Revolution- News
Communist Workers & Peasants Party
Messages In This Digest (6 Messages)
1.
Old Anarchist Debate - Spain 1936, Joining the Government From: Gary
2.
Weekly Worker #836 (7 October 2010) now available at www.cpgb.org.uk
From: Steve Cooke
3.
Fw: "The student" 2nd Issue, an organ of National Students Federatio
From: muhammad arfan
4.
basket case :Pakistan or Bangladesh? From: Andreanos
5.
FW: Solidarity Delegation to IRAN - Oct 9 to 15 From: COMRADE SHAHID
6.
School Of Americas Graduate Involved In Ecuador Coup Attempt From: Gary
View All Topics | Create New Topic
Messages
1.
Old Anarchist Debate - Spain 1936, Joining the Government
Posted by: "Gary" garyrumor2@yahoo.com garyrumor2
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:03 am (PDT)
An Old Anarchist Debate - Spain
October 6th, 2010
This is a reprint of an excerpt from a Sam Dolgoff book on the debate
over what the Anarchists should have done in Spain after the Fascists
attempted to overthrow the Republican government and the Anarchists
rallied to prevent a fascist takeover in 1936. The ensuing war against
the Fascists created a dilemma for Anarchists who would normally not
participate in a coalition government with the Socialists and other
Republican parties. Anarchist revolution broke out in Barcelona and
parts of the hinterland. But as has been pointed out, the Anarchists
were not the majority in Republican Spain. They were a large segment,
but among the CNT members there were those who had varying sentiments.
When millions of people are involved, there will never be unanimity of
opinion. Dolgoff claims that the CNT participation in the government
was voted upon in various plenary sessions of delegates from the
membership and the vast majority agreed to join the government. The
debate over this is presented below from Dolgoff's perspective.
My own opinion is that Anarchist purism while good in theory, is tough
in practice. I have always tended to find room for compromise when it
works in the direction of the people's interest as encompassed in the
political vision of the parties involved. Sometimes this means getting
ones hands dirty. Honest dirt is one thing, nasty business is another
and that is where decisions have to be made that will affect the
course of revolutionary action. The other choice is to simply refuse
to participate and await the results, but when a time of crisis hits,
like in Spain 1936, the do nothing approach would be very hard to
sustain in the face of the consequences. As things turned out at least
a heroic defeat meant a future in which Anarchists could hold their
heads up with honor, and build a new movement in better times.
"CONTROVERSY: ANARCHISTS IN THE SPANISH REVOLUTION
by Sam Dolgoff
In 1974, or early 1975, I reviewed in the English anarchist paper
Freedom a book by Carlos Semprun Maura, Revolution and
Counter-Revolution in Catalonia (French edition). In my review I
criticized both Semprun Maura and Vernon Richards' book Lessons of the
Spanish Revolution for presenting a distorted, over-simplified
interpretation of events- a scenario. This provoked a heated rejoinder
from Richards (three or four articles in Freedom).
Over forty years after the tragic defeat of the Spanish Revolution -
1936 to 1939 - the question of anarchist participation in the
Republican government and the role of anarchists in a revolution is a
fundamental problem still debated- still relevant. I include my
polemic with Richards in these memoirs because of the emotional impact
of these stormy years and the great extent to which these events
influenced my thinking and the course of my life.
Since Richards' main source for his criticism of the anti-anarchist
policies of the CNT-FAI governmental participation - are the
anti-participation historians Jose Peirats and Gaston Leval (Level's
Collectives in the Spanish Revolution was translated by Richards), I
refer, in the main, to both Peirats and Leval to refute his
contentions. Richards writes like a prosecuting attorney, but I do not
consider myself a lawyer for the defense. No one can be altogether
objective but I have done my best to present a well-documented,
impartial analysis of the issues involved.
Both Semprun Maura's and Richards' "bete noir" is the CNT-FAI
"bureaucracy." For them, the "bureaucracy" is to a great extent
responsible for the defeat of the anarchist revolution. That a "few
officials became infected with the virus of power" (as Leval puts it)
is true enough. But to charge that the CNT degenerated into a virtual
bureaucratic dictatorship is a gross exaggeration, bordering on
slander.
Richards' attempt to refute my statement that the CNT was so
structured as to reduce the danger of bureaucracy to a minimum only
shows that he does not know what he is talking about. He inadvertently
admits that he has no real evidence to substantiate the existence of
the alleged "bureaucracy": "I have never seen detailed accounts of the
composition [of the bureaucracy], its role, or whether [the
bureaucrats] are paid or unpaid…."
Abel Paz, who fought in the Revolution, in his eyewitness account,
Durruti: The People Armed (pp. 244-5), tells how Durruti, always alert
to the dangers of bureaucracy, investigated:
…the national headquarters of the CNT were not centralized. All the
people working in the national headquarters and in the organization
were employed, not by the National Committee, but were elected by and
accountable to the plant assemblies. They were paid not by the
National Committee, but by enterprises in which they were employed….
Both Augustin Souchy, who administered the Foreign Information Bureau
of the CNT, and one of his coworkers, Abe Bluestein, of New York, told
one that everyone working in the National Headquarters from
responsible officials to porters and maintenance workers were paid the
same equal wages. Durruti and others who investigated were convinced
that there was no bureaucracy in the CNT anywhere.
The contention that the anarchist "leaders" joined the Catalan
"Generalidad" government without consulting the members is also false.
Peirats, in an interview with John Brademas (12 September 1952)
informed him that the decision to join the "Generalidad" government
was adopted by a vast majority vote in the Plenum of Local and
District Federations. (Anarcho-Syndlicalism and Revolution in Spain,
Spanish translation, pp. 211, 214).
As I write these lines I read a review by my old friend and comrade
Abe Bluestein further emphasizing this point:
…and I saw equally strong commitment to anarchist principles in
Barcelona. I saw a regional meeting of the CNT with more than 500
representatives affirm the policy of participating in the government
of Catalonia. At the same time, they voted to continue financial
support to the Libertarian Youth of Catalonia who opposed such
government collaboration publicly in their uncensored leaflets and
pamphlets distributed throughout the city. [Social Anarchism No. 7, P.
9]
The accusation that there was no control from below is emphatically
denied by Gaston Leval in his chapter on libertarian democracy. Leval,
after describing in meticulous detail the democratic libertarian
procedures embedded in the nature and structure of libertarian
organization, declares that libertarian procedures, the fullest
people's direct grass-roots democracy, were practiced
…in ALL the syndicates THROUGHOUT SPAIN. In ALL trades and industries.
In assemblies which in Barcelona brought together - hundreds of
thousands of workers…. In ALL the collectivized villages… which
comprised at least 60% of Republican Spain's agriculture. [Collectives
in the Spanish Revolution, Freedom Press, p. 206- Leval's emphasis]
In its report to the Extraordinary Congress of the International
Workers' Association (IWA-anarchosyndicalist), the National Committee
of the CNT refuted charges that the National Committee violated
anarchist federalist principles by imposing its own decisions on the
rank-and-file local and regional organizations. The decision to join
the Catalan government "Generalidad" was ratified by plenums of local,
district and regional committees in August 1936 and the decision to
join the central government was ratified in a national plenum of
regions in Madrid on 28 September 1936 (the CNT actually entered the
government on 6 November 1936). From 19 July 1936 to 26 November 1937,
seventeen regional plenums and dozens of local plenums and district
federations were called as well as various regional congresses of
unions. (See Jose Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, pp.
185, 186.)
The replacement of the brutal professional police, the Civil Assault
Guards, far from being as Richards contends an "…example of a
politicized bureaucracy," constitutes one of the truly great
achievements of the revolution. His own evidence contradicts his
charge that the patrols received orders from the government. The
patrols were chosen not by the government but by the people
themselves: "various organizations and parties, CNT-FAI, UGT etc…."
(Richards)
Richards and other critics do not seem to grasp the magnitude of the
tragic dilemma of our comrades, the Spanish anarchists. The
libertarian movement was hopelessly trapped between the cruel choice
of collaboration with its anti-fascist enemies, thereby violating the
principles of anarchism, or trying to establish an anarchist
dictatorship over all the other anti-fascist organizations, an obvious
impossibility and even greater violation of anarchism, or accepting,
at least partially, the awesome historic responsibility for a fascist
victory.
What the CNT-FAI should or should not have done in such desperate
circumstances is, of course, debatable. What is not debatable is that
there is a dilemma. I criticized Semprun Maura because he called this,
the most crucial problem of the Spanish Revolution, "a false dilemma"
and I criticized Richards because he labelled it "Dolgoff's dilemma."
"Dolgoff's dilemma" is, however, shared by Gaston Leval, Jose Peirats
and almost all other anticollaborationists as well as all responsible
non-anarchist writers on Spain. Leval graphically portrays the tragic,
heartbreaking situation that our comrades had to face far more
truthfully, with far greater understanding than Richards and the
"pure" anarchist critics:
All those among the anarchists preoccupied primarily with the
revolutionary question oversimplified and overestimated the political
problem. The Social Revolution, they believed, would sweep away the
state and the other entrenched authoritarian institutions… but the
necessity of fighting the war against fascism upset these
expectations….
While the state was severely crippled after the fascist attack of 19
July 1936, it was by no means as impotent as is generally assumed. All
the machinery of the state was still intact; the ministries, and their
officials, a police force, an army though weakened, and the entrenched
bureaucracy still survived… notwithstanding the over-optimism of the
revolutionaries, the state still constituted an effective force in
many provinces and cities… it was only in three or four cities
(Barcelona was the most important) that the anarchists dominated the
situation, and then only for three or four weeks… it is therefore
fallacious to assume that the anarchists were the masters of the
situation….
Another serious problem was that in all of Eastern Spain there were no
arms factories, no raw materials, no iron or coal. The principal arms
factories were in fascist territory….
It is obvious that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to make the Revolution under such circumstances… it became necessary
to collaborate with our anti-fascist enemies against the much more
dangerous common enemy. We could not sweep away the political parties
controlling the municipalities, who with equal fervor were fighting
with the anarchists against fascism. [see Leval, Ni Franco- Ne Stalin,
pp. 76, 94]
Richard ignores a most revealing passage in Peirats' Anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution (English translation, p. 188):
We all understood perfectly that leading to the period of
collaboration was a chain of events that placed the CNT in a helpless
situation… the only alternative of those who consistently opposed
collaboration with the government… was a heroic defeat… they could
offer no solution that would simultaneously preserve victory in the
war against fascism; progress in the revolution; complete loyalty to
their ideas and the preservation of their own lives… they lacked the
power to perform miracles… [my emphasis]
The situation was all the more aggravated by the fact that the
millions of sincere rank-and-file workers, socialists belonging to the
Socialist Party-controlled General Workers Union (UGT), republicans,
Catalan and Basque separatists, petit-bourgeois peasant owners, etc.,
by far outnumbered the CNT-FAI members. Gaston Leval emphasizes this
point:
The vast majority of the population living in the republican part of
Spain were, above all, dominated by the fear of a fascist victory.
They did not understand why all the political parties and social
movements did not constitute a united anti-fascist front regardless of
their ideological differences. The people wanted the CNT and the much
less important FAI to join the united front government which was, for
them, absolutely necessary to guarantee the defeat of fascism….
[Collectives In the Spanish Revolution, Freedom Press, p. 322]
Nor were all the members of the CNT convinced, uncompromising
anarchists. They, too, insisted that the CNT should collaborate with
the anti-fascist parties and even enter the government. On this
important point Peirats takes issue with Richards: "realities are and
always will be more decisive than philosophical speculation…. It is
unrealistic to expect absolute fidelity to principles in an
organization like the CNT, numbering millions…."
Leval explodes the myth that the CNT-FAI "bureaucracy" supinely
capitulated to the counter-revolutionary Republican government:
The leaders of the CNT-FAI, first of all, did what they could not to
give in [join the government-S.D.]. They were undoubtedly inspired by
their traditional opposition to all governmentalism… and all
government parties. But in the face of the growing danger [fascist
victory-S.D.] the greatest unification possible was needed. They
thought up a revolutionary solution: the government should be replaced
by a Defense Council of five members, five from the UGT, four from the
republican parties, five members of the CNT. In this way they sought
to make clear the supremacy of workers' syndical organizations over
the political parties. [Ibid., p. 3221
The CNT proposal was made not by the "leaders," but only after
thorough discussion by the National Plenum of Regions in Madrid, 3
September 1936. The proposal was published in the CNT and republican
press.
Needless to say the proposal was rejected by the 1,200,000 Socialist
Party-controlled labor union UGT and also rejected by the political
parties. Leval, in my opinion, was absolutely right in making a
distinction between an ordinary parliamentarian government of
political parties and one conducted by a coalition of genuine labor
organizations, not by any means a perfect libertarian solution, but
one in which workers' organizations certainly exercise a greater
measure of control.
Leval also notes that the successful organization of the libertarian
collectives was to a great extent undoubtedly due to the fact that in
Granollers, Gerona, Hospitalet, Valencia and many other centers the
mayors were libertarians and they expedited social transformation
(ibid., p. 281). Since the CNT was forced to collaborate with other
anti-fascists in village, municipal and provincial governments, it
stands to reason that it was just as unanarchistic as participating In
the national government. If I were a consistent anti-collaborationist
I would oppose collaboration not only in the central government but
also its subdivisions, without which any government is inconceivable.
Leval even goes so far as to defend a libertarian proposal to
establish a national state financed health insurance fund:
That libertarians should have thought of such a solution which implies
the recognition of the existence of the state… may surprise - and
shock the theoreticians who ignore the practical facts…. As we have
repeated many times, we were in a mixed and most complicated situation
in which private capital and individual property persisted, in which
the socialized economy paid taxes, etc…. In this situation many
activities escaped our control…. [ibid., p. 273]
In respect to the refusal of the anarchists to "take power," for which
the Trotskyites and assorted "Marxist-Leninists" also criticized them,
Leval remarks:
It only needs a modicum of common sense to realize that it was quite
impossible for us to wage war against the other anti-fascist sectors
who would not allow themselves to be wiped out so easily. It would
have been a nonsense and a crime…. [ibid., p. 82]
These quotations (and the anti-participationist literature is filled
with more) read like justifications for governmental participation.
There are undoubtedly quotations from the same sources refuting such
statements. But these contradictions reflect the tragic dilemma of our
valiant comrades. What is most disturbing is Richards' refusal to take
these facts into account, instead misleading his readers by concocting
a false account of the situation in Spain: selecting and twisting only
the kind of "facts" which support his baseless arguments and
accusations.
Although both Leval and Peirats were strongly opposed to governmental
participation, the case for the CNT participation policy could not be
better stated. Their willingness to give full consideration to
policies they did not agree with earned my lasting respect. I
sincerely regret that I could not feel the same way about Richards'
shabby, ungenerous presentation.
Richards believes that the Spanish anarchists, instead of joining the
united front republican government, should have abandoned the fight
against Franco fascism and lived to "fight another day." He admits
that "…such a course could well have ended in defeat in the first few
weeks." when it was by no means certain that the fascists would win
and hopes for final victory ran high. The anarchists would rightly be
accused of cowardice and held responsible for the disastrous defeat by
the masses who at that time were by no means ready to surrender.
Richards himself admits that the "…revolutionary expectations still
ran high and the people still armed…"
This absurd strategy is based upon the unrealistic notion that the
million and a half members of the CNT would accept such a proposal of
the anarchists. There is very good reason to believe that the CNT
members would indignantly refuse to be moved around like checkers at
the behest of the "pure" anarchists. Without the CNT the comparative
handful of anarchists would lose their influence and finally become an
impotent sect absolutely incapable of meaningful action. The anarchist
historian Peirats, for example, makes clear that while the anarchists
did influence the CNT, the CNT made the "anarchists into its own
image… provided them with a sphere of action, masses and positions of
leadership… the anarchists were run by the union…." (Anarchists in the
Spanish Revolution, p. 239) In a great many situations the CNT,
instead of implementing the policies of the anarchists, acted
independently.
Anarchists desperately searching for a practical anarchist alternative
to governmental participation cite the example of the heroic exploits
of the Nestor Makhno anarchist guerrilla movement in the Ukraine
during the Russian Revolution as an example to be followed by the
CNT-FAI. But they ignore the fact that this heroic movement was
crushed and Makhno himself barely escaped abroad, a mortally sick man,
to die in despair in Paris.
The perennial problem of what should be the role of anarchists in a
revolutionary period is always relevant. Many are the lessons to be
learned from both the mistakes and the achievements of our comrades;
from the tragic events in Spain and its international repercussions
manifested in the outbreak of the World War. Regrettably, neither
Richards nor too many others have provided a reasonable basis for
discussion."
From "Fragments: a Memoir", by Sam Dolgoff (Refract Publications,
Cambridge, 1986)
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2.
Weekly Worker #836 (7 October 2010) now available at www.cpgb.org.uk
Posted by: "Steve Cooke" smcooke@gmail.com comradecooke
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:03 am (PDT)
Weekly Worker 836 – Thursday October 07 2010
The latest edition of the Weekly Worker is now available online at
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/edition.php?issue_id=836
In this week's issue:
SANCTIONS SIEGE TURNS INTO CYBERWARFARE
The Stuxnet virus is a new form of warfare. Instead of Iran being
attacked by planes and missiles it has been USBs. Yassamine Mather
reports
LETTERS
Marbles; Cuba; Gangrene; Slander; Reds; Out of step; Not my typo;
Warning; Move forward; Question; Storm;
'APRIL THESES': MYTH AND REALITY
Many on the left see Lenin as undergoing a conversion to Trotskyism in
1917. Lars T Lih takes on this myth and reveals a Lenin, who while
converging with Trotsky in certain respects, still has a different
strategy. There is also the possible influence Kautsky exerted on
Lenin
TAILS AND WAGGING DOGS
The Birmingham conference reveals the tensions and divisions over the
coalition government, writes Eddie Ford
WHAT THE LEFT THINKS OF ED
Jim Gilbert rounds up the response of the left to Labour's new leader
ROAD TO NOWHERE – THE NEVER ENDING 'PEACE TALKS'
Tony Greenstein examines a war by other means
WHY I AM NOT AN ISRAELI PEACE ACTIVIST
Genuine socialists fight against the Zionist project, writes Moshé Machover
SPLITS AND FUSION
Forging a united Communist Party in 1920 involved principled splits as
comrades put partyist revolutionary unity above sect loyalty
M-THEORY AND GOD
Anthony Rose reviews Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow's 'The Grand
Design' Bantam Press 2010, pp208, £18.99 hbk
DIVIDED WE STAND
We have better solutions, asserts James Turley
THANKS FOR THE FLURRY
Disagreements are not shameful, private matters, suggests Robbie Rix
A PDF version of the paper can be downloaded at
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/pdf/ww836.pdf
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3.
Fw: "The student" 2nd Issue, an organ of National Students Federatio
Posted by: "muhammad arfan" struggle_arfan@yahoo.com
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:03 am (PDT)
[Attachment(s) from muhammad arfan included below]
Red salam(laal salam)
hi this is 2nd issue of "The student" an organ of National Student
Federation punjab was published in august.this is jpeg format of
magzine..
please read it and send some valueable suggestion and comments........
In solidarity
ARFAN CH
President NATIONAL STUDENTS FEDERATION PUNJAB
+923467709088
struggle_arfan@yahoo.com, nsfpunjab@gmail.com,
Attachment(s) from muhammad arfan
10 of 16 Photo(s) (View all Photos)
[image: 13.jpg]
13.jpg
[image: 14.jpg]
14.jpg
[image: 4.jpg]
4.jpg
[image: 16.jpg]
16.jpg
[image: 11.jpg]
11.jpg
[image: 5.jpg]
5.jpg
[image: 3.jpg]
3.jpg
[image: 1.jpg]
1.jpg
[image: 6.jpg]
6.jpg
[image: 15.jpg]
15.jpg
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
4.
basket case :Pakistan or Bangladesh?
Posted by: "Andreanos" shafique100@yahoo.com shafique100
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:03 am (PDT)
No government in Pakistan can dare to undo the constitutional
provisions that make the country a religious state. As a matter of
fact, democratic and military governments compete with each other to
make it more religious. Presently, no political force or institution
exists that can usher in modernity and enlightenment in Pakistan
An article titled ‘Bangladesh, “Basket case†no more: Pakistan
could learn about economic growth and confronting terrorism from its
former eastern province’ appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
(September 29, 2010). During the same period, President Barack Obama
specially congratulated Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed
when she came to receive the prestigious United Nations (UN) award.
Bangladesh was one of the six countries from Asia and Africa who were
honoured for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Why have the
US media and President Obama started pampering Bangladesh? Has
Bangladesh bypassed Pakistan in economic development or is it about to
do so in the near future?
Many insiders believe that besides the ground economic reality, the US
is pampering Bangladesh because it wants its army in Afghanistan. The
US administration has requested the participation of the Bangladesh
Army in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. It is highly unlikely that
Bangladesh will dispatch its army to Afghanistan because of the
geopolitics and lack of fighting skills. Many observers believe that
the Bangladesh Army is a police force rather than a war-making
machine.
Besides the US motivation, the WSJ article provides some useful
insights into the development of Pakistan and its former province East
Pakistan, now Bangladesh. To start with, Bangladesh had more
population than Pakistan but after breaking away, due to successful
programmes, it has checked its population growth. Now Pakistan is more
populous than Bangladesh. If the trend continues, as expected,
Pakistan will be left behind even if its annual growth rates are a bit
higher than Bangladesh â€" a doubtful presumption.
Bangladesh’s garment industry is genuinely touted as a success
story. Last year, the country exported $ 12.3 billion worth of
garments and is considered fourth in the world behind China, the EU
and Turkey. It is amazing how a non-cotton producing country can
achieve such a status. However, the article acknowledges that other
than the garment industry the Bangladeshi economy is shallow.
Most importantly, the ideological direction taken by the present Awami
League government will help the country to industrialise fast. A few
months back, the Bangladesh Supreme Court struck down a 31-year-old
constitutional amendment and restored the country to its founding
status as a secular republic. Furthermore, the government has banned
Abul Ala Maududi’s writings. A long-awaited war crimes tribunal will
try senior Jamaat-e-Islami figures for mass murders during
Bangladesh’s war of independence.
The Awami League government could take these bold constitutional
initiatives because of public support for such actions. No government
in Pakistan can dare to undo the constitutional provisions that make
the country a religious state. As a matter of fact, democratic and
military governments compete with each other to make it more
religious. It is hard to envision how long it will take to halt the
theocratic onslaught on society. Presently, no political force or
institution exists that can usher in modernity and enlightenment in
Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan will remain mired in the web of
religious ideology while Bangladesh has a chance to modernise itself.
Nonetheless, given the fickle politics of Bangladesh, its future
direction is not assured.
Bangladesh can be optimistic about its future because of a
multi-religious society and absence of feudalism as an economic order.
Luckily or otherwise, Bangladeshi Muslims were mostly peasants while
the Hindus constituted the landed aristocracy. The movement for
creating Pakistan originated and strengthened in East Bengal because
of the Hindu feudal domination. Ironically, the feudals of West
Pakistan went along with the Muslim League due to an opposite reason:
to save themselves from land reforms that the All India Congress had
vowed to enforce. And the Nehru government fulfilled its promise of
land reforms very early on.
In the united Pakistan, the eastern wing, led by middle class
politicians, had a basic contradiction with the western part, which
was largely dominated by the feudals. Punjabi and Sindhi feudals were
always scared of Bengali Muslim rule because they could have abolished
feudalism. Muslim League was routed in the first election held after
independence and the liberal-progressive alliance called Jugto Front
was expected to win the 1959 elections. One of the main reasons for
Ayub Khan’s martial law was to pre-empt the Jugto Front’s possible
government at the Centre. Ayub Khan just delayed the process, because
in 1970 the Awami League, a middle class party, swept the elections
that led to the independence of Bangladesh.
Like the movement of Pakistan, Bengali Muslims led most of the
democratic movements in Pakistan. The separation of East Pakistan took
away the most democratic and enlightened force from the country. This
is one of the reasons that no significant democratic movement has
penetrated in Pakistan after East Bengal broke away in 1971.
In this historical backdrop, one can comprehend how Bangladesh can
become a modern, secular state, unencumbered by the landed
aristocracy. At present, Pakistan’s per capita of $ 2,600 is much
higher than that of Bangladesh’s $ 1,500. However, given the
socio-historical trends, Bangladesh may have far better future
prospects than Pakistan.
The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.co
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5.
FW: Solidarity Delegation to IRAN - Oct 9 to 15
Posted by: "COMRADE SHAHID" pakusaff@hotmail.com
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:03 am (PDT)
[Attachment(s) from COMRADE SHAHID included below]
Comrade S.
Secretary G.
Ph: (+1) 917 280 0840
Blog: http://pakusaff.blogspot.com/
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 23:04:37 -0400
From: actioncenter@action-mail.org
To: action.news@organizerweb.com
Subject: Solidarity Delegation to IRAN - Oct 9 to 15
International Action Center - iacenter.org
About the IAC | Donate | IAC Books & Resources | Contact Us
Solidarity Delegation to IRAN - Oct 9 to 15
Sara Flounders and John Parker, leaders of the International Action
Center in New York and Los Angeles, will be joining a people-to-people
delegation to visit Iran on Oct. 9. The purpose of the trip is to
express solidarity with the people of Iran, in the face of continuing
U.S. threats to attack a nation of 75 million people.
This trip's purpose is to publicize the following truths:
The people of Iran are not the enemies of the people of the United States;
The government of Iran is not a threat to the people of the United States;
The ominous war plans openly spoken about by the U.S. government place
Iran's 75 million people and the people of the whole region in
enormous danger.
Three years ago, the media reported that 10,000 sites within Iran's
borders are programmed into Pentagon targets. The military-industrial
complex has clogged the Persian Gulf with aircraft carriers,
destroyers, cruise missiles and nuclear submarines. U.S. bases and air
power ring Iran on all sides.
Recently Congress has increased and tightened the economic sanctions
directed at Iran. This too increases the war danger. It cuts off
normal trade and cultural relations. It prevents people-to-people
contacts that can make it harder for any U.S. administration to wage
aggressive war.
It is of utmost urgency to stop the possibility of an attack by the
U.S. Armed Forces and to prevent the other likely scenario: a
U.S.-supported attack on Iran by Israel.
The only possibility of peace is to mobilize the people of the United
States to oppose the Pentagon's war plans.
This is an essential time to defend the right to speak out against
criminal wars and to act in solidarity with all those who the Pentagon
targets.
The growing bigotry and demonization of Muslims with in the U.S. is a
result of the war climate. The Sept. 24 FBI raids and attacks on
antiwar and solidarity activists in Minneapolis, Chicago, and other
cities are a desperate effort to shut down all opposition by a
government determined to wage war on the world. Such efforts will fail
because today the overwhelming majority of the people in the U.S. are
opposed to the disastrous and criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
that the Bush administration justified with a collection of lies. They
are even more opposed to a new criminal military adventure that will
cause more suffering in the oil-rich region including the Middle East
and Central Asia and will come home to us here.
In this time of endemic unemployment, the removal of U.S. workers from
their homes through foreclosures and economic insecurity for tens of
millions of people inside the U.S., it would be even more criminal to
allow hundreds of billions of dollars to burn up in wars that wreak
havoc on the people of the Middle East and Central Asia.
For the reasons discussed above, the International Action Center is
taking part in this people-to-people solidarity delegation to Iran.
Upon their return the delegates will be available for meetings,
interviews and discussions. The International Action Center and its
activists are determined to stand up to the U.S. corporate media's
demonization of Iran, the lies and Pentagon threats and the drive for
profits by the corporate elite.
We appeal to our supporters around the country and the world for the
moral, organizational and material support that can make these efforts
possible and can assure that they are effective.
About the IAC | Donate | IAC Books & Resources | Contact Us
International Action Center
c/o Solidarity Center
55 W 17th St Suite 5C
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
iacenter@iacenter.org
En Español: iac-cai@iacenter.org
www.iacenter.org
_______________________________________________ You are subscribed as
pakusaff@hotmail.com Anyone can subscribe. Send an email request to
Action.News-subscribe@organizerweb.com To unsubscribe
Action.News-unsubscribe@organizerweb.com Subscribing and unsubscribing
can also be done on the Web at
http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/action.news
Attachment(s) from COMRADE SHAHID
1 of 1 File(s)
ATT00001
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.
School Of Americas Graduate Involved In Ecuador Coup Attempt
Posted by: "Gary" garyrumor2@yahoo.com garyrumor2
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:03 am (PDT)
School Of Americas Graduate In Ecuador Coup
October 7th, 2010
It seems that a graduate of the School of the Americas has been
involved in the coup attempt in Ecuador. Just as the leader of the
coup in Honduras was a graduate. The USA seems to be continuing in its
regime change policy. Another area where the Obama administration is a
chip off the old imperialist block.
This is from Presente!
"SOA Graduate Involved in Coup Attempt in Ecuador
Written by Lisa Sullivan
A School of the Americas graduate has been charged for last Thursday's
unsuccessful coup attempt in Ecuador. Colonel Manuel E. Rivadeneira
Tello, a graduate of the SOA's combat arms training course, is one of
three police officials being investigated for negligence, rebellion
and attempted assassination of the president.
Rivadeneira was the commander of the barracks where President Correa
was attacked by protesting police. The injured Correa was taken to a
police hospital were he held hostage by police who threatened to kill
him if he escaped. After 12 hours, 500 elite forces stormed the
hospital and organized a fiery rescue. By the end of the day 4 people
lay dead and over 200 wounded.
This is the second coup attempt led by SOA graduates in a little over
a year. The June 2009 in Honduras led by SOA graduates General Vasquez
Velasquez and General Prince Suazo was successful in overthrowing
President Manuel Zelaya. At the time, President Correa expressed
concern that this opened the possibility of future coups in the
continent acknowledging that he might be a possible target..
The defense of Ecuador's democracy was achieved by its citizens, who
poured into the streets in defense of their popular president. Their
voices were joined by an international chorus of support for Correa,
including the OAS, UNASUR and Secretary of State Clinton. Ecuadorians,
however, were not convinced that the U.S. was an innocent bystander. A
poll indicated that over 50% of Ecuadorians felt that the U.S. had
some involvement in the coup based, perhaps, on experience in their
country where evidence has pointed to past U.S. involvement in coups
and presidential deaths.
Both presidents of Honduras and Ecuador had recently challenged the
use of their military bases by the U.S. military. President Correa
ended a lease to the US to use it's Manta base in 2009, and President
Zelaya had indicated his support for turning the Palmerola base used
by the US into a civilian airport shortly before he was deposed.
Likewise, both countries were members of ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance
of the Americas) when the coups were attempted. A third ALBA country,
Venezuela, was the target of the third Latin American coup of the past
decade, in 2002, also led by SOA graduates.
RT TV News Segment about the Coup with Jihan Hafiz
The failed attempt to overthrow the democratically elected President
of Ecuador Rafael Correa has ignited new claims that the US is still
in the business of putting in and taking out Latin American
Presidents.
From Venezuela to Haiti to Honduras, coups involving the United States
might not seem like anything new to some, but could the emergence of
leftist governments actually challenge the dominance the U.S. had
enjoyed in the region?"
For more info
http://www.soaw.org/presente/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=328&Itemid=74
The School of the Americas is the military institution where Latin
American military are trained in counter insurgency and other tactics
that are generally detrimental to humans.
This is from Wikipedia article about the School of the Americas or The
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, as it is now
called.
"The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or
WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas (SOA; Spanish: Escuela
de las Américas) is a United States Department of Defense facility at
Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia in the United States.
Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American
soldiers and policemen. A number of them became notorious for human
rights violations, including generals Leopoldo Galtieri, Efraín Ríos
Montt and Manuel Noriega, dictators such as Bolivia's Hugo Banzer,
some of Augusto Pinochet's officers[1][2], members of the Atlacatl
Battalion of El Salvador who carried out the El Mozote massacre of
1981, and the founders of Los Zetas, a drug cartel formerly affiliated
with the Gulf Cartel.[3][4] Critics of the school argue that the
education encouraged such internationally recognized human rights
violating practices and that the WHINSEC is merely a new name for the
exact same practices. This is denied by the SOA/WHINSEC and its
supporters, who claim they now emphasize democracy and human rights."
For more info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
1
New Members
Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the
Daily Digest.
Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages
[image: Yahoo! Groups]
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch
format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22151765/History-of-Pakistan-Army-from-1757-to-1971
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21686885/TALIBAN-WAR-IN-AFGHANISTAN
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22455178/Letters-to-Command-and-Staff-College-Quetta-Citadel-Journal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150027/Pakistan-Army-through-eyes-of-Pakistani-Generals
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23701412/War-of-Independence-of-1857
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22457862/Pakistan-Army-Journal-The-Citadel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21952758/1971-India-Pakistan-War
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25171703/BOOK-REVIEWS-BY-AGHA-H-AMIN
