Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Richard A. Gephardt
Democratic Leader
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Gephardt and DCCC,
Being neither a Republican nor Democrat, but a revolutionary socialist, I will take this opportunity to reply to your letter and the survey.
The letter itself is highly questionable coming from a party that whose values and ideas, especially of late, have little to do with democracy, equality or freedom. The survey is ludicrous. Whereas it is incredibly restrictive and offers little opportunity for expressing alternative opinions, there is no way it could help prepare the Democratic Party for winning (I assume that's what you want) the upcoming mid-term elections. But then, the last thing the Democratic Party (much less the Republicans) would want to reflect is the opinions of the majority of American citizens.
Suffice to say, if you haven't already thrown this letter away -- or perhaps they are thrown away forthwith, as all you are really interested in is an enclosed check -- then I wish to state that as a member of the IWW and Labor Party, the last thing I want to see is another ''representative'' of the wealthy class screwing over the working people. Those in positions of power know damn well whose interest they serve. My appologies to those members of either of the two major parties, who still believe otherwise. I would encourage you to look to alternatives.
If the Democratic Party was truly intersted in overcoming terrorism, then look to your policies first and foremost. Otherwise, stop lying. Get the hell out of Afganistan, stop subsidising Columbian death squads and the Israeli state. Condemn Bush for the arrogance of naming Iraq, North Korea, China, etc. Axes of Evil, and instead profer assistance. Bring an end to corporate domination of nation-states through the WTO, NAFTA (FTAA), IMF and World Bank. Show some remote interst in democracy!
Herein you will find your survey and the flag of corporate wealth. Perhaps you should consider taking the design and changing all US flags in accordance. At least, this way you would be a little more honest. Perhaps I might even start respecting you. Well, you could hope....
As I stated in a letter to President-Select Bush (for whose selection and idolization the Democrats are just as much responsible), but to which letter he has failed to respond, I rescind my citizenship to the United States of America and all rights and obligations accorded thereto. In their stead I take upon myself all rights and obligations as a human to fight for the rights and liberaties of all people, all nations.
Curtis Vaughan
Wednesday, January 30, 2002
Tuesday, January 29, 2002
The Politics of Lesser Evilism
The Politics of Lesser Evilism
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Finals: Lesser Evilism 101
Part I.
Which President put forth a national minimum incomes plan?
Which President proposed a comprehensive national health insurance plan?
Which President signed the law creating OSHA?
Which President signed the law creating the EPA?
Who was President when the Roe vs. Wade case was decided?
Answer:
Believe it or not, that President was Nixon.
Part II.
Which President bombed Iraq weekly and starved Iraqis slowly for a period of 8 years?
Which President rolled back civil liberties by making it illegal to aid groups in other countires that were considered 'terrorist' according to the CIA?
Which President ended 'welfare as we know it'?
Which President sat on ergonomics improvements for 8 years, as well as on improved standards for drinking water?
Which President greatly expanded 'free trade' agreements that are disastrous for workers and the environment in the US and other countries?
Which President let striker-replacement legislation die in Congress?
Answer:
Believe it! That President was Clinton.
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Lately, many on the left have been barraged by the apocalyptic slogan, "Anyone but Bush!" Many a Democrat (sic!) seems willing to acknowledge that the likely presidential contender from the Democratic Party (DP) will be a direful option, but somehow better than the current Command-in-Thief. One might ponder: if the strategy if the DP is to vote in any Democrat and not fight for a progressive agenda, to attach not just just Bush, but also any progressive candidate (i.e., the Greens), how is this going to solve any of the real issues that affect our lives. If this is the only choice and the only strategy, then perhaps we should just admit it: there is no democracy in these United States.
There is, of course, more than a choice between just Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Dumberer. Not only are there third-party candidates, but one may also chose not to participate in the charade: i.e., not to vote. In fact, many polls over the years have shown that choosing not to vote is done for precisely the very reason that the people do not see a viable candidate. In the same vein, many leftists refuse to vote in someone who they are certain will screw the workers.
There are many problems with the American electoral process. One major problem is the fact that so many progressives become deluded into participating in the "democratic" circus. Their energies thereby become diluted from the struggles at hand. This serves as a warning that the period ahead may prove to be a low point in activism as more and more people are drawn deeper and deeper into the electoral process.
What many progressives fail to comprehend (although acknowledge to a degree) is the complicity of the DP in the right-wing assault domestically and abroad. Many a politician in the DP can and should be held in contempt for every anti-worker legislation and action on the part of the government over the past 20-odd years - from Reagan's attack on airline pilots through Clinton's welfare reforms to the current administration's proto-fascist policies. The Democrats have been complicit in it all. Not to mention, the complicity of the DP in wars throughout the world. Again, we see this continuum of complicity from Reagan through Clinton to the present.
The fact of the matter is that the two parties are equitable. They do not represent the people and they definitely do not represent the workers. They do, however, represent the wealthy, the capitalists, the bosses, the bourgeoisie - whatever you want to call them. The funny thing is that everyone seems to know this, but still believe that somehow these politicians are interested in 'us' - in the 'we, the People.' By supporting the duopoly of power, by voting for a Democrat, one merely ends up strengthening the resolve of the politicians in either party to continue to pursue 'their' interests against 'ours.'
Real power, however, lies with us, the People, the working peoples of this nation. It matters not whether the person occupying the White House is Bush or Kerry. Either one will pursue policies that we will not agree with. Real progressive change only occurs when the people take to the streets, demonstrate, and if, need be, revolt. The strategy of putting one's faith in the electoral process is one that has kept the left back for too many years. If we really want to develop a society that approaches the goals and ideas reflected in such documents as the Constitution or even the Bible, then we, the People, have to take the power of decision-making back into our own hands and stop handing it over to those who do not represent us, our interests, or our values.
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Finals: Lesser Evilism 101
Part I.
Which President put forth a national minimum incomes plan?
Which President proposed a comprehensive national health insurance plan?
Which President signed the law creating OSHA?
Which President signed the law creating the EPA?
Who was President when the Roe vs. Wade case was decided?
Answer:
Believe it or not, that President was Nixon.
Part II.
Which President bombed Iraq weekly and starved Iraqis slowly for a period of 8 years?
Which President rolled back civil liberties by making it illegal to aid groups in other countires that were considered 'terrorist' according to the CIA?
Which President ended 'welfare as we know it'?
Which President sat on ergonomics improvements for 8 years, as well as on improved standards for drinking water?
Which President greatly expanded 'free trade' agreements that are disastrous for workers and the environment in the US and other countries?
Which President let striker-replacement legislation die in Congress?
Answer:
Believe it! That President was Clinton.
---------------------SIDE BAR------------------------------
Lately, many on the left have been barraged by the apocalyptic slogan, "Anyone but Bush!" Many a Democrat (sic!) seems willing to acknowledge that the likely presidential contender from the Democratic Party (DP) will be a direful option, but somehow better than the current Command-in-Thief. One might ponder: if the strategy if the DP is to vote in any Democrat and not fight for a progressive agenda, to attach not just just Bush, but also any progressive candidate (i.e., the Greens), how is this going to solve any of the real issues that affect our lives. If this is the only choice and the only strategy, then perhaps we should just admit it: there is no democracy in these United States.
There is, of course, more than a choice between just Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Dumberer. Not only are there third-party candidates, but one may also chose not to participate in the charade: i.e., not to vote. In fact, many polls over the years have shown that choosing not to vote is done for precisely the very reason that the people do not see a viable candidate. In the same vein, many leftists refuse to vote in someone who they are certain will screw the workers.
There are many problems with the American electoral process. One major problem is the fact that so many progressives become deluded into participating in the "democratic" circus. Their energies thereby become diluted from the struggles at hand. This serves as a warning that the period ahead may prove to be a low point in activism as more and more people are drawn deeper and deeper into the electoral process.
What many progressives fail to comprehend (although acknowledge to a degree) is the complicity of the DP in the right-wing assault domestically and abroad. Many a politician in the DP can and should be held in contempt for every anti-worker legislation and action on the part of the government over the past 20-odd years - from Reagan's attack on airline pilots through Clinton's welfare reforms to the current administration's proto-fascist policies. The Democrats have been complicit in it all. Not to mention, the complicity of the DP in wars throughout the world. Again, we see this continuum of complicity from Reagan through Clinton to the present.
The fact of the matter is that the two parties are equitable. They do not represent the people and they definitely do not represent the workers. They do, however, represent the wealthy, the capitalists, the bosses, the bourgeoisie - whatever you want to call them. The funny thing is that everyone seems to know this, but still believe that somehow these politicians are interested in 'us' - in the 'we, the People.' By supporting the duopoly of power, by voting for a Democrat, one merely ends up strengthening the resolve of the politicians in either party to continue to pursue 'their' interests against 'ours.'
Real power, however, lies with us, the People, the working peoples of this nation. It matters not whether the person occupying the White House is Bush or Kerry. Either one will pursue policies that we will not agree with. Real progressive change only occurs when the people take to the streets, demonstrate, and if, need be, revolt. The strategy of putting one's faith in the electoral process is one that has kept the left back for too many years. If we really want to develop a society that approaches the goals and ideas reflected in such documents as the Constitution or even the Bible, then we, the People, have to take the power of decision-making back into our own hands and stop handing it over to those who do not represent us, our interests, or our values.
Monday, January 28, 2002
Baseball and Unions
Maybe this is a little paranoid, but I really think that the right-wing propaganda machine went into full gear at the end of August with respect to the potential baseball strike. What a great opportunity to besmirch unions when people are enraged over a possible disruption in America's favorite pastime. Worse, there were likely many union members among those who were throwing garbage onto baseball fields prior to the potential strike day.
Here in the Seattle Area this came at a time of potential strike activity on three other fronts: a strike vote by Boeing machinists and school teachers, and the potential for an ILWU strike. For the left and for unionists, this was a great opportunity to show solidarity. Imagine machinists, teachers and even baseball players marching together to the docks to support the longshore workers!
Unfortunately, the great opportunity was seized upon by the right and the media, while the left let it slip past.
Let's get something clear. Part of the reason why baseball players make so much is because they have organized into a union. In fact, this alone should act as an example to the working people of the world as to what organizing and being a union member can do for you as an individual and collectively. Despite some of the negative aspects of the negotiated baseball contract, imagine, if you would, that the base salary in your industry was $200,000 annually and that no plant, office, etc. would be closed for the next four years. These are the type of demands workers should be making in all industries.
All union members know that without solidarity we are doomed. The owners of business will use every opportunity to divide us and keep us divided and, thereby, better conquer us. As for me, I say, next time, if the baseball players don't like their contract then strike, and I for one will support them. And given our support, and not our rant, then perhaps when it comes our turn to strike, well, wouldn't it be great to have your local baseball team come out and support you!
An injury to one is an injury to all.
Here in the Seattle Area this came at a time of potential strike activity on three other fronts: a strike vote by Boeing machinists and school teachers, and the potential for an ILWU strike. For the left and for unionists, this was a great opportunity to show solidarity. Imagine machinists, teachers and even baseball players marching together to the docks to support the longshore workers!
Unfortunately, the great opportunity was seized upon by the right and the media, while the left let it slip past.
Let's get something clear. Part of the reason why baseball players make so much is because they have organized into a union. In fact, this alone should act as an example to the working people of the world as to what organizing and being a union member can do for you as an individual and collectively. Despite some of the negative aspects of the negotiated baseball contract, imagine, if you would, that the base salary in your industry was $200,000 annually and that no plant, office, etc. would be closed for the next four years. These are the type of demands workers should be making in all industries.
All union members know that without solidarity we are doomed. The owners of business will use every opportunity to divide us and keep us divided and, thereby, better conquer us. As for me, I say, next time, if the baseball players don't like their contract then strike, and I for one will support them. And given our support, and not our rant, then perhaps when it comes our turn to strike, well, wouldn't it be great to have your local baseball team come out and support you!
An injury to one is an injury to all.
Tuesday, January 1, 2002
Globalization
Today’s advocates of globalization, whether politicians, WTO officials, or
neo-liberal economists, claim that globalization will lead to greater
equality and freedom for all participating nations and peoples. However,
official documents of these same institutions reveal just how much they
believe their propaganda. As an example, the United States Space Command
in its document titled Vision for 2020 states verbatim, “The globalization
of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between ‘haves’
and ‘have-nots.’”
That’s putting it rather plain and simple - and dead on! Taking into
consideration the fact that this document is more an advertisement for the
US war department, advocating the development and deployment of space-based
weaponry, let’s look to a more composed document.
The US National Intelligence Council (an organization under the CIA’s
authority) produced a document under the title, “Global Trends 2015: A
Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts.” Here is a document
that states flat out that its in favor of continued globalization.
However, here is was it has to say about the economic effects of
globalization: “…economic liberalization and globalization entail risks and
inevitably will create bumps in the road, some of them potentially highly
disruptive.” Specifically, it goes on to outline that there will be
economic crises due to the fact that individual countries will have exposed
themselves to swings in the global market. Furthermore, through the
increased integration of global financial markets a crisis in any one
country will quickly transmit into turmoil in another country, region or
internationally.
The NIC document then develops possible scenarios that could lead to
alternative global changes. One such scenario foresees that, “Global
elites thrive, but the majority of the world's population fails to benefit
from globalization.” Continuing on, it foresees a period when, “The global
economy splits into three: growth continues in developed countries; many
developing countries experience low or negative per capita growth,
resulting in a growing gap with the developed world; and the illicit
economy grows dramatically. Governance and political leadership are weak at
both the national and international levels. Internal conflicts increase,
fueled by frustrated expectations, inequities, and heightened communal
tensions; WMD [ed. Weapons of Mass Destruction] proliferate and are used in
at least one internal conflict.”
But that was just one of the possible scenarios. Are any of the other
scenarios promising? No. All of the four scenarios take as a given that
some countries will fail to benefit from globalization. Hm? And I wonder
which will?
Finally, the report documents possible trends that could adversely affect
the realization of their predictions. One such threat is the growing anti-
globalization movement, which may become, “a powerful sustainable global
political and cultural force—threatening Western governmental and corporate
interests.” Nation-states may also threaten US global hegemony: e.g.
should “China, India, and Russia form a defacto geo-strategic alliance in
an attempt to counterbalance US and Western influence”; or should the “US-
European alliance collapse, owing in part to intensifying trade disputes
and competition for leadership in handling security questions”; or,
finally, should “Major Asian countries establish an Asian Monetary Fund or
less likely an Asian Trade Organization, undermining the IMF and WTO and
the ability of the US to exercise global economic leadership.”
Maybe there is some hope….
(Thanks to the head-up on these documents provided by Noam Chomsky,
“Militarizing Space,” as published in International Socialist Review, Issue
19)
neo-liberal economists, claim that globalization will lead to greater
equality and freedom for all participating nations and peoples. However,
official documents of these same institutions reveal just how much they
believe their propaganda. As an example, the United States Space Command
in its document titled Vision for 2020 states verbatim, “The globalization
of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between ‘haves’
and ‘have-nots.’”
That’s putting it rather plain and simple - and dead on! Taking into
consideration the fact that this document is more an advertisement for the
US war department, advocating the development and deployment of space-based
weaponry, let’s look to a more composed document.
The US National Intelligence Council (an organization under the CIA’s
authority) produced a document under the title, “Global Trends 2015: A
Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts.” Here is a document
that states flat out that its in favor of continued globalization.
However, here is was it has to say about the economic effects of
globalization: “…economic liberalization and globalization entail risks and
inevitably will create bumps in the road, some of them potentially highly
disruptive.” Specifically, it goes on to outline that there will be
economic crises due to the fact that individual countries will have exposed
themselves to swings in the global market. Furthermore, through the
increased integration of global financial markets a crisis in any one
country will quickly transmit into turmoil in another country, region or
internationally.
The NIC document then develops possible scenarios that could lead to
alternative global changes. One such scenario foresees that, “Global
elites thrive, but the majority of the world's population fails to benefit
from globalization.” Continuing on, it foresees a period when, “The global
economy splits into three: growth continues in developed countries; many
developing countries experience low or negative per capita growth,
resulting in a growing gap with the developed world; and the illicit
economy grows dramatically. Governance and political leadership are weak at
both the national and international levels. Internal conflicts increase,
fueled by frustrated expectations, inequities, and heightened communal
tensions; WMD [ed. Weapons of Mass Destruction] proliferate and are used in
at least one internal conflict.”
But that was just one of the possible scenarios. Are any of the other
scenarios promising? No. All of the four scenarios take as a given that
some countries will fail to benefit from globalization. Hm? And I wonder
which will?
Finally, the report documents possible trends that could adversely affect
the realization of their predictions. One such threat is the growing anti-
globalization movement, which may become, “a powerful sustainable global
political and cultural force—threatening Western governmental and corporate
interests.” Nation-states may also threaten US global hegemony: e.g.
should “China, India, and Russia form a defacto geo-strategic alliance in
an attempt to counterbalance US and Western influence”; or should the “US-
European alliance collapse, owing in part to intensifying trade disputes
and competition for leadership in handling security questions”; or,
finally, should “Major Asian countries establish an Asian Monetary Fund or
less likely an Asian Trade Organization, undermining the IMF and WTO and
the ability of the US to exercise global economic leadership.”
Maybe there is some hope….
(Thanks to the head-up on these documents provided by Noam Chomsky,
“Militarizing Space,” as published in International Socialist Review, Issue
19)
The Grail
In periods of uncertainty, when looking for direction in our lives,
often we find ourselves referring to the classics of literature for
answers. Whether in Homer, Shakespeare or mythologies there is always
parallel to be found to illuminate the issues that have confronted humanity
during any period of time. Although such an approach has always left a bad
taste in my mouth, the overall response to the terrorist attack of 911
conjures up an indubitable parallel from a classic of English culture.
“A witch, a witch! We have found a witch!” And so King George,
entourage in tow, has presented not just to the American people but to the
entire world the pariah of these Middle Ages. The cacophony of accusations
is broken by a momentary voice of reason (or so it seems), as the
enlightened intellectuals of our day put forward the pertinent question,
“How do you know she is a witch?” But it is of no surprise, for we know
the text well, that the first reply made by our benign leaders and
‘objective’ press is, “She looks like one.” Good enough for many of us.
Fortunately, not for all.
The parallels, ludicrous as they may seem, would end here but the sad
part of the story is that like the village mob looking for a scapegoat, for
some release of the tensions of absolute subjugation and uncertain futures,
it turns out that our leaders have likewise dressed her up in this guise.
And just like in the movie, they admit it. Well, if that isn’t proof
enough there is the final, ultimate proof of guilt. She has got a wart!
Dauntingly, it is only in the theater that the audience is brought to
hysterics by the very ludicrousness of this scene. In real life, the
hysterics are a shame. Not only is Assama bin Laden, guilty as he may be
for these are other actions, has been made the absolute scapegoat along
with many individual human, whose only guilt is having warts.
So enters King George, who is by far no Arthur - as only many of us
scripted Frenchmen seem to see through his guise and know that he is a
silly ‘kanigget.’ Wise King George is deft in dealing the coup de grace,
for even though federal agents admit that they do not posses conclusive
evidence, King George, ‘so wise in the ways of science,’ knows that bin
Laden is the guilty party and must be burned at the stake alive. Proof?
Good enough for the honorable Knights of the Round Table. Except for one
sane dissenting voice on Camelot in the House of Representatives, the
entire political elite of the country is singing praises to the pseudo-
president whom they have made king.
In all this brouhaha, we have lost sight of the goal, the quest posed
by our parallel classic - the ever-allusive Holy Grail. It is a quest will
lead our gallant tragicomics and their minstrels (who, by the grace of god,
turn out to be convenient sources of sustenance) on misadventures with
witches, three-headed giants, and rabbits with nasty, pointy teeth –
misadventures that lead to the dissolution of the round table and the
incarceration of its leaders. Well, at least there is that hope.
often we find ourselves referring to the classics of literature for
answers. Whether in Homer, Shakespeare or mythologies there is always
parallel to be found to illuminate the issues that have confronted humanity
during any period of time. Although such an approach has always left a bad
taste in my mouth, the overall response to the terrorist attack of 911
conjures up an indubitable parallel from a classic of English culture.
“A witch, a witch! We have found a witch!” And so King George,
entourage in tow, has presented not just to the American people but to the
entire world the pariah of these Middle Ages. The cacophony of accusations
is broken by a momentary voice of reason (or so it seems), as the
enlightened intellectuals of our day put forward the pertinent question,
“How do you know she is a witch?” But it is of no surprise, for we know
the text well, that the first reply made by our benign leaders and
‘objective’ press is, “She looks like one.” Good enough for many of us.
Fortunately, not for all.
The parallels, ludicrous as they may seem, would end here but the sad
part of the story is that like the village mob looking for a scapegoat, for
some release of the tensions of absolute subjugation and uncertain futures,
it turns out that our leaders have likewise dressed her up in this guise.
And just like in the movie, they admit it. Well, if that isn’t proof
enough there is the final, ultimate proof of guilt. She has got a wart!
Dauntingly, it is only in the theater that the audience is brought to
hysterics by the very ludicrousness of this scene. In real life, the
hysterics are a shame. Not only is Assama bin Laden, guilty as he may be
for these are other actions, has been made the absolute scapegoat along
with many individual human, whose only guilt is having warts.
So enters King George, who is by far no Arthur - as only many of us
scripted Frenchmen seem to see through his guise and know that he is a
silly ‘kanigget.’ Wise King George is deft in dealing the coup de grace,
for even though federal agents admit that they do not posses conclusive
evidence, King George, ‘so wise in the ways of science,’ knows that bin
Laden is the guilty party and must be burned at the stake alive. Proof?
Good enough for the honorable Knights of the Round Table. Except for one
sane dissenting voice on Camelot in the House of Representatives, the
entire political elite of the country is singing praises to the pseudo-
president whom they have made king.
In all this brouhaha, we have lost sight of the goal, the quest posed
by our parallel classic - the ever-allusive Holy Grail. It is a quest will
lead our gallant tragicomics and their minstrels (who, by the grace of god,
turn out to be convenient sources of sustenance) on misadventures with
witches, three-headed giants, and rabbits with nasty, pointy teeth –
misadventures that lead to the dissolution of the round table and the
incarceration of its leaders. Well, at least there is that hope.
Lipetsk - - Russian Sweatshops
Unless you are a very conscientious buyer or just extremely curious, it may have escaped your notice that a lot of retail clothing is being made in Russia. Although we mostly hear about sweatshops in Asia, these latest additions to slave labor have arrived to Russia like Lipetsk, Voronezh and Belgorod.
One such factory is the Lipchanka Closed Joint Stock Company, located in the city of Lipetsk. Last year Lipchanka workers produced 230,000 men's pants for the German market, and 215,000 women's suits for the US and 50,000 for England. Clothing from this factory is being produced for the Netherlands and, depending on the outcome of undergoing negotiations, perhaps for a Swedish client, as well. Besides these immediate clients, however, Lipchanka's goods are distributed under various brand names worldwide.
The situation at Lipchanka is typical for Russia today. The management has run into debt arrears of 2 - 3 months on the wages of its workforce, which comprises about 1000 employees, most of whom are women. Paid holidays, despite labor laws to the contrary, are practically unknown.
This situation is further aggravated by low wages. The average worker receives from 800 to 1500 rubles per month (about $25 - 48). The highest wages being 2-3,000 rubles.
In spring 2001, the Russian Minister for Light Industry visited the Lipchanka factory. Afterwards, in a local television interview, the Minister stated that the factory was operating well and that salaries were being paid regularly. In response, the husband of one of the factory workers phoned the TV station and told the Minister that his wife had not been paid for three months. The Minister responded by accusing the caller's wife of being a liar.
Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin awarded the general director of Lipchanka, Vladimir Torshin, an award "For Merits to the Fatherland." What indeed are the merits of this director?
Lipchanka's working women have been producing jackets, blazers, trousers, etc. for both foreign and domestic customers. Of Lipchanka's esteemed foreign clients are companies like "Steilmann" (Germany) and Harve Bernard Ltd. (USA). The latter company has enjoyed a "healthy" with Lipchanka for more than one year, which has been marked with high production demands. Despite the fact that the women employees at Lipachanka produce high-quality products, Mr. Torshin is apparently not been pleased with their work as they are paid mere kopecks.
Salaries at Lipachanka are essentially based on piece-work. Quotas are constantly raised, and the rates for completed work are constantly reduced. Company management has been apt to provide perfectly logical pretexts for these reductions. For example, clothing at Lipchanka is finished with a regular iron. As a result, the clothing may acquire a shiny appearance in areas. Regardless, the products are sent to the foreign client, where an automatic steam iron is used, which removes those shiny areas. Regardless, Lipchanka management claims that such articles were "spoiled" and, therefore, the rates were reduced accordingly. Interestingly enough, despite this "spoilage" of the articles, Lipchanka's foreign clients continue to place orders as before.
The work schedule at Lipchanka is heavy: two 12-hour days in succession followed by two days of rest. This amounts to a work week of 48 hours, not the 40 hours required by labor law.* Often workers are "urged" to work at nights with no increase in the wage rate (again in contradition to labor law). In light of the need for a job, workers generally agree to night work nonetheless.
Perhaps the worst period in Lipetsk is summertime. In the summer the temperature on the shop floor can reach almost 100 degrees. In order not to lose consciousness, some women end up pouring water on themselves. Although the director is well aware of these conditions, he apparently has no intent on implementing any changes.
The equipment itself at Lipchanka is estimated to be 80% worn out. Despite this the director has stated that there is no money for new equipment. According to Mr. Torshin, he is a rather poor man, who receives a paltry monthly salary of 8000 rubles, which is also in arrears. If that is the truth, then it is not clear how he managed to build a three-story private residence in the center of Lipetsk - a city where prices for real estate are comparable with Moscow. Mr. Torshin's retorts that his residence was built with his own blood. Probably, it's with the same blood that he went on holiday at the end of September after having failed to pay workers their July salary.
This time he did not have the opportunity to bask in the southern sun, as he was urgently called back from his holiday. On October 2, a strike broke out at Lipchanka.
The immediate reason for the strike was the general director's failure to keep his promise to pay back wages. In September, Torshin had signed an agreement to pay off the wage debts for July. The deadline for payment was set for September 30, which came and past without any wages being paid. Upon discovery that their director had gone on holiday to the Black Sea, the women seamstresses became indignant at having been lied to yet once again. Each year the director had promised to pay a month's bonus salary for good work at the end of one year. But he never kept that promise.
Thus, on October 2, the morning shift of 200 working women arrived as usual at 7:00 a.m., but this time they refused to enter the shop and work until their July salaries were paid. The strike was headed by work-team leader Zinaida Shmeleva, chairman of the local committee of the alternative trade union Dyelo. Although only 160 employees at Lipchanka are members of Dyelo, the union was able to initiate and take the lead of the strike. The women were actively helped by the chairman of the regional federation of the trade union, Valery Bulgakov.
At the same time, the chairman of the local committee of the "official" Federation of Independent Trade Unions (FNPR), Valentine Korableva did not undertake any actions to assure the employees that they would their salaries. When the women refused to get up and start work, she walked among them saying that this was "some kind of circus."
And a circus it truly is - people work for pennies while the factory's clients and management live the life of luxury. They even refuse to pay the few pennies demanded by the workforce. But then, no one is really surprised by this circus that has plagued Russia for the last 10 years.
Management was again quick in offering a "viable" excuse for the unpaid wages. The delay, they stated, was not their fault, but that of one of their clients, the German firm Steilmann. The money had been sent, but due to some ludicrous reasons had been sent back.
By evening the second shift joined the strike en-masse and the strike continued for the next two days. On October 4, the administration's nerves gave out. Money was unexpectedly found and payment of July wages began. Production resumed only the following day.
This is but a familiar story not only to Russia, but to many underdeveloped nations and even sections of the US. Protests against GAP, NIKE and other retailers for the use of gross wage slavery have made the issue pertinent. The western consumer is confronted with the moral delima of just what products can be purchased. The ubiquitous "MADE IN ****" hardly ever divulges the points of origin of any product. The component parts of most any item today have been prepared at various points over the world. This also applies to clothing items that have been prepared in Russia. Nowhere does Lipchanka imprint its factory name on the clothing it makes - only the brand name of the seller is imprinted, which can be very deceptive for the buyer. But the point is not what we should or shouldn't buy, but how to change the system that brings to goods produced under such conditions to the counter.
* The Labor Code referred to here is the old Labor Code, which was only recently replaced by a new one. Under new labor legislation a 58-hour week is now permissible. In addition to other draconian measures that have been introduced by the new labor law, the right to strike has been practically abolished.
Much of the material herein is based on an article by Sergei Chekrygin, which may be found at http://members.aol.com/ISWoR/english/index.html.
One such factory is the Lipchanka Closed Joint Stock Company, located in the city of Lipetsk. Last year Lipchanka workers produced 230,000 men's pants for the German market, and 215,000 women's suits for the US and 50,000 for England. Clothing from this factory is being produced for the Netherlands and, depending on the outcome of undergoing negotiations, perhaps for a Swedish client, as well. Besides these immediate clients, however, Lipchanka's goods are distributed under various brand names worldwide.
The situation at Lipchanka is typical for Russia today. The management has run into debt arrears of 2 - 3 months on the wages of its workforce, which comprises about 1000 employees, most of whom are women. Paid holidays, despite labor laws to the contrary, are practically unknown.
This situation is further aggravated by low wages. The average worker receives from 800 to 1500 rubles per month (about $25 - 48). The highest wages being 2-3,000 rubles.
In spring 2001, the Russian Minister for Light Industry visited the Lipchanka factory. Afterwards, in a local television interview, the Minister stated that the factory was operating well and that salaries were being paid regularly. In response, the husband of one of the factory workers phoned the TV station and told the Minister that his wife had not been paid for three months. The Minister responded by accusing the caller's wife of being a liar.
Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin awarded the general director of Lipchanka, Vladimir Torshin, an award "For Merits to the Fatherland." What indeed are the merits of this director?
Lipchanka's working women have been producing jackets, blazers, trousers, etc. for both foreign and domestic customers. Of Lipchanka's esteemed foreign clients are companies like "Steilmann" (Germany) and Harve Bernard Ltd. (USA). The latter company has enjoyed a "healthy" with Lipchanka for more than one year, which has been marked with high production demands. Despite the fact that the women employees at Lipachanka produce high-quality products, Mr. Torshin is apparently not been pleased with their work as they are paid mere kopecks.
Salaries at Lipachanka are essentially based on piece-work. Quotas are constantly raised, and the rates for completed work are constantly reduced. Company management has been apt to provide perfectly logical pretexts for these reductions. For example, clothing at Lipchanka is finished with a regular iron. As a result, the clothing may acquire a shiny appearance in areas. Regardless, the products are sent to the foreign client, where an automatic steam iron is used, which removes those shiny areas. Regardless, Lipchanka management claims that such articles were "spoiled" and, therefore, the rates were reduced accordingly. Interestingly enough, despite this "spoilage" of the articles, Lipchanka's foreign clients continue to place orders as before.
The work schedule at Lipchanka is heavy: two 12-hour days in succession followed by two days of rest. This amounts to a work week of 48 hours, not the 40 hours required by labor law.* Often workers are "urged" to work at nights with no increase in the wage rate (again in contradition to labor law). In light of the need for a job, workers generally agree to night work nonetheless.
Perhaps the worst period in Lipetsk is summertime. In the summer the temperature on the shop floor can reach almost 100 degrees. In order not to lose consciousness, some women end up pouring water on themselves. Although the director is well aware of these conditions, he apparently has no intent on implementing any changes.
The equipment itself at Lipchanka is estimated to be 80% worn out. Despite this the director has stated that there is no money for new equipment. According to Mr. Torshin, he is a rather poor man, who receives a paltry monthly salary of 8000 rubles, which is also in arrears. If that is the truth, then it is not clear how he managed to build a three-story private residence in the center of Lipetsk - a city where prices for real estate are comparable with Moscow. Mr. Torshin's retorts that his residence was built with his own blood. Probably, it's with the same blood that he went on holiday at the end of September after having failed to pay workers their July salary.
This time he did not have the opportunity to bask in the southern sun, as he was urgently called back from his holiday. On October 2, a strike broke out at Lipchanka.
The immediate reason for the strike was the general director's failure to keep his promise to pay back wages. In September, Torshin had signed an agreement to pay off the wage debts for July. The deadline for payment was set for September 30, which came and past without any wages being paid. Upon discovery that their director had gone on holiday to the Black Sea, the women seamstresses became indignant at having been lied to yet once again. Each year the director had promised to pay a month's bonus salary for good work at the end of one year. But he never kept that promise.
Thus, on October 2, the morning shift of 200 working women arrived as usual at 7:00 a.m., but this time they refused to enter the shop and work until their July salaries were paid. The strike was headed by work-team leader Zinaida Shmeleva, chairman of the local committee of the alternative trade union Dyelo. Although only 160 employees at Lipchanka are members of Dyelo, the union was able to initiate and take the lead of the strike. The women were actively helped by the chairman of the regional federation of the trade union, Valery Bulgakov.
At the same time, the chairman of the local committee of the "official" Federation of Independent Trade Unions (FNPR), Valentine Korableva did not undertake any actions to assure the employees that they would their salaries. When the women refused to get up and start work, she walked among them saying that this was "some kind of circus."
And a circus it truly is - people work for pennies while the factory's clients and management live the life of luxury. They even refuse to pay the few pennies demanded by the workforce. But then, no one is really surprised by this circus that has plagued Russia for the last 10 years.
Management was again quick in offering a "viable" excuse for the unpaid wages. The delay, they stated, was not their fault, but that of one of their clients, the German firm Steilmann. The money had been sent, but due to some ludicrous reasons had been sent back.
By evening the second shift joined the strike en-masse and the strike continued for the next two days. On October 4, the administration's nerves gave out. Money was unexpectedly found and payment of July wages began. Production resumed only the following day.
This is but a familiar story not only to Russia, but to many underdeveloped nations and even sections of the US. Protests against GAP, NIKE and other retailers for the use of gross wage slavery have made the issue pertinent. The western consumer is confronted with the moral delima of just what products can be purchased. The ubiquitous "MADE IN ****" hardly ever divulges the points of origin of any product. The component parts of most any item today have been prepared at various points over the world. This also applies to clothing items that have been prepared in Russia. Nowhere does Lipchanka imprint its factory name on the clothing it makes - only the brand name of the seller is imprinted, which can be very deceptive for the buyer. But the point is not what we should or shouldn't buy, but how to change the system that brings to goods produced under such conditions to the counter.
* The Labor Code referred to here is the old Labor Code, which was only recently replaced by a new one. Under new labor legislation a 58-hour week is now permissible. In addition to other draconian measures that have been introduced by the new labor law, the right to strike has been practically abolished.
Much of the material herein is based on an article by Sergei Chekrygin, which may be found at http://members.aol.com/ISWoR/english/index.html.
A Newer World Order
Since 911 we have heard time and again that this terrorist attack
will demand the dawn of a new period in domestic and international
relations. In just the span of one week the shape of this new period has
taken very definite form. The heralded 'New World Order,' which only
yesterday seemed questionable in light of the rise of anti-globalization
protests throughout the world, has been jolted into fruition.
For this the struggle for freedom and equality of the individual and
nation states continues. A new perspective may be in order in this new
environment. In order to free ourselves of the horror and the fear of
terrorist acts we must understand its causes and effects. With this tool
it will then be easier to orient oneself and others in the struggle ahead.
Terrorism divides peoples and nations. Whenever a group engages in a
terrorist action, that group becomes cast in opposition to the subjects of
the attack. An immediate impediment is raised against the possibility of
people uniting in the struggle. And we all know that a people divided is a
people more easily conquered.
One of the present tasks, therefore, is to counter any and all
attempts to divide the people. Whether the line is drawn at America vs the
Middle East; Anglo-Saxon, Afro-American, Hispanic vs Arab; Christian vs
Muslim; whatever the distinction, it must be immediately criticized. From
Seattle it is encouraging to see the support individuals and groups have
given to a Muslim community center after it had been subjected to an
attacked.
Terrorism empowers the state. In response to a terrorist or
militaristic action the people of a nation state will first look to 'their'
state as the defender of the people's interests. This in turn will
empower other nation states to beaf up their own defenses (internal and
external).
Thus, we have already borne witness to increased measures internally
in the US, not to mention the build up to war that is going on
internationally. With glaring clarity of intent, Congress has gone so far
as anointing George W. Bush with near omnipotent force to annihilate
whomever he dreams fit. Furthermore, the policy of political assassination
may be reintroduced. The very policies that have exacerbated the problem
have been intensified. We may expect that the response will also
intensify.
On the home front our "open and democratic society" may only remain
so through the possible introduction of greater law enforcement, crackdowns
on immigrations and internal spying. There has even been talk of
introducing a national ID card.
The repercussions are spreading throughout the world. In light of
world distraction on the events taking place in the US and now with the
additional commitment by nations to fight terrorism, countries may use this
opportunity to strike in regions of political and economic importance. So,
Israel has already launched attacked Jenin, Russia will can further repress
Chechnya, etc. All of these actions may be condoned in the name of
fighting terrorism.
Terrorism substitutes the people. Terrorism in of itself is an
action outside the control of the people. The people are disenfranchised
from a decision that immediately affects their lives. In response to
terrorism the subjected state becomes disenfranchised from its citizens in
its decisions.
So we see that prior to the attack numerous measures sought for by
Bush had some chance of being scrutinized and placed in the public domain
for debate. But should Bush and others get their way, there is the real
threat that issues concerning ANWA, missile defense, Social Security,
Medicare, etc. may simply be fast tracked through the Oval Office under the
guise of 'making sacrifices' (if they would only be so just in recognizing
them as such).
In order to fight against terrorism, in whatever form it may be, one
must fight against the alienation of political and economic control over
one's life as an individual and as a community by the state. The struggle
that has already begun must be continued.
will demand the dawn of a new period in domestic and international
relations. In just the span of one week the shape of this new period has
taken very definite form. The heralded 'New World Order,' which only
yesterday seemed questionable in light of the rise of anti-globalization
protests throughout the world, has been jolted into fruition.
For this the struggle for freedom and equality of the individual and
nation states continues. A new perspective may be in order in this new
environment. In order to free ourselves of the horror and the fear of
terrorist acts we must understand its causes and effects. With this tool
it will then be easier to orient oneself and others in the struggle ahead.
Terrorism divides peoples and nations. Whenever a group engages in a
terrorist action, that group becomes cast in opposition to the subjects of
the attack. An immediate impediment is raised against the possibility of
people uniting in the struggle. And we all know that a people divided is a
people more easily conquered.
One of the present tasks, therefore, is to counter any and all
attempts to divide the people. Whether the line is drawn at America vs the
Middle East; Anglo-Saxon, Afro-American, Hispanic vs Arab; Christian vs
Muslim; whatever the distinction, it must be immediately criticized. From
Seattle it is encouraging to see the support individuals and groups have
given to a Muslim community center after it had been subjected to an
attacked.
Terrorism empowers the state. In response to a terrorist or
militaristic action the people of a nation state will first look to 'their'
state as the defender of the people's interests. This in turn will
empower other nation states to beaf up their own defenses (internal and
external).
Thus, we have already borne witness to increased measures internally
in the US, not to mention the build up to war that is going on
internationally. With glaring clarity of intent, Congress has gone so far
as anointing George W. Bush with near omnipotent force to annihilate
whomever he dreams fit. Furthermore, the policy of political assassination
may be reintroduced. The very policies that have exacerbated the problem
have been intensified. We may expect that the response will also
intensify.
On the home front our "open and democratic society" may only remain
so through the possible introduction of greater law enforcement, crackdowns
on immigrations and internal spying. There has even been talk of
introducing a national ID card.
The repercussions are spreading throughout the world. In light of
world distraction on the events taking place in the US and now with the
additional commitment by nations to fight terrorism, countries may use this
opportunity to strike in regions of political and economic importance. So,
Israel has already launched attacked Jenin, Russia will can further repress
Chechnya, etc. All of these actions may be condoned in the name of
fighting terrorism.
Terrorism substitutes the people. Terrorism in of itself is an
action outside the control of the people. The people are disenfranchised
from a decision that immediately affects their lives. In response to
terrorism the subjected state becomes disenfranchised from its citizens in
its decisions.
So we see that prior to the attack numerous measures sought for by
Bush had some chance of being scrutinized and placed in the public domain
for debate. But should Bush and others get their way, there is the real
threat that issues concerning ANWA, missile defense, Social Security,
Medicare, etc. may simply be fast tracked through the Oval Office under the
guise of 'making sacrifices' (if they would only be so just in recognizing
them as such).
In order to fight against terrorism, in whatever form it may be, one
must fight against the alienation of political and economic control over
one's life as an individual and as a community by the state. The struggle
that has already begun must be continued.
Rant
ome on you've probably seen or heard it:
"I helped murder families in Columbia."
"I helped kidnap peoples’ dads."
“I helped blow up a building.”
An analysis of American foreign policy? No.
Insights into the effects of US support for authoritarian regimes? Nope.
A critique on US-funding for gorilla forces? Wrong again.
But, could it be children excusing themselves for proving the funds for
such actions? Of course! What else could it be?
So, why not take the American government to task. I mean, it’s always
excusing itself. But if the moral vanguards of our society really don't
want us to sponsor drug kingpins, terrorists, warlords, rogue states, well,
let's just stop paying our taxes till "our" government puts its money where
its mouth is.
Oh, but then that is, in fact, exactly what they do.
The truth is, however, I don't have anything against paying taxes. Hell, I
would even support more taxation. Provided, of course, the funds are used
for just needs: health care, housing, food subsidies, child support, etc.
and not “their” just needs: war, expansion of the military industrial
complex, subsidies to the wealthy, funding anti-democratic regimes, ad
nauseam.
The wealthy, accompanied by their newspapers anguish over how much taxes
their families and businesses have to pay and just how much it's hurting
them. If only we'd come to reason and see that less taxation for them will
mean more money for us all..... Good grief!
I got a better solution! Let's agree to a less burdensome taxation for the
wealthy and increased taxation for the less-than-wealthy, but on a more
equal basis. The capitalists will have to share some of their wealth by
raising wages for workers dramatically (how about equal to that CEOs
received since 1980: a 1,884% increase?). In exchange for their return to
a more noble position in society, we too will burden ourselves with a fair
portion of taxes.
Reality check!
Figures issued by the Labor Department for January through March of this
year show that labor productivity rose by 5.5% and output rose by 6.5% as
compared to the previous quarter. NPR was quite succinct in spelling this
out: workers were fired, paid less, and made to work longer: i.e., we were
more heavily exploited. Or, as reported in the paper of record, The New
York Times: "Companies managed to squeeze every last ounce of production
out of their workers....''
I love it when the press doesn't lie.
"I helped murder families in Columbia."
"I helped kidnap peoples’ dads."
“I helped blow up a building.”
An analysis of American foreign policy? No.
Insights into the effects of US support for authoritarian regimes? Nope.
A critique on US-funding for gorilla forces? Wrong again.
But, could it be children excusing themselves for proving the funds for
such actions? Of course! What else could it be?
So, why not take the American government to task. I mean, it’s always
excusing itself. But if the moral vanguards of our society really don't
want us to sponsor drug kingpins, terrorists, warlords, rogue states, well,
let's just stop paying our taxes till "our" government puts its money where
its mouth is.
Oh, but then that is, in fact, exactly what they do.
The truth is, however, I don't have anything against paying taxes. Hell, I
would even support more taxation. Provided, of course, the funds are used
for just needs: health care, housing, food subsidies, child support, etc.
and not “their” just needs: war, expansion of the military industrial
complex, subsidies to the wealthy, funding anti-democratic regimes, ad
nauseam.
The wealthy, accompanied by their newspapers anguish over how much taxes
their families and businesses have to pay and just how much it's hurting
them. If only we'd come to reason and see that less taxation for them will
mean more money for us all..... Good grief!
I got a better solution! Let's agree to a less burdensome taxation for the
wealthy and increased taxation for the less-than-wealthy, but on a more
equal basis. The capitalists will have to share some of their wealth by
raising wages for workers dramatically (how about equal to that CEOs
received since 1980: a 1,884% increase?). In exchange for their return to
a more noble position in society, we too will burden ourselves with a fair
portion of taxes.
Reality check!
Figures issued by the Labor Department for January through March of this
year show that labor productivity rose by 5.5% and output rose by 6.5% as
compared to the previous quarter. NPR was quite succinct in spelling this
out: workers were fired, paid less, and made to work longer: i.e., we were
more heavily exploited. Or, as reported in the paper of record, The New
York Times: "Companies managed to squeeze every last ounce of production
out of their workers....''
I love it when the press doesn't lie.
Who's the Terrorist Now?
From the moment Bush, Ashcroft and Co. began their attacks upon civil
liberties in the aftermath of September 11, many on the left issued
warnings as to the extent to the definition of terrorists could be
construed. After all, as King George said himself, anyone not with him
was against him, and, therefore, equated with being a terrorist. Forget
the fact that definition encompased the majority of the peoples and nations
of the world. Especially hand picked among nations was that obvious
triumvirate of allies North Korea, Iraq and Iran, to which Cuba, Libya and
Syria were posthastly added. Any question as to the foresight and wisdom
of George W. was instantly quashed in this single moment of greatness.
Most Americans, however, seemed to acquiece on these issues as it was
apparently necessary to forego certain rights and privileges for the sake
of 'national security.' Besides, they would not arrest innocent Americans,
let alone foreigners. Unless, of course, you look Arabic – at least, to
some degree, or if you have relatives in Samolia, to whom you are sending
moneys (it must be a front!), or you just look plain suspicious.
Now it turns out that all the warnings issued by those damned leftists and
liberals, who just can't seem to leave well enough alone, are proving to be
true. Direct from the FBI comes a document presented to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence on February 6, 2002, titled, “The Terrorist
Threat Confronting the United States.”
Specifically, according to this document, the United States faces not only
the threat of state-sponsored terrorism and of terrorist organizations, but
also of domestic terrorists. This sounds reasonable until we get down into
the fine print describing which organizations the FBI characterizes as
being terrorist.
From the outset you might expect al Queda or some other groupings to be
mentioned first, but in fact first mention belongs to the Animal Liberation
Front and the Earth Liberation Front. These two organizations are
specifically characterized as “domestic terrorist organizations” as they
implicated in having “committed approximately 600 criminal acts...
resulting in damages in excess of 42 million dollars.” Interestingly
enough, not a single anti-abortion organization is mentioned in the entire
document – organizations and individuals who have entailed as much if not
more costs in damages, all the more vilifying in terms of the number of
human lives they have destroyed. Only one anti-abortion individual is
mentioned – Clayton Waagner. It should be noted that ALF and ELF's
activities have not resulted in the death of any individuals, which they
have admittedly striven for by carefully planning their operations. Anti-
abortionists have on many occasions singled out individuals or clinics
consciously aware that their actions may result in human loss.
The document characterizes those right-wing organizations that present a
terrorist threat. This is justified alone by the bombings that have
occurred over the last decade or more, which were directly linked to right-
wing organizations and individuals (Oklahoma City Federal Building, the
recent mailbox bombings). In his report FBI Executive Assistant Director
of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence, Dale Watson then proceeds to
outline left-wing organizations that present a terrorist threat. Verbatim:
“The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally
profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as
protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism
and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States and
believe that this change can be realized through revolution rather than
through the established political process.” Certainly not forgotten in
this terrorist web are grouping such as the anarchists. Specific merit is
even given to the Worker's World Party. These later groupings are singled
out due to their organizing the Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against
Capitalism actions. This, along with their “international presence,” he
points out will “at times also represent a potential threat in the United
States.”
The fact of the matter is, revolutionary socialists, like myself, have now
been deemed 'domestic terrorists'. Although given who this is coming from
one might make this their banner, the issue is that the attacks upon the
rights of individuals and organizations has been extended further. Not
only as socialist or anarchist have we direct attacked by the government
that is supposed to represent us, just as we foresaw, but even as
individuals and organizations that do not align themselves with socialist
or anarchist politics. The question is becoming more and more relevent -
When do we cease to remain silent?
liberties in the aftermath of September 11, many on the left issued
warnings as to the extent to the definition of terrorists could be
construed. After all, as King George said himself, anyone not with him
was against him, and, therefore, equated with being a terrorist. Forget
the fact that definition encompased the majority of the peoples and nations
of the world. Especially hand picked among nations was that obvious
triumvirate of allies North Korea, Iraq and Iran, to which Cuba, Libya and
Syria were posthastly added. Any question as to the foresight and wisdom
of George W. was instantly quashed in this single moment of greatness.
Most Americans, however, seemed to acquiece on these issues as it was
apparently necessary to forego certain rights and privileges for the sake
of 'national security.' Besides, they would not arrest innocent Americans,
let alone foreigners. Unless, of course, you look Arabic – at least, to
some degree, or if you have relatives in Samolia, to whom you are sending
moneys (it must be a front!), or you just look plain suspicious.
Now it turns out that all the warnings issued by those damned leftists and
liberals, who just can't seem to leave well enough alone, are proving to be
true. Direct from the FBI comes a document presented to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence on February 6, 2002, titled, “The Terrorist
Threat Confronting the United States.”
Specifically, according to this document, the United States faces not only
the threat of state-sponsored terrorism and of terrorist organizations, but
also of domestic terrorists. This sounds reasonable until we get down into
the fine print describing which organizations the FBI characterizes as
being terrorist.
From the outset you might expect al Queda or some other groupings to be
mentioned first, but in fact first mention belongs to the Animal Liberation
Front and the Earth Liberation Front. These two organizations are
specifically characterized as “domestic terrorist organizations” as they
implicated in having “committed approximately 600 criminal acts...
resulting in damages in excess of 42 million dollars.” Interestingly
enough, not a single anti-abortion organization is mentioned in the entire
document – organizations and individuals who have entailed as much if not
more costs in damages, all the more vilifying in terms of the number of
human lives they have destroyed. Only one anti-abortion individual is
mentioned – Clayton Waagner. It should be noted that ALF and ELF's
activities have not resulted in the death of any individuals, which they
have admittedly striven for by carefully planning their operations. Anti-
abortionists have on many occasions singled out individuals or clinics
consciously aware that their actions may result in human loss.
The document characterizes those right-wing organizations that present a
terrorist threat. This is justified alone by the bombings that have
occurred over the last decade or more, which were directly linked to right-
wing organizations and individuals (Oklahoma City Federal Building, the
recent mailbox bombings). In his report FBI Executive Assistant Director
of Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence, Dale Watson then proceeds to
outline left-wing organizations that present a terrorist threat. Verbatim:
“The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally
profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as
protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism
and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States and
believe that this change can be realized through revolution rather than
through the established political process.” Certainly not forgotten in
this terrorist web are grouping such as the anarchists. Specific merit is
even given to the Worker's World Party. These later groupings are singled
out due to their organizing the Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against
Capitalism actions. This, along with their “international presence,” he
points out will “at times also represent a potential threat in the United
States.”
The fact of the matter is, revolutionary socialists, like myself, have now
been deemed 'domestic terrorists'. Although given who this is coming from
one might make this their banner, the issue is that the attacks upon the
rights of individuals and organizations has been extended further. Not
only as socialist or anarchist have we direct attacked by the government
that is supposed to represent us, just as we foresaw, but even as
individuals and organizations that do not align themselves with socialist
or anarchist politics. The question is becoming more and more relevent -
When do we cease to remain silent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)