Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Home Blog

Occupied: West Bank Annexation A People Abandoned

0

Chris Williamson for Resistance TV hosting a panel discussion on the illegal act of Annexation of the West Bank and its long history of occupation by Israeli forces.

Joining Chris to discuss and raise awareness on the advent of this travesty of international justice and the abandonment of the Palestinian people. Azzm Tammimi, Writer/Journalist, Bessam Tamani, Activist/Philosopher, Issad Amro, Youth worker, Tom Suarez, Author/Academic, Miko Peled, Author/Academic/BDS/Activist, Mick Napier, PSC Scotland.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is planning to effectively annex parts of the occupied West Bank in what would be a major – and highly controversial – act.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet says Israel’s annexation plans ‘illegal’

Annexation is the term applied when a state unilaterally proclaims its sovereignty over another territory. It is forbidden by international law. A recent example was Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in 2014.

The West Bank has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war by the Israeli military. The West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) is also home to some 430,000 Israeli Jews who live in 132 settlements (and 124 smaller “OUTPOST”) built under Israel’s occupation.

Annexation is illegal. Period,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a statement. “Any annexation. Whether it is 30 percent of the West Bank, or 5 percent,” she said, urging Israel to “listen to its own former senior officials and generals, as well as to the multitude of voices around the world, warning it not to proceed along this dangerous path.”

A protester holds a placard as she stands next to Israeli soldiers during a protest against Israeli settlements in Beit Fajjar town south of the West Bank city of Bethlehem
(photo credit: REUTERS)

She spoke out amid reports that Israel weighed assuaging international and Palestinian objections to annexation by moving forward with a partial plan. This would likely include the application of sovereignty over areas of high settler-population density, known as the blocs, rather than advancing an initiative that would annex the entire 30% of the West Bank as outlined under US President Donald Trump’s peace plan.

International condemnation of the possible Israeli annexations has mounted ahead of July 1, when Israel could take its first steps towards implementing part of a United States-proposed Middle East plan.

Between 2.1 million and 3 million (sources vary) Palestinian Arabs live in the West Bank under both limited self-rule and Israeli military rule.

The West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) is also home to some 430,000 Israeli Jews who live in 132 settlements (and 124 smaller “outposts”) built under Israel’s occupation.

Organising for Power & Winning

1

Jane McAlevey is an author, union & community organiser, who has, over 30 years, developed a tried and tested method for successful organising in the work place, electioneering and community campaigns. Now, more than ever, we need to develop our skills from activists, into effective organisers to challenge the big issues that we are facing. With looming austerity, rent arrears, job losses, food poverty, homelessness etc. Jane shows us, in this video, how we can overcome barriers to WIN!

Jane McAlevey says: “For most of my adult life, I’ve been designing and running actual experiments in social change, carefully testing and retesting key hypotheses. The experiments, the best of which come in the form of large scale campaigns with clear “win” or “lose” outcomes, cut across and through and unite often disparate single-issue silos that constitute so much of the US progressive movement. After 30 years of campaigns, there’s no question for me that good unions are the best solution to most problems.”

To win, it’s crucial that we heed advice from union organizer Nato Green. In a recent article about how public service unions like the one he works for, local SEIU 1021 in California, can — and must — negotiate for climate justice, he wrote, “Any seasoned union campaigner worth her salt loves a contract fight because it has a hard deadline that focuses everyone’s attention—expiration and a strike threat. Climate science gives us a new deadline and an opportunity to show that we’re up to the task. We have 12 years.”

Green is certainly right that good union organizers love a contract fight. If we take the twelve years outlined in the recent IPCC report as our deadline for drastically cutting carbon emissions, what’s a credible plan to win by 2030?

For people serious about winning really hard fights — and there are virtually none more difficult than tackling the fossil fuel industry — making a plan starts by doing comprehensive power structure analysis and building a real war room. This is indeed a war, one that so far has been won by the Koch brothers and their ilk. Our side needs to get used to the military language because what we’ve been doing — being polite and going to big orderly marches — isn’t saving the planet or creating a fair and just economy, and it’s wishful thinking to imagine otherwise. War rooms are physical spaces where people with necessary experience and fortitude brainstorm, plot, and plan what it will take to win. They plan backwards from the world as it actually exists, facing the challenge of organizing a set of messy actors who are too easily divided-and-conquered and too infrequently able to hold the focus on that which unites us — which is much more than survival.

The climate war room discussion will need to deal with a key reality: We are now stuck with courts that will rule against the planet and workers for another thirty to forty years. People in the US don’t yet feel the reality of losing the Supreme Court to the right wing, because the newly solidified majority hasn’t yet had time to overturn everything that it eventually will.

The Rise of the Machines: automation in the workplace and the case for a Universal Basic Income.

1
The Rise of the Machines: automation in the workplace and the case for a Universal Basic Income.

The Rise of the Machines: automation in the workplace and the case for a Universal Basic Income. (Dr. Keith Hussein)

The current transfer of jobs from the physical to the virtual economy is a different sort of off-shoring, not to a foreign country but to a virtual one. If we follow recent history we can’t assume these jobs will be replaced either. – W. Brian Arthur

In March 2017 the consultancy firm Pricewaterhousecoopers produced a report claiming that over 10 million British workers and their jobs are potentially at serious risk of being replaced by robots in the next fifteen years. In effect, it means that 30% of jobs in Britain are under direct threat of replacement by robotic technology due to recent far-reaching advances in artificial intelligence (AI) designed specifically to replace workers.

While the report predicts that automation would boost productivity and create fresh job opportunities, it also claims that urgent action will be required to mitigate the effect of AI on the workplace of the future. The most prominent concerns are the impact this will have on present inequality and unemployment levels. PwC argues that 2.25 million jobs were at high risk in wholesale and retailing (the sector that employs most people in the UK) while 1.2 million were under threat in manufacturing, 1.1 million in administrative and support services and 950,000 in transport and storage.

Its Chief Economist John Hawksworth argues that: “A key driver of our industry-level estimates is the fact that manual and routine tasks are more susceptible to automation, while social skills are relatively less automatable.

That said, no industry is entirely immune from future advances in robotics and AI.’’ Jon Andrews, its Head of Technology and Investments also added: “There’s no doubt that AI and robotics will rebalance what jobs look like in the future, and that some are more susceptible than others. In the future, knowledge will be a commodity so we need to shift our thinking on how we skill and up-skill future generations’.

The debate currently taking place over automation resembles those which took place in relation to de-industrialisation and globalisation in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time it was conceded that the free movement of capital, corporations and labour would create ‘losers’ as well as ‘winners’ (to use the socially neutral parlance of neoliberal discourse) due to the knock-on effects on unemployment and the widening of inequality.

Turkey's first humanoid robotics factory
Humanoid robots in a factory in Central Konya Province Turkey.

Education and funding Education is key.

The consensus of that time argued that as long as these ‘losers’ were adequately supported, either through re-skilling, education opportunities, or a stronger social safety net these changes would have minimal impact. However, as economist Mark Blyth argues instead in countries such as the UK (and US) educational budgets and welfare systems were drastically cut back. So the communities most affected by deindustrialisation in the North, Wales and Midlands never recovered their former prominence.

Trump and Brexit are clear warning signs that we can’t stop ignoring the social effects of technology on employment and wages.

Both Hawksworth and Andrews thus make highly salient points: the technological change of Amazon Go and driverless cars is happening fast and has massive economic, social and ethical ramifications. We have no other choice as a society but to confront the potential problems caused by automation in the workplace and come up with a viable solution. One idea which is typically mooted is the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) to mitigate these ramifications. So how would it work in practice?

UBI is a welfare programme in which all citizens receive an unconditional sum of money from the government. It would provide a safety net, address insecurities associated with workers not having full-time staff contracts, and help boost mobility in the labour market as people would have a source of income between jobs. It also streamlines the existing welfare system and its myriad of different benefits into one overall payment system.

The idea of UBI provided by the state is nothing new and stretches back at least to Thomas Moore’s classic Renaissance text Utopia (1516) where the Portuguese traveller Raphael Nonsenso states ‘Such a scheme would be a more astute way of fighting theft than sentencing thieves to death, which had the unpleasant side effect of increasing the murder rate’’.

It was also proposed by French revolutionary Antoine Caritat (1795) and developed further by his close friend the English radical Thomas Paine (1796) who proposed an Equal Basic Endowment to be paid to all adult citizens that would be accrued from the taxation of land and property. More recently, it was also proposed by monetarist economist Milton Friedman as a ‘Guaranteed Citizen’s Income’ as a means to end disincentives to work caused by ‘poverty’ and ‘unemployment traps’ of the US welfare system.

Trials have now begun in Finland, the Netherlands, Canada, Kenya, Uganda, Brazil, Spain, Italy, and even the US, with more trials in the works for Scotland and likely even India and more.

What is Universal Basic Income?

The benefits of a UBI are potentially immense if the scheme can be introduced properly.

It can help recipients do other work and reconsider old choices: It will enable them to retrain or undertake care responsibilities for loved ones, safe in the knowledge that they will have enough money to maintain a decent standard of living while they do. It will, therefore, help each of us to decide what it is we truly want to pursue as a career.

This brings into play a huge number of unpaid activities are currently not recognized as economic contributions in society. Yet, our economy increasingly relies on these free contributions such as the work performed by carers. A Basic Income would recognise and reward these (often unpaid) activities performed by families and friends. This is the most valuable work of all: In 2014 it was estimated that unpaid adult carers in the UK provided care worth £56.9 billion a year to the State (ONS, 2017). The introduction of UBI would end the extreme financial poverty typically experienced by those who give up work to look after a relative on a full-time basis.

The second key understanding is just how much non-universal, conditional welfare systems disincentive work. No one sees higher marginal tax rates than people on welfare - no one. As someone on welfare earns income, they lose their benefits. The result is the reality of people being barely better off accepting employment or even becoming far worse off. In effect, it would end the problem of poverty and unemployment traps built into the UK welfare system.

It doesn’t stop there though, because the provision of basic income has a multitude of repercussions beyond the elimination of fear, and these repercussions are themselves systemically transformative. Like any market, the labour market is at the mercy of economic supply and demand.

High unemployment drives wages down because the supply of labour, namely the amount of people competing for the same openings,  is greater than the demand for labour. By removing their desperation for income, a UBI would give workers the ability to decline job opportunities with poor pay and working conditions, which would cause wages to rise beyond the beyond the level at which the income is set.

At present, before much of the switch to automation has occurred, an unhealthy rate of private household debt hinders consumption because it forces people to pay down debt interest with funds that would otherwise be spent on goods and services. This prevents the money multiplier from circulating around local economies through killing off domestic demand. By ensuring citizens have consumer spending power, a UBI helps to keep money flowing through the economy, particularly after tens of millions of jobs will have vanished through obsolesce. Wealth must be distributed more-or-less evenly throughout an economy for it to function smoothly and grow sustainably.

The rise of the machines and the fully automated workplace mean that it’s not long before another major economic disruption takes place. The market will embrace the new jolt in productivity because business interests have incentive and power to do so. We could simply continue our passive attitude to the increased unemployment this will lead to, or we could simply reassess our predicament from a more radical direction so that UBI becomes an integral part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution which is now upon us. In this sense, the automated workplace can give us the freedoms promised in Daniel Bell’s post-industrial ‘Leisure Society’ nearly 60 years ago. How could we possibly turn that down?

Courtesy Labour Heartlands.

Raising the banner: Time for change.

3
Image based on the Painting: Raising the banner Heliy Mikhailovich Korzhev, 1960

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen a number of new groups and more established ones on the political left calling on members to stay in the Labour Party.  I understand that tribal loyalty.  I dedicated 44 years of my life to fighting for and serving the Labour Party.  But the party is over and it’s time to think about building something new, something different, something that can actually offer meaningful change.

The shocking exposé about senior figures inside the Labour Party working to sabotage the party’s election prospects and targeting allies of Jeremy Corbyn, has left supporters feeling disgusted and demoralised. 

After losing four elections in a row, Labour is now facing an existential crisis.  Sir Keir Starmer represents a lurch back to the days when Labour embraced neoliberalism, when Tony Blair made a Faustian pact with Murdoch’s empire and Clause IV was jettisoned, thereby expunging any commitment to socialism.

Jeremy Corbyn was the perfect antidote to the neoliberal political duopoly in England and Wales between Labour and the Conservatives, which represented two sides of the same coin. 

The electorate had become increasingly cynical and millions simply gave up on politics altogether by refusing to vote.

Labour’s inability to mark out a sufficiently alternative and distinctive political programme to the Conservatives has already seen the party all but wiped out in Scotland.  Even Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership failed to win back Scottish voters who had previously been lifelong Labour supporters.

The cold hard truth is that before Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was on the road to Pasokification and Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has put it on that road again.  Lightning never strikes twice in the same place and Labour’s structures are so loaded that electing another socialist leader is just a pipe dream. 

Jeremy Corbyn only made it onto the ballot paper by accident, but the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) are not going to make that “mistake” again and Labour MPs are the gatekeepers to the leadership ballot.  Jeremy missed the opportunity to bring the PLP to heel at the 2018 conference by failing to back the membership’s desire to extend party democracy and make MPs accountable.

We now know for certain that the PLP is an unaccountable law unto itself.  Most Labour MPs never accepted Jeremy’s leadership, so they made his job in parliament impossible.  My efforts to make MPs answerable to members through open selections, saw them combining with the saboteurs in the bureaucracy and the NEC to force me out.  The High Court’s ruling that my suspension was unlawful was subverted by party bureaucrats concocting more spurious ‘evidence’ to suspend me again.

The last five years prove that the party does not belong to its members.  It’s owned by a triumvirate of the PLP, bureaucracy and NEC who behave as if they are masters and grassroots members are their servants.  Recent history shows that when these characters don’t get their own way, they will stop at nothing to work against the party’s interests.  The leaked document vividly illustrates this point.  It quotes party officials, who were overseeing the witch hunt, boasting about creating a “new stasi system” to trawl through social media posts.  They explicitly targeted groups, such as ‘JeremyCorbyn4PM’, ‘Momentum’ and ‘Young Greens’ in order to “catch people on the left.”

I appreciate people’s desire to stay and fight inside the Labour Party, but they have literally no means of winning.  Even when Jeremy Corbyn led the party with hundreds of thousands of grassroots members behind him, the party was still controlled by the forces that systematically dismantled and then destroyed the Corbyn project.  It therefore begs the question, what is the point of socialists investing time and energy trying to reform a party that is organisationally designed to frustrate democracy and block socialism? 

Sir Keir Starmer is even a member of the dubious Trilateral Commission, established in 1973 by liberal internationalists who were concerned by what they described as “an excess of democracy.”  They objected to people getting organised and entering the political arena because that imposed too much pressure on the state.  They wanted a passive depoliticised population instead where state institutions concentrated on the “indoctrination of the young.”  What hope is there for the party when the leader belongs to such an anti-democratic cadre?

So, rather than flogging a dead horse, I think we would do better to focus our energies on developing extra-parliamentary activities.  Even when we have had Labour governments, our ‘democratic’ system of governance has consistently failed to ensure the fruits of the UK’s economic achievements are equitably shared amongst all its citizens.  

The truth is representative democracy has been failing us ever since the franchise was extended in 1918.  Those who wax lyrical about parliamentary democracy should explain how, in the world’s fifth biggest economy, 14 million people are living in poverty, precarious employment is endemic, and thousands have to sleep on the streets.

That is why I am working with others to create a new grassroots movement to build capacity in communities and raise political consciousness.  It might seem like a mountain to climb, but it has been done before in this country and abroad.  We should draw inspiration from groups like the cooperative pioneers and the Black Panther Party. 

They developed practical solutions to address the consequences of state failure caused by the colonisation of mainstream political parties by a hostile ideology.

We can still utilise those ideas and apply them in the twenty first century.  Implementing grassroots socialism by putting energy into creating new initiatives such as worker cooperatives, neighbourhood action groups, public arts projects and community radio platforms etc is an achievable goal.  Whereas experience shows us that attempting to deliver political change by rescuing the Labour Party from the clutches of the anti-democratic neoliberals is nothing short of mission impossible.

Chris Williamson

Free the Truth: Deepa Driver Resistance TV

The future of freedom of speech is hanging in the balance.

Deepa Driver speaks exclusively to Resistance TV about efforts to get Julian Assange released from Belmarsh high security prison and addresses the prospects for his impending extradition hearing.

Deepa is a leading figure in the campaign to release the Wikileaks founder. Julian’s ‘crime’ was to expose the abuse of state and corporate power, including war crimes by the US.

His plight at the hands of the British government has generated international condemnation, not least because Article 4 of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US explicitly states that: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence.”

You can find out mare and show your support:

Deepa Driver @deepa_driver

Journalism is on trial

Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks and is charged by the Trump government with publishing the Afghan and Iraq war logs for which he could face 175 years in jail.

He is currently in Belmarsh prison and he is one week into his 4 week extradition hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates Court. Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray has said “he has all the symptoms of a torture victim, in terms of disorientation & difficulty in asserting their will & speaking coherently”

The UN working group on arbitrary detention issued a statement saying that “the right of Mr. Assange to personal liberty should be restored”. Don’t extradite Assange

JULIAN ASSANGE MUST BE FREED, NOT BETRAYED

For real journalism John Pilger on Julian Assange, the NHS, poverty

Craig Murray who is now fighting a court battle of his own Murray the former UK diplomat turned anti-war activist, has been charged with contempt of court for writing blog posts. He faces a possible two years in jail, with no jury and no freedom of speech defence permitted.

Power Anywhere Where There’s People

0

A Speech By Fred Hampton

Fred Hampton

POWER ANYWHERE WHERE THERE’S PEOPLE!
Power anywhere where there’s people. Power anywhere where there’s people.

Let me give you an example of teaching people. Basically, the way they learn is observation and participation.

You know a lot of us go around and joke ourselves and believe that the masses have PhDs, but that’s not true. And even if they did, it wouldn’t make any difference. Because with some things, you have to learn by seeing it or either participating in it. And you know yourselves that there are people walking around your community today that have all types of degrees that should be at this meeting but are not here. Right? Because you can have as many degrees as a thermometer. If you don’t have any practice, they you can’t walk across the street and chew gum at the same time.

Let me tell you how Huey P. Newton, the leader, the organizer, the founder, the main man of the Black Panther Party, went about it.

The community had a problem out there in California. There was an intersection, a four-way intersection; a lot of people were getting killed, cars running over them, and so the people went down and redressed their grievances to the government. You’ve done it before. I know you people in the community have. And they came back and the pigs said “No! You can’t have any.” Oh, they dont usually say you can’t have it. They’ve gotten a little hipper than that now. That’s what those degrees on the thermometer will get you. They tell you “Okay, we’ll deal with it. Why dont you come back next meeting and waste some time?”

And they get you wound up in an excursion of futility, and you be in a cycle of insaneness, and you be goin’ back and goin’ back, and goin’ back, and goin’ back so many times that you’re already crazy.

So they tell you, they say, “Okay niggers, what you want?” And they you jump up and you say, “Well, it’s been so long, we don’t know what we want”, and then you walk out of the meeting and you’re gone and they say, “Well, you niggers had your chance, didnt you?”

Let me tell you what Huey P. Newton did.

Huey Newton went and got Bobby Seale, the chairman of the Black Panther Party on a national level. Bobby Seale got his 9mm, that’s a pistol. Huey P. Newton got his shotgun and got some stop signs and got a hammer. Went down to the intersection, gave his shotgun to Bobby, and Bobby had his 9mm. He said, “You hold this shotgun. Anybody mess with us, blow their brains out.” He put those stop signs up.

There were no more accidents, no more problem.

Now they had another situation. That’s not that good, you see, because its two people dealing with a problem. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, no matter how bad they may be, cannot deal with the problem. But let me explain to you who the real heroes are.

Next time, there was a similar situation, another four-way corner. Huey went and got Bobby, went and got his 9mm, got his shotgun, got his hammer and got more stop signs. Placed those stop signs up, gave the shotgun to Bobby, told Bobby “If anybody mess with us while were putting these stop signs up, protect the people and blow their brains out.” What did the people do? They observed it again. They participated in it. Next time they had another four-way intersection. Problems there; they had accidents and death. This time, the people in the community went and got their shotguns, got their hammers, got their stop signs.

Now, let me show you how were gonna try to do it in the Black Panther Party here. We just got back from the south side. We went out there. We went out there and we got to arguing with the pigs or the pigs got to arguing-he said, “Well, Chairman Fred, you supposed to be so bad, why dont you go and shoot some of those policemen? You always talking about you got your guns and got this, why dont you go shoot some of them?”

And I’ve said, “you’ve just broken a rule. As a matter of fact, even though you have on a uniform it doesn’t make me any difference. Because I dont care if you got on nine uniforms, and 100 badges. When you step outside the realm of legality and into the realm of illegality, then I feel that you should be arrested.” And I told him, “You being what they call the law of entrapment, you tried to make me do something that was wrong, you encouraged me, you tried to incite me to shoot a pig. And that ain’t cool, Brother, you know the law, dont you?”

I told that pig that, I told him “You got a gun, pig?” I told him, “You gotta get your hands up against the wall. We’re gonna do what they call a citizens arrest.” This fool dont know what this is. I said, “Now you be just as calm as you can and don’t make too many quick moves, cause we don’t wanna have to hit you.”

And I told him like he always told us, I told him, “Well, I’m here to protect you. Don’t worry about a thing, ‘m here for your benefit.” So I sent another Brother to call the pigs. You gotta do that in a citizen’s arrest. He called the pigs. Here come the pigs with carbines and shotguns, walkin’ out there. They came out there talking about how they’re gonna arrest Chairman Fred. And I said, “No fool. This is the man you got to arrest. He’s the one that broke the law.” And what did they do? They bugged their eyes, and they couldn’t stand it. You know what they did? They were so mad, they were so angry that they told me to leave.

And what happened? All those people were out there on 63rd Street. What did they do? They were around there laughing and talking with me while I was making the arrest. They looked at me while I was rapping and heard me while I was rapping. So the next time that the pig comes on 63rd Street, because of the thing that our Minister of Defense calls observation and participation, that pig might be arrested by anybody!

So what did we do? We were out there educating the people. How did we educate them? Basically, the way people learn, by observation and participation. And that’s what were trying to do. That’s what we got to do here in this community. And a lot of people don’t understand, but there’s three basic things that you got to do anytime you intend to have yourself a successful revolution.

A lot of people get the word revolution mixed up and they think revolutions a bad word. Revolution is nothing but like having a sore on your body and then you put something on that sore to cure that infection. And Im telling you that were living in an infectious society right now. Im telling you that were living in a sick society. And anybody that endorses integrating into this sick society before its cleaned up is a man whos committing a crime against the people.

If you walk past a hospital room and see a sign that says “Contaminated” and then you try to lead people into that room, either those people are mighty dumb, you understand me, cause if they weren’t, they’d tell you that you are an unfair, unjust leader that does not have your followers’ interests in mind. And what were saying is simply that leaders have got to become, we’ve got to start making them accountable for what they do. They’re goin’ around talking about so-and-so’s an Uncle Tom so we’re gonna open up a cultural center and teach him what blackness is. And this n****r is more aware than you and me and Malcolm and Martin Luther King and everybody else put together. That’s right. They’re the ones that are most aware. They’re most aware, cause they’re the ones that are gonna open up the center. They’re gonna tell you where bones come from in Africa that you can’t even pronounce the names. Thats right. They’ll be telling you about Chaka, the leader of the Bantu freedom fighters, and Jomo Kenyatta, those dingo-dingas. They’ll be running all of that down to you. They know about it all. But the point is they do what they’re doing because it is beneficial and it is profitable for them.

You see, people get involved in a lot of things that’s profitable to them, and we’ve got to make it less profitable. We’ve got to make it less beneficial. I’m saying that any program that’s brought into our community should be analyzed by the people of that community. It should be analyzed to see that it meets the relevant needs of that community. We don’t need no n*****s coming into our community to be having no company to open business for the n*****s. There’s too many n*****s in our community that can’t get crackers out of the business that they’re gonna open.

We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I’m talking about the white masses, I’m talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We’ve got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don’t fight racism with racism. We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don’t fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism.

We ain’t gonna fight no reactionary pigs who run up and down the street being reactionary; we’re gonna organize and dedicate ourselves to revolutionary political power and teach ourselves the specific needs of resisting the power structure, arm ourselves, and we’re gonna fight reactionary pigs with INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. That’s what it has to be. The people have to have the power: it belongs to the people.

We have to understand very clearly that there’s a man in our community called a capitalist. Sometimes he’s black and sometimes he’s white. But that man has to be driven out of our community, because anybody who comes into the community to make profit off the people by exploiting them can be defined as a capitalist. And we don’t care how many programs they have, how long a dashiki they have. Because political power does not flow from the sleeve of a dashiki; political power flows from the barrel of a gun. It flows from the barrel of a gun!

A lot of us running around talking about politics don’t even know what politics is. Did you ever see something and pull it and you take it as far as you can and it almost outstretches itself and it goes into something else? If you take it so far that it is two things? As a matter of fact, some things if you stretch it so far, it’ll be another thing. Did you ever cook something so long that it turns into something else? Ain’t that right?

That’s what were talking about with politics.

That politics ain’t nothing, but if you stretch it so long that it can’t go no further, then you know what you got on your hands? You got an antagonistic contradiction. And when you take that contradiction to the highest level and stretch it as far as you can stretch it, you got what you call war. Politics is war without bloodshed, and war is politics with bloodshed. If you don’t understand that, you can be a Democrat, Republican, you can be Independent, you can be anything you want to, you ain’t nothing.

We don’t want any of those n*****s and any of these hunkies and nobody else, radicals or nobody talking about, “I’m on the Independence ticket.” That means you sell out the republicans; Independent means you’re out for graft and you’ll sell out to the highest bidder. You understand?

We want people who want to run on the People’s Party, because the people are gonna run it whether they like it or not. The people have proved that they can run it. They run it in China, they’re gonna run it right here. They can call it what they want to, they can talk about it. They can call it communism, and think that that’s gonna scare somebody, but it ain’t gonna scare nobody.

We had the same thing happen out on 37th Road. They came out to 37th road where our Breakfast for children program is, and started getting those women who were kind of older, around 58—that’s, you know, I call that older cause Im young. I aint 20, right, right! But you see, they’re gonna get them and brainwash them. And you ain’t seen nothin till you see one of them beautiful Sisters with their hair kinda startin getting grey, and they ain’t got many teeth, and they were tearin’ them policemen up! They were tearing em up! The pigs would come up to them and say “You like communism?”

The pigs would come up to them and say, “You scared of communism?” And the Sisters would say, “No scared of it, I ain’t never heard of it.”

“You like socialism?”

“No scared of it. I ain’t never heard of it.”

The pigs, they be crackin’ up, because they enjoyed seeing these people frightened of these words.

“You like capitalism?”

Yeah, well, that’s what I live with. I like it.

“You like the Breakfast For Children program, n****r?”

“Yeah, I like it.”

And the pigs say, “Oh-oh.” The pigs say, “Well, the Breakfast For Children program is a socialistic program. Its a communistic program.”

And the women said, “Well, I tell you what, boy. I’ve been knowing you since you were knee-high to a grasshopper, n****r. And I don’t know if I like communism and I don’t know if I like socialism. But I know that that Breakfast For Children program feeds my kids, n****r. And if you put your hands on that Breakfast For Children program, I’m gonna come off this can and I’m gonna beat your ass like a ….”

That’s what they be saying. That’s what they be saying, and it is a beautiful thing. And that’s what the Breakfast For Children program is. A lot of people think it is charity, but what does it do? It takes the people from a stage to another stage. Any program that’s revolutionary is an advancing program. Revolution is change. Honey, if you just keep on changing, before you know it, in fact, not even knowing what socialism is, you dont have to know what it is, they’re endorsing it, they’re participating in it, and they’re supporting socialism.

And a lot of people will tell you, way, Well, the people dont have any theory, they need some theory. They need some theory even if they don’t have any practice. And the Black Panther Party tells you that if a man tells you that he’s the type of man who has you buying candy bars and eating the wrapping and throwing the candy away, he’d have you walking East when you’re supposed to be walking West. Its true. If you listen to what the pig says, you be walkin’ outside when the sun is shining with your umbrella over your head. And when it’s raining youll be goin’ outside leaving your umbrella inside. That’s right. You gotta get it together. Im saying that’s what they have you doing.

Now, what do WE do? We say that the Breakfast For Children program is a socialistic program. It teaches the people basically that by practice, we thought up and let them practice that theory and inspect that theory. What’s more important? You learn something just like everybody else.

Let me try to break it down to you.

You say this Brother here goes to school 8 years to be an auto mechanic. And that teacher who used to be an auto mechanic, he tells him, “Well, n****r, you gotta go on what we call on-the-job-training.” And he says, “Damn, with all this theory I got, I gotta go to on-the-job-training? What for?”

He said, “On on-the-job-training he works with me. Ive been here for 20 years. When I started work, they didn’t even have auto mechanics. I ain’t got no theory, I just got a whole bunch of practice.”

What happened? A car came in making a whole lot of funny noise. This Brother here go get his book. He on page one, he ain’t got to page 200. I’m sitting here listening to the car. He says, “What do you think it is?”

I say, “I think its the carburetor.”

He says, “No I don’t see anywhere in here where it says a carburetor make no noise like that.” And he says, “How do you know its the carburetor?”

I said, “Well, n****r, with all them degrees as many as a thermometer, around 20 years ago, 19 to be exact, I was listening to the same kind of noise. And what I did was I took apart the voltage regulator and it wasn’t that. Then I took apart the alternator and it wasn’t that. I took apart the generator brushes and it wasn’t that. I took apart the generator and it wasn’t that. I took apart the generator and it wasn’t even that. After I took apart all that I finally got to the carburetor and when I got to the carburetor I found that that’s what it was. And I told myself that ‘fool, next time you hear this sound you better take apart the carburetor first.'”

How did he learn? He learned through practice.

I dont care how much theory you got, if it don’t have any practice applied to it, then that theory happens to be irrelevant. Right? Any theory you get, practice it. And when you practice it you make some mistakes. When you make a mistake, you correct that theory, and then it will be corrected theory that will be able to be applied and used in any situation. Thats what we’ve got to be able to do.

Every time I speak in a church I always try to say something, you know, about Martin Luther King. I have a lot of respect for Martin Luther King. I think he was one of the greatest orators that the country ever produced. And I listened to anyone who speaks well, because I like to listen to that. Martin Luther King said that it might look dark sometime, and it might look dark over here on the North Side. Maybe you thought the room was going to be packed with people and maybe you thought you might have to turn some people away and you might not have enough people here. Maybe some of the people you think should be here are not here and you think that, well if they’re not here then it won’t be as good as we thought it could have been. And maybe you thought that you need more people here than you have here. Maybe you think that the pigs are going to be able to pressure you and put enough pressure to squash your movement even before it starts. But Martin Luther King said that he heard somewhere that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. And we’re not worried about it being dark. He said that the arm of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward heaven.

We got Huey P. Newton in jail, and Eldridge Cleaver underground. And Alprentice Bunchy Carter has been murdered; Bobby Hutton and John Huggins been murdered. And a lot of people think that the Black Panther Party in a sense is giving up. But let us say this: That we’ve made the kind of commitment to the people that hardly anyone else has ever made.

We have decided that although some of us come from what some of you would call petty-bourgeois families, though some of us could be in a sense on what you call the mountaintop. We could be integrated into the society working with people that we may never have a chance to work with. Maybe we could be on the mountaintop and maybe we wouldn’t have to be hidin’ when we go to speak places like this. Maybe we wouldn’t have to worry about court cases and going to jail and being sick. We say that even though all of those luxuries exist on the mountaintop, we understand that you people and your problems are right here in the valley.

We in the Black Panther Party, because of our dedication and understanding, went into the valley knowing that the people are in the valley, knowing that our plight is the same plight as the people in the valley, knowing that our enemies are on the mountain, to our friends are in the valley, and even though its nice to be on the mountaintop, we’re going back to the valley. Because we understand that there’s work to be done in the valley, and when we get through with this work in the valley, then we got to go to the mountaintop. We’re going to the mountaintop because there’s a motherfucker on the mountaintop that’s playing King, and he’s been bullshitting us. And weve got to go up on the mountain top not for the purpose of living his life style and living like he lives. We’ve got to go up on the mountain top to make this motherfucker understand, goddamnit, that we are coming from the valley!

(SPEECH DELIVERED AT OLIVET CHURCH, 1969)

Max Blumenthal for Resistance TV

Max Blumenthal gives Resistance TV an inside view of America under lockdown.

Max was another event speaker for ‘The Festival of Resistance’ now postponed due to the outbreak of COVID-19

Max Blumenthal is an American journalist, author, blogger, and filmmaker. He was awarded the 2014 Lannan Foundation Cultural Freedom Notable Book Award for his book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel. Blumenthal has written for The New York Times, The Nation, and Al Jazeera English, among other publications.

In this wide-ranging and thought provoking interview with Grayzone editor, Max Blumenthal, he talks to Resistance TV about the US response to the coronavirus.

Max also addresses the contest between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination and gives his thoughts on Donald Trump’s end game. During the interview he speaks about the hostile actions of the US administration against countries with which the political establishment disagrees, including the $15m bounty on the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.

Max to see more of Max’s work pop over to The Grayzone

Patricia Pino Modern Monetary Theory

Patricia Pino talks to Resistance TV about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and how a country like the UK, with its own sovereign currency can never run out of money. The issue isn’t the availability on money, it’s the availability of spare capacity in the economy, such as unemployed and under employed workers, underutilisation of industrial plant and machinery etc.

Patricia Pino also addresses the myth that tax receipts pay for public spending. Using MMT as a lens to understand how sovereign currencies work presents opportunities to address the unfairness in society today. As Henry Ford reputedly once said: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

The Magic money Tree

Magic Money Trees. Truth Lies and Deception.
By Professor Emeritus Mary Mellor, from University of Northumbria

That’s right there are two magic money trees. Both the state and the banks can create money out of thin air.

States do this by having budgets. Despite the myths that have been told time and time again, states are NOT households – they run armies and banks and schools and police forces and so on. They allocate expenditure in expectation of getting an equivalent amount of money back through taxation. There is no direct connection between public expenditure and public income. There is no state piggy bank or house-keeping allowance.

Despite the claim that states ‘printing’ money is automatically inflationary, this is not the case. What matters is the relationship between state income and expenditure and the condition of the wider economy. The skill is to balance the money created with the money recovered via taxation. In any case, public deficits can be a good thing. They put fresh money into the economy that is then free to circulate.

The other magic money tree is the banking sector. Banks do not simply look after the money in people’s bank accounts and “lend it out”, they actually create money out of thin air by creating new accounts or putting new money into existing accounts – with no democratic accountability.

The neoliberal era saw a massive increase in bank lending (student, consumer, mortgage, financial speculation) with banks becoming the major source of new money in modern economies. The magic money tree of the banks is far more de-stabilising than the magic money tree of the state. Unlike state magic money which can be created free of debt, bank magic money always has to be repaid with interest.

This creates the dilemma that the banks always want more money back than they lend out. Where does the extra money come from? Either extra loans constantly being taken out, or ‘leakage’ of debt free money from the state, that is public deficit. In fact, the use of public money was much more direct following the 2007-8 crisis.

‘Quantitative easing’ – a fancy term for new electronic money from central banks – put billions of pounds, dollars and euros into the banking sector to stave off collapse. This and other rescue measures did little to stimulate the core economy, but made a small elite very rich.

So when we are told social welfare, education, housing, health cannot be afforded because there is no magic money tree, this is a lie. New money is constantly pouring into the hands of the already rich as they gamble and speculate. Ordinary people are burdened with debt as they try to keep their heads above water.

The right of states to directly fund public services (“people’s quantitative easing”), is denied. It is falsely claimed that all new money is ‘made’ by the market sector. This is not true, money is accumulated in the market. It can only be created by states or banks. The claim that all state income comes from taxing the private sector is also false. The public sector also pays taxes – much more reliably than the private sector.

Let us have no more myths about the lack of magic money trees. They do exist – what matters is who owns and controls them. And it should be all of us.

#ResistanceTV #ModernMonetaryTheory #MMT

The symbols of resistance

0
fist symbol as been used by socialist such as Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn

The raised fist, or the clenched fist, is a symbol of solidarity and support. It is also used as a salute to express unitystrength, defiance, or resistance.

The raised fist has been a symbol of resistance and unity for the Left for over a hundred years.

According to Assyrian Origins, a book on Assyrian art edited by former Metropolitan Museum of Art curator Prudence O. Harper, artworks depicting the clenched fist date back to ancient times and were associated with procreation, prayer, and “the manifestation of sheer physical strength.”

The Fist was first captured on canvas thanks to a surly French artist named Honoré Daumier, (1808-1879). The clue to its originality lies in its title. It is the concept of Daumier as the complete man and artist of his time which lends distinction to the image.
Daumier’s genius was expressing the ideology of the French middle and lower classes in their revolutions and counter-revolutions from 1830 to the Paris Commune.

Honore Daumier, “The Uprising” © The Phillips Collection

His painting ‘The Uprising’ shows the triumphant working class Daumier imagined the man as a symbol of the Revolutions of 1848, a series of anti-royal protests that roiled Europe. Art historians have called the painting “a symbol of pent-up human indignation.” By 1917, socialist were using the Fist as a symbol of resistance, hope and unity.

A raised right fist was used as a logo by the Industrial Workers of the World in 1917

An International Workers of the World poster from 1917 promoting membership in “One Big Union.” Much how many fingers make a fist, the logic goes, many workers make a union.

Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939

However, it was popularised during the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, when it was used by the Republican faction as a greeting, and was known as the “Popular Front salute” or the “anti-fascist salute”. The right fist salute subsequently spread among Left-wing groups and anti-fascists across Europe.

Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939 Popular Front salute or the “anti-fascist salute”.

The salute was a counterpoint to the open-palmed Roman salute adopted by the fascists. The clenched fist symbolises strength and unity – fingers which are individually fragile can together make a powerful fist. It became a symbol of socialism and was co-opted to many revolutionary causes, most potently the civil rights struggle in the US and opposition to colonialism in the third world.

The graphic symbol was popularised in 1948 by Taller de Gráfica Popular, a print shop in Mexico that used art to advance revolutionary social causes.

La Lutte

The raised fist was frequently used in propaganda posters produced during the May 1968 revolt in France, such as La Lutte continue, depicting a factory chimney topped with a clenched fist.

Its use spread through the United States in the 1960s after artist and activist Frank Cieciorka produced a simplified version for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee: this version was subsequently used by Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Power movement.

The raised fist became a go-to symbol for solidarity and strength for Labour unions, American leftists, and civil rights activists.

By the 1960s, the raised fist was world famous. An American civil rights activist named Frank Cieciorka made a woodblock print of a fist that appeared in posters, T-shirts, and buttons.

The Black Panther Party. In 1971, Ms. co-founders Gloria Steinem and Dorothy Pitman Hughes posed for an iconic photograph in Esquire magazine, raising their fists in interracial solidarity.

As the cultural and political climate with which the fist gesture first thrived began to shift, so too did the gesture itself. Women’s rights activists Gloria Steinem and Dorothy Pitman Hughes (a white and black woman, respectively) were photographed making the fist to show interracial feminist unity, and, in a sense, transcend the traditional boundaries of race that were prescribed by society. 

Gloria Steinem and Dorothy Pitman Hughes, 1971

But arguably its most famous use in recent history is by Olympians John Carlos and Tommie Smith during their awards ceremony at the 1968 games in Mexico City. Carlos and Smith’s “black power salute” got them suspended from the U.S. team and turned them into galvanizing figures.

Gold medalist Tommie Smith (center) and bronze medalist John Carlos (right) showing the raised fist on the podium 

In recent times the fist symbol as been used by socialist such as Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn

In recent times the fist symbol as been used by socialist such as Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn

From badges oppression to symbols of hope and resistance

The Pink Triangle

A pink triangle has been a symbol for various LGBTQ identities, initially intended as a badge of shame, but later reclaimed as a positive symbol of self-identity.

In Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, it began as one of the Nazi concentration camp badges, distinguishing those imprisoned because they had been identified by authorities as homosexual men, a category that also included bisexual men and transgender women. In the 1970s, it was revived as a symbol of protest against homophobia, and has since been adopted by the larger LGBTQ community as a popular symbol of LGBTQ pride and the LGBTQ rights movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

The Red Triangle

Nazi concentration camp badges, primarily triangles, were part of the system of identification in German camps. They were used in the concentration camps in the German-occupied countries to identify the reason the prisoners had been placed there.

The triangles were made of fabric and were sewn on jackets and trousers of the prisoners. These mandatory badges of shame had specific meanings indicated by their colour and shape.

risoners’ Uniforms with Red Triangles of Political Prisoners – Museum Exhibit – Dachau Concentration Camp Site – Dachau – Bavaria – Germany.jpg

The ‘Red triangle’ identified – political prisoners: social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists; rescuers of Jews; trade unionists; and Freemasons.

We still have not committed to a logo. As a temporary logo to honour the Left movement of resistance, solidarity, strength and union. We are using both the ‘Red triangle’ and the ‘fist of resistance’ to identify our movement. Sometimes you don’t have to reinvent the wheel just add another one.

Just like a name we want membership participation please feel free to comment with suggestions.

Corbyn sabotaged: Labour antisemitism investigation will not be sent to equality commission

3
Corbyn sabotaged: Labour antisemitism investigation will not be sent to equality commission

A report found factional hostility towards Jeremy Corbyn amongst former senior officials “a litany of mistakes”.

Ever since Jeremy Corbyn took the British Labour Party by storm in September of 2015, taking it in a more progressive direction, the old guard has tried various tactics to try to delegitimize Corbyn in order to retake power. One of the main tools the right within the party have used is to blame Corbyn and his supporters of anti-Semitism.

Corbyn and the the Left movement within the Labour party openly demanded an end to Israel’s occupation in Palestine. Conservatives within the Labour Party exploit the fact that not everyone understands the difference between the state of Israel and the Jewish people, and therefore frame every criticism of Israeli policy as anti-Semitism.

Since then, many Labour Party members have been kicked out of the party over accusations of anti-Semitism, some of them justified and some not.

Now theCoup de Grâce has been conducted and Corbyn removed the centrist once again have taken control of the Labour party. It would be unseemly for any investigation to take place under the tenure of the establishments chosen opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer, after all what’s the point job done!

The Left are now political vagrants within the Labour party evicted by a host of centrist Landlords both figuratively and metaphorically.

It all comes out in the wash.

An extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints will not be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after an intervention by party lawyers.

The 860-page report, seen by Sky News, concluded factional hostility towards Jeremy Corbyn amongst former senior officials contributed to “a litany of mistakes” that hindered the effective handling of the issue.

The investigation, which was completed in the last month of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, claims to have found “no evidence” of antisemitism complaints being treated differently to other forms of complaint, or of current or former staff being “motivated by antisemitic intent”.

Instead, the report concludes there was a lack of “robust processes, systems, training, education and effective line management” and found “abundant evidence of a hyper-factional atmosphere prevailing in Party HQ” towards Jeremy Corbyn which “affected the expeditious and resolute handling of disciplinary complaints”.As well as 10,000 separate emails, the dossier uncovers thousands of private WhatsApp communications between former senior party officials and singles out for criticism some who gave whistleblower evidence to last year’s highly-critical BBC Panorama investigation on antisemitism within Labour.

These include the former General Secretary Lord McNicol and the former acting head of the governance and legal unit, Sam Matthews.

Those involved in compiling the huge dossier insist it was intended to provide additional context to the equalities watchdog and supplement the party’s main submissions to the investigation into institutional antisemitic racism.

“This report completely blows open everything that went on”

“We were being sabotaged and set up left right and centre by McNicol’s team and we didn’t even know. It’s so important that the truth comes out”, the source added.

The report claims private communications show senior former staff “openly worked against the aims and objectives of the leadership of the Party, and in the 2017 general election some key staff even appeared to work against the Party’s core objective of winning elections”.

The report says the WhatsApp communications in question, which included some of the most senior figures in the party headquarters and Lord McNicol’s office, were leaked by one of the group’s members.

The examples from chat archives published in the document include:

  • Conversations in 2017 which appear to show senior staff preparing for Tom Watson to become interim leader in anticipation of Jeremy Corbyn losing the election
  • Conversations which it is claimed show senior staff hid information from the leader’s office about digital spending and contact details for MPs and candidates during the election
  • Conversations on election night in which the members of the group talk about the need to hide their disappointment that Mr. Corbyn had done better than expected and would be unlikely to resign
  • A discussion about whether the grassroots activist network Momentum could be ‘proscribed’ for being a ‘party within a party’
  • A discussion about ‘unsuspending’ a former Labour MP who was critical of Jeremy Corbyn so they could stand as a candidate in the 2017 election
  • A discussion about how to prevent corbyn-ally Rebecca Long-Bailey gaining a seat on the party’s governing body in 2017
  • Regular references to corbyn-supporting party staff as “trots”
  • Conversations between senior staff in Lord McNicol’s office in which they refer to former director of communications Seamus Milnes as “dracula”, and saying he was “spiteful and evil and we should make sure he is never allowed in our Party if it’s last thing we do”
  • Conversations in which the same group refers to Mr. Corbyn’s former chief of staff Karie Murphy as “medusa”, a “crazy woman” and a “bitch face cow” that would “make a good dartboard”
  • A discussion in which one of the group members expresses their “hope” that a young pro-Corbyn Labour activist, who they acknowledge had mental health problems, “dies in a fire”

The investigation also accuses the former General Secretary Lord McNicol, and other senior figures of providing “false and misleading information” to Jeremy Corbyn’s office in relation to the handling of antisemitism complaints, which the report claims meant “the scale of the problem was not appreciated” by the leadership.

The report claims McNicol and staff in the Governance and Legal Unit “provided timetables for the resolution of cases that were never met; falsely claimed to have processed all antisemitism complaints; falsely claimed that most complaints received were not about Labour members and provided highly inaccurate statistics of antisemitism complaints”.

Responding to the messages cited and the allegations made against him in the report, Lord McNicol said:”The energy and effort that must have been invested in trawling 10,000 emails rather than challenging antisemitism in the party is deeply troubling.

The irony of Lord McNicol statement is that hundreds of thousands social media post and comments made by Labour members were trawled to produce evidence real and fake in the attempt to comply antisemitism allegations. That must have taken a real mammoth effort by the Labour governance team.