pandemonium  evening  star  

No. 874



SPANISH & ENGLISH:

*** The Bolivarian Revolution: 

Concerning the Proletariat and Class Struggle

By  Franz J. T. Lee.  

*** More Iraqis support resistance, CIA report says.

*** Explosión en Nasiriya, Irak, mata a 17 "carabinieri" italianos.
Silencio cómplice ante comunicado golpista el comunicado del "Bloque Democrático"

*** Silencio cómplice ante comunicado golpista el comunicado del
"Bloque Democrático".

12/11/03.
 


***********************************************************************************
The Bolivarian Revolution: 

Concerning the Proletariat and Class Struggle

By  Franz J. T. Lee

Why should the Bolivarianos in Venezuela know, what exactly concepts such as "revolution", the "workers", the "proletariat" and the "class struggle" denote?

From the Father of all Revolutions, the French Revolution, we have learned, that there is no revolution without class struggle, without social classes in conflict. In the case of the very French Revolution, four major social classes were in life-and-death conflict: the clergy and nobility versus the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Essentially, it was not a revolution of "the poor against the rich"; as a matter of fact and with the only exception of the proletariat, the clergy, nobility and bourgeoisie were very wealthy classes. The really poor,
the true "vagabonds", peasants and serfs only indirectly participated in this capitalist, bourgeois, democratic revolution.  Rich and poor have existed since millennia, they were always in constant conflict. Any truly scientific and philosophic investigator, Marxist or non-Marxist, can verify very easily, that a modern national or international revolution in the "Third Millennium", in the current transitional epoch of Global Fascism, fundamentally concerns the global, globalized social class struggle. Whether we like it or not, whether we know it or not, whether we say it or not, subjectively, objectively and transjectively, there is no real revolution, no true human emancipation whatsoever without a permanent global class struggle.

Thus, transhistorically, what is the national and international class struggle of the Bolivarian Revolution all about?

Let us look at some "classical", general views about "class struggle", the "proletariat", and "social revolution". Here is a Maoist view:

"The proletariat is the group 'with nothing to lose but its chains', because it is propertyless. The Third World consists of the combined societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The average Third World wage was last calculated at 48 cents per hour. Third World workers in the export sectors average slightly more at $1.24 per hour. (1). ...

 ...  what he (Marx) said about capitalism is still true when the world is taken as a whole -- a world in which the Third World makes up 80 percent of the population. In the world as a whole, inequality is steadily increasing. 'In 1820, the largest gap between any two countries in per capita GNP was over 3:1, but by 1992 it had steadily increased to 72:1,' wrote a MIM author. (2)

(Notes:
1. Adrian Wood, North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality: Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 400.
2. The MIM author cited Angus Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992; Paris, OECD, 1995), p. 22." (See: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/twprole.html)
 

One of the fathers of scientific, philosophic socialism, Frederick Engels, gave us the following explanations:

"The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour -- hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century. [1]

1. In their works written in later periods, Marx and Engels substituted the more accurate concepts of "sale of labour power", "value of labour power" and "price of labour power" (first introduced by Marx) for "sale of labour", value of labour" and "price of labour", as used here." (See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#02)

Concerning the origin of the proletariat, of the modern "working class" in Europe, Engels stated:

"The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world.

This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry.

Once the impulse to the introduction of machinery and the factory system had been given, this system spread quickly to all other branches of industry, especially cloth- and book-printing, pottery, and the metal industries.

Labour was more and more divided among the individual workers so that the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now did only a part of that piece. This division of labour made it possible to produce things faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual worker to simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performed not only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industries fell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.

But at the same time, they also fell into the hands of big capitalists, and their workers were deprived of whatever independence remained to them. Gradually, not only genuine manufacture but also handicrafts came within the province of the factory system as big capitalists increasingly displaced the small master craftsmen by setting up huge workshops, which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division of labour.

This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labour are performed in factories -- and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:

(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistence and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

(ii) The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat." 

(See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

Now, in order to better understand our "buhoneros", who are being discriminated as "recogelatas" by the fascist, Arian race of Plaza Francia, where does this concept of the proletariat, shared by Karl Marx, come from? Are concepts like "proletariat" and "lumpen-proletariat" really such sacred concepts? What is the "proletarian" revolution, the Negation within the French Revolution, all about? Who really per definitionem was the proletariat of the 19th and 20th centuries? In the Third Millennia, do the Venezuelans and Bolivarianos qualify as modern "proletarians"? Are they among the billions of obsolete physical, manual labour forces, to be annihilated by Bush's "New Wars", by the global, fascist, corporate, industrial-military complex?

In the first place, daily we are utilizing all sorts of words, terms and concepts, like the "proletariat", "revolution", "process", "democracy", "liberty", "peace" or "justice", central elements of the global emancipatory process, of the Bolivarian Revolution, but many of us do not have the time to investigate what we are really talking about. Four decades of puntofijista "education" did not prepare our minds and intellects for scientific thinking, for philosophic thought, did not enable us to neutralize the current brutal onslaught of the global infowar, to be victorious in the present fascist "war of ideas". Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, including university students, are innocent victims of permanent "psychotic disassociation", some even suffer from "cognitive dissonance", as a result of the eternal lies, propaganda and distortions of the giant  international and national  means of mass communication. 

Obviously, with shabby tools,
with empty words, sir-reverence, we coin weird notions and bizarre ideas; such uncanny and banausian concepts are fatal for revolutionary práxis and theory. Of course, across the last centuries this also happened to "expert" Marxists and "erudite" scholars, not to mention the  "masses", the "working class" and the "proletariat" itself.

Who coined such concepts like the "revolution", "proletariat" or the "lumpenproletariat"? Immediately, the layman, the nerd, the ideologue,  would say: the "Communists", Marx and Engels. Well, we humbly genuflect confronted by such implanted ignorance; really, it's bliss.

From the 16th century onwards, here and there, in European writings, the concepts
"proletariat" or "proletary" appeared; at the eve of the French Revolution, especially in "worker's clubs", like the "League of the Just", the concept gradually acquired a
worker's content. In 1837, the Swiss economist Jean Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi finally adopted this term. Only in 1842, Lorenz von Stein introduced the
concept into German; then the famous German revolutionary poet, Ferdinand von Freiligrath passed the concept on to Friedrich Engels, who used it in the first scientific socialist work, in his book, The Condition of The Working Class in England in 1844.

As a matter of scientific-philosophic curiosity, why did the fathers of scientific socialism use this specific term in their works? After all, concepts like the "working classes", "working men", "labouring classes" were prevalent in that epoch. We
know that Marx and Engels were linguists par excellence. Let's see what the etymological meaning of this concept reveals.

In Ancient Rome, the proletarius belonged to the under-dogs, to the lowest section of the population. In Latin, pro-olescere simply means "growing out of"; in the sense of  mushrooms "sprouting out of the ground", "shooting up". Hence, the proletarius had a derivative, an artificial, a synthetic nature.  Marx and Engels introduced him as follows in the Communist Manifesto:

"The bourgeoisie ... has ... begotten the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern workers -- the proletarians. ... the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

This means that the proletariat is not primordial, not "naturwüchsig"; it is an amorphous social concoction, lacking "cultural" and "civilized" roots. According to Marx and Engels the new proletarius adopted the capitalist relations produced by the victorious bourgeoisie, and the nexus between the members of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie became "naked self-interest, callous cash payment".

However, on the other pauperized extreme, we find the "Lumpenproletariat". Why did Marx and Engels use this concept? Grimm's Wörterbuch described them as Lumpengesindel: "a slovenly mob, a pack of scoundrels, a godless pack, vagabonds".  Apart from the semantic similarity, this colluvies vagabundorum, this rotting mass thrown off by the lowest sectors of "modern society", the Lumpenproletariat, in  Marxian terminology, is exactly the negation of the proletariat. In 1845, this concept appeared in their work, The German Ideology. The influential contemporary work, De Cassagnac explained, that the proletariat was composed of "workers, beggars, thieves and prostitutes". This is what Hegel understood by his concept, the Pöbel.

For Marx, the Lumpenproletariat comprised the "beggars, thieves and prostitutes", the non-productive sector of the lowest classes. In Class Struggle in France, he described this class as "gens sans feu et sans aveu". However, both had the following in common: both were "free" and both could be "bought" or "bribed". However, the differentia especifica is, that the Lumpenproletariat are déclassés; that they lack a "class interest"; that they can't develop a "class consciousness"; in other words, they can't be conscientized for anything whatsoever.

Now, we know what Marx and Engels, the fathers of scientific socialism, understood by the proletariat, which/who should unite itself, and would emancipate all mankind. We should just analyse whether this proletariat, including its "lumpen" side, ever had authorized us to "free" or to "emancipate" it, whether it ever had an interest in "emancipation". 

One thing is certain, those millions of Venezuelans who, together with their armed forces, valiantly prevented that their beloved President Hugo Chávez Frías would treacherously be assassinated and thrown to the sharks, who defended the Bolivarian Revolution with their very lives, are made of sterner emancipatory stuff. In Bolivia, in Argentina, in Cuba, and elsewhere, as emancipatory torch-bearers they have demonstrated to the world the militant optimism of billions of peoples, who still have conserved the real, true essence of humanity. Whether they are proletarians, lumpen-proletarians, or not, currently, as Latin Americans, they are in the front line of World Emancipation against Global Fascism. We salute these brave Bolivarianos! Within the next weeks, the next bloody battle is already at our very door step! "Escualidism", the CIA, is here to stay, even beyond 2021. They will fade away from the face of the earth only when Labour and Capital are totally eradicated, not only in Venezuela, in Latin America, but in the whole Milky Way.

-----oOo-----  

*******************************************************************************************************

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=26124&lang=en
 
More Iraqis support resistance, CIA report says
12.11.2003 [06:29]
 

A new, top-secret CIA report from Iraq warns that growing numbers of Iraqis are concluding that the U.S.-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the resistance.

The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation in Iraq and cautions that the U.S.-led drive to rebuild the country as a democracy could collapse unless corrective actions are taken immediately.

L. Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who arrived unexpectedly in Washington for strategy sessions on Tuesday, essentially endorsed the CIA's findings, said a senior administration official.

The report's bleak tone and Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply with the upbeat public assessments that President Bush, his chief aides and Bremer are giving as part of an aggressive publicity campaign aimed at countering rising anxieties at home over increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq.

Two senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the document is classified, described the report's findings in broad terms, but didn't give excerpts or details of any recommendations.

The report landed on the desks of senior U.S. officials on Monday. The speed of the leak suggested that senior policymakers want to make sure the assessment reaches Bush.

Some senior policymakers have complained of being frustrated in their efforts to provide Bush with analyses of the situation in Iraq that are more somber than the optimistic views of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other hardliners.

The CIA analysis suggests U.S. policy in Iraq has reached a turning point, as the Bush administration moves to escalate the war against the guerrillas and accelerate the transfer of political power to Iraqis.Both options are potentially risky.

In Baghdad, the U.S. military announced Tuesday that it will wage a more aggressive offensive against the loose confederation of former Saddam Hussein loyalists, foreign and Iraqi Islamic extremists and Iraqi nationalists.

"The most important message is that we are all going to get pretty tough, and that's what is needed to defeat the enemy, and we are definitely not shy of doing that when it is required," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told journalists.

Such a campaign, however, could cause more civilian casualties and drive more Iraqis to the side of the insurgents.

At the same time, the CIA assessment warns that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders have shown an ability to govern the country or even preside over drafting a constitution or holding an election.

Bill Harlow, a CIA spokesman, declined to confirm or deny the existence of the new report, saying the agency does not discuss such matters.

The growing toll of dead and wounded has cost Bush a significant loss of popularity as he begins campaigning in earnest for re-election next November.

Bremer and top Bush officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rumsfeld, met at the White House on Tuesday to examine ways to speed up the restoration of Iraqi self-government. Bush did not attend.

U.S. officials have become deeply frustrated by infighting, nepotism and inaction within the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, the U.S.-appointed body of Iraqi politicians that has been given limited powers to govern Iraq. The council also is in charge of overseeing the drafting of a constitution.

Bremer, Powell, Rumsfeld and other officials also discussed moves to speed up the recruiting of U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces, including a new army.

More than 118,000 Iraqis are serving in the new Iraqi army, police and other forces, and U.S. officials aim to bring the total up to more than 220,000 sometime in 2004.

Accelerating a restoration of Iraqi self-rule, speeding up the recruiting of Iraqi security forces and intensifying a U.S. counter-insurgency campaign form the crux of a new U.S. strategy to crush the resistance, consolidate the support of ordinary Iraqis for U.S.-led democracy-building efforts and reduce the U.S. military presence.

"The long-term security of Iraq will be assured by the Iraqis themselves," Bush asserted in a Veterans Day speech on Tuesday to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.

The CIA assessment, said the senior administration officials, was composed by the CIA station chief in Baghdad, a veteran operations officer who oversees more than 275 officers in Iraq.

The report is a type known in intelligence parlance as an AARDWOLF, a special field assessment that is usually requested by senior policymakers in Washington at important junctures in overseas crises.

The report, one official said, warned that the more aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics could induce more Iraqis to join the guerrilla campaign that has killed at least 153 U.S. soldiers - 35 of them so far this month - since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1.

It also raised concerns about the governing council. The group, which is dominated by former Iraqi exiles with little popular support, has failed to persuade ordinary Iraqis that the occupation is temporary and will lead to a unified, sovereign Iraq, the report said

Bremer has been formulating ways "in which the Governing Council can evolve into a decision-making body to move the constitutional process along," said a third senior U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

He denied recent news reports that the Bush administration is considering replacing the council with some other group of Iraqis.

According to the second senior administration official, the report warned that the inability of the U.S.-led coalition to crush the resistance is convincing growing numbers of Iraqis that the occupation can be defeated, bolstering support for the insurgents.

It also raised the concern that majority Shiite Muslims could begin joining minority Sunnis in turning against the occupation.

Such a development would almost certainly doom the Bush administration's chances of succeeding in Iraq.

The Shiites comprise 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people. They suffered massive repression under Saddam, whose regime favored the Sunnis. Most Shiite leaders have been willing to give the U.S.-led occupation time to restore Iraqi sovereignty, as that would give them power for the first time since the country was created by Britain under a mandate of the League of Nations in 1920.

But frictions between the U.S.-led occupation and the Shiites have been intensifying, fueled by incidents such as the killing this week by a U.S. soldier of the mayor of Sadr City, a massive Shiite slum in Baghdad.

In another finding, the CIA report said there is no way to completely seal Iraq's borders with Syria, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to infiltration by foreign Islamic extremists bent on killing Americans.

U.S. officials and military commanders blame the foreigners, Iraqi Islamic extremists and Saddam loyalists for the bombings and guerrilla-style ambushes of U.S. forces that have been increasing in frequency and sophistication.

Most attacks have been concentrated in Baghdad and a 200-square-mile Sunni-dominated region north of the capital that includes Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

In an effort to discourage support for the United States, the insurgents also have targeted peacekeepers from other countries, international organizations like the United Nations, and Iraqis who have cooperated with the U.S.-led occupation.

Bush on Tuesday reiterated his resolve to stay the course and crush the insurgency, and his belief that the United States will prevail in helping to build "democracy and peace and justice" in Iraq that will be a model for the Middle East.


********************************************************************************************************* 

Explosión en Nasiriya, Irak, mata a 17 "carabinieri" italianos
Por: Tomado de iraq.war
Publicado el Miércoles, 12/11/03 03:17pm








Al menos 17 policías italianos “carabinieri” resultaron muertos luego que una poderosa explosión de un camión bomba, destrozara parcialmente el edificio del cuartel militar italiano en la ciudad de Nasiriya al sur de Irak. La explosión ocurrió a las 10:45 pm. hora de Irak.

http://aporrea.net/dameverbo.php?docid=11503
********************************************************************************************************

Silencio cómplice ante comunicado golpista el comunicado del "Bloque Democrático"
¡Qué desvergonzados!
Por: José Marcano
Publicado el Miércoles, 12/11/03 10:50am








En el día de ayer, en nuestra flamante Asamblea Nacional se dio un debate sobre el comunicado que el "Bloque Democrático" hizo publico en el diario el Nacional.

El debate era una esplendida oportunidad para que, aquellos partidos o individualidades de la "oposición democrática" se desmarcara de ese grupo, se distinguiera como defensores del hilo constitucional, se apegaran definitivamente al juego de la democracia; es decir, a dejar de ser payasos y exclamar que están en contra de tales personajes (los de la piedra o bloque) y que sus principios e ideales están con el respeto a la constitución.

Todos sabemos la estrategia que esta "oposición" ha mantenido en la Asamblea Nacional, ella consiste en dilatar hasta el extremo las intervenciones de sus miembros con la finalidad de impedir que se aprueben las leyes que el país y el pueblo necesitan para su desarrollo en general; esta política de intervenciones ha llevado inclusive a que los diputados bolivarianos hayan tenido que modificar el reglamento de debates de dicho cuerpo, pues había ocasiones en que todos "TODOS" los diputaditos de la "oposición" intervenían en una discusión hasta dos veces, haciéndose interminables las secciones de la asamblea.

Pero que sucedió ayer.

Los diputados bolivarianos se cansaron de invitar a los payasos esos de la "oposición" a que intervinieran y se pronunciaran en contra de tal remitido.

Los Adecos: se hicieron los locos, ninguno apareció en la tribuna
Los copeyanos: se fueron a tomar un café
Los de Primero Justicia: exclamaron: !!!YOOOOOOOOO!!!!, que va
Los de Convergencia: fueron al baño
Los de Alianza Braco Pueblo: Bueno, ya esos no existen como partido

Y así por el estilo,

Ninguno NINGUNO de los partidos de la "oposición" apareció, ningún NINGUN diputadito de la "oposición" asomó su nariz para intervenir y declararse en contra del documento antes nombrado.

Son simplemente TODOS unos desgraciados golpistas

http://aporrea.net/dameletra.php?docid=5609

***********************************************************************************************************