany, or by advocating national paths to socialism, as in France or Italy.

This is not a question of principles, but a question of interests. A few global figures will be enough to show this. In 1973, the average annual wage in the USA amounted to around US$10,500. The population of the entire capitalist world at that time was about 2.6 billion, and there was a little over a billion economically active. To pay all these economically active people on an American scale would require close to eleven trillion dollars. However, the total national income of these countries in 1973 amounted to only $2.7 trillion.

This means, even if all income earned without the counterparts of labor, profits, rents, interest rates, etc., (which are all components of surplus value) were abolished and mankind resolved to be satisfied from now on with simple reproduction, relinquishing all progress and consuming its entire product, it would not, under these hypothetical conditions, be able to reach more than an average wage of $2,500 per year, that is, a quarter of the American wage.

It is precisely this that severs solidarity between the working classes of the center and the periphery. While all the working classes were subjected to exploitation, no matter how disparate its degree, even when one was 90% exploited and the other 10%, they had an interest in uniting and fighting arm-in-arm, and together expropriating their exploiters, despite the fact that this expropriation improved the situation for some considerably more than for others. But from the moment the workers of certain countries ceased to be the suppliers of surplus value (no matter how little) and became recipients, the situation was reversed and the positions of the working classes became antagonistic to one another.

It might be maintained that this comparison in terms of dollars or surplus value rates is too abstract and illusory. I will suggest another, in physical terms. Today, the citizen of America consumes an extraordinary amount of basic raw materials. Were all the inhabitants of this planet to follow his example and consume the same amount per person, all known deposits of iron ore would be exhausted in forty years, copper deposits in eight years, tin deposits in six years, and petroleum in five and a half years!

However, exhaustion of deposits and reserves is not the only factor that prevents world equalization from above. Ecological limits represent another.

If today’s developed countries can still rid themselves of their wastes by dumping them into the sea or the air, this is so because they are the only ones doing it; similarly, if their citizens can still travel by plane without great difficulty, that is because others have not the means to fly and leave them the privilege of clogging the skies, etc., etc.

These calculations involve no unsubstantial and slippery concepts such as surplus value, capital, etc., or such computable categories as profit, interest rates, etc., but of the consumption of palpable materials. Hence, it is the great mass of the population, the wage-workers themselves who are involved.

It follows from this that apart from all other considerations and all other antagonisms, under today’s objective natural and technological conditions, and in the foreseeable future, the people of today’s rich countries can consume all the things that make up their material well-being and which they seem to value, only because others use them either very little or not at all. They can reprocess their wastes simply because others have nothing much to reprocess. Otherwise, the ecological balance would be fatally imperiled.

This is what makes the antagonism between the center and the periphery irresolvable and transforms the entire working class of certain countries into the worker aristocracy of the earth.

From:

”The Socialist Project in a Disintegrated Capitalist World” by Arghiri Emmanuel. From Socialist Thought and Practice : A Yugoslav Monthly, vol. 16, no. 9, 1976, pp. 69-87.

Translated by the Maoist Information Website. Read full article here.

Obama, “Black” Messiah for White Amerika

Liberals, even some calling themselves ’revolutionaries,’ have a chronically false ideal of Amerika. Instead of seeing historical injustices carried out by Amerika as part of its overall development, liberals see such things as disconnected aberrations which can be resolved through in a piecemeal fashion through progressive determination. They see Amerika, though flawed, as an unfinished experiment in freedom and democracy.

Revolutionaries see Amerika as a product of unending injustices carried out upon oppressed peoples. Revolutionaries see Amerika and all the decadent elements which constitute it as something that needs to be destroyed as part of the global struggle to build a better world. While revolutionaries hate Amerika, liberals love Amerika: they are always trying to save it, to reform it, to make it realize its so-called historic potential.

To this end, an Obama presidency marks a major step. White liberals are projecting their own hopes and aspirations regarding Amerika onto Obama. Having a Black man lead a nation founded on the slavery of Blacks is for many a confirmation that Amerika is still the land of hope. An Obama presidency represents evidence that even into the 21st century, Amerika is still becoming a better, more perfect democracy. Because of this, the historical narratives spun around Obama are endless. For much of Amerika, Obama is a near-messianic figure.

Within the liberal paradigm, by electing Obama, Amerika can go from a country shamed by the Bush administration to one reformed, made better. An Obama presidency proves that Amerikan democracy works. Amerika can arrive as a more pluralistic open society whose legitimacy as the leader of the world is reaffirmed. An Obama presidency represents the continuation of Amerikan supremacy without Bush’s overtly hee-haw element. Obama represents a form of imperialism which liberal Amerikans can be proud of.

But liberal love-amerika types are not the only force driving the Obama campaign. Within the imperialist camp, many view the overly belligerent Bush administration as a disaster. Over the last 8 years, Amerika’s actions have rightly inspired hate and resistance the world over.

Loosing the iron fist and taking up the velvet glove is understood by many to be a more effective approach to imperialism. Within much of the imperialist camp, a popular Obama presidency is seen as more conducive to their own long term interests. Obama is seen as a figure who can recover what power Amerika has lost over the last 8 years.

Obama, and the forces behind him, are not revolutionaries. They are not trying to end Amerikan imperialism. Rather, for those who benefit from imperialist exploitation, Obama is seen as savior, a messiah who can bring the return to Amerika’s power and so-called greatness. These are the social forces that will, in all likelihood, drive Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.

Obama Shocks Arab World, Touts Imperialist Credentials

Obama Shocks Arab World, Touts Imperialist Credentials

Released by RAIM-Denver, 6/12/08

Hours after he secured the Democratic Party nomination, U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama spoke before the Amerikan Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  “We will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security… Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and must remain undivided,” he said, receiving standing ovations before the influential lobbying group’s annual meeting.

Israel captured and occupied 85% of the city of Jerusalem during the 1948 war. After successive years of forced relocations of Palestinian residents, Israel seized the remainder of the city, East Jerusalem, in the 1967 war. Israel continues to this day to push Palestinians into an ever-shrinking, un-occupied territory. Palestinians recently recognized the sixtieth anniversary of the 1948 event, which they call al-Nakba, or the Catastrophe.

Although Obama has thus far received much attention because of his proclaimed message of change, recent comments have left many puzzled and angry. Mahmoud Abbas, the pro-Western leader of the Palestinian Fatah Party, rejected Obama’s pro-Israel pandering stating, “We will not accept an independent Palestinian state without [East] Jerusalem as its capital.” “That should be clear,” he continued. (1)

Obama described the bond between Israel and the U.S. as “unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable forever… Those who threaten Israel threaten us.” Saying he would bring an “unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” he promised to ensure Israel’s “qualitative military advantage” over its neighbors.

Israel has long been the largest recipient of U.S. direct foreign aid. Obama, if elected, said he will increase the amount to 3 billion dollars per year over the next decade. He highlighted the hegemonic imperialist aspect of such aid by summarizing it as “investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.” (2)

In the First World, the ‘green’ movement is rather large. The Democratic Party has announced that this year’s Democratic National Convention will be the first green convention of its kind. Speaking to the Zionist crowd, Obama tied his environmentalism directly to Israel and Amerika’s security and proposed joint green ventures: “We must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill Amerikan troops and Israeli citizens… It’s time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year’s U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development.” ‘Progressive’ indeed.

Obama vowed to continue George Bush’s policy towards Hamas: “We must isolate Hamas… There is no room for terrorists at the negotiating table.” In early 2006, Hamas, an anti-Western Palestinian liberation movement, won a large majority in Palestinian parliamentary elections. The Bush Administration refused to recognize the new government, retained communications only with the comprador Fatah Party and placed sanctions on Hamas-controlled areas of Palestine. Reacting to Obama’s speech, a Hamas spokesperson remarked, “These recent statements slash any hope of any change to U.S. foreign policy.” (3) (4)

Obama singled out Iran as the greatest threat in the region. “There is no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran… the danger from Iran is grave, it is real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” He promised to use “aggressive, principled diplomacy… backed by real leverage.” Elaborating he said, “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” One can only assume that there are numerous regional threats which Obama feels should be dealt with in the same manner. (5)

Adding weight to Obama’s threats towards Iran were hints that U.S. military involvement in the Muslim world would not be ending anytime soon. Earlier in the evening during his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party nomination, Obama said that leaving our troops in Iraq was not an option, “especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.” (6) At the Zionist AIPAC assembly later in the evening, Obama proposed a “phased redeployment” of the troops “from Iraq.” (7) In the past, Obama has stated that more troops are needed in Afghanistan and that incursions into Pakistan are possible. ( 8 )

Despite his hawkish language, the anti-war movement has largely rallied around Obama. Much of his campaign thus far has been focused on “change” and a “new way of doing things.” Obama has stated he is against the war in Iraq and thinks of it as a failure. Likewise, throughout his campaign he has promised to enhance the role of dialogue in foreign policy while also making token statements about issues dear to ‘progressive’ Amerikans: the environment, healthcare, education and the Amerikan economy. For these reasons, Obama has picked up the support of many anti-war progressives and even so-called radicals.

But what kind of change is Barack Obama really about? Does Barack Obama really want to create a new world based on equality and mutuality of interest, or would his presidency merely herald in years of marginally different tactics towards the same end? What is the actual change Obama wants to bring?

From Obama’s AIPAC speech: “Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.”

On Iran, Obama continued his diatribe about ‘dialogue,’ “We will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives… If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.” As earlier referenced, Obama pledged to keep the threat of military intervention on the negotiating table.

What becomes clear is that Obama remains faithful to the paradigm of bullying nations into subordination, and that he maintains the right to use military force against those who resist. The change that Obama will bring is merely a difference in how to pursue such an imperialist imperative.

Particularly, Obama declares that he will find the “appropriate leaders” to talk to. While the tactic of splitting movements and nations through selective diplomacy and incentives is not new, it has not been widely or as effectively used by the Bush Administration.

Going further into the issue, Obama says he was against holding Palestinian elections in 2006, “with Hamas on the ballot.” Obama stated, “I will strongly urge Arab governments… to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.” He also said he would urge Israel to improve conditions in the Fatah-controlled West Bank as a way of further isolating Hamas.

While clearly stating he is not opposed to the most aggressive of actions, Obama presents himself as making Amerika stronger through such one-sided, bullish ‘dialogue.’ In terms of foreign policy, Obama is simply promising to be a better imperialist.

Speaking again before AIPAC he himself summed it up, “My presidency will strengthen our hand… [I will bring] change that restores America’s power and influence.” Such a message, combined with his token ‘progressive’ promises about further improving conditions for the parasitic Amerikan “working” and “middle” classes, has made Obama a candidate who garners support from both hawkish Zionists as well as Amerikan so-called anti-war ‘leftists.’ (9)

It is our sincerest hopes that those who truly seek radical humanist change will recognize and reject Obama and what he represents. Instead of embracing promises of a more effective, ‘peaceful’ imperialism, with presumably a more equitable distribution of the profits within Amerikan borders, we urge real progressives and radicals to make a complete break with imperialist politics. We urge people seeking true change to instead embrace the struggles of those actively resisting U.S. imperialism and working to build a new world. Only through the destruction of imperialism and similarly oppressive and exploitative structures can a world of true equality, mutuality and peace exist.

Notes.

1. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/018DB5D0-3C59-46D9-97AE-3F7BB909CD4F

2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

3. http://www.demconvention.com/

speaker-pelosi-dncc-announce-green-delegate-challenge-for-2008-democratic-national-convention/

4. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93FE247B-452D-4022-8374-088D8704C1DE

5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

6. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/98FEB6B7-E363-4AD7-A5F8-200415B9924F

7. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

8. http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-0821.html

9. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

Huey P. Newton: “In Defense of Self-Defense”

(In light of ongoing and continuing debates and discussion of nonviolence, and the principle of self-defense, we present an essay written by Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, the most influential revolutionary national liberation organization of recent times. The essay was overly optimistic in terms of the potential of revolution by the Black masses, as the U.$. has since this time bought off much of the Black nation into the labor aristocracy. Nevertheless, Newton gives an uncompromising statement for the right of self-defense of oppressed peoples, and shows the opposition to this is rooted in hypocrisy and white privilege by “progressives” who de-facto support the status quo. - RAIMD).

==============================================================

"In Defense of Self-Defense" 

Huey P. Newton

June 20, 1967

Men were not created in order to obey laws. Laws are created to obey men. They are established by men and should serve men. The laws and rules which officials inflict upon poor people prevent them from functioning harmoniously in society.   There is no disagreement about this function of law in any circle the disagreement arises from the question of which men laws are to serve.  Such lawmakers ignore the fact that it is the duty of the poor and unrepresented to construct rules and laws that serve their interests better. Rewriting unjust laws is a basic human right and fundamental obligation.

Before 1776 America was a British colony. The British Government had certain laws and rules that the colonized Americans rejected as not being in their best interests. In spite of the British conviction that Americans had no right to establish their own laws to promote the general welfare of the people living here in America, the colonized immigrant felt he had no choice but to raise the gun to defend his welfare. Simultaneously he made certain laws to ensure his protection from external and internal aggressions, from other governments, and his own agencies. One such form of protection was the Declaration of Independence, which states: “. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Now these same colonized White people, these bondsmen, paupers, and thieves deny the colonized Black man not only the right to abolish this oppressive system, but to even speak of abolishing it. Having carried this madness and cruelty to the four corners of the earth, there is now universal rebellion against their continued rule and power. But as long as the wheels of the imperialistic war machine are turning, there is no country that can defeat this monster of the West. It is our belief that the Black people in America are the only people who can free the world, loosen the yoke of colonialism, and destroy the war machine. Black people who are within the machine can cause it to malfunction. They can, because of their intimacy with the mechanism, destroy the engine that is enslaving the world. America will not be able to fight every Black country in the world and fight a civil war at the same time. It is militarily impossible to do both of these things at once.

The slavery of Blacks in this country provides the oil for the machinery of war that America uses to enslave the peoples of the world. Without this oil the machinery cannot function. We are the driving shaft; we are in such a strategic position in this machinery that, once we become dislocated, the functioning of the remainder of the machinery breaks down.

Penned up in the ghettos of America, surrounded by his factories and all the physical components of his economic system, we have been made into “the wretched of the earth,” relegated to the position of spectators while the White racists run their international con game on the suffering peoples. We have been brainwashed to believe that we are powerless and that there is nothing we can do for ourselves to bring about a speedy liberation for our people. We have been taught that we must please our oppressors, that we are only ten percent of the population, and therefore must confine our tactics to categories calculated not to disturb the
sleep of our tormentors.

The power structure inflicts pain and brutality upon the peoples and then provides controlled outlets for the pain in ways least likely to upset them, or interfere with the process of exploitation. The people must repudiate the established channels as tricks and deceitful snares of the exploiting oppressors. The people must oppose everything the oppressor supports, and support everything that he opposes. If Black people go about their struggle for liberation in the way that the oppressor dictates and sponsors, then we will have degenerated to the level of groveling flunkies for the oppressor himself. When the oppressor makes a vicious attack against freedom-fighters because of the way that such freedom-fighters choose to go about their liberation, then we know we are moving in the direction of our liberation. The racist dog oppressors have no rights which oppressed Black people are bound to respect. As long as the racist dogs pollute the earth with the evil of their actions, they do not deserve any respect at all, and the “rules” of their game,
written in the people’s blood, are beneath contempt.

The oppressor must be harassed until his doom. He must have no peace by day or by night. The slaves have always outnumbered the slavemasters. The power of the oppressor rests upon the submission of the people. When Black people really unite and rise up in all their splendid millions, they will have the strength to smash injustice. We do not understand the power in our numbers. We are millions and millions of Black people scattered across the continent and throughout the Western Hemisphere. There are more Black people in America than the total population of many countries now enjoying full membership in the United Nations. They have power and their power is based primarily on the fact that they are organized and united with each other. They are recognized by the powers of the world.

We, with all our numbers, are recognized by no one. In fact, we do not even recognize our own selves. We are unaware of the potential power latent in our numbers. In 1967, in the midst of a hostile racist nation whose hidden racism is rising to the surface at a phenomenal speed, we are still so blind to our critical fight for our very survival that we are continuing to function in petty, futile ways. Divided, confused, fighting among ourselves, we are still in the elementary stage of throwing rocks, sticks, empty wine bottles and beer cans at racist police who lie in wait for a chance to murder unarmed Black people. The racist police have worked out a system for suppressing these spontaneous rebellions that flare up from the anger, frustration, and desperation of the masses of Black people. We can no longer afford the dubious luxury of the terrible casualties wantonly inflicted upon us by the police during these rebellions.

Black people must now move, from the grass roots up through the perfumed circles of the Black bourgeoisie, to seize by any means necessary a proportionate share of the power vested and collected in the structure of America. We must organize and unite to combat by long resistance the brutal force used against us daily. The power structure depends upon the use of force within retaliation. This is why they have made it a felony to teach guerrilla warfare. This is why they want the people unarmed.

The racist dog oppressors fear the armed people; they fear most of all Black people armed with weapons and the ideology of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. An unarmed people are slaves or are subject to slavery at any given moment. If a government is not afraid of the people it will arm the people against foreign aggression. Black people are held captive in the midst of their oppressors. There is a world of difference between thirty million unarmed submissive Black people and thirty million Black people armed with freedom, guns, and the strategic methods of liberation.

When a mechanic wants to fix a broken-down car engine, he must have the necessary tools to do the job. When the people move for liberation they must have the basic tool of liberation: the gun. Only with the power of the gun can the Black masses halt the terror and brutality directed against them by the armed racist power structure; and in one sense only by the power of the gun can the whole world be transformed into the earthly paradise dreamed of by the people from time immemorial. One successful practitioner of the art and science of national liberation and self-defense, Brother Mao Tse-tung, put it this way: “We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

The blood, sweat, tears and suffering of Black people are the foundations of the wealth and power of the United States of America. We were forced to build America, and if forced to, we will tear it down. The immediate result of this destruction will be suffering and bloodshed. But the end result will be the perpetual peace for all mankind.

National Liberation and Anti-Imperialism

By Nick Brown

The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver is a movement for global equality. We stand for the end of the imperialist system: the system whereby a handful of powerful nations exploit the peoples of the world. We see the termination of imperialism as a necessary first step to a world of lasting peace and real equality.

Anti-imperialism is foremost a fight for national liberation. Most broadly construed, national liberation is the struggle to not be exploited by outside oppressors, but to exist as a self-determining, free nation.

National liberation struggles happen throughout the world on a variety of levels. Venezuela is an example where a progressive section of the ruling class is now leading a campaign for national salvation; providing much needed reforms for the masses while challenging U.S. supremacy on a regional level. There are the numerous armed groups in Mexico, numbering in the mid-teens (not just the Zapatistas), who are fighting a comprador government. Hezbollah, the patriotic Islamic party in Lebanon, has challenged Western influence in the country, provided social welfare for the people and aligned with various Lebanese parties [including Christian ones] in their struggle against Amerikan/Zionist aggression. And we cannot forget the heroic Iraqi resistance.

These forces, taken together, form a worldwide movement against Western imperialism. These diverse individual movements, insofar as they are challenging imperialism, should be supported by freedom and peace loving peoples everywhere.

If Third World anti-imperialist struggles are capable of cutting vital lifelines [of wealth and resources] to imperialism, national liberation struggles internal to the U.S. are capable of delivering blows from within. In the grand scheme of things, within the worldwide movement towards anti-imperialism, these national liberation movements represent a mighty ally, behind enemy lines, within what is geographically called the United States. Because of this, and because these struggles are so close to home, national liberation for internally oppressed nations hold a special significance for us.

While national liberation is not currently the dominant trend amongst oppressed nations within Amerika, national struggles themselves are part of the dialect of everyday life. These struggles manifest in a variety of ways but carry common themes.

For Mexicanos, Indigenous Peoples and Blacks, theirs is the struggle not to be criminalized and disproportionately held captive in White-Amerika’s prison system. It is the struggle to not have their cultures mocked, repressed, co-opted and whitewashed. It is the struggle to not have the lowest life expectancies within the United States. It is a struggle to practice one’s national culture with pride; to be treated as equal members of society; to exist free from the oppression leveled on them by Amerika.

Typically, national struggles take one of two routes: one, the route of liberation as a nation, and the other, integration into the imperialistic, Amerikan oppressor society.

The latter, integration into the Amerikan oppressor society, is the main trend today. This is the path favored by poverty pimps, white chauvinists and the state. The integration route was made widely available through the widening and deepening of exploitation abroad while given impetus by the explosive successes of national liberation struggles during the 1960s and 70s. The reformist integrationist route, while also a national struggle, is antithetical to revolutionary national liberation. Ending oppression through integration means being absorbed into Amerika’s “multi-cultural” oppressor society. It is the democratization of imperialist privilege and the diversification of the labor aristocracy. Integrationism is not revolutionary and is not in the least bit anti-imperialist.

For oppressed nations inside Amerika, the struggle for national liberation is mainly tied to the struggle for a territory on which a free nation can exist. Without such a land, oppressed nations are doomed to live within White-Amerika–forced to suffer oppression while at the same time being lured by trickle-down imperialist privilege. While the goal of national liberation struggles is the creation of sovereign national territories, the planting of seeds for such political power is a necessary first step.

While full-blown national power will not develop quickly or easily, national liberation movements themselves are of utmost importance today. The strengthening of national liberation movements, the expansion of networks and the creation of independent spaces from which these networks and broader movements can operate is a task for which the outcome will weigh heavily on the future.

As success for peoples of the Third World build up, national liberation struggles inside the U.S. can become a destabilizing force within the heart of imperialism. This will make the prospects of revolution greater. At the same time, national liberation struggles will be a focal point of revolutionary gravity within the First World. In the long term, successes made today in creating the basis for independent national power [for oppressed nations within the U.S.] will translate into much wider successes for all people oppressed by U.S. imperialism further down the road.

It is with these considerations in mind that we champion national liberation struggles within United States. We do so not to advance ourselves or to look edgy. We do so from our general anti-imperialist perspective. For us, any single movement for national liberation here is part of the broader international revolutionary struggle to end oppression once and for all.

Your School is a Prison

Your School is a Prison << Full sized PDF here

TCD covered in Egypt

Egyptian Weekly Newspaper, Al-Ahram, covers KKKolumbus Day:

Burying Columbus in Palestine

Indigenous movements in the 21st century understand that the struggle is not about gaining access, but defeating domination. Will the Palestinians take heed, asks Bassem Ahmed*

---

For more than a decade now, thousands of people in Denver, Colorado, have been spending the first weekend of October in the streets both celebrating and protesting. This year was no exception. Crowds from different national and ethnic backgrounds came out to participate in the Four Directions March; a celebration organised by the Transform Columbus Day Alliance (TCDA), an umbrella group of grassroots organisations that envision a world freed of Columbus’s legacy. Afterwards they took to the streets to protest and block the “Convoy of Conquest”, the name they use to label the Columbus Day Parade, and demand a change of the name of this official holiday. As usual, scores of protesters were arrested for violating the legally sanctioned “right” of the parade organisers to “honour their hero”.

What is this fuss all about? After all, wasn’t Columbus, as we were all (mis)educated, a great explorer who “discovered” the “New World” in 1492, the same year that Arab rule in Andalusia came to an end? It is quite striking that Arab commentators who lament the latter often celebrate the former without trying to further interrogate the significance of this coincidence. “Objective” history books usually focus on Columbus’s skills (didn’t he think he was sailing to India?) and resilience. The ensuing systematic destruction of indigenous societies, the establishment of a transatlantic slave trade, and the exploitation of the wealth and resources of the so-called New World are minor details that more often than not go unmentioned.

It is precisely this marginalised narrative that the TCDA wants to bring to the fore. For protesters in Denver, Columbus’s trips and crimes were the opening act in the process that led to the crystallisation of a system of domination that subjected non-white peoples to the power of Europeans…

Read More

A Bunch of Eichmanns Put on Notice That They’re A Bunch of Eichmanns

In a very special event celebrating the two-faced “humanitarianism” that comes hand in hand with amerikan imperialism, Wayne ‘Dirty’ Murdy was given an “International Bridge Builders” award by the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. There to present the award was none other than Madeleine ‘Worth It’ Albright. So of course, there was a protest.

Around 100 people showed up to protest the eco-terrorist Wayne Murdy and the crazed old butcher Madeleine Albright. Of course many of the protesters wouldn’t have framed their reasons for being there in quite this manner. Needless to say, RAIM-Denver has its own politics.

RAIM-Denver upholds radicalism not liberalism. We don’t fight “opponents,” we stand against oppressors. So right from the get go we entered the protest not thinking we had to adhere to the status quo of amerikan activism. However, this mindset spilled over and altered the entire tone of the protest when someone early-on gave Nick, a RAIM-Denver member, the biggest megaphone on the block. Oh ya, it was on.

Wasting no time, this opportunity was quickly seized upon to speak some truth. Agitating to the extreme, Nick pulled no verbal punches. Among other truths, these Eichmanns were told straight up that they were Eichmanns. This of course irritated some. But Nick knew this wasn‘t the time to “tone it down.” Instead, to both the ire of Eichmanns and to the liberals, he boomed “I have the megaphone.”

A guest appearance was made by liar extraordinaire Omar Jabara, the head of public relations for Newmont Mining. Omar actually slithered up with his wife to the protesting crowd and shook the hand of this vocal RAIMer. Asked if the crowd could throw Wayne Murdy off a bridge and Madeline Albright off a taller one, a slightly overwhelmed Jabara didn’t really have an answer but instead nervously offered a fake smile. Not real smooth for a public relations department head. Needless to say, Omar didn’t stick around long.

Madeleine Albright, the mad queen of state sanctioned terror, even appeared before the crowd. This came as a shock to RAIM-Denver since we thought she was allergic to sunlight. Nick, by this time really amped up, had already encouraged the valets to slam the car doors on the arriving Eichmanns. The necessity of such an action became apparent as she arrived. Nick later said, “When she looked into my eyes I could feel the souls of half a million dead Iraqi children.” Chilling indeed.

For being such humanitarians, Dirty Murdy and Mad Madeleine sure did need a lot of security. The entire perimeter of the Marriot was guarded. A big deal was made about protestors not being on Marriot property. At one point an Indigenous womyn near the RAIM-Denver agitator was told to go back to the sidewalk by a pig. Nick pointed out that the cop was on her property and told him to get off. He didn’t listen.

It should be mentioned that not everyone was displeased by RAIM-Denver’s amplified presence. Nick drew nods and laughs from many of the protesters. Those who did express contention with Nick were all white liberals. That’s not to say that we didn’t have support from white protesters, just that those whites probably weren’t liberals. On the other hand, not a single Indigenous persyn seemed displeased. In fact, the aforementioned womyn even thanked Nick for his remarks about amerika being built on land stolen from her ancestors.

All and all it was a great event. RAIM-Denver put the spotlight on radical politics and in the process made people on both sides of the sidewalk uncomfortable. Needless to say, we don’t necessarily consider this a bad thing. And, despite Newmont’s PR campaign against RAIM-Denver leading up to the event, we are happy to report that we have not lost a single grant or big donor. Omar, you failed.

[Photo from the kind folks at tryworks.org]

Omar, you can send your resume to RAIM-Denver. We promise to read it. But don’t call us, we’ll call you.

RAIM-Denver mentioned by Newmont PR

With the recent news of Newmont Chair Wayne ‘Dirty’ Murdy getting a humanitarian award despite the mining company’s numerous human rights violations, and the outrage it has generated, in some of this coverage our own blog has received attention.

From the blog of Al Lewis, who wrote an article giving fair time to activist criticisms of Newmont:

Some of these activist complaining about Newmont are reasonable. Some are not. Like the Anti-Imperialist Movement of Denver (sic), which refers to Albright as a “mass murdering lunatic hiding behind the ‘legitimacy’ of the United Snakes.”…(I guess, being a proud American, this makes me a snake, too. Slither. Slither.) (1)

First of all, Lewis can’t even get the name of the group right, the “Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement of Denver.” For making an accusation that we are “unreasonable” he should at least get our name right! And in being unreasonable about Newmont, he focuses on what we said about Madeleine Albright.

This is in reference to when she was UN Ambassador, in a widely quoted remark on 60 minutes, where she responded that even though the sanctions killed 500,000 children they were ultimately “worth it.” A year later she was confirmed as Secretary of State under Clinton, which continued genocidal sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq. She sort-of apologized for the statement in her memoir “Madam Secretary”, but that apology was hardly adequate.(2)

Two days after Al Lewis’ snide comment, the main Public Relations guy of Newmont wrote in, and here’s what he had to say:

Deserving of DU award?

Re: “Not all that glitters is good,” Aug. 5 Al Lewis column

I believe your readers should judge for themselves if Newmont Chairman Wayne Murdy is deserving of the University of Denver’s International Bridge Builders Award. The stated purpose of the award is to recognize people who have “distinguished themselves as builders of ties between Colorado and the world beyond our national frontiers.”

As such, I invite your readers to visit our 2006 sustainability report at: www.BeyondTheMine.com. This report is compiled as part of our ongoing obligations under the United Nations’ Global Compact (www.unglobalcompact.org) and in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative’s guidelines(www.globalreporting.org). In addition, World
Monitors Inc. (www.worldmonitors.com) provides independent assurance of the objectivity, materiality and credibility of the report.

Also, I invite your readers to visit the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement of Denver’s Web page describing why they think Wayne Murdy should not receive the award: http://raimd.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/pre-tcd-2-for-1/

Omar Jabara
Senior Director of Communications and Media Relations
Newmont Mining Corporation
Denver”

Mr Jabara urges people to judge for themselves whether Wayne Murdy should be honored for “building bridges,” while he gives a link to Newmont’s whitewash website and at the same time he urges people to visit RAIM-D on what we think about Wayne Murdy.

It would be a great stretch to think that Newmont’s PR department would want people to get into revolutionary politics. Rather both Lewis and Jabara are engaged in classic PR tactics against radical activists. Here is an article from Covert Action Quarterly(4) that describes these tactics:

Ronald Duchin, senior vice-president of another PR spy firm Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchin …. A graduate of the US Army War College, Duchin worked as a special assistant to the secretary of defense and director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars before becoming a flack. Activists, he explained, fall into four categories: radicals, opportunists, idealists, and realists. He follows a three-step strategy to neutralize them: 1) isolate the radicals; 2) cultivate the idealists and educate them into becoming realists; then 3) co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry.

According to Duchin, radical activists:

want to change the system; have underlying socio/political motives [and] see multinational corporations as inherently evil….These organizations do not trust the… federal, state and local governments to protect them and to safeguard the environment. They believe, rather, that individuals and local groups should have direct power over industry. … I would categorize their principal aims right now as social justice and political empowerment.

The article continues:

 

“Idealists are also hard to deal with. They want a perfect world and find it easy to brand any product or practice which can be shown to mar that perfection as evil. Because of their intrinsic altruism, however, and because they have nothing perceptible to be gained by holding their position, they are easily believed by both the media and the public, and sometimes even politicians. However, idealists have a vulnerable point. If they can be shown that their position in opposition to an industry or its products causes harm to others and cannot be ethically justified, they are forced to change their position…. Thus, while a realist must be negotiated with, an idealist must be educated. Generally this education process requires great sensitivity and understanding on the part of the educator.”

Opportunists and realists, says Duchin, are easier to manipulate. Opportunists engage in activism seeking visibility, power, followers and, perhaps, even employment. … The key to dealing with [them] is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial victory. And realists are able to live with trade-offs; willing to work within the system; not interested in radical change; pragmatic. [They] should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue. … If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution.

By bringing attention to RAIM-D and labeling us “unreasonable,” they are first attempting to isolate the radicals. The rest of the strategy dealing with the idealists and realists is with their “social responsibility” facade.

Newmont Mining and companies like it exploit the resources of the Third World for profit. Newmont itself has left a trail of ecological destruction in places like Peru(5), Indonesia(6), Ghana(7) and in the Western Shoshone nation(8) Despite how badly Al Lewis and Newmont’s Public Relations hack would like to portray this as a RAIM-Denver vs. Newmont issue, those with brains know that it is not the real issue. The real issue is between Newmont and the affected populations. While Newmont enriches itself and raises its credibility amongst amerikans, the people of Peru, Indonesia, Ghana and the Shoshone nation remain in poverty and are often times poisoned by such operations.

The main opposition to Newmont Mining and companies like it are not First World radicals but rather the people they oppress. RAIM-Denver isn’t going to chase Wayne Murdy down with sticks and rocks, but Newmont employees have met similar opposition from the local population of places where they do business. (9) Radicals, on the other hand, whole heartedly stand up with and lend support to the struggles of oppressed peoples.

In the case of this particular protest, even without Al Lewis and Omar Jabara mentioning RAIM-Denver, it is unlikely many “realists” or “opportunists” will show up. Instead, Lewis and Newmont’s PR puppet gave more publicity to us and this protest than otherwise would have been received. For our part, we’re going to be working overtime to promote this protest and we’ll be putting in an extra effort to radicalize the idealists once they are there.

1)http://blogs.denverpost.com/lewis/2007/08/07/gold-miners-academicians-and-activists/
2)http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp
3)http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2007/08/09/newmont-deserving-of-du-award/
4)http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ55prwar2.html
5)http://www.csrwire.com/News/9314.html)
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/peru404/
http://www.foe.org/WSSD/newmont.html
6)http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14481
7)http://www.24hgold.com/printarticle.aspx?pagedest=98854&langue=en
8)http://www.wsdp.org/minewatch.htm
9)http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press698.htm

Whites Now “Minority” In Denver, Crackers Freaking Out!!

According to a recent report by the U.$. Census Bureau, Denver is now 50.01 percent non-white as of last year. So now, so-called minorities, or more accurately the non-white oppressed nations, outnumber members of the oppressor white nation in the Denver area.(1)

And not just in Denver. In nearly 10 percent of the counties in the U.$. white people are now a minority compared to non-white people, a trend that continues as time goes on.(2)

The growth of the non-white population is mostly due to the increase of “Latinos,” most of whom are Mexicanos, others Central Americans. This has affected Denver and counties around it, likely to make the latter majority-minority too.(3) And with the changing demographics, everything from Spanish-language classes to buying more tortillas than white bread is changing also. And with the growth of “Latinos” comes with it white nativism, exemplified by fascist groups like the Minutemen and idiot cracker politicians like Tom Tancredo.

On the Cracker Talk Radio circuit, this news has the radio blowhards rattling their pinhead brains. In one documented instance, Gunny Bob of 850 KOA falsely reports the news that Hispanics are now the majority. This is contradicted by the official figures, and a caller even corrects him. Gunny Bob denies saying it, but later repeats the same lie he is
on record of saying, and denied. He even gives some nonsensical crackpotism about a “sunset clause” on Manifest Destiny, and bemoans the fact that whites will be a minority by 2050.(4)

Another white trash radio yapper is Peter Boyles of 630 KHOW-AM. In his virulent hatred of Latinos, he can’t get his facts straight either. He bemoans about a Denver clinic serving Spanish-speaking peoples. He states “99 percent of Denver’s ‘Spanish-speaking population’–meaning Spanish only–coming to a health clinic are here illegally.(5) This report cited another bald-faced lie Boyles asserted: “I’m not an idiot.”

With all this, the white trash nativist right wing will use this in their continuing spasms against “illegal immigration,” despite what the facts are. No matter, we at RAIM-D welcome this news.

The United Snakes is an empire and has been an empire since its beginning. It has committed genocide against First Nations and stole their land, enslaved millions of Africans and continued national exploitation against the Black Nation, and committed imperialist aggression against Mexico and stole the northern half of the country along with oppressing the Chicano/Mexicano people on their own land. And it has committed and continues to commit imperialist atrocities in hundreds of countries since, the most recent being in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And the benefactor of this piggery has been all sections of the white nation of the U.$. The reactionary drivel from some sectors of this opppressor nation is only the more visible of the decadence of these parasites.

There is something we agree with from Gunny Bob. There is a sunset clause on Manifest Destiny, or there soon will be. Amerikkka’s pig-ass imperialism will soon have its day and we welcome its destruction. We support national liberation struggles of the captive nations inside the United States, and build a base of nation traitorism within the white nation. Less white people in the city? It’s nice to have good news once in a while.

1. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6577663

2. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008152013

3. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6588057

4. http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200708100001

5. http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200708100003

Ward Churchill Fired for Calling Little Eichmanns Little Eichmanns

[reproduction of this picture is forbidden without prior consent from RAIM-Denver]

In an unclimatic event, the University of Colorado Board of Regents, in an 8-1 vote, officially fired Professor Ward Churchill. The two-year struggle over his employment was no surprise, as fascist elements of Amerikkka clamored to have him pay for his heresy. Now another chapter begins as Ward pursues this through court.

The official reasons for his termination were for plagiarism and academic misconduct. But for everyone paying attention, he was really fired for speaking uncomfortable truths about Amerikan foreign policy. In an essay written the day after the 9/11 attacks, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens (later expanded into a book), he took a different tone from the crocodile-teared jingoism prevalent on that day. Far from the patriotic emotionalism of that day, he stated the facts about Amerikan foreign policy.

On 9/11, the chickens came home to roost. This was no surprise for those who knew the history of Amerikan imperialism. And many who died were in fact “little Eichmanns,” technocrats of a genocidal killing machine that has taken untold millions of lives around the world. Churchill, who has made a career in documenting the genocide of the First Nations and the repression of dissent, is all too familiar of this knowledge. His bluntness was welcoming.

In the beginning he was attacked not by the reactionary Right but by the so-called Left, people like Doug Henwood and Marc Cooper. (1) For all their professed radicalism, speaking truth on 9/11 was too much for them. On the other hand, it took the idiot Right Wing four years to find his essay and get outraged about it. When the University of Colorado admitted that what he said was protected by the first amendment they looked for other ways to fire him. The governor, right wing assholes, spineless liberals, white trash, and comprador Native Americans all clamored to have him hanged, and digging up any and all dirt they could on Churchill to add kindling to the witch hunt.

7/24/2007: CU Campus, Boulder CO: Judgment Day

On July 24th at the Boulder campus security was all around. The media sharks circled too. Metal detectors and armed guards were at the entrance to the building where the regents would decide the fate of Churchill. Signs posted stated that any disturbance inside would be met by force and arrest.

Churchill arrived with his lawyer and a handful of colleagues. Later some of his supporters rallied before the regents met, with signs, buttons, and T-shirts. A few white trash bloggers were present with cameras, some heckling Churchill and supporters. Pigs with badges photographed the event.

The meeting was supposed to start after 3:30 but was delayed for a couple of hours. Finally the regents came into the auditorium and voted to accept CU President Hank Brown’s recommendation that Churchill be canned. The vote was 8-1, with the regent from Boulder giving the lone nay vote. People booed, and the regents left.

Members of the American Indian Movement of Colorado then began a drum circle with chanting. They and their supporters proceeded outside. A press conference was held immediately after.

There was a problem when the room that was reserved was too small for the conference. Only the press was allowed in. The supporters listened outside through a window. Two cracker-assed College Republicans arrived after, attempting to disrupt the press conference, carrying signs to allegedly honor those Amerikans killed on 9/11. But they ended up doing nothing. The two reactionaries got into heated discussions with Churchill supporters, and then the news clamored to interview them because they opposed Churchill. They were heckled due to the amerikkan media’s obvious bias.

Churchill plans to initiate a lawsuit against the University. RAIM-Denver wishes him success.

The overwhelming issue from supporters was one of academic freedom. Many stood by Churchill while making sure to say that they didn’t agree with what he said. RAIM-D on the other hand says that not only does Churchill have a right to say what he said, but was right in what he said. Amerikkkans are not innocent of the crimes committed by their parasite imperialist nation. Plus they shouldn’t be surprised when those angered by its atrocities decide to hit back. The truth hurts, but Amerikkka has been in its luxury dugout too long.

Of course the issue of academic freedom for dissident intellectuals is all too real. At the present time Norman Finkelstein is under attack for his criticism of Israel and the Zionist Lobby in the United States. With cracker right-wingers like ACTA and David Horowitz salivating over academics that don’t kneel over to praise Amerikkka, Churchill’s is unlikely to be the end of this kind of attack.

Postscript:

The day after Churchill was sacked, CU President Hank Brown met with wealthy bourgeois donors. He assured them that their money, gained from super exploitation of the oppressed nations of the world, would be spent wisely defending that system (2).

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07122007.html

2. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6464850

Parasitism: The Economics of Imperialism

Amerika’s economy is like a giant mall. The majority of “workers,” instead of actually producing things, have jobs distributing things. This includes tasks like moving things around, repackaging them, designing advertising campaigns, standing behind cash registers, etc. Inevitably, you have the people whose jobs are to merely account for all these financial and labor transactions, an army of private security guards [and police] and a few people who clean up the mess at the end of the day. This is essentially what Amerika’s service-based economy looks like.

Though Amerikans are engaged in almost exclusively nonproductive busywork, they earn massively inflated wages. While most workers of the world labor for 50 or 60 hours a week under oppressive conditions for about 3 dollars a day, the median yearly income for a full-time Amerikan “worker” over 25 years was $39,336 in 2005. (1) An adult “working” Amerikan pulls in 30 times the world’s median wage. Plus, Amerikans often “work” less, enjoy paid vacations, shorter hours and better “working” conditions. The result is that most Amerikans have a substantial amount of time and money to use as they please.

With the extra money from their inflated wages, Amerikans consume in the most frivolous ways. More importantly, in doing so, they return to the giant shopping mall that is their economy. From amerika’s daily shopping spree, a profit for the system is insured and the need for all the security guards, sales people and cooks is fulfilled.

But you can’t have an economy based only on selling things. Commodities don’t just magically appear. People need to make them. In the same vein, you can’t have system where everyone is gaining because you need a source for the profit. Behind every overpaid, unproductive Amerikan “worker” there is a mass of productive workers who earn subsistence and sub-subsistence wages. It is from the exploited labor of the Third World that Amerika is able to float this parasitic system. Exploitation of the Third World is what makes possible the inflated wages of the amerikan labor aristocracy.

Amerikan imperialism takes the products created by the exploited labor of the Third World and passes it off to Amerika’s aristocratic “workers.” From here, amerikan “workers” are overpaid to basically tinker around with the products before they are sold. In turn, Amerikan “workers” use their inflated wages to buy these products thus making possible the final realization of profit for the overall system. In this manner, Amerika uses global exploitation to keep its domestic mall economy afloat and enable its existence as an entire nation of parasites.

Notes.
1. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm

Quotations of Lin Biao

Ok, so by now we all know the truth about Amerikkka. We know that Amerikkka is really just a white settler nation: a reactionary nation only made possible by the largest land grab in history, the subsequent genocide and internal colonization of First Nations and the internal colonization of Blacks and Mexicans. We know that today Amerikkkan imperialism is a force that enslaves the people of the world underneath its economic (not to mention, military) terrorism.

So lets see what Lin Biao has to say about the situation.

Quotations of Lin Biao
From Long Live the Victory of People’s War

U.S. imperialism has further weakened itself by occupying so many places in the world, over-reaching itself, stretching its fingers out wide and dispersing its strength, with its rear so far away and its supply lines so long.

At present, the main battlefield of the fierce struggle [between the people of the world on one side and U.S. imperialism and its lackeys on the other] is the vast area of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The struggles waged by the different peoples against U.S. imperialism reinforce each other and merge into a torrential world-wide tide of opposition to U.S. imperialism… When the U.S. aggressors are hard pressed in one place, they have no alternative but to loosen their grip on others. Therefore, the conditions become more favourable for the people elsewhere to wage struggles against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.

When committing aggression in a foreign country, U.S. imperialism can only employ part of its forces, which are sent to fight an unjust war far from their native land and therefore have a low morale, and so U.S. imperialism is beset with great difficulties.

The people subjected to its aggression are having a trial of strength with U.S. imperialism neither in Washington or New York, neither in Honolulu nor Florida, but are fighting for independence and freedom on their own soil. Once they are mobilized on a broad scale, they will have inexhaustible strength.

Every people or country in the world that wants revolution, independence and peace cannot but direct the spearhead of its struggle against U.S. imperialism.

Prisons in Amerikkka

Prisons in Perspective

As of February 3rd, 2005 there were 2.1 million people in prison or jail, and another 4.6 million on parole, probation, under house arrest, or in jail awaiting a trial. That’s 6.7 million people or over 2% of the population.

Although nationally oppressed peoples make up about 25% of the population, they are 65% of the prison population. Conversely, although whites are about 75%, they make up only 35% of the prison population.

This is not racism carried out by individual racists. It’s national oppression carried by one part of society against another. It’s one nation’s oppression of others carried out within the arbitrary borders of Amerikkka.

Black males have 32% chance of being imprisoned in their lifetimes; Chicanos/Mexicanos a 17% chance; and white males only a 6% chance. So Blacks basically have a 1 in 3 chance of being locked up at some point in their lifetimes and are more that five times more likely to be imprisoned than whites.

Despite everything white amerikkka has already done to First Nation peoples, they are imprisoned at an even higher rate.

Amerikkka imprisons more of the people within its borders than any other nation in the world. Amerikkka, despite calling itself a beacon of freedom in the world, has the largest prison population in the world.

But is this really surprising for Amerikkka? After all, we are talking about the very country, and indeed people, that enslaved Blacks and tormented them for generations with the terroristic KKK; that emptied an entire continent of people so that they could take the land and mineral wealth for themselves; who took those indigenous peoples and imprisoned them onto reservations and made them adopt Anglo imposed social-economics norms and a foreign culture; and who today imprisons the entire world through economic imperialism.

No, it’s not a surprising at all. It’s Amerikkka.

Report on Denver May Day Protests

Migrant March With Mixed Messages Also Highlights Lack of White Proletariat

Tuesday was May Day or the International Workers’ Day. It was also the anniversary of the historic marches for migrant rights last year in the United Snakes and the scene of more impressive protests this year.

RAIM-Denver participated in the march in Denver. The crowd gathered at a neighborhood park near downtown Denver before beginning their walk past the Capitol and through downtown where they were to end at a park in a gentrified neighborhood. Many people left their jobs to join the march as it passed by and the majority of the crowd were chican@/mexican@ youth, some of whom undoubtedly skipped school to attend the demonstration.

In the mainstream media the Denver Pig Department oinked an estimate of 2,000 participants, while organizers gave numbers between 10,000 and 15,000. Our observations lean more towards the latter numbers.

This march like others had an overall tinge of reformism, compradorism, assimilationism and even Chicano/Mexicano labor aristocratic politics. There were too many American flags present for our taste. Nevertheless, national liberation sentiment was evident. Many marchers echoed the fact that Mexico was invaded, that this was Mexican land, bringing into question the concept of “illegal aliens.” Many flags of Mexico were displayed, as well as a handful of flags of Central American countries that many marchers came from. RAIM’s agitational flyer “Deport White People” was well-received. RAIM passed out over 700 flyers. At least one liberal speaker touched on reunification briefly.

Of course there was the usual assortment of reactionary white fascists shouting anti-migrant slogans. This combined with the overwhelmingly chican@/mexican@ composition of the march should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind about the reactionary nature of the historically oppressive white labor aristocracy. Truth be told, the mythical white working class didn’t show up to support migrant rights on this day. Maybe they had a company picnic to attend or maybe they only care about migrant rights when they feel threatened by them.

More interesting is how the media made special note of the low turnout compared to last year with the implication that the movement is dying. Some numbers from similar marches around the country include:

Chicago: 150,000

Milwaukee: 30,000 to 60,000

Denver: 10,000 to 15,000

Phoenix: 15,000 to 20,000

Tuscon: 2,500

Los Angeles: 25,000

The important thing about these numbers is that even if we look at the low side they are all still larger than any white-led ‘anti-war’ march in Denver over the past year. This is true even though whites barely showed up for this rally.

Some people would complain that the rally should be “multi-racial,” meaning more white. These people should come back to reality. Its not like whites were discouraged from coming to this rally: they just simply didn’t show up. The only people to blame for the lack of “multi culturalism” and multi-”racialism” at rallies like this are white people themselves. But to be fair, they were probably too busy sitting in air conditioned homes and offices- or in the case of some crackers, too busy heckling the protestors from sidewalks and parking garages. And while there were a few white people that did participate in the rally, they were an insignificant portion of the overall white population- one that doesn’t even add up to a fraction of a percent.

RAIM doesn’t have any illusions of the revolutionary potential of the white working class. They are a labor aristocracy getting the benefits of imperialism and who do not have the same interests with workers from the Third World. We advocate national liberation for all oppressed nations, including the captive nations inside the U.$. empire, especially the Chican@/Mexican@ nation. To this end we encourage the spread of national consciousness among the oppressed nations to counter the brainwashing of assimilationism that confuses too many nationally oppressed peoples today. The migrant rights movement should not water down their program to appease white settlers, instead those whites who are traitors to their national interests should fully support the national liberation struggles of oppressed nations for the interest of all humanity.

When Race Burns Class: Interview with J. Sakai

WHEN RACE BURNS CLASS

“Settlers” Revisited

An Interview With J. Sakai

EC: In the early eighties you wrote Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat, a book which had a major impact on many North American anti-imperialists. How did this book come about, and what was so new about its way of looking at things?

JS: Settlers completely came about by accident, not design. And what was so “new” about it was that it wasn’t “inspiring” propaganda, but took up the experience of colonial workers to question how class really worked. It wasn’t about race, but about class. Although people still have a hard time getting used to that–it isn’t race or sex that’s the taboo subject in this culture, but class. Like many radicals who struggle as organizers, i had wondered why our very logical “class unity” theories always seemed to get smashed up around the exit ramp of race? At the time i’d quit my fairly isolated job on the night shift as a mechanic on the railroad, and was running a cut-off lathe in an auto parts plant. The young white guys in our department were pretty good. In fact, rebellious counter-culture dope smoking Nam vets. After months of hanging & talking, one night one of them came up to me and said that all the guys were driving down to the Kentucky Derby together, to spend the weekend getting drunk and partying. They were inviting me, an Asian, as a way of my joining the crew. Only, he said, “You got to stop talking to those Blacks. You got to choose. White or Black.” Every lunch hour i dropped in on a scene on the loading dock, where a dozen brothers munched sandwiches and had an on-going discussion. About everything from the latest sex scandal to whether it was good or not for Third World nations to be getting A-bombs (some said it was good ending the white monopoly on nuclear weapons, while others said not at the price of endangering our asses!). Plus the guy from the League of Black Revolutionary Workers in our plant area had recruited me to help out, since he was facing heavy going from the older, more established Black political tendencies ( various nationalists, the CPUSA–who had great veterans, good shop floor militants –etc). And, why would i go along with some apartheid agenda anyway? Needless to say, the white young guys cut me dead after that (though they later came out for me as shop steward, which shows you how much b.s. they thought the union was). That kind of stuff, familiar to us all, kept piling up in my mind and got me started trying to figure out how this had come about in the u.s. working class. So for years after this i read labor history and asked older trade union radicals questions whenever i could. Finally, an anarchist veteran of the autoworkers’ historic 1937 Flint Sit-Down strike told me that the strike had been Jim Crow, that one of the unpublicized demands had been to keep Black workers down as only janitors….or out of the plants altogether. This blew my mind. That’s when it hit me that the wonderful working class history that the movement had taught us was a lie. So i decided to write an article (famous writer’s delusion) on how this white supremacy started in the u.s. working class. i didn’t know–maybe it was in the 1920s?, i thought. So Settlers was researched backwards. i knew what the conclusion was in the mid-1970s, that white supremacy ruled the white working class except in the self delusions of the Left. “No politician can ever be too racist to be popular in white amerikkka”, is an amazingly true saying. Settlers was researched going back in time, trying to find that event, that turning point when working class unity by whites had dissolved into racial supremacy. 1930s, 1920s, pre-World War I, Black Reconstruction, Civil War, 1700s, 1600s, i kept going back and back, treading water, trying to touch non-white supremacist ground. Only, there wasn’t any!

Stolen At Gunpoint: Interview with J. Sakai

Stolen At Gunpoint: Interview with J. Sakai

Written by Ernesto Aguilar

Thursday, 16 September 2004

Interview with the author of Settlers, covering Chicano Mexicano liberation, the Southwest and settlerism, for the Latino-culture program Sexto Sol. The show originates from KPFT in Houston, Texas. The collective assessment of Sakai and Aguilar was that the interview was ‘ok’; part of the challenge is making larger revolutionary concepts accessible to a possibly uninitiated radio audience. Please read on with this in mind. J.Sakai wrote a book in the 1980s called Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat. In it, Sakai takes apart U.S. history, examining the development of the U.S., the white working class and oppressed nationalities, especially Mexicanos, Africans, Native nations and Asians. He tears down popular lies about history, and posts fresh perspectives for revolutionaries of color.Ernesto Aguilar conducted this interview on June 17, 2003, covering Chicano Mexicano liberation, the Southwest and settlerism, for the Latino-culture program interview was ‘ok’; part of the challenge is making larger revolutionary concepts accessible to a possibly uninitiated radio audience. Please read on with this in mind. Ernesto Aguilar: In the early eighties you wrote “Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat,” a book that took a deep historical look at the role of white workers in lives and histories of oppressed people. Can you break down for listeners what inspired you to write Settlers and the ideas you put forward in it? J. Sakai: Well, I wrote it because at that time — and we’re talking about the mid-‘70s when I start