Long Time No See!!

by on

How's it going guys? I've been inactive these last months, so I am sorry I have neglected your blogs, unions and forums. I have been quite apart from the whole internet lately, so as I have nothing to do for a half hour, I may as well tell you what I've been up to.

Exams started a month ago, and so I have been busy on that. These exams will get me into Uni, and with New Zealand's crappy government in power they are trying to stop as many going in as possible and make it more 'elitist' by raising tuition fees and lowering student allowances. So much for freedom of opportunity, eh? But I have worked hard, and I am confident I will get in. I plan to major in history, and do a bit of english and politics on the side. I am looking forward to it, because Uni will be more free than school, and I will have more of an opportunity to be able to learn what I want to learn, rather than what the system wants me to.

Other than exams I have been happily busy in the worldwide Occupy Movement that is in full swing, and I am loving it! The media calls us lazy and selfish, but I don't care what they think. Only a few of us are unemployed, and everyone from machine workers to university lecturers to fast food workers are present in our ranks. We are all organising around our schedules, and certainly don't have all day to lounge around like the media says we do. Nonetheless, we have donated what time we have, and it has paid off. My local socialist organisation has grown over 50% since the protest began, we sell out of our magazines within hours, and politics in the town centre has actually been awoken! I can definately say it has been worth our time, and we will most definately stay until we get pushed out, because if we don't protest about greed and injustice, who will?

When I have had the time I have been reading widely, trying to find both a faith I am comfortable with, and also exploring the realm of political theory. In the religion department, I finally decided (after a large argument in my head) that Abrahamic religions are not for me personally, as both the Koran and the Old and New testaments contradict themselves so much. But bigger than that, I also disregarded most mainstream religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and the like because they just are not right for me. I believe in religious toleration, and while those faiths are great for others, they are just not for me. Personally I believe in a more pagan form of worship, with nature worship, equality of human beings and free thinking nature rather than a faith with a dogma that gives them an excuse to hate their fellow man. So in discovering this, I have made myself quite happy indeed, and I have stopped being so damned miserable!

After reading widely on political theory, socialism is still where I stand. Equality of man, elimination of poverty, universal peace, the best life for everybody and the general bettering of the world is where it's at. I have had enough with all the suits in parliament bickering while tens of thousands starve to death a day. It just isn't right, and I will go to my grave not only saying it is wrong, but fighting to stop it.

But on a less serious note, I have read some excellent books lately, most notably being in the midst of Doctor Zhivago. It is a good novel so far, but the narrative is a little irritating. However, if you get a change you should read it. Also, I have been reading some of Jack London's works, and he is now one of my favourite authors. Oh - and I also read some drivel by George Bush which I regret, because I could have used those three and a half hours of my life doing something worthwhile for humanity! But even after wasting my time with him, I am still the happiest I have ever been.

This is all I can think of right now, and so I now want to know how you guys are going. Are you doing well? I hope you are all happy and enjoying yourselves, and doing things that you want to do. I will be more active on here now, and so I will probably be seeing a lot more of you all. So if you need any unions for me to help with, I am here and ready to help.

Have a good night (or day), and I hope to hear some nice updates fromy uo when I wake up :)

~Optiow~

In Memory Of 9/11.

by on

Some may wonder why I am writing this. 'Oh god, what is this idiot going to rant on about now', 'how dare a Red make a blog about 9/11' and so on. But I would like to say a few words on the subject in memory of those innocents that died.

Firstly I would like to talk about 9/11 2001. I watched the TV as it happened, and I saw the planes hit the towers. I did not fully understand at that age, but I do not. Those that died in those towers were innocent civilians, and they did not deserve such a fate as they recieved. Those who committed this act of terror were terrorists in every sense of the word, and I can not even put into words the sadness they caused to all effected by this disaster. I am very sad that thousands died, and I am sorry their deaths were used by imperialists to wage war across the world. It is an event that will be remembered throughout history as an act of terror and counter terror that meant the killing not only those thousands in the towers, but the hundreds of thousands slaim in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the Middle East.

I would like to say a few words about 9/11 1973, which was also a gross act of terror. On this day Salvador Allende's government was overthrown in a CIA coup that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the years of military dictatorship that followed. Allende is one of my most respected historical figures, and it makes me so sad that the Western world and their media forgets his death of him and so many of his followers.

And, finally I would like to say a few words for those killed in the St Jean Bosco massacre in Haiti, 9/11 1988. These men and women, wanting a Haiti free from imperialism, did not deserve to die. Through you too are largely forgotten today, the people of Haiti will never forget your dreams of a free Haiti.

And with this, I believe I have said enough. Three acts of terror were committed on this day, all that killed innocents. Around the world anarchists, communists and socialists all sympathise with those killed by these acts of religious and state terror, and we yearn for the day when there will be peace in the world.

Remember those that have fallen on 9/11.

~Optiow~

Communism and Religion?

by on

Note that this blog applies to anarchism as well as communism and socialism. This goes for all types of revolutionary socialists. I just say communists because they are the best known, and I don't want to list all the different types of leftists in order…

A lot is said about communism and religion, and it is true that they have had a bloody history. But how much of the communist view on religion is just capitalist propaganda? Is religion compatible with communism? Is communism anti-religious?

I read communism been anti-religious in the past. Why is this?

Let's face it, religion is a brilliant and ingenious way to manipulate people. Everyone from augurs in ancient Rome to Christian priests to Islamic imams have taken advantage of people's faiths and have manipulated them for the profit of themselves and the ruling c1asses. To refuse this fact is ignorance, because the ruling c1ass will always manipulate the population – and religion is not immune to such subjection. In fact, it has been one of their greatest assets in history.

In the 1800s, Christianity was the primary force in manipulating the populace in Europe. The Church was the state and the state was the Church. With sanctioning from the ruling c1ass, the church was taxing the people, spreading ruling c1ass propaganda and often outright fooling the people for profit. The Church was the ultimate power running hand and hand with the government. They actively kept the people ignorant, promising them an afterlife to justify the poverty of this world that the majority of the population found themselves.

In this period communism was also born. Advanced workers started to see through the facades and realized they did not have to live in poverty. They saw the world could change if the workers wanted it to, and that a just world was possible. But like all idealists, they were intellectually ahead of their time and the rest of the working c1ass frustratingly did not want to change. With notions of a promised afterlife, they 'turned the other cheek' and accepted their fates. And as people often conform to their environment, why would the people of Europe be any different? For centuries, their ancestors had lived their lives like this, so they just accepted their fates. 'This is the way it is', is what they said. Like many of those born into slavery in the American cotton fields, slavery was all the working c1ass of Europe knew. They did not know what it was like to be free, and had no idea what it meant - so why should they want to be free if they didn't know what freedom was?


good protest

We are against stopping the extremists and the ignorant rather than stopping everyone from believing in a faith. We want peace, and religion so far has not given peace.


While religious folk might disagree with me out of loyalty, it was in fact religion that had entrenched this ignorance in the population. In an age with no TV and no Internet, the pulpit was the best place to influence people. The government used religion to keep their grip on power, as religion was one thing everyone had in common. As priests were of the educated capitalist c1ass they entrenched in the minds of the workers that poverty is just the way things are, and that they had to accept it to be let into heaven.

And to the frustrated minority that were organising for a better world, this manipulation was unacceptable. It was keeping the people ignorant of their potential and even ignorant of their poverty. Because Christianity promised a lovely afterlife, it did not occur too many that a lovely earthly life was also possible.

Therefore, when Marx and Bakunin stated that religion was the 'opiate of the people' and that 'a Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth' these men were correct. Because with poverty, death and hardship so rife in Europe at the time, thoughts of getting into heaven was the only thing that people cared about. And since these words were coined, religion has often been the enemy of those who want positive change because it enslaves people into thinking that their poverty is okay and that one day everything will become better for them. So in order to wake the people up, religion was seen as a negative influence on the population that needed to be eliminated if people were to realize their intelligence.

dick

It is the Tabaggers in the US and other such groups that do not tolerate other faiths that give a bad name to religion.


Soviet Russia and stuff banned religion. Why they did they do that? Surely the Christians there weren't all bad…

Russia before the 1917 October revolution had one of the most manipulated working c1asses. The Orthodox Church was one of the biggest landowners in the country, owning countless serfs who they worked hard on the land. They taxed the people as much as possible, and in the vast territories of the Russian Empire it was often the Church priests who represented the interests of the governing c1ass. This provoked much hatred in the Russian populace, many of whom actually disliked the Church and what it stood for.

So when the Bolsheviks came into power in 1917, not only did they ban the Churches and proclaim the RSFSR as atheist, but much of the populace looted and destroyed the churches that represented every oppression that capitalist society humiliated them with. The RSFSR became the first anti-religious state in history, and they did it because they saw religion as the en-slaver of the masses, and did not want any religious people speaking out and influencing the people against the new government (the Bolsheviks were very authoritarian you see…)

However, they were unable to eliminate religion. Around one third to half of Russians were religious in the RSFSR and later the USSR (which wasn't communist anyway), although two thirds to half ended up abandoning the faith that had enslaved them for centuries.

It was the same in other countries that called themselves 'socialist', with Taoists being killed in China, Muslim fundamentalists being killed in Afghanistan and other examples where "communists" came to power. In all cases, it was because religion was seen as 'outdated', 'enslaving' and something to be liberated from. And plus, in these state capitalist dictatorships I believe it was because they did not want anyone to challenge their power.

Okay, that was history. What about now? Is communism still against religion?


This is still a much debated topic in the socialist movement. A lot of us still hate religion and see it as something that needs to be destroyed if humanity is going to free themselves from the capitalists.

But on the other hand, more and more are saying that socialism is compatible with religion, and that one does not have to be atheist to serve the working c1ass. Few if any communist parties in the world these days want to enforce atheism and destroy religion.


stalin

Often the state capitalists abolished religion just so they could get people to worship themselves instead. Once again, peoples faiths were manipulated.


What are your views Optiow?

I am fine with anyone having a faith. I myself am a spiritual person, and in no way think of myself as an atheist. As an Anarcho-communist, I refuse to deny people their freedom. If you want to believe in Allah, then believe. If you want to believe in teachings of the Budda, then believe. If you respect my faith, I will respect yours.

My main problem with religion is that it divides people and makes them hate each other. It creates war and death, and will do so as long as the ruling c1ass control religious organisations.

But if you are religious and do not believe the lies of the ruling c1ass in my view, it matters not if you are religious. If you come up to me and say you are a leftist that wants to eliminate poverty, end war and make a better world, then I will embrace you as a comrade. Your spiritual faith is your own personal business. The fact is, if you are willing to accept other beliefs and discard such stupid views such as homophobia, you are a good person and worthy of my friendship.

So is communism compatible with religion?

Of course! Although some socialists are locked in their belief that religion is horrible, it is entirely possible to be both a socialist and a religious person. Even in the age of the Stalinists communists around the world held a faith as they fought for justice, with my favourite example being a priest that fought along with Che Guevara and Fidel Castro for a better Cuba.

As when communism was first created, religions are keeping many ignorant. In the Gaza strip, the extremist Hamas is manipulating the people to gain support for a radical Islamic state that hopes to destroy the state of Israel and to get rid of the Jews and Christians. In the Western world Christianity is used to keep many ignorant and at odds with socialists, and implants in them homophobia, anti-abortion views, hate for Islam, and other outdated views that deny those their freedoms. In India and Nepal, the caste system of Hinduism is used to keep the status-quo between the masses and the ruling c1ass with tens of millions born into the lower castes as slaves. And they accept it because religion says so.

Organised religion in modern day is still dividing people. And I believe this is the chief reason that religion is seen as an obstacle to a better world. Because many religions preach discrimination, violence and hate towards those who are not like them, it creates a lot of anger among socialists who want people to unite and overcome their differences.


gay rights protest

This looks very anti-Christian, and when Christians see images such as this they think of socialism as negative. But they often take these images out of context. This one was actually taken in a g@y rights protest held because the Church was obsessed with outlawing g@y marriage, and these socialists were sticking up for peoples rights.

However, there are more religious folk who are becoming tolerant of other faiths, and are discarding their bigotries against their brothers. There are now many gay Christians, Muslims and Hindus (etc. etc.), and these are a great leaps forward. Yes, they are heavily discriminated against and spat on by other arses of their faith, but like those few who spoke out against segregation against African-Americans, it's a start. And things have to start somewhere – even if those who start it suffer because of it. Another example is abortion clinics, which many with a faith accept as none of their business to ban (although once again, arses of their faiths like to firebomb them). But once again, it is a step forward that some recognise freedom of choice. Moreover, in addition to these changes, more and more religious people are forgetting their differences, and are forging bonds with people of other faiths. To use an example, my friend group of a dozen holds Christians (four different sects), Atheists, Agnostics, a Muslim and a neo-Pagan. We are a motley bunch, but we have forgotten our differences and are good friends. A lot of us are socialist as well.

And with this slow acceptance within religion of other peoples beliefs, more and more communists are perfectly happy for those to keep believing. It is merely the ignorant and the extremist religious folk that I believe are holding all communists from accepting religion as something compatible with the hopes of a better society. Nevertheless, as extremists are a minority and the ignorant are slowly being converted (the Teabagging nuts in the US and the murderers of al-Queda are the biggest exceptions to this trend) more and more socialists will come to realize religion as something that can help make a better world and make billions around the world happy and content.

Conclusion.

So yes, religion can walk hand and hand with communism. In the past (and still in modern day) religion has been used to make people ignorant, and so communists were hostile to it because it divided and deadened the people. But now, more and more religious people are becoming more advanced in their thinking and are realizing that people are all equal, no matter what their faith, and that everyone else in this world are just as worthy of life as themselves. Moreover, in turn, this means that those communists hostile to religion are responding to this outstretched hand of friendship with a hand of their own.

By no means is religion compatible with communism right now (for it is still keeping many ignorant), but certainly the seeds have been sown, and hopefully soon the majority of religious people will become more accepting and stop discriminating. And in turn it will no longer be the minority of those with a faith that believe that humans can live in peace with each other in a just society as equals.

coexist

When this day comes it will be a happy one for all socialists. We want coexistence and peace also.

London Riots

by on

These past few days have seen an explosion of rioting in London and other cities in Britain. Warehouses on fire, thugs fighting with police, widespread looting and destruction. It is safe to say that Britain is in turmoil. We have all seen the news telling us these things, and it is disgusting to see the city I used to live in so destroyed by disorder.

But why is it happening? This is the one aspect of the rioting that the news is neglecting, and I believe you all need to understand the reasons of these riots, as they are very important. But first, some background is needed:

How the Riots Started.

On August 4th, the young black man Mark Duggan was shot dead by police in Tottenham. Although the police said Duggan had fired on them first, it appears that he was shot without justifiable cause by police, as he never actually fired at all.

Now Tottenham is a poor minority community, with high unemployment and a lot of crime. Because of this, they are easy targets for the police and when the residents heard that Duggan had been killed, his family organised protests against police persecution. The police took badly to the protests, and after officers assaulted a young girl, the few hundred protesters turned into rioters. Breaking windows, looting shops and attacking police, Tottenham became a centre of disorder. After this, the riots were like a forest fire over London, and now they have spread to other cities like Birmingham and Manchester.

mark duggan

Mark Duggan, whos murder sparked the riots.

So why are they rioting? How does that help their protest?

Although the original causes for the rioting was police persecution, this has now been eclipsed by other reasons, which are part of a far bigger picture. The rioters are mostly youths, operating from the poor areas of the cities. Does that not tell you something?

If you do not understand what I am saying, let me explain. In the boroughs most affected by riots they all have something in common – they are poor areas. There are no riots in the Queen's neighbourhood are there? I don't see any youth from Knightsbridge getting out there setting fires. All these areas with rioting are very poor with high unemployment, especially among youth. With the welfare-cuts by the Tory government combined with rising food prices, you get angry people. The recent protests in Britain against such cuts have shown this.

But in these poor areas like Tottenham and Hackney, these problems are so important to understanding these riots. If your benefit is slashed and you can't find a job, how do you support your family? Crime is their easiest option, but then when they take this way out they get carted off to Wormwood Scrubs for years at a time. This type of vice makes the people in these forsaken communities angry and frustrated against authority, because it is screwing them over again and again. This is especially true with the youth, who by growing up in such bad environments end up hating the police, the government and society around them.

These problems have been around for a long time, which is why these communities are tinderboxes waiting to explode. And it just so happened that the killing of Mark Duggan was the spark for all the frustrations of these poor communities. These riots are not about police persecution, although that is a part of it. Rather, the riots are a way for these poor, disenfranchised populace to express their sheer anger and frustration at everything around them because they live in such poverty.

rioter

These people are the poor rubble trying to survive at the bottom of a harsh society. They just want justice.

I still don't understand. Why are the rioters causing so much destruction if they are just rioting against injustice?

They are destroying everything because they can. These people live highly regulated lives, of which they take little part. Living largely on the dole, they had no say when David Cameron slashed it. Because there are no jobs, they are forced to rely on the dole, which is insufficient because of the outrageous living prices.

All this anger can be manifested in only one way for them: violence. The government won't help them, because they don't care. So youth turn to crime, and they learn how to be mean. They hate society and all it stands for. They hate the police and all authority because they make their lives hell.

Their poverty has already lead many of these youngsters into crime, which is why they have no problem with looting. Their hearts have grown hard because of their hard up lives. Because they then turn to crime, they draw the wrath of the police, who just make them angrier because crime is their best way for a good life.

So when they get the change, they turn to rioting because it gives them power over the authorities. Filled with bitter emotions, they are finally the ones in control. They can take whatever food they want, they can do whatever they want – and the police can't stop them. In essence, they are rioting because it is a way for them to be free of societies grip on them. When they are out there firing buildings, they are doing it because they finally feel powerful in front of the police – who can do little against such built up rage.

It is hard for me to explain to you the rush that you get when you oppose authority like this. Filled with adrenaline, you are on top of the world. You become your own master, able to take whatever you want when you want, without fear of repercussions of the police or the government. Temporarily free from the shackles of welfare, the riot becomes a symbol of freedom for them through negative anarchy, and so they continue the riot even to have one more night of freedom being able to do whatever the hell they want without punishment.

They are rioting against injustice, and they are doing it in an angry way because of the way they have grown up. By looting stores, they are taking what they couldn't have before. By attacking police they are finally free from them, even if only temporarily. To understand these rioters, we must understand their inner anger, else fall into ignorance thinking that they were born like this. But guys, you need to understand these guys aren't thugs because of personality, but because of external social conditions they grow up in.

london in flames

London is in turmoil, but we need to look at the bigger picture, rather than just blaming the rioters for looting for 'fun'.

You're an anarchist. Aren't you happy about all this?

Because I am not wanting these men lynched, you may assume I am endorsing these riots against the authorities. Let me tell you that I do not endorse these riots. They are destructive and dangerous, and I fear for my relatives in London.

However, what I am trying to tell you is that these riots are showing the anger towards capitalism. It is the system that is causing them to riot. While the media is inclined to say that these people are all 'evil criminals', this is not the case. These are largely just disenfranchised youth, screwed over by the injustice of capitalism, which represents nothing but unemployment and rising food prices in a time when their welfare that they depend on is being cut.

I do not like what is happening. No communist or anarchist in any way condones looting, which is a foul and disgusting thing to do – especially in a capitalist society where every penny counts to pay the bills. I hate what is happening in London, but I believe rather than to just hate the rioters, we need to understand why they are looting and build a solution around that.

Like the Detroit riot of 1967, this riot will cause a lot of destruction and pain, but it also shows the need for change. The Detroit riot was very similar in the explosive anger against injustice, and although it is hailed as an important topic of the Black Civil Rights movement, it was a horrible, destructive thing. But like the rioting youth in London, the Detroit blacks had nowhere else to turn, and in frustration exploded their anger upon society.

When will the riots stop?

It is impossible to say. With this one spark, the tinderbox of injustice has once again caught alight, and it is blazing over Britain quickly. I do not know when they will end, for such is the frustration that has been building up. The police will crack down on the riots soon enough, but they will not restore the status-quo without a fight. The rioters have control – something which has been denied to then their whole lives – and I guarantee to you they will continue looting until forced to stop because of the police.

Anger is a fickle emotion, and I would be lying if I knew when they would stop.

politicians

Stupid politicians. You cut welfare when there's no jobs, then squeal when the people starve? You make me sick.

So how do we control them then?

There is no clear cut way to control these riots. More police might mean order, but it could also mean even more violence. Certainly David Cameron and his cronies are not helping by wanting plastic bullets to be used, because rubber and plastic bullets usually make matters worse by killing more people (Northern Ireland and Israel are good exmples of how 'non-lethal' bullets kill people). London is clam right now, but that may be a dead calm. Then again, it may not. We just don't know.

The police are one of the biggest antagonists in this, and the original reason for the protests. Sending in more police may make a calm, but it will not solve the problem. The aggressive stance shown towards them during the riots have shown this, as they represent the system. I do not know what will happen with police using more repressive means, but I certainly don't like it, as a lot of poor people who have been born into poverty will get arrested and batoned. But as I don't like the looting either, I guess it is just something you can't make into black and white.

How do we stop this from happening again?

Riots like this happen in every major capitalist country because capitalism creates injustice and inequality. London has suffered riots since capitalism took over the country, with some notable ones occurring in 1932, 1958, 1981, 1985, 1993, 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and with many more in recent years. They are increasing in both brutality and frequency the longer capitalism lays siege to the world, and they will only continue as long as this system is in power.

To stop this happening again we need to take responsibility ourselves and say no to corrupt, greedy governments. They are the real criminals in all this, because they rigged the game before the pieces were on the board. We need to get rid of them, to cast them out. Only then will we stop these frustrated riots ripping London's heart out.

What will we replace capitalism with? Socialism of course. A system that supports each other rather than turning men into dogs. When people have what they need, they will not loot a shop. That is why all the rich prep kids aren't rioting – they have control of their lives. Those that are rioting are the poor, dependent on dwindling welfare, never in control until the nights when they riot in anarchy.

We need to get our heads out of our arses and make a change. Stop complaining about rioting as the media does and actually get out there and change. The evidence is on the news – it is what will happen forever if we keep quiet. But we need to make our voices heard. We don't want rioting! But as long as this system in society continues to wield the power, we must accept that they will happen again and again and again no matter how many rioters we arrest.

police line

This isn't the way to the future. We need to change the world else this crap will continue.

Conclusion.

Unless we make the change and get rid of capitalism, the world will continue to be an unhealthy, violent place full of wars, riots and pain. And I don't know about you, but I don't want my kids to grow up in a world like this. We need to make the world better so we can stop turning so many millions of kids into thugs. Remember that our voices can change things – all we need to do is use them.

And as I want to finish this on a hopeful note, I finish this off with a song by 2Pac that I believe is relevant to the riots in London right now.

Thanks.

Poverty In Our World.

by on

I have not blogged for a while now, for two reasons. The first is because I have been very busy with the usual stuff, and also because I lost heart for a while there. After getting into a long conversation with a Tea Bagger in real life, I actually began to doubt the intelligence of the human population, and I began to doubt if any amount of words would help. But after not blogging for a few months, I realize that even if my words are ignored, it is good for me to post my views. Someone has to post the truth, even if no one else will believe it. And so with that said, I give you my latest blog:

Povery in Our World.

Coming from a Western nation, it is understandable why capitalism is seen as a good system. Under capitalism, the many of us have houses, food and education. We live lives of leisure, able to cruise the Internet, watch TV and play video games. We may not have enough money to buy a new Ps3, or we may not have enough money to live as a king, but for the most part, Western society has seen a great increase in living standards.

Yes, there are massive exceptions. Many live in intense poverty in Western nations. You only have to look at how native populations live and are treated in Western society, and how the ghettos and slums litter these nations like landmines in a war zone. However, as I assume the majority here do not live in these ghettos, capitalism has given you what you need to live.


detriot slum

A Detriot slum showing that even in the USA millions live under the poverty line.

This has spanned the illusion that capitalism is a good system, because in our minds it gives us what we need to survive. Because our lives are 'great', we assume capitalism is great. In this blog I shall show that this assumption is wrong.

I am going, for this blog, to ask you to keep an open mind. I am going to ask you to look past your own lives and your own pleasures. I ask you to ignore what capitalism gives to you in a Western nation, and to look at what capitalism does for the rest of the world and its people. I am going to ask you to truly care about the people living this world in the misery and poverty that is capitalism. If you cannot do this, go away - I have had enough of your kind for one lifetime.

What exactly is this poverty you are talking about?

Right now, over one billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. And a further billion live on less than $2. Around 80% of humanity lives on less than $10.

Every day, around 22,000 children die from hunger, and thousands more perish from diseases brought on by poor working and living conditions; with billions living with no sanitation, no electricity and no health care. Over 2 million children die every year because they are not immunized. Over 40 million are infected with AIDS.

poverty, children

Over 20,000 children like this starve to death every day.

Hundreds of millions of children are not educated, with nearly a billion unable to read or write their own name. Instead, these children are forced to work, and usually die at a young age because of malnutrition and the hostile environment in where they grow up.

Okay, so there is poverty. But how does capitalism tie into this?

If you look at the tags on the clothes you wear now, the majority of your clothes will have been made in Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Taiwan or other such places. I shouldn't have to tell you these clothes were produced by slave labour. The workers creating these clothes live in terrible conditions, often working over 12+ hours a day. It is not uncommon for workers to work a whole 24+ hour shift, and I watched a documentary talking with one lady who worked 36 hours in a row! These workers have no union rights and no way to really protest against their unjust conditions, and so they are locked in their cycle of misery.

Now the majority of clothes (and other items) are produced in these countries because of this cheap labour. If companies produced in a Western nation, they would have to pay proper salaries, give union rights, and give an 8 hour day. What a headache for them! They would not produce as many items for sale, and therefore not generate as much profit. Therefore, these companies began to move into the less developed companies for this slave labour, so that they would not have to deal with all those trivial 'humanitarian' issues such as an 8 hour day. In this way they realized they would be saving money as well as increasing their profit, so moving to these countries was seen as a brilliant opportunity to exploit workers for profit.
sweatshop partial list

A list of just a few capitalists who use slavery for profit.

All the major companies do this. For them, being capitalists, only profit matters. Why should they pay a Western worker say, $9 an hour, when they could pay a Chinese worker 50 cents an hour, and attain the same product? So they open factory 'sweatshops' in these countries, where they can use the poor populations to their advantage for profit.

How does this generate poverty?

Poverty is generated in these 'sweatshops' because the workers are being robbed of their wages and their rights. They are not paid enough, yet these companies offer the only work that it is there for them. So these millions of workers will work until they drop, trying to get pittance to feed their kids.

Imagine if right now you and your family got your wages cut by, let's say, 50%. So if you were getting $10 an hour, you would only get $5, and vice versa. Now what would this mean for you? Most likely, this would mean that you would not be earning enough money, and you would have to cut back on your leisure time and the amount of things you buy so that the money can go towards your accommodation, food and utility bills. It would make your life difficult, stressful, and less lovely. After thinking of this example, it is exactly the kind of situation the poor in developed nations face every day, in where their lives revolve around bills and hunger.

injustice

The politicians don't care about curing poverty, all they do is talk and talk while people are staving.

This injustice happens in the Third World constantly, but on a greater scale of misery. Workers live on the brink of starvation because their bosses are able to pay them what they want to pay them, not what the workers need to live. They barely have enough money to pay for food. How are they going to therefore educate themselves to get out of their poverty? How are they going to immunise their babies against disease with no money? How are they supposed to pay for fresh water (a basic necessity of life for **** sake!) when they are an Indonesian worker being paid $0.33 an hour?

Because they are not paid enough, they become slaves. And as we all know, one cares about slaves. To the bureaucrats half a world away, they don't see the suffering they cause. They only see the profit figures, and they are happy. They might even open up another factory to generate more profit, therefore continuing the exploitation and increasing the poverty.

But don't charities stop poverty?

No. The idea that poverty is stopped by charity is one of the greatest lies in our world. It is an idea designed to make us think that poverty is being cured, while giving caring people a job they think is good. I am not saying that the charities do not have good intentions. I am not saying they don't help people, because they do.

chairty work

Good souls dedicate their lives to helping through charity - but it does not solve long term problems.

The true fact is, however, that charity can never cure poverty. Charity is money that is drip fed into the Third World, to help people out of poverty. It might sound like a good idea in theory to some, but it does not succeed in practice. Let me give you an example. If a druggie came up to you and asked you for money because he is poor, you might give him money out of charity. Now when the druggie receives this money, it will go straight towards buying more drugs, and he will still be poor. Therefore the money has been wasted, because the source of the problem was not cured, but rather it was postponed because of your charity. But despite this charity, has the situation of the druggie actually improved from the charity?

This is what happens in poverty stricken countries. Charity gives money to these people to get rid of poverty. However, poverty will never be conquered in this way, because you have to get rid of the source of the poverty, rather than just ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Compare it to a patient in a hospital. You can give the pained patient medicine for the pain so that they can live easier, or you can cure what has made them sick. Going to the source is the best way to cure the problem.

So what is the source of the poverty?

The source of poverty in the world is caused by two forces: imperialism and capitalism. These two forces are sisters in keeping poverty alive; and as you might have gathered already, they are both pioneered by your Western governments.

Although the official colonial days are over, unofficial colonialism remains in the form of capitalism. By using organisations such as the World Bank, the Western capitalists are able to give out loans they know the smaller countries need, but that they cannot repay back. The smaller countries then become in debt, and to try and appease their Western loan sharks, they divert the meagre resources of their countries towards paying back the loans – which they never will be able achieve. It is this situation that causes the entrenchment of slavery in these nations, as smaller countries are stuck in a cycle of loans and repayments.

The smaller country's capitalists try and pay back to the Western capitalists by basically selling away their economic independence. The way the Western powers work is not unlike school bullies in the playground, stealing everyone else's food so that they stay strong while the weaker ones starve.

neo colonialism

Neo-colonialism is more cunning than old type of colonialism, and many people don't even know it is exists.

Now inthis unjust transaction, the population of the smaller country is left in the lurch. Their government has no money to divert to public areas, as they have to pay back the endless loans to the Western bullies. Instead, the government uses its people as an instrument to harvest the country's resources into the country banks, who will in turn send it off to the Westerners. In a nutshell, it is pure economic slavery.

If you have not guessed already, this generates poverty. With the government unable to cater for its people because they have no economic liberty, the people are left without adequate sanitation, electricity, education health care and all other things I have already stated. The people work as slaves to their governments, who keep order through brutal repression. This repression is the tool of the Western imperialists, as it controls the people as slaves. And because this repression is implemented by 'middle men' such as dictators and flawed democracies, the Western capitalists get away with this injustice, as they are not enslaving the people outright.

To sum it up if you are still confused, capitalism needs cheap profits. To do this they use repressive imperialism to enslave entire countries, so they can use the resources of these countries to their own benefit. Because the people are oppressed and enslaved, this leads to intense poverty.

How can we stop this?

Stop supporting imperialism and capitalism. I am deadly serious. These two sisters of death are causing misery among billions of people. They exploit billions so that you can live better in your country, and then they fill you with lies thinking that the problem is being solved.

But the poverty is not being solved, and it never will be as long as capitalist imperialism is in control of this planet. These systems both survive through sacrificing the majority of the populace so the minority can live as kings. This happens in every individual Western country, with the rich fleecing its own poor majority, but it also happens in the world as a whole. The Western countries are the minority enslaving the rest of the people in the world for their own selfish benefits. And the rest of the world is suffering for it.

ending poverty

You want to end poverty? Then get out there and protest! Whether you are American or African, German or Indian we need to protest together to end injustice.

If you have no problem with this exploitation and injustice, or if you are trying to justify this slavery, then you are an idiot. I can only assume you are a Republican, or some other right wing filth. And if you are, you can get out of here now, because I don't want you here.

But if you actually care about these people and want them to have a good life, you will see that capitalism is killing us. You only have to visit your city's slum (and there will be one) to see how capitalism destroys people. In the Third World everyone lives in a slum, and everyone is a slave.

So if you can see this is wrong, then you need to protest against it. This problem will not go away if you don't do anything to stop it. This is not about giving $20 to a charity to 'cure poverty', because you know it is just a lie. If you really want to destroy poverty then you have to destroy the source of the problem - capitalism.

But what can replace capitalism?

Socialism is at this time the only political system that supports the eradication of poverty in this world. We socialists want to make a just society, where everyone is free from oppression and slavery. We want everyone on this planet to see that they are all humans, and therefore all equal. We want everyone to live a good life - not just the minority of slave traders that we elect into our governments.

socialist comrades

Socialists seem to be the only ones getting out there and fighting to make a better world without poverty.

Socialism may not sound like a good system to you. When I say the word, you probably think I want to reenact Mao or Stalin, and kill millions of people. But the fact is is that these men were state capitalists - not socialists. They used socialism to solidify their power, before turning their backs on equality and instead became state capitalists.

But we do not want capitalism in any form - as wherever it is implemented it causes grief, death and poverty for billions. If we are to destroy poverty, we need a new society, promoting the ideals of freedom, justice and equality - not only for our own needs, but for the world as a whole.

Conclusion.

Poverty needs to be destroyed, and a new society of freedom needs to bring justice to the world. If I haven't persuaded you by now, no amount of words will. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask them.

Thanks for reading, and remember:

good protest

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead.

by on

People around the world are celebrating this fact. "Good job America," is what the people are saying. "Thank you for protecting our freedom and ending terrorism."

I do not support Osama Bin Laden. I oppose him and all he stands for, and I am glad he is dead. But the ignorance of these comments above is astounding.

Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist. He was a terrorist armed up by the United States of America. To fight the 'communist menace', the United States government gave billions to the Taliban to fund their radical Islam. They gave the Taliban their landmines, their AK-47's, their RPG's. The Taliban and the USA were comrades-in-arms. As the Taliban were blowing up civilians, US aid was coming in. As the Taliban imposed their oppressive regime on the country, they were called freedom fighters!

regan with bin laden

The US government were happily friends of the Taliban until the Taliban got bored with US imperialist motives and started their own.

The USA were the ones who gave this terrorist group the means to kill those people in the Twin Towers. Just like with Saddam and countless other terrorists, the USA armed them up to fund thier imperialist means, only to have their little minions turn on the US - like a dog attacking its master.

And when the USA invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, what did they achieve? For ten years, millions of civilians have been killed, bombed and maimed in an attempt to destroy the terrorists they had supplied the means to power. They did not help the Afghan people at all. The United Nations have stated that 70% of the Afghan population have fled from thier homes because of US air strikes. The government in power now is just a puppet - it has no power. The real power is held by the Northern Warlords (more terrorists on the US payroll!), and the 'liberation' is just nonsense preached from Fox News.

card

Too bad. Apologies don't bring people's lives back.

The USA doesn't care about anything other than imperialist profit. Killing Osama won't end the war, because he was never the leader of the movement. The Islamic terrorist movement is a bunch of groups, under no one leader. Killing Osama will not stop these terrorists, it will only enrage them, and enlarge the struggle, killing more innocent people. But of course no one cares about that. They believe only the sanitased reports in the media talking about a hospital being built and the Taliban destroying it. No one ever hears of the stories of the US bombers flattening the suburbs of Kabul, or the mines that blow off the legs of civilians, or the stories of the US drones gunning down dozens of civilians in an attempt to say they killed some 'terrorists'.

american imperialism

US military man ready to 'fight for freedom'.

The USA does not stand for freedom, and it never has. While the Islamists use individual terrorism, the USA uses state terrorism. Taliban use suicide bombers, the USA uses assination drones. Both kill civilians, because both don't care. The Taliban only care about their Muslim fundamentalism and the USA only cares about its imperialist profits. You just have to remember that when the US bombers were slaughtering children with bombs, the US government was more concerned that their oil piepelines in Afghanistan were not being constructed fast enough. Even the puppet president, Hamid Karzai, has had enough of the imperialist killings. In his words, "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," and "Afghans are human beings too." But does the Untied Snakes care? Of course not.

People need to learn the truth in the world. Stop believing the lies from the media. Start researching yourselves, and find out what the USA has done. Read about Vietnam and Nicaragua and El Salvador. Read about what the USA did to these countries to preserve their profits. Read about the Taliban and the billions of dollars given to them by the US government.

When you do this, you will realize that killing Osama will not help this world be free. Terrorists killing other terrorists will not stop terrorism. It will just create one dominant form of terrorism. This dominant form of terrorism the the USA. And they will not change, because they have always killed innocent people in their millions.They will still slaughter without thought, and they will still fund more terrorists to create more terrorism. And the cycle will continue again. The USA's state terror campaign must be destroyed for the world to be truly free.

terrorist usa

Wake up and smell the lies. The USA has been terrorising humanity since 1776.

In the words of Mansoor Hekmat,

"Ending terrorism is our task. It is the task of us who fight for people's equality, for their rights and dignity. State terrorism [United States of America etc.] will end by overthrowing terrorist states. Non-state terrorism [Taliban etc.] must be eradicated by putting an end to the hardships, discrimination, exploitation and suppression that lead people to desperation and make them fall prey to reactionary and inhuman organisations. It can be eradicated by exposing religion, ethnicism, racism and any reactionary ideology, which has no respect for people. Our response is to fight for the creation of an open, free and equal society in which people, their lives, dignity and well being are valued."

You guys need to wake up. Stop the genocide before more people die. We need to save this world before it is too late.

civilian deaths

Another dead Afghan. No one cares about them anymore.

media

Wake up and stop believing the media!

civilian

Another casualty of the war between the terrorists.

gencoide

Down with the most dangerous form of terrorism: United States state terror.


95th Anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising

by on

As we sit around eating chocolate eggs participating in the Pagan/Christian festival that is Easter, we are all inclined to forget the 1916 Easter Rising, and forget those brave men and women who sacrificed themselves against imperialism for a better world.

This blog is in honour of all those courageous souls who died in the Easter Rising. Let us never forget your sacrifice for the Irish people and for the proletariat of the world.

What was the 1916 Easter Rising?

The Easter Rising was an armed rebellion in Ireland, where 1,200 members of Irish socialist and nationalist organisations rose up against the British in Dublin, and proclaimed an Irish Republic. Against the odds, they resisted the British army for a week before surrendering after their command was overrun.

Why did they rise up?

Ireland in 1916 was a tired, broken land. They had been under the yoke of British imperialism for hundreds of years, with the majority of the population living in horrendous conditions as they tried to support their families. Famines were regular, and unemployment ran high. Notably, infant mortality was running at 142 per 1,000 births, and things were only getting worse as time went on.

Because of these conditions, the Irish had fought against the British the moment they arrived on Irish soil. In the years leading up to World War One, they had striked and rioted in an attempt to get the British out of Ireland. With the help of the trade unions, protests for better conditions were a daily affair, and the Irish working c1ass were very militant. But all the lockouts, the pickets, the marches and the unrest just made the British cling on tighter and the repression continued.

The failure of these peaceful methods exhausted and demoralized the people. With the outbreak of war in 1914, they were too tired to commit to the struggle. As many of the labour leaders betrayed the people and committed to the war effort, tens of thousands of Irish joined up and were slaughtered in the trenches. The entire struggle for Independence and better conditions was becoming stagnant, and it needed a jolt to get it going again.

riot

Riots against poor conditions were a daily occurance in Ireland.

So if the people had given up, who lead the Rising?

The Easter Rising was lead by two factions of dedicated patriots (although six organisations contributed to the rising, most under the banner of the Irish Volunteers), who wanted to rekindle the struggle against the British when they were weak.

The largest organisation was by far the Irish Volunteers, who committed the majority of the combatants to the Rising. The IV fought for a free Ireland, and wanted to make Ireland independent from Britain. The IV were fiercely divided about the Rising, and they received conflicting orders about when the rising would happen, and so less than a thousand of their 4,000 combatants actually fought (almost all in Dublin).

The other main organisation were the Irish Citizens Army. They were a socialist paramilitary group, formed to protect trade union protests from police attack. They were fighting for an Irish Socialist Republic. They were smaller than the IV, contributing only 200 or so combatants in Dublin, but they were by far the best dedicated, and were originally willing to begin the Rising themselves had the IV not joined them.

Both groups were lead by capable leaders, most notably James Connolly (ICA) and Patrick Pearse (IV).

James Connolly

James Connolly, leader of the Irish Citizens Army.

The Rising in action.

On Monday April 24th, 1,200 combatants rose up in Dublin. They took control of critical areas and buildings, such as the City Hall, the General Post Office, and the Four Courts legal establishment. At Liberty Hall, the proclamation of the Republic of Ireland was read out. However, due to lack of manpower and failure to capitalize the situation, the Rebels failed to take control of strategic buildings such as Dublin Castle.

The British were taken completely off guard, but they soon recovered from their surprise. With the combat being confined to Dublin, they were able to transport reinforcements to the area, and lay siege to the Rebels. The fact the Rebels failed to capture the two railroads in the city meant that this task was made easier for the British.

Through the next week, the ICA and IV fought valiantly against the odds. On Wednesday morning, 17 Rebels attacked a battalion of English outside Dublin, killing and wounding 240 men. In addition, the British forces pushing into the industrial strongholds were met with fierce resistance, and their advance was payed for in blood.

But though the Rebels tried, they could not stop the onslaught. Having only 1,500 troops (more had joined during the Rising) and no heavy weapons to speak of, they lost their initial advantage. In comparison, the British were now reinforced with around 18-20,000 soldiers, a thousand armed police, and heavy artillery.

The Rebel positions were now under constant shelling, and central Dublin was devastated by the less than accurate fire. The Rebel headquarters in the post office was shelled so much that it had to be abandoned. It was clear to all the leaders that the British had the upper hand, and further resistance would only cost more Rebel lives and many more civilian casualties.

Therefore, on Saturday the 29th of April, after five days of relentless combat, the Rebels surrendered "in order to prevent the further slaughter of Dublin citizens, and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers now surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered." (Pearse in the surrender proclamation).

Upon hearing this proclamation, the Rebels in other areas surrendered. Although none of the Rebel positions had been taken by force, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before they were overrun. The Rising had been defeated.

Rebel headquarters

The Rebel headquarters after the surrender.

What were the casualties?

On the British side, 116 soldiers lay lead and over 300 were wounded. 16 policemen were killed, and 40 were wounded.

The only Rebel casualties are those stated by the IV and ICA that list 64 dead, but many more lay within the civilian casualties. However, we will never know how may Rebels were really killed or wounded, although it was definitely higher than 64.

The civilian casualties (along with those uncounted Rebels) stood at 318 dead and over 2,000 wounded. The high civilian casualty rates are usually attributed to the British, who used heavy artillery in the city, which lead to indirect civilian killings.

So what happened to the rebels?

The British were not happy about the Rising. Being in the middle of their imperialist war, an uprising in Ireland was the last thing they needed. Because of this, they were brutal to the Rebels, and they attempted to 'purge' the country to ensure it would never happen again.

In a series of courts martial, a total of 90 were sentenced to death. The seven who signed the proclamation declaring the Republic were all executed. Great patriots like P. Pearse were shot in cold blood after fighting for their liberation. The wounded James Connolly had to be shot in a chair because he was unable to stand.

In addition to this, over 3,000 were arrested, and 1,000 interned. 50,000 troops were moved into Ireland, and there was intense repression as the government hunted down all resistance and anyone who even hinted that they supported the Rising.

central dublin

Irish prisoners are marched away to captivity - many to be executed.

Why did the Easter Rising fail?

The Rising failed because it was never meant to succeed. James Connolly himself, when asked by a comrade if they had any chance of success replied with two words: "none whatever." The Rising was meant to rekindle the fire in the Irish people, not liberate them outright. Indeed, the whole fact they instigated a rising was because they could not liberate themselves at that present time.

Although it is worthy of note that the majority of Rebel forces actually did not participate in the fight, due to conflicting orders. Had the Rising gone to plan, the ICA and IV would have risen over the entire country, not just in Dublin.

In hindsight, should it have been attempted?

It is always easy to criticise when looking back on an incident such as this. And indeed they made some mistakes. They did not take many of the strategic points, and therefore allowed the British to bring up substantial reinforcements. They did not tell the Irish people of their plan, and so although the Irish sympathised with the Rising, they did not help, because they were simply too stunned at the small group of militants declaring war on the British Empire.

However, as James Connolly said in his Final Statement before he was executed:

"We went out to break the connection between this country and the British Empire, and to establish an Irish Republic. We believed that the call we then issued to the people of Ireland, was a nobler call, in a holier cause, than any call issued to them during this war, having any connection with the war. We succeeded in proving that Irishmen are ready to die endeavouring to win for Ireland those national rights which the British Government has been asking them to die to win for Belgium."

The Easter Rising succeeded in drawing support back to the independence struggle, and Ireland was plunged into civil war, attaining its independence from Britain only five years after the Rising in 1921. In this goal they succeeded, but with the death of many of Irelands best leaders in 1916 (eg. Connolly), this meant that the new state did not stand for what many had died for in the 1916 Easter Rising, and instead of being a great friend to the Irish people, the exploitation continued, abeit through Irish exploiters instead of English ones.

dublin

Central Dublin was devastated by British artillery fire.

But even with these failings, these men were martyrs for the struggle for independence and liberation. Even in the dark years of imperialist war, these men and women were willing to sacrifice their lives for a just cause - not so they would benefit from it, but so that their children could benefit from it. Connolly puts it brilliantly in the last lines he ever wrote before the night of his execution:

"Believing that the British Government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland, the presence, in any one generation of Irishmen, of even a respectable minority, ready to die to affirm that truth, makes that Government for ever a usurpation and a crime against human progress.

I personally thank God that I have lived to see the day when thousands of Irish men and boys, and hundreds of Irish women and girls, were ready to affirm that truth, and to attest it with their lives if need be."

Therefore, in hindsight, to reject the Rising and say that it was 'poorly attempted' or 'unprepared' is just wrong. They knew exactly what they were fighting for, and they fought for it. They were true patriots and martyrs, and to reject the Rising would be an insult to their memory.

Conclusion.

Although this article does not do them full justice, I ask you to remember these brave men who gave their lives for the liberation of Ireland, and for the fight against repressive imperialism - a repression that still stalks our world to this day.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. I will answer as best as I can.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you enjoyed the article,

~Optiow~

Finally Got Around To Changing My Avatar.

by on

I finally found a nice new picture for my avatar a few days ago. I liked my Black Panther theme, but I also like change every so often. Let me know what you think!

So I decided to settle with this new picture. It is a picture of three Nepalese Maoists at a party rally. I chose it because

1) Nepal is at the forefront of the communist movement, and will become a communist state very soon.

2) It makes a difference from all my other avatars, which have only portrayed men.

I also got two new quotes from Noam Chomsky, my favorite anarchist. I like them for their blunt truth and their audacity:

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."



What is Libertarian Marxism?

by on

Libertarian Marxism is often something overlooked when people study communism. When someone says 'communism', people think automatically of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. They think of the labour camps and the purges. They get an image of an authoritarian society full of drones obeying their political commissars.

Yet this is only half the story. This is only talking about the Authoritarian Marxism current. But what about the other half of communist theory - what of Libertarian Marxism?

When I finished reading 'The Black Book of Communism', I thought two thoughts. One thought was 'what a crap book'. And indeed it was a crap book. But I also realized (more importantly) that the book had never mentioned Libertarian Marxism once (I double checked though the index, and it wasn't there). Where was Libertarian Marxism? Was it not black enough for The Black Book of Communism? It was then I realized that the communist trend that and so many millions of others follow was and is forgotten in the history of Stalin's purges and Mao's murders.

lenin pic

Lenin was part of the authoritarian current of communism, and everyone knows who he was.

So What IS Libertarian Marxism?

Libertarian Marxism is the forgotten half of Marxism. Standing in opposition to Authoritarian Marxism, it believes in revolutionary change through worker's councils instead of a vanguard party (Leninists) or through parliament (social democrats). LM believes that for true social change, it needs democracy. Only the working c1ass themselves can forge their own path in the world. To allow a revolutionary party to take control would just create dictatorship and repression because many of the population will be against the revolution, and many of the supporters would be far behind the intellect of the party elite. Moreover, we believe that to trust corrupt bourgeois politicians in parliament will bring around no worthwhile change. LM believes that to combat these things, the working c1ass themselves need to rise up lead by themselves, not just by a party of elites, so that they can actually participate in the making of a democratic society, as opposed to someone doing it for them. So in essence, it would be a true people's revolution.

The fundamental ideal of LM is that of 'socialism from below'. Workers create their government from below through means of worker's councils. These councils would elect delegates (fellow workers), who would go to a Constituent Assembly and who would promote the issues and thoughts facing their workers. The delegates would voice the opinions of their electorate, or else they would be recalled. In this way everyone gets a democratic voice in the assembly, and can contribute to how the country is run. This stands in opposition to 'socialism from above', which believes in a bureaucracy and a party system, where in reality the workers get no real say in how the government is run.

Anton pic

Anton Pannekoek was a founder of council communism. He was the Lenin-type figurehead for the council communist movement. Yet how many of you knew who he was?

Why Is This System Better Than The One We Have Now?

Right now, we live under capitalism. And there are two c1asses in capitalism: the capitalists and the masses. The capitalists are the minority, yet they control the majority of the profits made by the masses. The masses on the other hand, are the majority, who live off tippence while the capitalists live large.

The capitalists promise us democracy, and we get a parliament with a bunch of MP's in it. But what good is it? Yes, we get a vote every few years, but who do we vote for? All the major parties are capitalist. They all have capitalist motives, and want to protect capitalist profits. The MP's are not workers, they have never held a workers job (especially the right wing parties). Hell, we don't even get to meet our MP's, let alone tell them what our needs are. It is not democracy, it is just a farce designed to make the majority of us 'bored' with poltics so that we forget our potential.

But LM is democracy. Instead of having the country run by capitalists, they are put in the hands of the workers. The workers get to truly elect people they trust to represent them, and the people running the government are those who know the conditions and needs of the workers themselves. They care for the majority of the masses, not the minority of the capitalists. Instead of endless speeches made in parliament about trivial issues, there are votes taken in assembly, and descisions made. There are no corrupt politicians who can do whatever they want, there are honest workers who obey their electorate or they get recalled. The people are put in charge of their government, instead of the government taking charge of the people.

Stalin

You all know who this w@nker is, because he is easy to discredit.

If It's So Good, Why Haven't I Heard Of It?

Because the capitalists don't want you to. Because LM is a nice current of communism, that is more democratic than the capitalists ever will be. Because LM's don't adheere to the popular belief of 'evil Bolsheviks who want to murder everyone'. Because the capitalists don't want people to see 'democratic communism', they try to ignore it.

So basically, the oh so great 'communist historians' like to ignore LM, because there is nothing wrong with it. It is much easier for them to attack Stalin, or Hoxha, or Mao. Why does no one attack CLR James, Anton Pannekoek, or Karl Korsch? What did they do wrong? As they did not committ massacres, they are forgotten in the sands of history by the 'communist historians'.

nestor pic

Yet when I show you Nestor Makhno, you don't know who he is. Why? Because he was a freedom fighter, not a dog like Stalin.

Who Does LM Support Then?

Our icons are not those of the authoritarians. We do not hold Lenin or Mao in high esteem. When they say Mao, we say Luxembourg. When they say Hoxha, we say Makhno. When they say the USSR, we say the Free Territory. When they say Krondstadt 1917, we say Krondstadt 1921. When they say Bolshevik Leningrad, we say Anarchist Catalonia.

In short, we support the democracy, justice, freedom and equality of anarcho-communists and LM's. And in turn, we condemn repression and injustice of authoritarian marxism.

In Conclusion.

This is just a very short outline of LM, written very hurriedly. I shall be providing more detail later, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask them. I hope you have learned a bit of new info from this blog.

Thanks for reading, and as tribute I post my favorite Anti-Fascist Song for you to listen to.

~Optiow~

Protest Movement Spreads To North Korea.

by on

A wave of Arab World inspired protests has hit the DPRK over the last weeks. For the first time ever, there are protests against the Stalinist North Korean government, with protesters in three cities demanding food and electricity - and therefore highlighting the tyranny of the North Korean regime.

North Korea has been suffering heavily for years, and economic conditions have been appauling. Mass famine has been widespread, and millions have died - despite what the DPRK government says. However, there have been no protests against the government before this date, as many opposition leaders were killed a long time ago. Citizens used to betray 'traitors' to their government, but now things are so bad in North Korea that they are now covering each other, and the government is now being openly opposed.

These protests are small, but there is hope. North Koreans have never protested with such 'audacity' against their government without being shot, and for the first time the police were unable to find the ringleaders. Respect is dwindling for the regime, and we are seeing the first sparks of pro-democratic movements in the region.

North Korean Military

The North Korean military would happily kill protesters if asked to.

However, I am doubtful there will be a revolution. There is no bastion of hope the North Koreans can look to. Unlike in other countries, there is no communist party that can fight for the people, and all non-conforming communists and other intellectuals are long dead. The same is for the religious citizens in the country. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing the North Koreans can use to rally around. Plus, there is the added fact that the population is subjected to harsh military discipline, with its military and police force being happy to kill whoever they are ordered to.

But that is only my opinion, and in light of the Arab World protests - anything can happen. Who knows, maybe the DPRK will finally fall to a democratic government. Maybe protests will be hijacked by the US government, like oh so many other protests. Maybe nothing will come out of it. However, one thing is certain - there is discontent for the Stalinist government. And discontent doesn't go away unless there are reforms.