Things to consider—

Since early 2011, Obama's been waging proxy war on Syria. Imported death squads masquerade as freedom fighters. The scheme's familiar. It repeats. It reflects US imperialism's dark side. In the 1980s, CIA-recruited mujahideen fighters battled Afghanistan's Soviet occupiers. Ronald Reagan called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." He characterized Contra killers the same way. —Stephen LendmanFor over a century now US ambassadors have acted as fifth columns in the nations they are embedded in, their role chiefly to foster corporate and plutocratic power and coordinate machinations against any truly pro-democratic government.•••••"The dead end identity politics of SF Pride, which sells out a peace hero like Bradley Manning to curry favor with the American ruling class, is what I had in mind. The empire loves your tameness, irrelevance and cowardice, SF Pride. You don’t bother the American ruling class — a five foot two, 105 pound soldier does because he has a conscience and because he didn’t make comfort the guiding principle of his life...." —Randy Shields
Apr 132012
 

A presentation by WSWS arts editor David Walsh


Tom Cruise as paraplegic Vietvet Ron Kovic, in Oliver Stone’s Born on the 4th of July, one of the best films ever made on that conflict.  Too bad Cruise learned nothing from the character he interpreted. —Eds

By David Walsh (16 March 2010)

The following is an edited version of a presentation delivered by WSWS arts editor David Walsh in New York City and the Detroit area. (The second, and concluding, part of the talk ran on Wednesday, March 17, 2010).

When one considers the state of filmmaking, and art in general, one’s first response is, or ought to be, in my view, a profound sense of dissatisfaction. The spectator, or reader, or viewer, currently experiences a troubling lack of depth, texture, and social and psychological complexity. In short, there is an absence of the world, largely. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 5:25 pm
Apr 132012
 

By Phil Dickens, Property is Theft

Editor’s Note: Here we present the anarchist point of view in connection with electoralism. For obvious reasons, we do not agree nor endorse all positions expressed in this document, although many of us share much of the reasoning advanced by Dickens, while remaining Marxian-Leninists in analytical thinking. In fact, it is not correct, as Dickens suggests, that Lenin’s position is always to vote in bourgeois elections; his take was far more nuanced: in some elections it may be worth for activists to participate as a means of agitprop, or to secure very specific reforms, while in others the effort should focus on organizing. And, it should be borne in mind that at all times elections under bourgeois rule are methods of control and self-legitimation.

In any case the biggest difference of opinion we hold with Dickens and his line of thinking is that we, as a rule, consider the birth of a genuine vanguard party of the people a necessity to move the masses toward a genuine anticapitalist process. The fact that such a party faces enormous obstacles in its path, especially in the United States, the citadel of global capitalism and the see of the most brainwashed population on earth, does not, per se, constitute a disqualifier.  In that regard, Dickens forgets how an objective revolutionary situation can overturn in a relatively short period of time what looked impossible merely a few years before. —PG

It is a long-established truism that anarchists are opposed to electoralism. A myriad of slogans such as “whoever you vote for, government wins,” “don’t vote, it only encourages the bastards,” and “if voting changed anything they’d abolish it” have entered the public psyche. So much so, that they are taken up by cynics and the disenfranchised as well as by the anarchist movement. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 4:09 pm
Apr 132012
 

SPECIAL
For The Greanville Post—
A Comment on “Left Anticommunism: the Unkindest Cut”


Noam, Noam…must you bash the Soviet Union to maintain credibility? And if so, with whom?

Wherein one of our senior editors weighs in on a topic that never quite goes away, the frequent expression of anti-Sovietism and even anticommunism by people who define themselves as “left” (not merely liberals) in the United States and other parts of the developed capitalist world. As Michael Parenti and others have noted, the practice is so generalized as to constitute at times active de facto collaboration with the global imperialist system, and some of the biggest voices are not exempt:

Genuflection to Orthodoxy

“Many on the U.S. Left have exhibited a Soviet bashing and Red baiting that matches anything on the Right in its enmity and crudity. Listen to Noam Chomsky holding forth about “left intellectuals” who try to “rise to power on the backs of mass popular movements” and “then beat the people into submission. . . . You start off as basically a Leninist who is going to be part of the Red bureaucracy. You see later that power doesn’t lie that way, and you very quickly become an ideologist of the right. . . . We’re seeing it right now in the [former] Soviet Union. The same guys who were communist thugs two years back, are now running banks and [are] enthusiastic free marketeers and praising Americans” (Z Magazine, 10/95).”

Chomsky’s imagery is heavily indebted to the same U.S. corporate political culture he so frequently criticizes on other issues. In his mind, the revolution was betrayed by a coterie of “communist thugs” who merely hunger for power rather than wanting the power to end hunger…(1)
________________

By Steven Jonas, TGP

The Greanville Post has recently re-published an excellent (and lengthy) column on “Left anti-Communism” by historian and political scientist Michael Parenti (http://www.greanvillepost.com/2012/01/01/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/),accompanied by a short but as always to-the-point introduction by our Editor/Publisher, Patrice Greanville. (There are also some very enlightening comments [and a few not-so-enlightening ones] at the end of the column). Prof. Parenti deals with those self-styled “anti-communist” leftists, such as Noam Chomsky, who, when presenting critiques of such subjects as U.S. imperialism never fail to inform their readers that whatever else they say, they have no use for any part of the Soviet experiment as a possible solution to the crisis of capitalism and that no one can outdo them in their condemnation of Stalinism. I do not have to repeat Parenti’s excellent critique of so-called “Left anti-communists,” who are actually allies of the Right. But let me add a few thoughts to that critique, and to his analysis of the Soviet experience. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 3:24 pm
Apr 132012
 

 

By Joanne Laurier, film critic, WSWS.ORG
Thank you, WSWS.ORG

In Darkness

In Darkness, directed by Agnieszka Holland, screenplay by David F. Shamoon, based on the book by Robert Marshall; Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, directed by Lasse Hallström, screenplay by Simon Beaufoy, based on the novel by Paul Torday

In Darkness chronicles the harrowing story of Polish Jews who hid for 14 months, until the end of the war, in the sewers of the then-Polish city of Lvov. Based on a book by Robert Marshall that compiled memoirs of the survivors, veteran Polish director Agnieszka Holland’s gripping film dramatizes the plight of a band of Jews who escaped into the network of tunnels in 1943, enduring, with the help of a sewer worker, the waste, darkness and despair. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 12:22 am