Change we need: An Anarchist Perspective on the 2008 Election

The election is over. Barack Obama will become the next president of The United States. The news of Obama's victory resulted in spontaneous celebrations across the country. The energy was infectious and everywhere conversations seemed to contain a positive outlook that people in the U.S. have not known for many long years. Words like change and hope are being used, and it seems widely assumed that the election of Obama will herald a new age of social justice, an end to the wars, and significant reduction in the racism the plagues U.S. society. But as the energy and media spectacle dies down, we would like for you to consider the election from a different perspective. It is our belief as Class Struggle Anarchists that elections in a capitalist society in fact can never bring true justice and security to the average working person. We do not believe that such elections can with any degree of permanence prevent wars, or deal effectively with racism, sexism or environmental degradation.

We stand in solidarity with the hopes for profound change of the millions of people who voted for Obama. However, we also recognize that the capitalist system is in a serious crisis which is dragging down all working class and oppressed people and which even the best-intentioned high office-holder is incapable of solving. The aim of this piece is to provide a perspective on the crisis and an outline for solutions.

The presidency of George W. Bush has been by almost any reasonable standard a complete disaster. Lies, wars, a financial crisis and deep recession, and the building up of a police state are just a few of Bush's dubious legacies. Some of these were already obvious two years ago as the electoral season opened and the liberals and reformists began their campaign against these issues. However, glaringly missing from their attacks was why these problems existed in the first place.

It is our belief that economic inequality, war, racism, sexism and environmental destruction are inherent in any capitalist society. Consider for a moment the vast wealth that our society creates,everything from crops to advanced medicines. However, the access to this wealth is unequally divided, determined by supposedly free markets. It is assumed by the politicians and corporate media that these supposedly free markets are a natural part of life. Markets, however, are set up by people; they can also be modified or undone by people. As anarchists, we believe that the production and distribution of society's wealth should be decided democratically, by people, and not by a market mechanism which in fact is controlled by a few.
Democracy:
Anarchists are absolutely for democracy. The concept that people should come together and make decisions is the backbone of our ideology. However, we do not view the U.S. system of democracy as being representative of those ideals. The Republicans and Democrats exist as two rival factions battling over our consent to be ruled. Both promote rhetoric of common interest with ordinary people, but we feel this is an illusion. The politicians in this nation exist to provide a stable platform for the rule and exploitation of the majority of working people in America by the minority of capitalists; that is, the owners of the property on which we produce the wealth. We build, guard,clean and work in the offices and plants , we transport the goods, and we sell them, but the capitalists own them them and pocket the profits. The interests of these two groups are not the same. The boss class wants to get as much from the workers as it can. They want to pay us as little as possible and sell us everything they own as dearly as they can. Unchecked these conditions have led to uprisings. Don't believe it? Look at our own history! The abolition of slavery, 8-hour day, the right to form unions, overtime pay, child labor laws, the end to legal segregation, the right of women to vote and to choose, and the right of gay and transgender people to be themselves was won not at the ballot box, but by people organizing, striking, boycotting and taking to the streets. The liberals in elective office passed the laws in response to the movements and to head off what could become a revolutionary upsurge.
Implications of the Election
Without a doubt this election has been historic. We see two reasons. A Black man has been elected to the highest office in the U.S., a country founded on the mass kidnapping of Africans and the theft of land from the Indigenous people who already lived here. Second, Obama's campaign was marked by some of the most widespread mass organizing in years.

The US is a nation deeply scarred by racism, and despite what some pundits might believe, it is clear to any working person that racism is nowhere near dead. Racial oppression is a complicated issue, and we do not mean to simplify it. However, a discussion of why racism and white supremacy have been so intractable in US society would have to consider how race has consistently been used as a wedge by the ruling class in its rhetoric and its policy decisions to keep the working class divided along racial lines, and so prevent the class from realizing its full potential as a force capable of self-organizing and overcoming its oppression. The election of a Black man to the presidency of the US represents a real shift in the attitudes of Americans, and we applaud this. However, racism is not just about attitudes. It is integral to the system of exploitation of working people. This systemic racism is what leverages the advantage of the ruling class, and with the increasingly evident magnitude of the economic collapse we are heading into, the ruling class will be aggressively seeking opportunities to defend its advantages. The way forward is for working-class people to organize in their own interests and to champion the aspirations of those who are oppressed by racism. We see social justice movements, neighborhood associations and cop-watch as examples. These sorts of bottom-up movements stand in complete contrast to what will be the top-down efforts of even an Obama administration to address social problems. Such efforts may alleviate some of the symptoms but they will leave the root causes of the problems untouched.

The other significant element of the election was the unprecedented grassroots mobilization that supported Obama's campaign. Under a banner of change and social justice many thousands of people volunteered,donated money, and did the labor of making the campaign run. We view this trend with great excitement. Imagine what could be gained if that focus on grassroots organizing was taken into the communities we lived in, into direct action on our on behalf instead of appeals to power.

We urge for this energy and creativity to go into movements independent of politicians. We encourage the support of unions, neighborhood democracy, resistance to police brutality, support for political prisoners, models for mass education, and also a movement with teeth. Above all, we must struggle for what we need, not what the system is willing to give us.

In addition, we must all be on the watch for expressions of racist hatred and organized fascist movements in the months and years following the election. The truth is that many white Americans are still openly racist, and there are groups that will exploit this, and real anger of social issues, to create violent movements. The news of a Black church burned in Springfield, MA just hours after the election was not surprising, and we must use all means necessary to stop such movements.

US NEFAC
November 2008
Related Link: http://www.nefac.net

Freedom Rider: Obama is Not King

It is the height of historical distortion to compare President-Elect Barack Obama in any way, shape or form to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King "is probably the only person in American history who gave up a close relationship with a president," Lyndon Johnson, "because his convictions demanded it." Those convictions were anchored in King's opposition to "racism, materialism and militarism." Obama, conversely, makes common cause with financial speculators and militarists. Under the current system, "It is simply impossible to be both a fighter for justice and president of the United States."
Freedom Rider: Obama is Not King

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

"The cheap artwork and mindless sentimentality that seeks to elevate Obama to the level of King and Malcolm X is an affront to the memory of those men."

In 2009, the official celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday will take place on January 19th. Barack Obama will be inaugurated president of the United States on the following day. Obama's election is seen by many as the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream of a just society providing equal rights to all of its citizens. Despite the frenzied and dishonest efforts to link the two men, it is clear that Obama's elevation to power symbolizes not that King's hopes have been realized, but that they have been dashed.

It is right that King's birth should be celebrated as a national holiday. Unfortunately the nature of that celebration does little to tell us what King's actual achievements were or how they should be remembered. The man who is continually painted as a mere starry eyed dreamer was anything but. He did not want to end segregation solely for the purpose of elevating black people into high positions, as the Obama worshippers would have us believe. King never strayed from his goal of giving every American full citizenship rights, ending grinding poverty, and making the United States act as a force for justice in the world.

Despite the enormous odds against him, King succeeded in unleashing the pent up anger and righteous demands of millions of oppressed people. Because of those demands, President Lyndon Johnson and other politicians were forced to reckon with that movement and with King himself. Not only were the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act enacted because of popular pressure, but the very nature of American political life and society changed in ways that are still being felt.

"King never strayed from his goal of giving every American full citizenship rights, ending grinding poverty, and making the United States act as a force for justice in the world."

The power unleashed by the demands of millions of people gave King access to the highest office in the land. He was regularly consulted by the president and members of his cabinet when federal policy decisions were being made. King was in an unenviable position, which he used in the interests of the people who had put their trust in him. He is probably the only person in American history who gave up a close relationship with a president because his convictions demanded it.

King's opposition to the war had been growing and on April 4, 1967, a year to the date before his assassination, he made his strongest comments in a speech at Riverside Church. He denounced the war in Vietnam, and the country's reliance on "racism, materialism and militarism." King's decision to speak out on Vietnam effectively severed his ties with the most powerful politician on earth. In comparison, Barack Obama fought tooth and nail to become the president, the person who righteous people end up fighting against.

Not only did King make the hard choice to discard his partnership with Johnson, but in so doing he brought down the wrath of previously supportive politicians, and of some of his closest confidantes. The NAACP denounced King and disassociated themselves from his statement. Other SCLC leaders were angry that he chose to end his silence instead of compromising with the powerful.

"King is probably the only person in American history who gave up a close relationship with a president because his convictions demanded it."

Anyone who wins a presidential election does much more than compromise. The recent disclosure that the Obama campaign raised $750 million is proof. A would be president must spend years currying favor with wealthy, powerful people and promise them that the items on their agenda will always be front and center when policy decisions are made.

It is simply impossible to be both a fighter for justice and president of the United States. The two roles are diametrically opposed and inherently incompatible. The cheap artwork and mindless sentimentality that seeks to elevate Obama to the level of King and Malcolm X is an affront to the memory of those men who relentlessly fought powerful interests and paid with their lives in the process.

The proximity of the King Day celebration and the inauguration is a sadly ironic twist of fate. While Martin Luther King demanded that America behave as a civilized nation, Barack Obama is committed to preserving its corruption. The man who denounced war should not be seen in the same light as the man who vows to maintain "the strongest military on the planet."

The ignorance of history that elevates the corrupt with the incorruptible is terribly dangerous. The King day celebration was getting worse every year, and in 2009 it will symbolize the political nadir of black Americans. After giving all their votes to a man who offered them nothing, they now discard the memory of a man who ceaselessly fought for them. January 19th and 20th should not be celebrated. They should be days of mourning.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=920&Itemid=1

The Ideology of No Ideology

Behind Obama's new "pragmatism"

On Friday, columnist David Brooks informed readers that Barack Obama’s picks “are not ideological.” The incoming president’s key economic advisers “are moderate and thoughtful Democrats,” while Hillary Clinton’s foreign-policy views “are hardheaded and pragmatic.”

Last Saturday, The New York Times front page reported that the president-elect’s choices for secretaries of State and Treasury “suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.”

On Monday, hours before Obama’s formal announcement of his economic team, USA Today explained that he is forming a Cabinet with “records that display more pragmatism than ideology.”

The ideology of no ideology is nifty. No matter how tilted in favor of powerful interests, it can be a deft way to keep touting policy agendas as common-sense pragmatism — virtuous enough to draw opposition only from ideologues.

Meanwhile, the end of ideology among policymakers is about as imminent as the end of history.

But — in sync with the ideology of no ideology — deference to corporate power isn’t ideological. And belief in the U.S. government’s prerogative to use military force anywhere in the world is a matter of credibility, not ideology.

Ideological assumptions gain power as they seem to disappear into the prevailing political scenery. So, for instance, reliably non-ideological ideological journalists sit at the studio table every Friday night on the PBS “Washington Week” program, which is currently funded by similarly non-ideological outfits including Boeing, the National Mining Association and Constellation Energy (“the nation’s largest supplier of competitive electricity to large commercial and industrial customers,” with revenues of $21 billion last year).

Along the way, the ideology of no ideology can corral even normally incisive commentators. So, over the weekend, as news broke about the nominations of Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers to top economic posts, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote an article praising “the members of Obama’s new economic team.” Reich declared: “All are pragmatists. Some media have dubbed them ‘centrists’ or ‘center-right,’ but in truth they’re remarkably free of ideological preconception. ... They are not visionaries but we don’t need visionaries when the economic perils are clear and immediate. We need competence. Obama could not appoint a more competent group.”

Competence can be very good. But “free of ideological preconception”? I want to meet these guys. If they really don’t have any ideological preconceptions, they belong in the book of Guinness World Records.

As for competence, it seems that claims of non-ideology often go hand-in-hand with overblown claims of economic mastery. “Geithner and Summers are credited with expertise in crisis management,” economist Mark Weisbrot pointed out on Monday, “but we better hope they don’t manage the current crisis like they did in East Asia, Russia, Argentina or any of the other countries that Treasury was involved in during the 1990s with their help. They helped bring on the East Asian crisis in 1997 by pressuring the governments in the region to de-regulate international financial flows, which was the main cause of the crisis. Then they insisted that all bailout money go through the IMF, and delayed aid until most of the damage was done. Then they attached damaging conditions” to the aid.

After all is said and done, the ideology of no ideology is just like any other ideology that’s apt to be much better at promoting itself than living up to its pretenses. No amount of flowery rhetoric or claims of transcendent non-ideology should deter tough scrutiny. And Judge Judy’s injunction should apply to the ideology of no ideology as much as to any ideology that owns up to being one: “Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s raining.”

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/3895/The_Ideology_of_No_Ideology

Barack Obama says US 'will maintain strongest military on planet'

Mr Obama promised greater use of diplomacy and greater emphasis on building alliances around the world as he formally introduced his national security team, which included Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

But the former Illinois senator, whose rise was built on his opposition to the Iraq war, delivered a message of surprising toughness that at times could have come from George W Bush.

Mr Obama said: "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet."

With the responsibilities of office just seven weeks away, he added that his administration was "absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism".

"We cannot tolerate a world where innocents are being killed by extremists," Mr Obama said in the wake of Bombay attacks, adding that he was "heartbroken" by the deaths of six Americans in the massacre.

"We have to bring the full force of our power, not only military but diplomatic and political, to deal with the threats," he said, also vowing that the US would stand with India.

Flanked by his new appointments, Mr Obama said he was a "believer in strong personalities and strong opinions", in order to avoid the White House lapsing into "group think". But, recalling the model of former President Harry Truman, he said that "the buck will stop with me".

Mr Obama offered fulsome praise for Hillary Clinton, whom he confirmed as secretary of state and his most controversial appointment. During the Democratic primary campaign he repeatedly criticised her support in the senate for the Iraq war, and dismissed her foreign experience as first lady as little more than drinking tea on the fringes of power.

Acknowledging that "it is fun for the press to stir up old quotes" from the heat of a campaign, he referred to Mrs Clinton as a "dear friend" and left the stage arm in arm with his former foe.

Janet Napolitano will be the new head of homeland security, and Susan Rice, will be ambassador to the United Nations.

Eric Holder, will become the first black attorney general if confirmed.

Robert Gates is staying on as defence secretary, and Gen James Jones, a former marine who led Nato in Afghanistan and who since November 2007 has acted as a special security envoy in the Middle East, becomes national security adviser.

All of Mr Obama’s nominees are expected to win quick confirmation in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3540167/Barack-Obama-says-US-will-maintain-strongest-military-on-planet-as-Clinton-confirmed-top-diplomat.html

Union Del Barrio on Obama, Elections

Real change will only come from those who struggle for dignity, justice and self-determination.

With the historic election of Barack Obama as President of the United States we can say with certainty that there has been a paradigm shift in the mythology of capitalist white rule. Without a doubt the backwards concept of race superiority has suffered a blow, but the transfer of political power from one capitalist party to another should not be taken lightly. Race relations has entered a new level of discussion in an empire that has built its existence on the genocide of indigenous people, the theft of African labor and the premise of expansionism under the ridiculous assertion of divine intervention to settle land and conquer people. The significance of the 2008 U.S. presidential election is that for the first time in the history of capitalism, the most powerful country in the annals of human history will be led by a black man. This phenomenon signals a decline in the ability of white power capitalism to rule openly and viciously as it has since its inception; but more importantly it signals the need for those that financed the Obama campaign to promote president elect Obama as the beacon to keep alive this unjust and decadent capitalist system. In short, president-elect Obama was formed by the elite and will rule with the elite, but the historical feat of a black politician winning the presidency of the United States cannot be taken for granted.

The election of the first black president of the United States signals for us as well a new paradigm of struggle. Certainly the triumph of Obama cannot and does not mean that our struggle for self-determination, justice and dignity is now over. Quite the contrary, our struggle must be intensified, it must be unyielding. For in a time in which the empire finds itself in the midst of the worst economic crisis, a crisis that has propelled the rest of the world into a certain global economic depression. In a time in which endless war is a failed and only remaining strategy for the empire to plunder the resources of the peoples of the world. In this time, in which our communities are under siege, raided, persecuted, deported by one of the most sinister campaigns ever launched by the empire within its boundaries. In this time in which the wall of death has been built all along the borderlands as a damming monument erected by the empire in order to reassure its theft of our lands. That horrendous monument not only destroys communities, divides our people, wounds our collective memory, but it kills with impunity.

In a time of crisis for those in power, we offer our commitment to struggle, our willingness to be free, our hope for a better tomorrow. In a time of the elite’s crisis we must seize the moment and transform their crisis into our victory, their weakness into our triumph, their hesitation into our steadfast movement forward, change only comes when we, those who have been persecuted, exploited, incarcerated, marginalized, disenfranchised, stand together and say enough, and demonstrate our ability to resist. For the empire is more dangerous when it is wounded, when its ideals are shattered, when its economic systems are in turmoil, the United States and its capitalist system has an outstanding ability to be resilient. It has risen triumphant and empowered on many occasions out of multiple crises, for such is the nature of the empire. It must self-degrade to gain strength. Their crisis will not become our victory until we build a movement with enough political strength to once and for all rid our people of the yolk of oppression.

Apologists of the empire, and those scrambling to hold on to the now dilapidated notion of white power will say, that Obama as president of the United States signifies the end of class and race relations in the United States. The end of history, the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement; nothing can be further from the truth. Race and class differences have been taken to never-before seen levels, while for the first time the white minority ruling elite must address race relations when addressing the political superstructure, the system however is still very much entrenched in white power, it is still resilient, it is still powerful and it will not concede much more political space.

This is precisely why capitalism was in need of a facelift and the reason why the Democratic Party has won the contest for control, not only of the White House, but also for Congress. It is based primarily on the capitalists’ prospects and ability to confuse poor working class people into believing that some change has occurred and that this “change” will represent their interests. We don’t believe this for a minute. Capitalism by any other name is still capitalism, oppression by any other means is still oppression, and colonialism by any other face is still colonialism.

For these reasons the results of this election should not be an assertion that change is coming. We have always stated that both the Republican and Democratic parties are representatives of the ruling class, therefore their interests lie in keeping the wealth produced by the working poor. Obama, who was criticized by his opponent for his comments on wealth distribution, reaffirmed his stance by stating that all he wants is to go back to the tax structure of the 1990s. This point is best illustrated in the open thievery which took place last month, as the largest bailout packages in the history of capitalism were negotiated by Congress- of which both McCain and Obama were a part of. The bailout was a safety net for some of the largest corporations and was paid for at the expense of poor people the world over.

There is no evidence to suggest that the election of Obama will fundamentally change the economic problems faced by the great majority of people living within and outside of the political borders of the United States. After all, Obama attended the elite places of learning of the United States; his candidacy was supported by the ruling class of the United States. Obama as president, by itself, does not signify a fundamental change to the reality of working people and oppressed people within the boundaries of the United States, on the contrary, everything points towards the need for the United States to continue the theft of resources of the people the world over in order to rescue and maintain the economic system known as capitalism.

The triumph of Obama, over the war criminal McCain, must be viewed as a weakening of the socio-political understanding of class and race of the empire. But this feat, by itself does not guarantee change, although we recognize that the election of a black man to the White House is of historic proportions, now is the time for people of color and working people who live within the boundaries of the United States to unite

The struggle we have before us, beyond the Presidential election, is the need to articulate what we mean by change. Our immediate task is to organize ourselves in every community, in every school, in every field, in every factory, hotel, prison, and wherever we may find ourselves; for one thing is true, that while the economic crisis continues to escalate, those in power will continue to fire workers, all the while more and more people continue to have their homes stolen by banks in the form of foreclosures.

This is why we support the efforts of those that call for a moratorium on foreclosures, those who call for a halt to the raids and deportations, and those that call for reparations for the African community as well as support for cleaner sources of energy and the elimination of green house gases, and finally the rights of people to determine who they want to marry regardless of gender.

To all workers we say that your struggle to build unions and independent associations at every worksite, free from ICE raids and intimidation by the bosses signifies change. The struggle of women for inclusion and equality in our society, to combat all forms of gender violence is and must continue to be part of our change. To all educators: your struggle to infuse class-consciousness in the classroom despite the criminal budget cuts is our struggle. The struggle of the youth and students for education, cultural, social and political participation is our struggle. The struggle for relevant education and access to higher learning is our change. The struggle for human rights by grass-root community organizations that document migra and police brutality and have organized themselves to promote raids-free communities is the change that we need. To all non-profit workers: your struggle to provide the necessary tools and resources to help grassroots organizations build a movement from the bottom and to the left and rid social movements of the paralysis generated by the non-profit industrial complex, is the change that we are building. To the intellectuals and academia: your struggle to generate ideas, write our history and analyze our social conditions despite the restrictions of bureaucracy of think tanks is the change that is coming. For artists and cultural workers: the canvas, the mural, the musical instrument, spoken word, their body, their written word, la flor y el canto, and to those who continue to use culture as the most beautiful tool against oppression, this is the change that we must build. To the environmentalists who have struggled tirelessly against degradation, pollution, health rights, toxic-free communities, yours is the change we must build.

We must unite for self-determination of all oppressed people no matter the nationality; we must unite as a working class people; and our struggle must be an anti-imperialist struggle, based on the struggles of all of us, when that happens then change becomes possible. Ours is not a change based on empty hopes for a better future; it is based on a need to ensure that all of us build a better community, a better society, a better world.


http://illvox.org/2008/11/10/union-del-barrio-on-obama-elections/

Real Change Depends on Stopping the Bailout Profiteers

To understand the meaning of the U.S. election results, it is worth looking back to the moment when everything changed for the Obama campaign. It was, without question, the moment when the economic crisis hit Wall Street.

Up to that point, things weren’t looking all that good for Barack Obama. The Democratic National Convention barely delivered a bump, while the appointment of Sarah Palin seemed to have shifted the momentum decisively over to John McCain.

Then, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, followed by insurance giant AIG, then Lehman Brothers. It was in this moment of economic vertigo that Obama found a new language. With tremendous clarity, he turned his campaign into a referendum into the deregulation and trickle down policies that have dominated mainstream economic discourse since Ronald Reagan. He said his opponent represented more of the same while he stood for a new direction, one that would rebuild the economy from the ground up, rather than the top down. Obama stayed on this message for the rest of the campaign and, as we just saw, it worked.

The question is now whether Obama will have the courage to take the ideas that won him this election and turn them into policy. Or, alternately, whether he will use the financial crisis to rationalize a move to what pundits call “the middle” (if there is one thing this election has proved, it is that the real middle is far to the left of its previously advertised address). Predictably, Obama is already coming under enormous pressure to break his election promises, particularly those relating to raising taxes on the wealthy and imposing real environmental regulations on polluters. All day on the business networks, we hear that, in light of the economic crisis, corporations need lower taxes, and fewer regulations – in other words, more of the same.

The new president’s only hope of resisting this campaign being waged by the elites is if the remarkable grassroots movement that carried him to victory can somehow stay energized, networked, mobilized – and most of all, critical. Now that the election has been won, this movement’s new mission should be clear: loudly holding Obama to his campaign promises, and letting the Democrats know that there will be consequences for betrayal.

The first order of business – and one that cannot wait until inauguration – must be halting the robbery-in-progress known as the “economic bailout.” I have spent the past month examining the loopholes and conflicts of interest embedded in the U.S. Treasury Department’s plans. The results of that research can be found in a just published feature article in Rolling Stone, The Bailout Profiteers as well as my most recent Nation column, Bush’s Final Pillage.

Both these pieces argue that the $700-billion “rescue plan” should be regarded as the Bush Administration’s final heist. Not only does it transfer billions of dollars of public wealth into the hands of politically connected corporations (a Bush specialty), but it passes on such an enormous debt burden to the next administration that it will make real investments in green infrastructure and universal health care close to impossible. If this final looting is not stopped (and yes, there is still time), we can forget about Obama making good on the more progressive aspects of his campaign platform, let alone the hope that he will offer the country some kind of grand Green New Deal.

Readers of The Shock Doctrine know that terrible thefts have a habit of taking place during periods of dramatic political transition. When societies are changing quickly, the media and the people are naturally focused on big “P” politics – who gets the top appointments, what was said in the most recent speech. Meanwhile, safe from public scrutiny, far reaching pro-corporate policies are locked into place, dramatically restricting future possibilities for real change.

It’s not too late to halt the robbery in progress, but it cannot wait until inauguration. Several great initiatives to shift the nature of the bailout are already underway, including bailoutmainstreet.com. I added my name to the “Call to Action: Time for a 21st Century Green America” and invite you to do the same.

Stopping the bailout profiteers is about more than money. It is about democracy. Specifically, it is about whether Americans will be able to afford the change they have just voted for so conclusively.

Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org

No Change Expected in Iraq After Obama’s Victory

US Ambassador Ryan Crocker said today that the United States’ general policy towards Iraq will not change after the election of Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.

This seems to also be the view of Iraqi officials, with presidential cabinet chief Nusseir al-Aani saying “only approaches and strategies” will change in Iraq, “but the aim will remain as it is.” Iraqi Foreign Ministry Hoshyar Zebari also said the cabinet does not expect that the new administration will make “surprising changes” nor did he expect President-elect Obama to embark on a “quick disengagement” policy with respect to Iraq.

Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, whose Iraqi Islamic Party severed all ties with the United States late last month over the killing of a senior party member, sent a congratulatory message to Obama and said he hopes the promise of change will not be limited to the United States.

Meanwhile Ahmed al-Massoudi, the spokesman for the opposition Sadrist bloc, demanded that the President-elect withdraw American troops from Iraq, adding “he made promises to pull out troops from Iraq. The Iraqi people do not care about who will lead America, they only care about their independence.”

President-elect Obama initially spoke of a 16 month plan to withdraw American combat forces from Iraq, he later clarified that with numerous pre-conditions which made it more of a best-case scenario. Eventually, Obama was praising the “success” of the surge and the differences between his position and that of the current administration were unclear at best.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/05/no-change-expected-in-iraq-after-obamas-victory/

What Now, Liberals?

You gonna hide for the next 4 years, giving excuses, when he doesn't end the war or change anything? Or are you gonna put the fire under his feet?

THANK YOU, SARAH PALIN!

TRASH-TALKING ALASKA GOVERNOR INSPIRES COMMUNITY ORGANIZER ACTION FUND

A month after Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin trashed community organizers as a way to attack Barack Obama, activists and individuals around the country have responded by raising more than $7,500 for the “Community Organizers Fight Back Fund.” The Chicago-based Midwest Academy is managing the fund and will use the money to train future organizers.

During her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Sept. 3, Palin remarked that being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, was “sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.” Former New York Governor George Pataki chimed in as well, saying, “What in God’s name is a community organizer? I don’t even know if that’s a job.”

As one prominent Republican after another mocked Obama’s three years of working with low-income residents on the South Side of Chicago in the 1980s, irate community organizers rapidly mobilized.

“These were pretty personal attacks. That’s the work I do every day,” recalls John Raskin, a 27-year-old community organizer with Housing Conservation Coordinators, a group that works for affordable housing on the West Side of Manhattan. Community organizers work together with individuals and families to take local collective action and win improvements on issues facing their neighborhoods.

Raskin immediately contacted other organizers and formed the Community Organizers of America (COA). A website was quickly put up, organizersfightback.wordpress.com, and hundreds of comments poured in expressing solidarity with community organizers of all stripes.

Five days after COA was formed, a call for donations to the ironically named “Sarah Palin Action Fund for Organizer Training” was made. COA’s efforts raised $2,600, which has been donated to the Midwest Academy’s general fund to train community organizers.

The Midwest Academy bills itself as a “national training institute committed to advancing the struggle for social, economic and racial justice.”

Jackie Kendall, the executive director of the academy, says that the money will most likely be used for a combination of subsidizing people going to its training programs and providing some of the stipend money for up to 40 participants in summer internship programs.

Activists attending the training will learn about a variety of organizing skills from working with coalitions to successful recruiting tactics to strategies to hold elected officials accountable.

Rae Wright, an organizer with Citizen Action Illinois, a public interest organization, attended Midwest Academy’s internship program in 2007. “It taught me not only how to be a stronger organizer, but to be a stronger peer and leader in the communities that I am invested in,” she says.

The next training session will be from Oct. 6 to 10 in Chicago, with costs per participant ranging from $775 to $1,050.

According to the academy, individuals on the email list of True Majority, a liberal organization founded by Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream, contributed the most money for the fund after a plea for donations was announced to their listserv.

The McCain-Palin campaign has tried to downplay the mocking of community organizers, saying that they play an “important role.” Peter Feldman, a spokesman for the campaign, wrote in an email to The Indypendent Sept. 18: “Gov. Palin’s remark was in response to the Obama campaign’s belittling of her executive experience. There is certainly a place as demonstrated by Gov. Palin’s own record of civic involvement, but Barack Obama’s role as a community organizer pales in comparison to Gov. Palin’s demonstrated experience.”

Jackie del Valle, the lead housing organizer for New Settlement Apartments, a Bronx-based housing advocacy group, and a member of COA, says that “it was clear that [the Republicans] didn’t have an understanding at all of what community organizers were.”

Around 18,000 members of Facebook, the social networking website, have joined groups with names like “Community Organizers Against Sarah Palin” and “We Are All Community Organizers” speaking out against the GOP’s attacks on organizers.

“We have to hold the officials who use this sort of language accountable,” Raskin says. “[We need] to make sure that when you attack community organizers, you can’t get away with that.” COA plans on sending a “thank-you” letter to Palin after its $10,000 fundraising drive is over, commending her for “raising awareness of the vital role of community organizing.”

For more information on the fund drive, visit midwestacademy.com and organizersfightback.wordpress.com.

http://www.indypendent.org/2008/10/01/thank-you-sarah-palin/

OBAMA AND LATIN AMERICA: A FRIENDLY IMPERIALISM?

By Jose Antonio Gutierrez D.

ZABALAZA
A Journal of Southern African Class Struggle Anarchism
No. 9 | September 2008

With the official nomination of Barack Obama as the Democrat candidate for the next US presidential elections, there are many who are rejoicing in the hope that this will bring an end to the imperialist and aggressive foreign policy of the US.1 A wise traditional saying states that it really does not matter what colour a cat is as long as it can catch mice. Turning their backs on popular wisdom, many on the Latin American left are full of expectations about Obama, who is almost certain to follow Bush as the White House leader.

What's the difference between a Black Democrat and a White Republican?

"Oh, but he's a black candidate" we are told. As if the presence of one - 1! - black man in a racist institutional machinery was going to make any difference to immigrants and the residents of US ghettos.

Obama has, by the way, already been forced to distance himself from his pastor Jeremiah Wright, who denounced institutional racism in the US and had to embrace fully the discredited rhetoric of the "land of opportunities". Being a black man, with fresh roots in the African continent and thus an alien body in the traditional US spheres of power, Obama has on his shoulders a pressure none of his political rivals have in order to demonstrate that he is trustworthy for the Yankee plutocrats. So there he goes, adhering with greater fervour than anyone else to the values and project of the American Way. With the fanaticism of the religious convert, he proves his credo to his associates, in a way that those born into the faith do not need to.

There also those who believe that the colour of the skin, due to some curious intellectual and emotional effect of melanin, would make the potential US head of State more sensitive to the sufferings of the Third World and of its neo-colonies. But has Condolezza Rice's presence in the government meant any change in the policy of the US towards the Middle East or Latin America? If anything, we could say without much hesitation than it's been for the worse. Did Colin Powell make a difference in Bush's government or stop the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq or Plan Colombia?

"Ah, but he is a Democrat" we are now told. And do they forget that it was Kennedy, the Democrat, who pushed for the invasion of the Bay of Pigs (Cuba) and that it was he who, applying the theory of the Carrot and the Stick, carried the developmentalist bluff of the Alliance for Progress, while on the other hand he implemented the "National Security Doctrine" towards Latin America? Do they forget that it was Clinton who bombed Iraq (1998) and Somalia (1994)?

Not to mention all of murderous blunders in the Balkans... Do they forget the criminal embargo that Clinton imposed on Iraq, which, according to UNICEF, cost the lives of at least 500 000 children? Do they forget it was Clinton who started with the rhetoric of the Iraqi

Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Obama and the (Old) New World Order

Obama certainly is a critic of the Iraqi invasion, but he is not for an end to the occupation, only for the reduction of military personnel, which will remain necessary to guarantee the loyalty of the Iraqi regime, to train the Iraqi army and to "fight the threat of Al-Qaeda".2 His main criticisms of the Iraqi war are of form, not of substance; they are not about the human cost on the Iraqi people, and certainly he is not to question the ravenous logic of the oil interests behind the occupation, but only criticises its excessive costs on the US budget. It seems that, when it comes to Iraq, differences between Democrats and Republicans are more of a quantitative than of a qualitative nature. It seems that we can have a Yankee praetorian guard perpetually in the Middle East...

On the Palestinian question, Obama has been more than clear: in March, he criticised the "view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam".3 Can anyone point out to me what the difference is between this view of the Middle East and that of the Pentagon's hawks? Just like Bush, he fails to "see" the link that the Palestinian conflict has with "minor details" such as the Palestinian occupation, Israeli State terrorism (a State founded on forced displacement and violent land expropriation of Palestinians, it has to be said), the institutional racism in Israel, similar in many aspects to the South African apartheid and worse in some respects, or the strangling of Gaza. If he sees these factors, he quite convincingly plays the fool...

But what about his positions towards Latin America? He has made clear what his programme towards Latin America will be, starting with a criticism of Bush's politics towards the region. "We've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is no surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that".4

A New Alliance for Progress?

Do we need it? Do we want it?

What is Obama offering to us Latin Americans? Something maybe worse than Bush has already given us: more intervention, more domination, more interference in our own affairs, more death. The lesser- evil politics turn into a cruel paradox with the imperial grandeur that Obama adopts when talking of his "backyard". Now that the US is being displaced from Latin American markets by China and the EU,5 who are making a triumphal entrance with their own Free Trade Agreements, as well as by the new emerging regional power of Brazil (not to mention the shivers that the regional unity projects led by Venezuela cause in Washington, as they also represent a further threat to its hegemony), Obama states openly that he is about to turn our land into a battlefield for the US to recover its lost ground. Competition for our markets is out there, and no matter which global power is to win, we know who will be the certain loser: our people.

And not to leave the slightest shadow of doubt about his imperial pretensions over our America, on May 23rd at a meeting with the Cuban American Foundation, the FNCA (in Miami, where else?), he set out his complete programme towards Latin America: 6

1. Direct diplomacy with Cuba, but maintaining the embargo;

2. He stated his intentions to isolate Venezuela and its allies in the region, with the argument that they are FARC-EP supporters;

3. The FARC-EP gets exactly the same role as Al-Qaeda in the Middle East: the perfect excuse to justify any intervention in the region. In fact, he goes as far as to declare that he will not tolerate members of that organisation looking for sanctuary beyond Colombian borders nor any local regimes giving them any support, in a clear follow-up to the media harassment of Ecuador and Venezuela;

4. Absolute support for Plan Colombia and for the fascist regime of Uribe in Colombia * he, however, remains opposed to the Free Trade Agreement with that country, so as not to contradict his own supporters in the US who remain staunchly opposed to any more trade liberalisation with that country. Let's see if he remains opposed after the elections;

5. To increase the budget for the Merida Plan, which under the excuse of the "War on Drugs" (local variant of the War on Terror), is nothing but the latest mechanism of social control over Latin America. He went further to declare that he was going to expand its current area of operations in Mexico and Central America southwards ... maybe he will expand it to the Andean axis which runs from Venezuela down to Bolivia?

So, there's not much of a novelty in this. Unless it is the deepening of an aggressive intervention policy, which is a US tradition in our region, and the continuity of a dated paternalism, though in more of a blatant form.

His view of Latin America is not very different to that of Bush in relation to the Middle East, save for the fact that the villains of the story are adapted to local circumstances: the FARC-EP replaces Al- Qaeda, War on Drugs replaces War on Terror, Chávez replaces Saddam Hussein and Venezuela replaces Iran. The independent regional projects of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, which are drifting away from the Washington Consensus, constitute the new "Axis of Evil".

Obama describes Venezuela as an authoritarian regime, with a wallet-led diplomacy and full of Anti-American jargon that reproduces the "false promises" of those "failed ideologies of the past".7 But what is it that Obama has to offer instead? Unconditional support for authoritarian regimes such as that of Uribe,8 dollar-led diplomacy * plus more economic intervention, microcredit offers, and some other filthy handouts to increase our dependency * and hollow promises from failed ideologies such as the Washington Consensus. All of his platitudes are, indeed, stained with the old-fashioned National Security Doctrine. And in an attempt to recycle failed intervention programmes, he even literally calls for a New Alliance for the Americas,9 suspiciously similar to the discredited fiasco called Alliance for Progress that Kennedy promoted in the `60s.

Obama go home!

It is only natural for Obama to increase the virulence of the imperialist politics towards Latin America; after all, he knows that he will be in command of a sinking ship, of an empire stuck in a swamp of political, economic and military troubles. The depth of the US crisis is not, this time, a result of the hallucinating desires of a bunch of utopian leftists * tycoons such as Soros or economists such as Stiglitz are turning into the main prophets of the new crisis. And every single empire in crisis has to resort to higher levels of violence, in a similar fashion to a drowning man who tries to remain afloat by blindly slapping the water's surface. In the same way, Obama is already threatening Venezuela and Iran. Every worn-out project needs to refresh its image, to display some renewal on its facade in order to conceal its exhaustion. This wearing out of the "American Way" made it possible for something unthinkable to happen... a black candidate! The perfect chief for this crisis, a cosmetic change for the substance of the domination system to remain untouched: imperialism has never been an issue of melanin.

The imperial politics of the US are not up to each US president to decide: it is a well ingrained element in the Yankee State apparatus, in the social forces which shape the life of that nation, and the single force that can alter this order of things is the grassroots, bottom-up, struggle of the people. For let us remember something that we Latin Americans frequently forget: in the US there are also people. There is also a working class. Change depends on them. A US president, at most, can decide what version of imperialism he wants to apply, be it a Neanderthal version of imperialism, or a "forced consensus" version.

Let us hold no false illusions.

Imperialism cannot be reformed, neither will it be defeated in the ballot box. It will be defeated in the streets, in the workplaces, in the schools and universities, through the struggle we lead in the countryside and in the urban centres, the struggle we take to every corner of this world. Difficult as this struggle may seem, is the only realistic option left.

Let me repeat: in the US, there are also people. But just as the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal needed that push from the African anti-colonial struggles (Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau) to fall, and needed that stimulus for the blossoming of the Carnation Revolution to happen, US imperialism and its global dictatorship will fall with that little push of our anti-colonial struggles in the Middle East and Latin America. But that struggle belongs to the people themselves, to the working class, and it will have no other unconditional allies but their own solidarity: if Ayiti (Haiti), if Colombia, if all of America, if Palestine, if the Middle East, are to wait for the answers to their deep problems to arrive from the White House, they will have to remain waiting for millenia to come, forever and ever...

José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
05 June 2008