Mendieta and Misogyny.

An Earth-Body Dynamic.

 

Looking at the work of Ana Mendieta the cogs in my mind wound back four years to Lars von Trier's Antichrist. The reasons for this I will expand upon soon enough. The body of work she amassed could be taken for sanguineous and morbid if her recreation of rape scenes are misunderstood. The shock value of these pieces is appropriate as they were made in response to the rape of her fellow students. It was certainly the right time and place for a female artist to be engaging with the prevalence of sexual violence. The decline of an array of social conventions regarding the place of women in society was at its beginning in the early 1970s. It is often forgotten that what is described as the Feminist movement came about in the wake of 60s cultural revolution in reaction to its ambiguity on the question of women's liberation. So it was a ripe subject for exploration in art.

The depictions of femininity in Mendieta's work are particularly interesting in this regard. It reminds one of Antichrist where we are told nature is Satan's church, the locus of misogyny being found in suggestions of an absent autonomy: women as subjects of various natural forces outside of their own control. In ancient religion we find this is most overt in the aversion to female genitalia and the rituals imposed around the menstrual cycle. All of which feeds into the controls set on sexual conduct. This is not just the case in the monotheist tradition, it is even true of Eastern religion where, for example, we find the Buddha was born out of his mother's side. It then makes sense that Mendieta's work links together the Catholic and pre-Christian pagan traditions of Latin America with a certain conception of femininity. Not coincidentally Mendieta produced art on sexual violence as she was moving in this direction.

Death seemed to feature heavily as a theme, whether in the form of natural decay and peformative destruction in the burning of trees and killing chickens. Mendieta would later move away from performance art, which she disliked for its immediacy; and she was further exploring her Cuban heritage. Ochún (1981) was named after a water goddess in Santería - an Afro-Cuban religious movement based on a blend of folk Catholicism with Yoruba customs - who also the goddess of love, intimacy and beauty. According to Wikipedia, Ochún is said to be generous, beneficent and kind as well as capable of incredible chaos in the few occasions where she loses her temper. The extent to which she romanticised the syncretic cultural heritage of Cuba may be more of a matter of speculation at this point. Such a romanticisation may run as far as embracing this model of femininity. It would be easy to attribute this to her deracination as a Cuban-American.

Unfortunately, we will never know how her work would have developed if she had not died in 1985. Even with all of this in mind, Mendieta's work could be interpreted as a genealogy of misogynist themes. After all an earthly conception of femininity parallels what is to be taken from the traditional organic view of the family and a woman's position in said social unit. In Mother Jungle we find a portrayal of womanhood synthesised with nature comes across as much darker. The imposing dark figure with its jagged features and womb on display seems charged with angst; but this is an almost genderless depiction at the same time (aside from the emphasis on the womb). As Rachel Spence has noted, Ana Mendieta resisted attempts by American feminists to reduce her work to goddess worship. In a way the body of work she produced was far more ambiguous.

Spence notes that Mendieta claimed her work held to a particular culture and time. So it might be taken as a representation of womanhood in terms relative to a certain culture. The art made in a natural environment, carved out of rock and wood may seem to be a more warm-hearted a view of nature. Around this time Mendieta was becoming much more conscious in terms of a two-front struggle in feminism against racism and capitalism. She did describe her work as pre-industrial and situates herself in line with Neolithic paintings. If she had lived she may have become involved in the anti-globalisation movement, which shares this nostalgia for the pre-industrial past. In her work she situates humankind in relation to nature, life and death; and she condemned Robert Smithson for his brutalisation of nature in his invasive land art. Where this trajectory leaves women is another matter.

War All the Time.

The special place of British troops who fought in the Falklands in this funeral should surprise no one. It was the war that saved Margaret Thatcher in the 1983 General Election, without which the later battles over the mines, privatisation and the poll tax would've never been fought. Since the death of the 'Iron Lady' we have heard little of the truth of Thatcher's foreign policy. Only the snippets have made it through in a collage of sound bites cherry-picked and arranged by the media class as part of the Thatcher hagiography. We're reminded of the Falklands war, as it was her saviour in life, it is now her saviour in death. There has been little to no mention of the full range of Thatcherite foreign policy, only Ireland and South Africa are mentioned as negative examples of the decisions made by the Thatcher government. Little mention of Thatcher's subservience to American power, evident in her decisions to support Reagan's bombing of Libya and Bush's invasion of Panama to kidnap Noriega. No mention of Thatcher's support for violence around the world.

 

 

The Falklands was once adequately summarised by Jorge Luis Borges as a "fight between two bald men over a comb." It was hardly a noble stand for democracy against dictatorship, as the Thatcher government was supporting Pinochet at the same time. In fact the Chilean dictatorship was a major ally in the war with Argentina. It's plausible that the Thatcher government would've had little qualm with the Argentine Generals had the islands not been an issue of dispute. That can hardly be called 'principled' in any sense of the word. It was a convenient way to benefit from the nationalist fervour too often stirred by war. In his bid to displace anger over his economic policies Galtieri gave Thatcher the opportunity needed to distract from the economic crisis in Britain. The sons of the poor were sent to fight and die for even less than the islands themselves. For their victory the Thatcher government rewarded the country with a programme of privatisation and deregulation, the consequences of which we are still living with to this day.

 

A year before the Falklands war was to be waged Margaret Thatcher gave the nod to the KMS to start training and arming the Contras in Nicaragua. It was a part of Washington's policy of stamping out all opposition with death squads. The support for the Contras would later burst out into the open and expose the ugliness under the surface of America's wars for 'liberty' and 'democracy'. The only other foreign policy position that the press have praised has been Thatcher's stance on the invasion of Grenada. Supposedly the 'Iron Lady' was outraged by the operations conducted in a Commonwealth nation without consulting the British. Actually the outrage was rather timid and private, while the UK government stood in line and supported the invasion. It definitely isn't the case that the Thatcherites were making anything more than cold calculated decisions to keep in line with American foreign policy. As we will see, for the most part, Thatcher failed to differentiate herself from the American line on world affairs.

 

 

We are meant to look upon Margaret Thatcher as a strident anti-Communist who brought down the Berlin Wall with the Reaganites. Even the words the Communists tried to use against her were turned against them. The term 'Thatcherism' was originally deployed by the Communist Party of Great Britain, while 'Iron Lady' was a sobriquet of Soviet invention; it was Dennis Healey who dubbed her 'Attila the Hen'. Old Madge delighted in all of this. It was the only and best card to play of course. Unsurprisingly then 'Attila the Hen' was quick to attack the Soviet empire upon taking office in 1979. It was one of Thatcher's first acts to persuade the European Economic Community to put a stop to its shipments of food and powdered milk to the children of Vietnam. After that decision a third of all infants under five deteriorated and many were stunted. Perhaps the only journalist to document this in the West was John Pilger. He also kept an eye on Thatcher's support for the enemies of the enemy in a bid to support one dominion over another in the Cold War.

 

It was not enough that the US war in Indochina had killed maybe more than 3 million people. The children of Vietnam were guilty by virtue of being born into a Communist state that had dared to try and defy the American empire. When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and overthrew Pol Pot it was the US - still bitter over its humiliation in Indochina - led the chorus of international condemnation. Quick to follow the Americans as ever the British were soon on the side of Pol Pot. It was a matter of supporting China's influence in the region over that of Russia. The Khmer Rouge claimed to be the legitimate government of Kampuchea, so the US and the UK supported their bid to hold onto their seat in the UN. The West withheld aid to Cambodia until the Vietnamese occupation came to an end. The argument was that the Vietnamese would not let the aid reach the Cambodian people. Meanwhile, Vietnam sent over 25,000 tonnes of food aid across the border to feed civilians.

Instead the US government piled on the pressure for the World Food Programme to send $12 million in food to the Khmer Rouge sitting across the Thai border under UN protection. As Pilger has noted, the US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support - $85m from 1980 to 1986 - was later revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Major government would admit in 1991 that the UK had provided the Khmer Rouge with SAS training from 1983. It was in a 1988 interview for Blue Peter of all settings that the 'Iron Lady' clarified her view of the Khmer Rouge "Pol Pot could not go back... but some of the Khmer Rouge of course are very different I think there are probably two parts to the Khmer Rouge there are those who supported Pol Pot and then there is a much much more reasonable grouping within that title 'Khmer Rouge'..." This should not shock the cold-eyed realists of the world.



In the bid to support China mattered more than justice - which was not on the balance sheet of priorities. The deaths of 1.2 million people under Pol Pot were a price worth paying for extending China's reach and rolling back Russian influence. In the surrounding region the Thatcherites were a force of continuity and pledged support for Suharto in Indonesia. This support went as far as arming Suharto's troops to butcher the people of East Timor. The deals were overseen by minister Alan Clark, who had no concern for the consequences of his actions. Again, the justification for America's support for Suharto was to hold-off Communism. Sukarno was too left-ish and had to go, the CIA made sure of that in 1965 with the coup that installed Suharto for the next 33 years. The deaths of 200,000 people in East Timor didn't matter, neither did the deaths of more than a million people in Indonesia itself. It mattered not to Mr Reagan as little as it did to Mrs Thatcher.

 

This was a policy not contained nor unique to East Asia. It was the Thatcher government which violated Britain's neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war and began to sell as many arms as possible to Saddam in 1981. The American government had yet to remove Iraq from the terrorist list at that time. Once Iraq had been taken off the list (and replaced with Cuba) the Reagan administration threw total support behind Saddam. Before the Reaganites could fully align themselves with Hussein in 1982, Thatcher was sending Christmas cards to not just Saddam Hussein but Colonel Gaddafi. Together the Reaganites and the Thatcherites won over Saddam to the American side of the Cold War. That was before the standing of both Saddam and Gaddafi changed. Over 20 years later, as Jonathan Schwarz noted, the Iron Lady penned this line for an article "Saddam must go... It is clear to anyone willing to face reality that the only reason Saddam took the risk of refusing to submit his activities to U.N. inspectors was that he is exerting every muscle to build WMD."

 

We're living with the legacy of Thatcherism abroad and not just at home, it is very much alive and kicking. It's not just that we live with privately owned electric companies and a crippled labour movement. It was Thatcher's foreign policy which stands as the extension of the prescription of austerity, privatisation and deregulation. Financialisation and wars of aggression are not as far from one another as it may appear. Both were just as short-sighted as one another. It was the Thatcher-Reagan support for Iraq in its development of weapons of mass-destruction in the 1980s the Iranians reacted by re-opening the nuclear facilities that had been closed with the era of the Shah. We know how this ended for Iraq and we should be alarmed by the ongoing aggression demonstrated by the US and the UK towards Iran. It could all too easily escalate into a full-blown war and we know whose side we shall be on. And for that we may thank the departed.

Hugo's Crime.

    The passing of Hugo Chavez has provoked the standard chorus from the familiar rabble of independent minds. It was another instance of the conformity of the non-conformists. It was to be expected. Chavez had committed the unspeakable crime of not bowing to Washington, not just surviving its bungled putsch, but marching onwards further left. Dippy Toby Young fell back on the writings of Christopher Hitchens to dub Chavez a cross-breed between General Peron and Kim Jong-il. Meanwhile Rod Liddle decided on the word 'pillock' to label Chavez supporters. That was before little Rod managed to cram every hysterical accusation ever made against the man into an article of around 150 words. That's to be expected from the Right. Yet the liberals found much more grounded points, namely those often mentioned human rights violations: specifically, encroachments upon the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the press.

    Over at The Guardian Nick Cohen sqawked at Seamus Milne about human rights in Venezuela. He was right to refer to the highly questionable, to say the least, encroachment by the party-state on the judiciary to shunt Judge Maria Afiuni into a cell in 2009. Mr What's Left also referred to the canceling of RCTV's free license to broadcast terrestrially, even though the station maintained its right to broadcast via satellite and cable. When confronted with the fact that RCTV had supported a military putsch to overthrow Chavez and, install a right-wing dictatorship, Mr What's Left soon went on the defensive. Babbling Cohen dredged up the attempt by Chavez in 1992 to overthrow an appallingly violent government - that had slaughtered 3,000 people in 1989 - with a privatisation agenda. Although Cohen seemed to want to praise Chavez for the move he had made to establish universal health-care and education in Venezuela. By the end it was apparent that the self-proclaimed last liberal failed to take these accomplishments seriously.

    You can easily spot the contrarians, they come in herds. The independent minds behind the Euston Manifesto love a good parade. The difference between these sorry liberals and the reactionnaires are emblematic. As with the French Revolution, the Right finds trouble with the very idea of 1789 whereas the liberals barf over 1793. So here we find the problem for the conservatives was Chavez by his very existence, for liberals the problem was the man's persistence. He proved you don't need to compromise, a most overrated fetish of liberalism. If Chavez had been overthrown properly in 2002, or better yet killed, before delivering on serious reform then the liberals and, indeed, sections of the Left would have a clean martyr. The coup of '92 would be forgotten, instead pages could be filled with ink about the glorious changes that would have been enacted had Chavez lived longer. To some extent this tune will be played by the Left should Venezuela descend back into darkness. Likewise the reactionists will toot and tweet that the death of Chavez has saved the country.

    We should be big enough to recognise the greatness of Hugo Chavez without losing sight of the flaws in his government and its achievements. It's possible to remain responsible and pragmatic leftists in a way which puts the liberals to shame. The left-wing critics of the late Comandante are the sort who prioritise conviction over responsibility. That's what differentiates them from the Chavez supporters who are much more pragmatic. It's correct to be scrupulous given the record Chavez developed for siding with despots. He even went as far as to side with Gaddafi amidst the Libyan Civil War and later sent oil to fuel Assad's war on his own people. And yet it's also important to keep in mind that there are no angels to save us. Demanding perfection from the most imperfect of situations amounts to a different kind of politics to anything serious. It's more the sort of politics that can be heard whenever someone makes a nebulous call for 'world peace'. Not only is it impractical, it's well distant from any theoretical concerns.

    Furthermore, the willingness to get one's hands dirty is a rarity in a world where the major political battles have been won by the Right. It's especially underrated in a discourse where radicalism is always portrayed as one step away from totalitarianism. Chavez was daring enough to try and defeat neoliberalism militarily, and when that failed the military man took up the ballot box as his weapon of choice. He was smart enough to recognise the opportunity of pursuing constitutional reform and then he was emboldened after the failed coup d'etat in 2002. Against all the odds the Comandante seemed to strive, almost unstoppable. No wonder the man thought he may be Simon Bolívar reincarnated. It was heroism in the struggle that Chavez demonstrated in his tenacity at the helm of a class war government. The liberal apprehension is at the prospects of success and not imminent defeat. The ambiguous legacy of Chavez actually doesn't even enter into the picture.

    What should we take from all of this? Firstly, it's important to remember that the battle is still raging for Latin America's future. The same fight has yet to culminate elsewhere. Believe it or not the socialist tradition is a tragic creed, as Terry Eagleton is right to remind us, in its awareness of the long horror story that lies behind and ahead. Resistance is by virtue of its condition uncomfortable. It requires commitment and sacrifice, for Progress often comes at a huge price. Its arrival may be hastened if we are willing to fight for it. Responsibility, not conviction, is revolutionary in its acceptance of the contours of resistance and the willingness to exercise power in full knowledge of the consequences. More than ever we could do with heroism on the Left. It's stoical fortitude that the liberals lack in particular, while it's a preserve for all serious radicals. This is what divides liberals from radicals on Chavez more or less. And we shouldn't concede any ground to liberalism on this front.

The Descent into Farce.

The BBC had Newsnight stage a debate over the Assange situation, which began with Gavin Esler asking "Is the case of Julian Assange turning into farce?" The answer is emphatic: yes! This was before Galloway's talk of 'bad sexual etiquette' were brought up and the whole discussion was framed over the question of whether the allegations are legitimate. It was written-off from the outset that there is anything political about these events. Even though the charges were originally dropped after the case was thrown out by prosecutors, only for the allegations to be reinstated after a political intervention from Claes Borgström. It has been quite a sight to see the stampede of the commentariat to condemn Julian Assange and support the ongoing attempts to extradite him to Sweden. David Allen Green led the way that The New Statesman with a clear list of reasons why we should hand over Julian Assange to the Swedes. The Guardian churned out an editorial claiming that the allegations are 'apolitical' and neither Sweden nor the UK would deport someone to be tortured.

 

Even the radical journos have copped out on this case, Owen Jones was blunt that the Ecuadorian government are wrong to view the rape allegations against Assange as "laughable". No one else would be given this protection, Assange is a rape suspect who skipped bail (he actually hasn't been charged) and he must be extradited as we wouldn't privilege others in this way. Of course, Jones had plenty of ink to pen trite about the lamentable attempts to brand the women who made the allegations as "liars" and as the willing participants of a CIA honeytrap. He even feels the necessity to indulge in the discussion over the definition of rape "Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. And Assange is clearly accused of rape." Someone really should point out that the legitimacy of the allegations isn't really up to debate in Britain. It's strictly a matter for the courtroom. The real debate ought to be whether or not Assange should be extradited to a country that has in the past handed over 'terror suspects' to the CIA.

 

As John Pilger has noted wisely "In December 2001, the Swedish government abruptly revoked the political refugee status of two Egyptians, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed el-Zari, who were handed to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport" only for the two men to be flown to Egypt to be tortured in Mubarak's dungeon. And yet it has become commonplace for liberal journalists to claim that the Swedish government is much more trustworthy than the British government on matters of 'rendition'. In the debate on Newsnight Joan Smith completely dismissed talk of kidnapping and torture, the risk that Assange may be detained in the US as Bradley Manning has been, because it's "nonsensical" to imply that the allegations are false. The only discussion we've been having has been limited to the definition of rape, the legitimacy of the allegations and so on. Any suggestion that the founder of WikiLeaks may be extradited to Sweden only to be handed over to the US can be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory'.

 

We shouldn't forget the clause of 'temporary surrender' in the extradition treaty between Sweden and the US. It could be argued, as Richard Seymour has, that this maes it much easier for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US than the press are letting on. This may even apply for a suspect to be transferred into American custody while the normal conditions and standards are suspended. It also seems significant that the European Court of Human Rights could not prevent the torture of the asylum seeker Ahmed Agiza. This was a transfer that took place from Sweden into US custody that violated a range of international treaties. Furthermore, as Seymour observes, "Law might be the terrain in which this battle is fought out, the language of its prosecution, but this will be a process of interpretation in which the immense resources of the United States will be brought to bear." The amassed power of the American hegemon translates into legal as well as military, political, economic and diplomatic strength that can be exerted at will.

 

Meanwhile, Laurie Penny made the case that to properly support the cause of WikiLeaks then one should support the extradition of Assange. There is some truth in what Penny claimed when she wrote that it is in the interests of the United States "to ensure that Assange’s army of supporters cannot defend Wikileaks without also being seen to defend his sexual conduct, whatever the truth of the case." Soon all room for subtlety was lost. She went on to note the various deplorable instances of WikiLeaks supporters describing the allegations of rape and sexual assault as "made up", "bad sexual etiquette" etc. It's a matter of consistency for her. Because WikiLeaks stands for a commitment to justice, transparency and accountability it should see to it that Julian Assange is tried for rape. In a more nuanced moment Penny acknowledges "It is not only possible to defend both women’s rights and freedom of speech. It is morally inconsistent to defend one without the other." Yet it is out of the question that it is possible to do so and not sell Assange down the river.

 

This is truly a moment where it's clear that the herd instinct is alive and well in the independent minds of British journalism. There's always been plenty of ink for penning cretinous claims and moralistic pablum. So we find WikiLeaks is not excluded from the vitriol of the intelligentsia, especially as it is in the interest of the US government to detain whistleblowers as it has imprisoned Bradley Manning. But just as there has always been the obedient herd of intellectuals there is a small pocket of dissent. There is good reason to support the founder of WikiLeaks, for its continued efforts to undermine the status quo by a relentless commitment to radical transparency as well as human rights and civil liberties. This isn't to say that the allegations are illegimate, or should be ignored, in fact, these allegations are extremely serious. But it is vital that we do not abandon whistleblowers - who are innocent until proven guilty - to the talons of rapacious power.

Peace through War.

War without Honour.

In the 1970s there was a power struggle in Washington between realists and idealists over foreign policy. Though it should be noted that there is very little practical difference between the two factions. Watergate had sunk public belief in politicians along with Nixon, whose administration had sought a balance of power in the world between the Soviet Union and the United States. This involved making peace with China, slaughtering millions of people in South-East Asia for the sake of "peace with honour", and propping up dictatorships around the world. After Nixon resigned, a caretaker administration followed with Henry Kissinger retained his dual roles as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. The nationalists Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both idealists, were introduced into the White House around the same time. As Kissinger attempted to seize all levers of foreign policy from President Ford, Cheney and Rumsfeld acted to ostracise and remove Kissinger from the government.

The Reagan administration turned away from the detente approach of realpolitik that had been a key-part of American foreign policy for many years by that time. This could not have been done had Kissinger won the power struggle in the 70s. The White House was heavily influenced by neoconservatives, self-described "democratic revolutionaries", who felt that America should lead the way for freedom and democracy in the world. Reagan had soon declared the "War on Terrorism" and went on to describe the USSR as the "Evil Empire". All of this provided a justification for increasing military spending, which is not just about pouring money into high-tech industry but also about expanding the influence of the US government and its economic interests around the world. Of course, spreading freedom and democracy around the world to defeat Communism involved propping up extreme right-wing governments.

As part of the new strategy, dubbed without irony as "peace through strength", the Reagan administration quickly acted to support General Zia ul-Haq, in his support of the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan whilst turning a blind-eye to the General's nuclear ambitions and radicalisation of Pakistani society - the consequences of which we are still living with today. This policy succeeded in driving the Russians out of Afghanistan but it left the Mujahideen to tear apart Kabul, carrying out mass-rapes and slaughtering thousands, which in turn led to the rise of the Taliban - one of the most reactionary movements in the history of the Middle East. Incidentally, the US supported the Taliban  with aid from the time it took power in 1996 until 2001 when the US invaded. Though it was not just Pakistan which received such support from the US under Reagan, there is a long list of undesirable regimes supported by the US government.


The justification given for supporting such regimes is that these governments were anti-communist. Apartheid in South Africa was supported because the state was fighting Communism, specifically in the form of the ANC. General Pinochet and Suharto violently suppressed leftist elements in Chile and Indonesia, with total support from the US for the sake of "containment". The same can be said of General Zia ul-Haq, Hosni Mubarak, the House of Saud and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But what about Vietnam? The official justification for the Vietnam war was the "containment" of Maoism. The US used this to justify supporting the autocrat Diem, the nationalist regime was later overthrown and Diem was executed on orders from Washington in 1963. South Vietnam was subjected to a horrendous campaign of bombing from the US, far worse than the campaigns which the Communist North was subjected to. Where's the logic here?

The Perpetual War.

The Cold War was not really a conflict between two superpowers, between capitalism and socialism, a grand narrative which is a part of national myths - e.g. a white man's burden, democracy promotion and internationalism. The Cold War was real in the sense that it was violent and brutal, mostly for the people of places like Vietnam and Nicaragua, but the battle between two superpowers was almost nonexistent. If anything there was a competition between America and Russia over spheres of influence. All currents of independence are a threat, regardless of the political tendency of independence, so a country like Vietnam had to be torn apart not for any political reason. The suppression of independence in South and North Vietnam, to prevent the emergence of a state which might inspire others, was given the narrative of "containment" of Maoist China to provide a justification.

The Reaganites backed the Contras in Nicaragua in an attempt to bring down the Sandinistas and bring back the economic policies that led to impoverished Nicaraguans selling their blood at $1 a litre. The Reagan administration argued that if the left-wing movement triumphed in Nicaragua that could bring Communism to America's back yard and even fed deluded fears that Nicaragua could invade the US. Of course, the Sandinistas had no intention to take on the US as that would mean suicide and was a grass-roots reaction to the murderous regime led by Somoza with the complete support of the US government. The support the Reagan administration gave to the Contras went as far as outright violation of law. As Congress cut off funding to the Contras, the Reaganites permitted the CIA to use unscrupulous means to raise funds which went as far as running drugs and selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages (all the while pouring arms into Iraq to fight Iran).

The Iran-Contra scandal rocked Washington to an extent not seen since Watergate and its rightful exposure brought into public view the disgraces of the Reagan administration. Though it was only "exposed" in the West after it had been picked up by a Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa after Mehdi Hashemi arranged demonstrations in opposition to the dealings between the US and Iran. The White House would go on to admit only that $30 million was handed over to the Contras, actually the funding was probably far higher if you consider the millions of dollars that could be made from cocaine trafficking. Naturally President Reagan and Vice President Bush (who watched over the operation) were not indicted, the convicted would later be pardoned by Bush and only Oliver North served any prison time for the crimes. On an interesting side-note, today Oliver North often appears on Fox News and still holds that the illegal sales were justified by the cause of fighting Communism.

The idea that the US government backed right-wing extremists to contain and ultimately to defeat Communism is laughable considering, not only the bombing of South Vietnam, that the US government was actively supporting Ceauşescu in Romania right up until the end. Though it's certainly true that the Reagan White House acted to crush movements for independence wherever they emerged, but the Soviet Union should not be equated with such grass-roots movements. The ANC in South Africa and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua were the kinds of target that the US government acted to suppress because these were grass-roots emancipatory movements. If you want to know how much Washington really "feared" that the Russians were coming, you should consider the implications of the fact that since the fall of the Soviet Union military spending has increased considerably in the US and accounts for 50% of military spending in the world today.

Relevant links on Reagan:
Carter-Reagan-Bush: The Bipartisan Consensus
Noam Chomsky on Financial Markets and Bailouts
The Center Cannot Hold
Reagan and Friedman Economics
Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialised Healthcare 
Vietnam: What Really Happened
A Time for Choosing
Cornel West - The End of Reagan Era Politics  
Nicaragua - A Nation's Right to Survive
The Cold War summed up in 5 mins  
Proposals to Improve the US government 
Stoking the Beast 
The Trap
The Power of Nightmares

Long Live the Miners!

So far from God, so close to the US.

The joyous moment that the 33 miners emerged from a collapsed mine in Copiapó served to disrupt the usual line of depressing events spoon-fed to us by the media. I recalled the words of Salvador Allende as I watched the events unfold "Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!" It's not all poverty and war, famine and guilt-trips of the imperial past. However as easy it may be to view the events in Copiapó like this, fed to us on wide-screen TVs from our sofas in comfort. There is a bigger story unfolding in Latin America and not all of it is an uplifting masturbatory experience for our journalists either. The disaster that could have entombed those men is common in Chile, on average around 40 miners die every year due to the poor standard of working conditions. The dangerous conditions are a side-effect of a ruthless economic system that was imposed over the Chilean people by General Pinochet, who seized power in a US-backed coup of September 11th 1973 - a 9/11 forgotten outside of Latin America.

The General ruled Chile by state-terror and torture on an industrial scale, which included a network of concentration camps for unionists and dissidents, while degenerate politicians stood back and watched in Britain and America. At the same time Pinochet crafted an economic system drawn up by economists at the University of Chicago, it was based on a utopian vision of the free-market. The junta led by Pinochet swiftly chopped public spending down by 50% and in doing so destroyed Chile's fledgling welfare state, handing over hospitals, pensions and schools to the market. Regulations of business were quickly cut down and land reforms were reversed, for the benefit of logging companies and at the expense of Chile's indigenous population. At an enormous social cost to Chile there was an "economic miracle", never mind the thousands butchered and the millions dispossessed.

The current government in Chile is a direct result of Pinochet's reign, President Piñera is one of the billionaires who was enriched by the changes made under Pinochet. Piñera controls chunks of mining, energy and retail industries. The dominant party, the Coalition for Change, is partly a brain-child of Jaime Guzman, one of Pinochet's advisers who helped draw up the new constitution of Chile in 1980. 30 years on and Pinochet's constitution is still a constraint on the Chilean polity, shaping policy and containing policy-makers to the realms of the dictatorship formed almost 40 years ago. Officially Chile is a democratic society but it is still a long way from the vision of Salvador Allende, who had a democratic mandate to seek economic reforms that suited the people of Chile and not the ruling class. The status quo in Chile was not established democratically and has no mandate.

Chile is a vital country for the US in plans to reaffirm the Washington Consensus subvert the democratic reforms being pursued in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Naturally Piñera is an ally of his Colombian counterpart Juan Santos and Alan Garcia, the President of Peru. Both Santos and Garcia are responsible for slaughtering campesinos (peasants) in their own countries supposedly as part of a campaign against terrorism. In reality Santos and Garcia have been committed to "social cleansing", in other words, the mass-killing of human beings unnecessary in the economy. Good company for a sycophant of the Northern hegemon. It was in 1823 that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams declared that the US was to dominate the Western hemisphere. Domination by the US has been a disaster for th region and it is only in recent years that independence seems a realistic possibility.

The Heirs of Revolution.

At the same time as all of this, a wave of emancipatory fervour is rushing across Latin America marking a major shift in the political trajectory of many countries. The nature of this revolutionary shift is not new. It's roots go back deep in history, to the wars of independence fought by libertadores like Simon Bolivar against the empires of Spain and Portugal. The revolutionaries of 18th Century France and 17th Century England would resurrect the ways of the dead to glorify the new cause. The French took up the names and slogans of the Roman republic, the English seized the language of the Old Testament. Similarly the revolutionaries of Latin America are draped partly as Christian radical, left-nationalist, communist and libertador. The heirs of past revolutions include Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva and Rafael Correa among other leaders.

The most famous shifts witnessed were in Venezuela with the election of Hugo Chavez and Brazil with Lula da Silva. The leftward shift away from neoliberalism to democracy, welfarism and economic integration. Chavez was a highly popular leader in Latin America for over a decade and was keen to dismantle the system of exploitation and empower Venezuela's poorest citizens. Lula, on the other hand, did not confront and dismantle the neoliberal machine in Brazil, though he did make important changes in terms of welfare and foreign policy. Daniel Ortega returned to public office in Nicaragua 16 years after the Sandinista movement was decimated by the Contras, a terrorist group backed by the US. In Paraguay Catholic Priest Fernando Lugo was rushed into office by the grass-roots, bringing down a one-party state that had been in power for 60 years. It would appear that the United States is finally losing control of it's "backyard".

The most interesting instance of change in Latin America is happening in Bolivia where Evo Morales, an indigenous man of humble origins, was elected by a grass-roots socialist movement. Morales has called on developed countries to respect the Kyoto Protocol and make serious steps towards combating climate change. A new constitution has been drawn up, which stipulates a 5,000 hectare limit on the land an individual can own. Greater autonomy has been devolved to a regional level. Morales has criticised the "War on Drugs" and has been acting to distinguish between the uses of coca, since it is used traditionally not as cocaine but for medicines and tea. The teaching of indigenous languages has been introduced to schools under his government, the gas industry has been nationalised and there has been a 50% rise in the minimum wage.

The main exceptions are Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Colombia and Peru. In Mexico and Colombia the most recent elections were rigged to anoint people like Juan Santos. Since Brazil is no longer willing to be America's outpost of subversion, Colombia and Peru are replacing Brazil as a hub of American military might in the region. There have been serious attempts to stamp out democratisation. Last year in Honduras a cabal of politicians and generals overthrew Manuel Zelaya, and with the support of the Obama administration, installed Pepe Lobo as President. Most recently Rafael Correa was kidnapped by police whilst trying to negotiate with the striking police officers. It may have been a coup attempt but it's too soon to say. But overall it would seem that the US is losing total control as in 2002 a coup against Hugo Chavez failed when the people of Venezuela rose up against the authoritarian regime that had been installed by Washington. Democracy is not taken for granted in Latin America.

Faces of Liberty.

Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo, the President of Honduras.

"I believe freedom is the future of all humanity." - George W Bush

The ideological trajectory in the US could be characterised as leaning towards negative liberty, specifically the freedom from constraint, and individualism. For this reason it makes sense that the US government led the "war" against communism since the end of the war against fascism and up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. As there are aspects of communism are in direct opposition to the ideological ideals of the United States. The methods of which the US government utilised to contain communism abroad included the backing of extreme right-wing dictatorships, that would prevent the spread of communism through repression and violence, like that of Suharto in Indonesia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. In doing so, the US government infringed upon individual freedom on a massive scale to stamp out the "threat" of communism and spread freedom around the world. What should be noted is that the military budget of the US has increased considerably and consistently since the Truman administration. At first, politicians sought justification for the rampant military expenditure in anti-communism and then counter-terrorism.

Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the spending on the military continued to increase which may indicate that "fighting" communism was just an excuse to increase spending. Today the excuse is the "War on Terrorism". The American government spent over $700 billion in 2008 on the military, making up almost 50% of all military spending in the world. Since the level of military spending seems to be unrelated to any threats of communism or terrorism, it seems rational to assume that realpolitik was not merely about securing freedom and the containment of communism. Interestingly, the kind of economic policies pursued by US-backed dictators, like Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos, consisted of mass-privatisation, deregulation and the repression of unions. These policies may have generated a great deal of economic growth in some countries, but they were largely destructive of the societies in which they were implemented. The World Bank and the IMF were instrumental in economic policy in Indonesia and the Philippines, but it was multinational corporations that benefited most from these policies.

It was in 2009, only months into Obama's first term in office, that the President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by members of the Honduran military, who had been trained at the School of the Americas, and was succeeded briefly by Roberto Micheletti. In January of 2010, Pepe Lobo was elected the President of Honduras and Micheletti has since been made a congressman for life. Lobo is a wealthy land owner and is a member of the National Party, a thoroughly conservative political party, he had lost the 2005 election to Manuel Zelaya. Though, Lobo is now has the Presidency due to a questionable election, it has been said that 60% of the votes were "inaccurate". At the time of the coup in 2009, President Zelaya was unpopular with the Honduran upper class, who feared he may be attempting to impose the kind of left-wing reforms on a populist platform as Chavez had done in Venezuela. Within the Liberal Party, Zelaya also became increasingly unpopular in the run up to the coup d'état. Though, at the same time Manuel Zelaya was popular among the poor and the labour movement.

If we look at the history of Latin America coup d'états are nothing new to the region sometimes referred to as the "back yard" in the US. So it is vital that we place the recent events in Honduras in a historical context. Notably, it was when Manuel Zelaya attempted, as he put it, "modernise" the Honduran Constitution through the use of a referendum that he was overthrown and exiled. The opponents to these constitutional amendments argued that Zelaya was attempting to remove the limits on presidential terms, as Chavez had done in Venezuela. In Chile, it was during a constitutional crisis, that Salvador Allende and his left-wing regime were overthrown by the military. Allende's political rivals in the National Party and the Christian Democrats, as well as on the Supreme Court, accused him of attempting to create a totalitarian state, in which political and economic freedom are not respected. Allende refused to leave the Presidential Palace as it was surrounded by the military, as they began bombing Allende delivered his final speech to the nation in the moments before his death.

 "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling." - George W Bush

The regime that seized power following the fall of Allende was a barbaric military junta led by Augusto Pinochet, the labour movement that had flourished under Allende was viciously repressed. Over 130,000 people were imprisoned without charge, thousands were systematically tortured and killed - a favourite method being throwing people into the Atlantic from helicopters. It is ironic that the Supreme Court, that accused Allende of authoritarianism, called on the military to "restore" order to Chile, which led to the rise of the junta. Pinochet was supported by Nixon, under Pinochet the economy followed plans laid out by neoliberal economists from the University of Chicago. These economic reforms reversed the work of Allende, privatising the national industries and removing the regulations which hindered the market. It was not long until public spending in Chile was cut by 50%. This led to the now famous economic miracle in Chile, while Pinochet kept thousands of people incarcerated in concentration camps and may have slaughtered over 80,000 people. Pinochet was no different than Suharto and Marcos, his regime was also highly beneficial to multinationals.

Since Pepe Lobo was inaugurated on January 27th 2010 the US government has been a vocal supporter of the Honduran government and have been urging other countries of that region to restore relations with Honduras. Hillary Clinton said on March 4th "We think that Honduras has taken important and necessary steps that deserve the recognition and normalisation of relations. Other countries in the region say that they want to wait a while, I don't know what they're waiting for, but that's their right to wait." In the month of February alone, the inter-American Commission on Human Rights documented over 50 illegal detentions, eight cases of torture, two kidnappings and two rapes committed against dissidents involved in resistance to the coup. Since Lobo came to power over 10 people have been killed, including children. Sadly, it would appear that "change" has not come from the Obama administration. For the people of Latin America, the events in Honduras and Haiti, are a sad reminder that they are not yet free from the hegemon of the North. The IMF and the World Bank have also been quick to normalise relations with Honduras, which may be a sign of the kind of economic reforms soon to hit Honduras.


The last 35 years have been marked by neoliberal economic reforms across Latin America. Reforms which have led to a sharp decline in the rate of growth and productivity. The policies themselves were so unpopular in most Latin American countries that they had to be imposed by dictatorial regimes. The US government has a history of backing such regimes across the region, the IMF and the World Bank have been instrumental in spreading neoliberalism throughout the developing world through "structural adjustments" in many of these states. The kind of countries that have been subjected to these kinds of regimes and economic restructuring are typically rich in resources and desperately poor. The mass-privatisation of industry can allow corporations to seize up entire sectors of society, while the deregulation of the markets and repression of unions allows these corporations to drive down wages and increase work hours. This is merely one aspect of the kind of exploitation that has resulted in many countries from the kind of policies advocated by the Washington consensus.


We'd all like to believe that the wars fought in the name of liberty and democracy against communism and terrorism were noble causes. In the 1990s military spending increased long after the fall of Soviet communism in the East. So it seems feasible that defeating communism was not the goal of the US government, that increasing the size of the military budget is of primary importance. The ideological reasons for promoting democracy and spreading freedom abroad amounted to the rise of neoliberalism in countries like Honduras, Chile, Indonesia and the Philippines. But this rise could be seen, as something far more insidious, the continuation of imperialism in the world. As the economic interests of the state converge with the profit-motive of corporations, and the "conditions" prescribed by the IMF, the bloated military budget may be about defending and maintaining an empire. In this sense, the role of ideology plays in America is to enable these forces to act in the never ending "fight" against tyranny and evil in the world.

Significant Links:
US covering up reality in Honduras
Solutions for Latin America
Noam Chomsky CBC Interview
The War on Democracy

Red Fear: Rhetoric and Reality.

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism." - Karl Marx

The words of Marx and Engels changed the course of history. Hopefully, their vision will one day come into being. However, the political philosophy they espoused has fallen victim to over 70 years of anti-communist propaganda, let alone the perversity of American culture which has reconstructed the English language. Which is why libertarian socialism is considered an oxymoron by Americans, due to the "different" connotations the word "libertarian" and "socialism" have in the US. In this post-Leninist world, Marxism and it's many variants are commonly associated with totalitarianism and oppression, whilst capitalism is associated with freedom and prosperity in a world owned by free market fundamentalists. The very word communism, conjures up images of uniformity, marching, singing, dictators applauding themselves and personality cults. The truth is that the accepted notions of communism have been engineered by it's enemies, most notably the United States. Though, some would argue that men like Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Hu Jintao of China are the biggest enemies of communism.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

Communism is defined as "a political or economic system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society." Capitalism is defined as "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit." Interestingly and perhaps ironically, the common ground that both communism and capitalism share, is that, neither system has ever really existed and many of their advocates are promoting a false version. Well, actually I exaggerate, in the Third World capitalism does exist, which is why it's the Third World. The First World has developed due to the constant violation of free market principles, through state intervention of the market.

The rich and powerful are the primary beneficiaries of such intervention we have only to look at the recent economic crisis - which Boris Johnson labelled as a "function of capitalism" - to see how. In Great Britain, we have only to look at Fred Goodwin to see how "failure" and "irresponsibility" is treated by the polyarchs who govern us, £700,000 a year until he dies and this man is in his fifties, and that's just from RBS, he'll also receive a yearly pension of over £30,000 from other companies he has "worked" for. But the political right doesn't want us to be concerned with the fact that they are, and have been for decades, pissing away our money on walking fuck ups like Fred Goodwin. They're more concerned with the "cost" of welfare and the "cost" of the National Health Service.

America is no better, where the rich have received even more help than the wealthiest 10% of the British population, for practically causing this recession they have received over $3 trillion to save their companies from financial destruction. Not much has changed since Adam Smith's day, when the "merchants and manufacturers" were the principle architects of state policy and they made sure their interests were "most peculiarly attended to" regardless of the interests of others. Look at the health insurance companies, in the "Land of the Free", who put millions toward the Presidential campaigns of Republican candidates to oppose universal health care.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

Debatably, Vladimir Lenin holds most of the responsibility, for the public perception of Marxism, as the progenitor of authoritarian models of "socialism" and later forms of totalitarianism. Though, some have argued over the decades that Leninism was "corrupted" by Joseph Stalin and other vile dictators. But after looking at how Lenin established a one-party state, it is easier to conclude that Stalin exploited the environment and abused the power he inherited. Leninism was regarded as a deviation of Marxism, by mainstream Marxists such as Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek and Leon Trotsky until April 1917, because of the opportunistic "vanguardism" Lenin advocated. Lenin's writing shifted character in 1917 and became more libertarian, in order to attract support from the left-wing movements that had developed, than his previous work.

As soon as Lenin seized power in the "October Revolution", which could also be viewed as a coup, he reverted to the former "vanguardism" set out to destroy socialist instruments of worker control such as councils, unions and ironically soviets. Lenin reconstructed the Tsarist forms of oppression, such as Cheka, into organisations which were more effective than under the Tsars, to crush all political opposition. And with Cheka he succeeded in doing so, by torturing and killing thousands. Lenin maintained the Orthodox Marxist belief that it wasn't possible to have socialism in Russia, because it was an undeveloped society and that the Revolution would occur in a developed capitalist society. Therefore, the October Revolution was a "holding action" to maintain a society in preparation for the Revolution which would take place in the most advanced capitalist society. This was Lenin's "justification" for the destruction of socialist institutions and all opposition within the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union proclaimed such actions (and worse under Stalin) as "socialist" to exploit the progressive moral force of socialism, which was more real at that time than it is today, and to gain support from progressive sectors of society. Whereas, Western states labelled the Soviet Union as an example of communism to instigate the common association - of communism with totalitarianism and capitalism with democracy - and to ultimately crush socialism. The propaganda of the Soviet Union intensified over the decades and America became the main proponent of anti-communist propaganda, after it replaced Britain as the dominant superpower in the world. The threat of US aggression posed to the Soviet Union, that tyrannical regimes emulated throughout the world, encouraged totalitarianism to counteract bourgeois interference with the "progression of socialism".

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc is more of a blessing to the struggle of socialists. Though, it does appear that the Financial Meltdown of 2009 has rejuvenated popular interest in dialectical materialism, 20 years after the "death" of most of it's imitators. The biggest stains on Marxism are gone and the biggest stains of corporatism, parading as laissez faire capitalism, remain for all to view, and no amount free-market fundamentalism will wash them away. And as for the so called communist states of China, North Korea and Cuba, they are as fake as the Soviet Union. China being a totalitarian corporatist state and North Korea being the most extreme example of a "postmodern" state in the world.

"Long live the Unity of Latin America." - Hugo Chavez
 

In recent years, the rise of the left has been seen in Latin America, a region which has traditionally been the target of US aggression and imperialism, in fact South America was the first target of US aggression, probably because the continent is so close to the US. Which is probably the reason why some historians trace the origins of "anti-Americanism" to Latin America. On an interesting side note, the only other countries to utilise such a concept are totalitarian states, notably the Soviet Union in which a concept of "anti-Sovietism" was used to crush all political opposition.

The American government became dominant in the region soon after the British left Venezuela, which led to the US gaining control of several colonies in the Caribbean. It was John Quincey Adams who theorised, in the 1820s around the time that the Monroe Doctrine was formulated, that the American government should wait until the imperial powers were weak enough to drive out of colonies like Cuba and Venezuela. The Monroe Doctrine had been successfully implemented by the mid 20th Century, then major American fortunes could be made by extracting resources from Latin American countries.

Latin America has been the subject of several socio-economic experiments all of which have been disastrous. This is particularly true of the period in which neoliberalism came into dominance. If you compare the first 25 years after World War Two with the following 25 years, the neoliberal years, a very sharp decline in the rate of growth and productivity can be found. Latin America, among other regions, are a typical example of failure by sticking to the free-market principles. Principles which, when violated repeatedly, have brought prosperity to countries like China, South Korea and Taiwan.

The neoliberal policies are so unpopular with the population of South America that in many cases the policies required a dictatorial government to be enforced. Several of these dictators were backed by the US and other Western states, most notably Augusto Pinochet who actually seized power with assistance from the CIA, to prevent democracy and crush socialist political movements. Pinochet's coup against Salvador Allende was backed by the Nixon Administration and monetarist Milton Friedman entered Chile to give the new regime advice on economics. Pinochet is merely one example of a neofascist dictator who was backed by the US in South America. 

In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration poured money into the Contras, a right-wing terrorist group, Nicaragua to "punish" the Nicaraguan people for electing the Sandinistas, a socialist political party. The Reagan Administration even resorted to sanctioning illegal activities by the CIA, such activities included trafficking in drugs and weapons. Around $50 million worth of weapons were sold to the Iranian government, official enemies of the US, and the money was placed in an offshore bank account which the Contras could access. The Reagan Administration succeeding in punishing the Nicaraguan people, the terror atrocities left around 80,000 people dead. This doesn't count the amount of American people who died during the crack epidemic, because of the CIA's use of cocaine trafficking to acquire funds.

Venezuela and Bolivia are two notable examples of Latin American countries which have been the setting of two democratic revolutions. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales were elected in landslide victories, their success being down to the involvement of the masses in their campaigns and the success of grass roots democracy. Chavez in particular, has been reelected repeatedly since he came to power 1999 and is extremely popular with the poor of Venezuela. Despite the slurs spread about him in the media, which is known for representing the elites of Venezuela, who're more in touch with upper class American society than the impoverished slums of their own country. This new form of socialism, taking place in exploited countries and predicated on grass roots democracy, may be the future of the lost cause.