No to imperialist intervention in Syria

Editorial of the Socialist - http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17295/28-08-2013/no-to-imperialist-intervention-in-syria
Via social media, smart phones and traditional news channels a flood of bloody images, footage and reports of the unbearable suffering inflicted on the Syrian masses has been broadcast around the world.

Initially in 2011, following the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, there was a popular uprising against Assad's police state. But, as has been explained in the Socialist, interventions and enormous financial and military backing came from the semi-feudal monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and imperialist forces in the hope of derailing that movement.

The uprising against Assad's dictatorship has been skewed now into a sectarian conflict and has, moreover, unleashed a dangerous battle between the Sunnis and the Shias on a regional scale. The death toll of Syria's now years-long conflict is estimated to be over 100,000. Two million people have fled the country and around five million are internally displaced. This is horror piled upon horror.

For the overwhelming majority of people the news that chemical weapons have been used in Ghouta, a district of Damascus, appears to represent the opening of a new circle of hell for the suffering masses. The reports that the dead are numbered in their hundreds and the injured in their thousands are as heart-breaking as they are horrifying.

Given what has taken place, combined with the threat of regional instability looming, a desire for a solution to this horror is a human response. But to hope that the US and UK governments and their allies in France, Germany and Turkey could bring any solution, given history, both recent and long-term, is horribly mistaken.
Air strikes

Over the last months US President Obama has warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a 'red line' to trigger an international response no fewer than five times. Already there are three US warships in the Mediterranean with another on its way. Pilots in Cyprus have reported seeing warplanes on British airfields there.

Foreign Secretary William Hague has been preparing the ground here in Britain, indicating that the absence of a UN mandate will be no obstacle: "it's possible to take action based on great humanitarian distress." He's suggested that action, most likely intense aerial bombardment, could take place within weeks, if not days. The UN security committee is split with Russia and China opposing intervention in the interests of their own capitalist classes.

Hague is also reported to have been liaising with the dictatorial and repressive Qatari and Saudi regimes who would welcome a defeat of Assad as a blow against Iran and Hezbollah. Iran has warned that western military intervention will destabilise the region.

Patrick Cockburn, Middle East commentator, has pointed out the difficulties of ascertaining who bears responsibility for the recent chemical attack. The UN inspectors were granted access and a ceasefire agreed but the inspectors came under fire and were ordered out within hours. However, that in itself does not yet prove who was responsible and the inspectors are only due to decide if there was a chemical attack.

Before UN inspectors have publicly reported, US Secretary of State, John Kerry said that the US would respond to the "undeniable" use of chemical weapons in Syria and that President Bashar al-Assad's forces had committed a "moral obscenity" against his own people.

'Moral obscenity' might also be a good word to describe the destruction of Iraq, including the alleged use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium tipped missiles, the open air prison that denies the Palestinians their democratic and national rights, silence in the face of genocidal slaughter in Sri Lanka, not to mention imperialist powers' record of employing chemical and nuclear weapons.

There is major domestic public opposition to US and UK involvement despite the desire for an end to the slaughter. Memories of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq and the 'dodgy dossier' claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction are evoked by the current rush to attack. That is compounded by the failure of the British government to publish the results of the Chilcot inquiry.

Obama's election programme included pledges to bring an end to US involvement in Iraq and the years of Bush's warmongering. Instead he has been a war president with the murderous drones multiplying in Afghanistan and Pakistan, albeit largely replacing troops on the ground, and the maintenance of Guantanamo Bay. 60% of the US population oppose US military involvement in Syria.

But both the US and UK governments have an interest in appearing as heroes to the Syrian masses and as defenders of democracy, mired as they are in a profound crisis of capitalism, with no solution, and with anger against them mounting.
Iraq war

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the Lib Dems polished their thin anti-war credentials by opposing action without a UN mandate. The Socialist Party pointed out that the UN could not be relied on as an arbitrator in the interests of the Iraqi people, comprised and dominated as it is by representatives of the major imperialist and warmongering governments of the world. However, former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown now argues that, in the case of Syria, unilateral action is preferable to inaction.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander has demanded parliament be recalled. Cameron looks likely to do this, as he faces opposition from a small number of his own backbenchers, such are the complications and risks for the future of the entire region.

Labour has not indicated how it would vote. A genuine working people's party would massively oppose any form of military action in Syria. But Labour has a lustrous record as vicious warmongers in government, sending troops to Iraq for a war for oil in the interest of big business and for strategic aims.

In opposition Labour boasts an almost spotless record of kowtowing to the rotten Con-Dem austerity policies. Yet again the need to build a new political force to represent the anti-war, anti-austerity majority is glaring.

There can be no hope that any action on the part of this government or its international counterparts can bring relief to the populations of Syria or the Middle East. In fact it is guaranteed that increased bombing will bring increased suffering to the masses. And this is why it must be opposed.

'Regime change' is not a cited aim, because Assad's is a relatively strong regime, because of the fierce opposition of Russia, and because the question of who would replace it is so problematic. Given the significant funding and growth of Al-Qa'ida in Syria there are also serious dangers of a 'blowback' of increased terrorism, in the region and inside Britain and its allies in this adventure.

There is no real capitalist solution to this conflict, threatening as it does in the unstable arena of the region, to unravel into wider ethnic conflict which could last for years. What is clear from Iraq, from Libya, and from all imperialist military interventions, is that the interests of the working class and poor in the region are not a driving force.

There is no shortcut to the building of, and encouraging the establishment of, independent working class forces that can unite the poor and oppressed and suffering in their common interests against both the forces of imperialism and their semi-feudal and capitalist allies in the region.
We say:
No to imperialist intervention! The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria and the region
Against all oppression, the people must democratically decide their own fate
For the building of united, non-sectarian defence committees to defend workers, the poor and others against sectarian attacks from all sides
Prepare a movement to fight for a government of representatives of workers and the poor
For a revolutionary constituent assembly in Syria
The implementation of the national and democratic rights of the masses, with the recognition of the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination including, if they so wish, the right to their own state
Independent trade unions and the building of mass workers' parties with a programme of land to the masses and the factories to the workers, implemented through a programme for a socialist democratic planned economy
A democratic socialist confederation of the Middle East and North Africa

Hugo Chavez dies, Hugo Chavez dies but the struggle continues

Millions of Venezuelan workers, the poor and youth will mourn the death of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez

By Tony Saunois, CWI Secretary

The workers and youth in Venezuela will be joined by many around the globe who have been inspired to support Hugo Chavez’s regime as offering an alternative to imperialism, neoliberalism and capitalism.In an era when the gap between establishment politicians, who defend big business and the super-rich, and the masses seems to widen inexorably Chavez stood out. In fact in the age of austerity the measures he took to alleviate poverty stood out like a beacon.

Meanwhile the most pernicious right-wing capitalist commentators have wasted neither time nor ink in their outpourings of hatred of his regime.

The mourning of his passing and anger at these attacks must be channelled into a new stage of working class struggle for socialism in Venezuela and internationally.

Capitalist commentators’ hypocrisy

Since his death numerous articles have denounced Chavez, and his regime, as an “autocrat”, a “dictator”, a “caudillo”. Some have tried to depict his death as the end of another failed socialist regime.

The torrent of bile from these commentators was first readied in the hope he’d be defeated in the Venezuelan presidential elections in October 2012, but had to be shelved at the time. Against the expectations of the international capitalist media and its politicians Chavez romped home for a third term with 55% of the vote, on a turnout of 80%, a result any incumbent capitalist politician in Europe can only dream of.

These self-same commentators deafened us with their silence during the attempted coup in 2002 – backed by US imperialism. When these alleged champions of democracy attack Chavez they brush to one side the fact that Chavez has faced 17 elections and referendums since 1998 and won 16 of them.

They, and the capitalist politicians behind them, cannot abide the fact that a leader who spoke of “socialism” and the “socialist revolution” and who came into conflict with US imperialism and the capitalist class could win such popular support. They also fear the potential revolutionary movement of the masses which Chavez rested upon.

“Por ahora” - ”For now”

Chavez himself did not emerge as a political leader with a rounded out ideology or programme. He has empirically embraced different ideas – swept along by events as they have unfolded.

Chavez was swept to power in 1998 with overwhelming support. Initially he only spoke of a “Bolivarian revolution” and reform of the old corrupt system. Chavez, like thousands in Venezuela, including junior army officers of which he was one, was radicalised by the “Caracazo” which rocked Venezuela in 1989.

Carlos Perez had won an election opposing the neoliberalism of the IMF. However, he undertook a sharp U-turn and introduced a “shock therapy” of neoliberalism. It triggered a mass uprising of the urban poor. The army was deployed and an estimated 3,000 were slaughtered. Chavez’s right-wing opponents have little to say on these events. He was however radicalised and affected by these horrors.

He led a left populist military revolt in 1992 against the murderous Perez government. As the coup was defeated he proclaimed the “revolution is ended. For now”. “Por ahora” was to become ingrained in the minds of the masses.

Released from prison two years later, he built support and stormed to power in the 1998 election as the mass of the population demanded an end to neoliberalism and demanded change.

The limited but popular reforms his government introduced, paid for with the country’s oil wealth, were enough to enrage the ruling elite which attempted a coup in 2002 followed by a lockout. After 48 hours the coup collapsed and Chavez was brought back to Caracas and to power. During the coup the masses poured onto the streets to oppose the new right-wing regime and a revolt by the ranks of the army and its junior officers.
Right-wing coup in 2002

At this moment the situation erupted as the right-wing coup led by Pedro Carmona collapsed, making a decisive blow against the ruling class and capitalism. The working class and poor had the opportunity to take over the running of society. Unfortunately, at this moment Chavez opted to call for “national unity” and an agreement with sections of the capitalist class.

The lockout was broken after a 12-month struggle. On each occasion Chavez was saved by the mass movement from below.

These events enormously radicalised Chavez who by 2005 had begun to speak about the “socialist revolution”. It was in this period that he also made reference to the ideas of one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky, as well as to Karl Marx and called for the formation of a Fifth International.

This enraged both the Venezuelan ruling class and US imperialism. Nationalisations and partial nationalisations of significant companies were carried through. The introduction of a basic but free health service and widespread education and literacy programmes enormously enhanced the popularity of the government. Significantly, in the 2006 election – following this turn to the left – Chavez won his largest electoral victory, taking over 62% of the vote!

This development has had an enormously positive effect in putting the issue of socialism back onto the agenda in Venezuela and to an extent in Latin America and internationally. The idea of the “revolution” and even “socialism” and radical reform is overwhelmingly dominant in the consciousness of a majority of Venezuelans. This is Chavez’s positive legacy. There is a clear rejection of any idea of returning to the ‘ancien régime’.

Blows to capitalism, but no decisive break

However, despite the radical phraseology, in response to the global economic crisis which began in in 2007, Chavez, and the Bolivarian government, rather than drive forward with a programme to break with capitalism, moved in the opposite direction.

Blows were struck but without defeating it the capitalist class remained in control. From within the Bolivarian a new force has also emerged – the ‘boli-bourgeoisie’, a powerful layer in society which has grown rich on the backs of the Chavez movement.

This, combined with the emergence of a powerful bureaucracy, and deteriorating economic situation, has meant that despite the popular reforms, which the CWI supports, massive social problems of poverty, unemployment, corruption violence and crime remain. These continue and arise from the failure to abolish capitalism.

Combined with a top down administrative approach from the bureaucracy and the lack of a democratic workers’ control and management in the revolutionary process, while Chavez has enjoyed massive support, it has also resulted in widespread discontent and frustration. Recent strikes by teachers and metal workers have been repressed by the state, all measures which have given a weapon to the right to beat the regime.
Transform socialist aspirations into a reality

If right-wing candidate Henrique Capriles and the right in Venezuela hope that Chavez’s death will mean an easy ride for them back to power then they are mistaken. Despite the discontent the idea of supporting the revolutionary process, of the idea of socialism and defence of the reforms is deeply ingrained in Venezuelan society.

In the short term it is most likely to mean a victory for Nicolas Maduro, the vice-president, named by Chavez as his successor, in the elections. A rallying of Chavez’s supporters and the mass of the poor to defeat the right is already developing. Capriles and the right are, like Maduro, appealing for calm, peace and unity. The right feel their weakness and are being careful not to provoke a backlash from the masses.

While the pernicious right-wing commentators have used Chavez’s death to beat their hypocritical anti-socialist drum, other sections of capitalism and imperialism have been more cautious. US president Barack Obama’s cautious statement, along with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, is aimed at opening a new era of cooperation with a future Maduro-led government. They have concluded the right-wing are unlikely electoral victors and therefore have left the door open for attempts to collaborate with a new “Chavista” government.

Maduro and the leadership will not have the same authority as Chavez and a new era will open following the elections. Divisions between the different currents within Chavismo may open following the elections. Sections of the ruling class are looking for this as a means of ultimately defeating the Chavista movement.

Such prospects underline the urgent necessity of the working class and the poor to rally to defeat the right but then to take the revolutionary process into its own hands with its own independent organisation and programme to transform the “socialist aspirations” raised by Chavez into a reality. The death of Chavez marks not the end of the struggle. A new chapter will now begin.

Iran: New imperialist war clouds

By Per-Åke Westerlund, Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden)

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5529
Is US imperialism and/or Israel preparing a military attack on Iran? How would the Islamist dictatorship in Tehran respond? These questions came into focus again over the holidays following new sanctions announced by the United States and an Iranian navy exercise.

Both the regime in Iran and the White House have domestic reasons for the escalating war of words. The Iranian regime’s fear of mass protests similar to the demonstrations after the “elections” in 2009 has been reinforced by the Arab revolutions. New undemocratic “elections” will be held in March as the same time as the economic crisis deepens. The regime want to shift the focus onto U.S. imperialism, which has maintained an over 30-year-long blockade. Also in the US, Obama does not mind directing some of the attention abroad, after growing discontent in 2011, signified not least by the occupy movement. In addition, the president is under pressure from Republicans for being soft on foreign affairs, especially to Iran.

Acts of war against Iran would have disastrous consequences. It is one of the most militarised regions in the world. The U.S. has its Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain and all Persian Gulf countries have been part of a regional arms race in recent years. An attack on Iran would face mass opposition in the Middle East, including from Iran-backed organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Triggering the latest developments was a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency in November, which again assumed that Iran is secretly preparing nuclear arms production. For 10 years, Iran’s nuclear facilities have led to constant crises and speculation about war actions. The plants became public in 2002, but uranium enrichment was suspended, only to resume a short time later when Ahmadinejad became president in 2005.Rumors and concerns have already made oil prices rise 6% in the first week of January. A military conflict with the risk of affecting oil exports from the Persian Gulf could threaten the entire global economy. 40% of world oil exports pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Security Council has since given various ultimatums to the regime in Tehran and adopted four rounds of sanctions.

Tehran has always maintained that the enrichment of uranium is for nuclear power, and some medical purposes. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has never missed the chance to brag about Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear fuel with the help of their now 8,000 centrifuges.

The processing of uranium was, for a long time, 3.5% enrichment, but increased to nearly 20% in 2010. Uranium for use in nuclear weapons requires an enrichment of 90%.The IAEA and even the White House, since Obama’s accession to power, concedes that Iran is still not producing nuclear weapons, but warned that the risk has increased.

The sanctions so far have had effect on Iran’s economy but no impact on the regime’s plans for continued enrichment of uranium. Since Israel holds the possibility of a military attack on Iran, open pressure has increased on Obama.

Both the U.S. and Israel are also conducting a spy war, including murders of scientists, against the Iranian nuclear program.

On New Year’s Eve Obama launched new tougher sanctions against Iran. These were included in the new military budget for 2012.

The new sanctions aim directly at the oil revenues, which account for 60 percent of Iran’s economy. The goal is to stop all business with Iran’s central bank, the bank in charge of foreign trade and foreign currency. The previous blockade was limited to US trade, but now European companies and governments are forced to stop trading with Iran. It involves the purchase of oil, but also refineries processing oil from Iran and of course exports to Iran.

Under this pressure, the EU has in principle accepted an oil embargo. Today, EU countries, especially in southern Europe, import 450,000 barrels per day of Iran’s exports of 2.6 million barrels per day. Even Greece, buying with some credit from Tehran, has been pressed not to protest against a future blockade.

Obama’s new sanctions are to take effect in six months, but the decision gives the president the opportunity to cancel or postpone before it takes effect, especially if oil prices go up.

The Iranian regime has responded that it is easy to replace consumers who fall away. The hope is probably that China - already the largest importer of oil from Iran - and India will step in.

Iran is in severe economic crisis with sharp price increases and growing unemployment. The country’s currency lost 40 percent of its value against the dollar during December and early January. At the same time, there is a threat of new mass protests and increased workers’ strikes.

This explains the war rhetoric from Tehran. “Not a drop of oil will pass the Strait of Hormuz” if sanctions are implemented, declares Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

During a 10-day naval exercise Iran tested two new long-range missiles, Ghadr and Nour, with a reach of over 200 kilometres. In the past, the country tested Sejil-2 missiles that can travel ten times further.

Iran has also announced that enrichment of uranium also takes place in Fordo outside the holy city of Qom, in addition to the facilities already available at Natanz. The new plant is said to have special protection against air strikes.During the exercise, the Iranian commanders warned that the U.S. aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, based in Bahrain, could not pass the Iranian warships, but this occurred later without incident. Washington has responded that a closed Strait of Hormuz “will not be tolerated” referring to U.S. strategic interests. The fact is that even during the war between Iran and Iraq, 1980-88, the strait was open to oil tankers. Also Iran’s oil going to China and other countries pass this passage.

The threat of war against Iran is most likely to take the form of air strikes, and not a ground invasion. Israel has signaled that a military attack on Iran is not excluded. Defence Minister Ehud Barak said recently that “Iran could reach a stage, within nine months, where nothing can be done to stop the ability to build nuclear weapons” reported the Daily News.

The U.S. has publicly criticized and warned against the Israeli plans. An attack by Israel would, even more so than an attack from the U.S., be met by huge protests in the Middle East and globally.

The risk of war or war actions has increased and is not at all excluded, although it most likely that new attempts at negotiations will be conducted before any threats are implemented.

Socialists in Iran, the U.S. and globally must stand against all acts of war from the United States and/or Israel against Iran. Washington and Jerusalem act to protect their power and their profits, not out of concern for the people of Iran. The consequences of an imperialist war intervention can be seen in Iraq today. At the same time, opposition to the war does not mean any support for the oppressive regime in Iran. In order to achieve peace and democratic rights, this regime has to be overthrown by the workers, young people and all oppressed in Iran. In the U.S. resistance to war is also an opposition to war and profiteers, against Wall Street and the corrupt politicians. Struggle against war is a struggle for democracy and workers’ rule, against capitalism and imperialism.

USA: Police crackdown fails to crush Wall Street Occupation - Report from a participant

By Jesse Lessinger, Socialist Alternative (CWI USA)
http://socialistalternative.org/news/article22.php?id=1693


On Saturday, September 24, the “Occupy Wall Street” struggle set out on a march. This was the eighth day that young people, workers and activists have been occupying a plaza in Manhattan's financial district two blocks away from Wall Street. It started as a routine march. The usual slogans were chanted: “Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!” “Whose streets? Our streets!” “Tell me what democracy looks like? This is what democracy looks like!”
It was spirited and energetic from the start. This ongoing occupation has drawn national and international attention, seen as attempt to stand up to corporate greed and challenge the domination of the big banks over our economy, our government and our lives. It's drawn inspiration from the mass youth occupations in Spain and Greece, as well as the revolutionary upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt and across North Africa and the Middle East.
Many are long-time activists that have been organizing for years. Others are completely new to organizing and protesting, participating for the first time in their lives in a social struggle. While many are inexperienced, they've shown a tremendous persistence and fighting spirit. They chant: “All day. All week. Occupy Wall Street!”
As we began to march north up Broadway, our numbers gradually grew and the march started to move into the streets, blocking traffic. With no predetermined march route or official city permit, the police struggled to keep up, trying in vain to direct and control the march and push it back to the sidewalks.

“Whose Streets? Our Streets!”
Unlike most demonstrations in New York City, we were not penned in like animals, forced to one side of the street, isolated and marginalized from the rest of the city. Bystanders watched and waved and some joined in. We marched through Washington Square Park, where more young people joined. Our numbers were well over 1,000 marching freely through the streets of Manhattan, our voices heard loud and clear.
Since moving to New York about four years ago now and attending countless demonstrations, protests, marches, actions and speak outs, I had never been on an action that was able to freely march through the streets. We covered about 2.5 miles, arriving eventually at Union Square. We were not suffocated by the pens or sidelined by a motorcade of police bikes. For the first time in a long time people in New York were able to practice their right to free assembly without infringement or restriction.
It was a tiny victory for the working people and youth of this city, a victory that the police and city government were eager to snuff out. This occupation, now lasting over a week, is not simply a nuisance. The ruling establishment is actually very afraid that this could spread and grow and threaten “order” in the city, an order where the rich get richer and the rest of us are left behind, where the super-elite, the “top 1%,” run society while “the 99%” have no voice. This is why Occupy Wall Street has raised the slogan “We are the 99%!” in an attempt to fight back and be heard.
After rallying very briefly at Union Square, the march turned around to head back “home” to the encampment at the newly renamed Liberty Plaza. The police had amassed a bigger force behind us and unfurled large orange nets. At first it seemed like they only intended to channel the march, split us up and disrupt the action. But we quickly learned these were giant fish nets cast widely to catch as many people as possible.

The Cops Get Violent
The police turned aggressive, violently pushing protesters, grabbing them, throwing people to the ground and arresting them. We ran but they kenneled in dozens at a time, pinning them between nets and buildings. I narrowly escaped a net and we chanted on the opposite side calling for the release of our brothers and sisters.
We were peaceful. They were violent. We were exercising our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and they brutally violated these rights. A small group of young women, who were trapped in a net, standing perfectly peacefully, were suddenly pepper-sprayed for no reason. The video of this incident has gone viral, prompting international news coverage. Around 100 were arrested, including several bystanders who were not part of the protest, held in buses and jail cells for hours, and only released at 5 a.m. the next morning.
The police had one aim: intimidation. This outrageous behavior on their part was intended to strike fear into the youth and break our spirit. Police violence may indeed make some people more fearful of protesting, but it also inspires wider outrage and solidarity. Overwhelmingly the core of the movement has stayed strong and continued the occupation.
This exposes the completely hypocritical role of the police force and the state. They brutally suppress any attempt to peacefully speak out against corporate domination. Meanwhile, the real criminals and crooks on Wall Street walk freely, making billions off our backs, demanding we pay for their economic crisis while they are protected by an oppressive regime that uses the laws when convenient and force when they choose.
Most of us made it back to the plaza exhausted but excited, shaken but angry and determined. I found out back at the plaza that one of our comrades had been arrested. Later, he compiled this video of the march, including footage from his own arrest. We were all concerned for the welfare of our brothers and sisters who had been assaulted and taken away.

Expanding the Struggle But I also began to think about where this movement was headed. The movement has captured the imagination of hundreds of people and captured the attention of perhaps hundreds of thousands around the world. There is constant discussion and debate about how it can become bigger. Many of the new people excited by the energy and strong sense of community within the occupation ask: “Why are there not more people here?”
There is no simple answer, but one thing is for sure. There are thousands out there who are very sympathetic to this movement, many of whom would like to participate but may not be able to. They have work and families and can't afford to occupy Wall Street indefinitely. They are either not able or maybe not yet prepared to make big sacrifices, but they want to support this action. The question is not simply how can we get more people to the occupation but how can we get more people involved in the movement in general.
With the attention that Occupy Wall Street is receiving and the army of full-time activists, Liberty Plaza could become a hub for organizing a wider struggle. As a next step we could call another mass demonstration on Saturday with some basic demands like: Make Wall Street Pay for the Crisis; Tax the Super-Rich; Jobs Not Cuts; Education and Health Care, Not War and Bank Bailouts; Stop Police Brutality and Defend Our Democratic Rights. This way, thousands of people could participate and help grow the movement. Occupy Wall Street should publicly call upon all progressive organizations, especially the unions, with their thousands of members and resources, to participate and mobilize for mass demonstrations.
There is also talk of spreading occupations to other cities. Already in the works is an occupation of Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6 (www.october2011.org). Something is changing in this country. Working people and youth are becoming more politicized and radicalized. There is deep anger that is growing daily in U.S. society, and it is bubbling just below the surface. It cannot be contained forever. It will explode at a certain stage.
Occupy Wall Street reflects some of this anger and radicalization that is developing. From Wisconsin to New York City we're experiencing the aftershocks of social earthquakes now rocking the planet caused by the deep subterranean tensions of an enduring global economic crisis. The epicenters of these quakes have so far been seen across Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the globe. But it may not be too long before the tremors in the U.S. become full-blown social convulsions.

US forces kill Osama Bin Laden

By Tony Saunois, International Secretariat of the CWI

The US government has announced a successful military assault on a large mansion in Abbottabad, near Islamabad, which has resulted in the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Significantly, the complex where the killings took place was very close to the Pakistani Military Academy in an extremely wealthy area largely populated by retired military officers. This points to the fact that sections of the Pakistani state machine around the secret services, ISI, and especially retired military officers have colluded with Al-Qa’ida and Bin Laden and the Taliban.

This operation represents a further development in US imperialism’s foreign policy of targeted assassinations of its opponents. This strategy is enthusiastically backed by the former commander of US troops in Afghanistan and current CIA chief, General Patreus, dubbed a policy of “hot pursuit”. It follows recent attempts to assassinate Gaddaffi in Libya. They imagine that by the removal of one man they will resolve the problem.

While Bin Laden opposed both Mubarak and Ben Ali in Egypt and Tunisia the mass uprisings in those countries have clearly demonstrated that it is mass movement and not the methods of terrorism which show a way forward. The use of terrorist methods arise from a defeat rather than show a way forward to struggle against brutal regimes or imperialism.

Marxists and socialists lend no support to Bin Laden or Al-Qa’ida, either ideologically or the vicious terrorist methods they have used. Yet US imperialism in confronting a struggle against a Frankenstein monster which it created itself particularly through its support for such forces in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. Later Bin Laden and other forces were boosted by imperialism’s support for rotten corrupt regimes in some Muslim countries.

Bin Laden employed the use of terrorist methods, including mass terrorist methods which caused devastating slaughter and misery for ordinary working people. Yet US imperialism and other imperialist powers by employing these methods are also pursuing a policy of state terror and are adopting a policy which is a mirror image of what they denounce Bin Laden for. The use of the lethal drones in Afghanistan and other places has caused the slaughter innocent civilians. These events show an endless cycle of violence and slaughter in which it is the ordinary working people and poor who pay the price.

US imperialism has attempted a policy of assassination in the past. Such methods were used against Castro in Cuba following the revolution. Now however, it is being increasingly justified by US imperialism as it faces a relative decline as a world power although it still remains the most powerful imperialist country. While US imperialism’s propaganda machine will attempt to portray such killings as an indication of success and a demonstration of the power of US imperialism in reality such a policy is a reflection of the weakening of the power of US imperialism. It is reduced to “quick fix” solutions to remove “rouge” leaders or opponents but is unable to resolve the underlying crisis which exist.

Obama and US imperialism have undertaken this operation in the wake of the revolutionary movements which have swept the Arab world in an attempt to reassert its influence and demonstrate its power. In the USA itself this will undoubtedly be used to strengthen Obama and divert attention away from the deepening social, economic and political crisis which exist.

The Pakistani government has claimed that it was not involved in the military operation militarily but stated that it shared intelligence and information with the US. But it is clear that sections of the military and ISI have financed and colluded with Bin Laden and the Taliban.

Rather than strengthen US imperialism in Pakistan and the neo-colonial world, in many countries, including Pakistan, it is likely to increase anti-US sentiment there and in some of the Muslim world. In particular it will strengthen opposition to the war in Afghanistan which was justified on the basis of capturing Bin Laden. The Indian government has also used this attack to try a gain some advantage for itself arguing that it shows that Pakistan is offering safe haven to terrorist forces and urging further such operations be carried out.

At the same time it is unlikely that the killing of Bin Laden will give a boost to Al-Qa’ida forces in Pakistan. This has sharply declined in recent years. Following the attacks on 9/11 Bin Laden had 40-50% approval ratings in Pakistan. However, the attacks by his forces and those of the Taliban in the urban areas and indiscriminate killings of ordinary people in bombings and shooting has led to a sharp decline. Bin Laden’s and Taliban approval ratings have fallen to 4-5% in recent polls. However, it cannot be excluded that some Al-Qa’ida forces may get a certain boost from this operation in some countries.

Many in Pakistan, including the Taliban and Al-Qa’ida at this stage are refusing to accept that Bin Laden has been killed. If confirmed it will result in a shock effect on their forces for a period.

The killing of Bin Laden will represent an important symbolic set back for its forces although it is unlikely to affect the military effectiveness of it’s forces. It is likely to result in a shock in the short term but they will undoubtedly attempt an attack at some stage.

The killing of Bin Laden will be used domestically in the US and internationally as a propaganda weapon it will not resolve any of the underlying social conditions which have resulted in the emergence of forces such as Al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. In Pakistan and parts of the Muslim world it will further undermine the position of US imperialism. The continuation of imperialist domination and of landlordism and capitalism will result in organisations like Al-Qa’ida continuing to exist as a Frankenstein’s monster for imperialism. The horrors that capitalism and the reactionary forces of Al-Qa’ida and the Taliban mean for the mass of the population can only be ended by the working class and poor struggling for a socialist alternative and the only solution to the carnage which has developed.