Pakistan Army Continues Offensive Against Taliban (People's Voice)

Pakistan Army Continues Offensive Against Taliban

September 1, 2009

(published in People's Voice www.peoplesvoice.ca)

By Asad Ali

In early May, the Pakistan Army shelled and entered several towns in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) held by the Pakistani Taliban, and announced they would continue into the rural areas of the province and then to the outlying Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where the insurgency started. Hamid Mir, a Pakistani television reporter for Geo News, described the scenes of destruction as similar to Gaza after Israel's invasion earlier this year. The offensive has continued through the summer.

Statistics from the Pak Institute for Peace Studies show that the rate of civilian casualties in Pakistan between October 2008 and March 2009 is higher than the UN's estimate for Afghanistan. The Government of Pakistan estimates that over 1,000,000 civilians have been displaced. News reports say that many of the people in the areas being bombed remain there, without access to food or health care.

The Taliban's entry into Buner, an NWFP district that happens to be between the federal capital and FATA, was blamed by the government as the trigger of the military's offensive. However the Taliban only entered the area after the federal government delayed in implementing a peace agreement negotiated by the NWFP's ruling Awami (Popular) National Party (ANP). The ANP is a secular left-wing party that succeeds the 1930s non violent pro independence Red Shirt movement, which Gandhi had described as the only correct implementation of his philosophy. In the 2008 elections the ANP had won a landslide victory in the NWFP over a religious coalition and has formed provincial governments before.

The peace agreement was erroneously reported as a surrender and letting the Taliban implement Shari'a Law, but in fact the deal called for the ANP to implement Nizam e Adl (administration of religious justice) courts that were staffed by ANP selected judges who applied the plaintiffs' own concepts of religious law. This implementation became another point of contention for the Taliban, contrary to reports of Taliban vigilante control. Residents had said they were pleased with the ANP's implementation as the new courts were faster than the Provincial courts.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had called the peace agreement an "existential threat" to the world because of Pakistan's few nuclear weapons, yet it is the U.S. which has threatened nuclear first strikes under George W. Bush and with NATO has killed thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. The US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal, recently described US air power as "the seeds of our own destruction" and implied civilians were killed by NATO forces not in any danger. Afghan Taliban leaders point out that their movement is distinct from the Pakistani Taliban with different objectives and social composition.

Progressive politicians, including ANP Senator Lala Khan from the Swat Valley, the first NWFP district the Taliban entered, say the root causes of the conflict are the lack of integration of the Tribal Areas as well as inequitable distribution of resources by the federal government, ignited by the NATO occupation of Afghanistan. Observers point out that the Federal Government did not give the ANP's peace agreement a chance and sabotaged it for the opportunity to launch a military campaign against its own citizens as demanded by NATO. Politicians from parties other than the ANP are calling for stopping the army and resuming dialogue with the Taliban for the sake of national unity and civilian lives.

How to Take Down a Communist Party in 10 Easy Steps (mltoday.com)

How to Take Down a Communist Party in 10 Easy Steps

by Simon Capehart

from mltoday.com

A document found in a (renovated, glass) recycling bin at 235 West 23rd Street in New York City, in the year 2010:

Have you ever been at a left-wing meeting and found that your pet hare-brained ideas get called out and defeated by the Communists? If you let these Communists be Communists they will dominate everything because people like their ideas. Or maybe you own a business, and all the union activists in your shop who have the best strategy to win are the Communists and their allies, and they are able to defeat the pliant workers who will make sweetheart deals with you.

These Communists understand Marx and Lenin, who over 100 years ago had to take on your silly ideas plus all the other bad ideas and defeat them to unite the people into revolutionary organizations. Marx and Lenin proved their ideas work when factory workers, peasants, and minorities in Russia used them to unite and overthrow the Tsar  -  imagine that! It's a pretty scary ideology when the poor can use it to defeat the rich. But fear not, there is a way to get these pesky Communists out of the way so that you can have things your way again. Just follow these 10 easy steps, simultaneously:

1. "Any socialism as long as it's capitalism" The best way to win Communists for capitalism is to tell them it's socialism. How can you do this? It's simple. Just tell them socialism, i.e., getting rid of capitalist private property which is the root of the problem, is too difficult to attain. So, we have to work towards it, but not in a way that actually gets there.

We have to say: "we can't predict when we'll get to socialism, that's too hard to tell. We just have to keep making reforms until we get to heaven some day." We can call this socialism because it has some central planning or some public ownership, while private property and the capitalists are still in the picture. Dig through Marx and Lenin. I am sure you can find some things they said about how to make the transition to socialism. But give only half the picture to make it look like they said, "We can't tell how to finish the job and get rid of private property." Never mind that their ideas scientifically show how to get to socialism, tell them "we have to be agnostic about anything beyond reforms," and "you can't predict the future because it's just like the weather." Before science started studying weather, that is. It will help if you point to the Soviet Union and make up stuff as you go along about how "the reason it's not here anymore is because the Soviets tried to actually get to socialism (and got there!) instead of taking the road of never-ending piecemeal reforms." You could call the goal "market socialism," or "the socialist market economy," or "socialism with American characteristics" (or Chinese or -- fill in the blank). You get the idea.

2. "I once caught a coalition THIS big!" What makes these Communists dangerous is that they unite the broadest alliance behind them to take on and defeat whatever the capitalists are doing. They do this by being public with their politics which are more advanced than anyone else's. So people join with them because they see that the Communists are the only ones fighting for what they need, for real solutions. This leaves the reformists with no choice but to join in or get isolated from the people gathering around the Communists.

The best way to kill the leading and independent role of the Communist Party is to say that this is "going it alone." It's not really a coalition because it calls for ideas that are different from the conventional and mainstream. Never mind that Communists have always worked in coalitions, tell them that "to lead with independent politics is to be on the sidelines" and that "a real coalition is one where you can't tell the Communists from the reformists." Say "the reformists will get scared if you say anything they don't like," so the Communists will forget that the reformists won't have a choice but to join if the Communists would reach out to the much bigger group of people who know half-measures won't help them. Never mind that it's not a real coalition if all of the partners aren't actually meeting to make decisions together, with every group having its own voice. Flunkies can always delude themselves into thinking they are an equal partner.

3. "War is peace; imperialism can be progressive." The best way to get Communists to support a war is to at first give lip service to "troops out now," but then point out how dangerous the victims of imperialism are. It helps to recycle war propaganda about the Islamic enemy as a threat to civilization, and say "we need to protect the world from these beasts." It helps if you call the people in the resistance "Islamo-fascist," even though it's imperialism that is invading and occupying one country after another. You can disguise imperialism pretty easily by saying "it's different this time because there is going to be international cooperation of imperialists with everyone else, for the progress of humanity." This is what Browder did in 1944, saying it would be in the interests of imperialists to rule the world together without fighting over the spoils. Never mind that private property drives them into conflict over who is going to come out on top. Tell the Communist Party members, "the new President or the Democrat candidate will make it all different this time," because it just has to be that way.

4. "Never let a Communist develop his or her own base." Communists who actually want to organize and educate can be dangerous in positions of leadership. It's better to hire them away as staff.  You can control them better. Then, later, let them go, or expel them. There will always be staff sycophants who will go along with anything to keep their paycheck and prestige. These people might never have actually done anything. They might not have any ideas of their own. But that makes it even better, because they depend on you. Those who flatter you the most are the most useful. The more obsequious they are, the higher you should promote them.

5. "Practice Undemocratic Self-centered-ism." The Communist idea of democratic centralism is dangerous for you because you have to freely discuss everything first (democratic) and then stick to the majority decision (centralism). You can kill the democratic part by deciding everything before the meeting, thereby killing or heading off any real discussion. Intimidate and bully people who disagree. Pack meetings with your supporters (especially paid staff). Stop people you don't agree with from even coming to the meeting.

Killing centralism is just as easy. Don't follow or implement the decisions you don't like. You can get away with it if there is no accountability. Instead of having a central leadership, be self-centered where you make all the decisions and then get everyone to agree without trying to listen to them because after all, you are the leader. It helps to factionalize with the people who will go along with you (see #4 "Those who flatter you the most are the most useful") so that it's too late by the time there is a convention.

Expel anyone who doesn't play along, even if you don't do it constitutionally, by (and here's the delicious irony) saying they "violated democratic centralism" or are "anti-party" or are "factional." Remember, once the members catch on to what you are doing they will resist. So, you will have to be even more undemocratic and self-centered each round to stay ahead of them.

6. "Un-organize the organized!" The best way to unorganize a Communist party is not to organize. Get in the way of anyone who is organizing. If people are catching on, do token organizing with ineffective mini-projects or election/educational leaflets that you don't really put out. Don't organize a distribution of the newspaper, or Communist schools that explain real Marxism. Try to avoid calling meetings or organizing your contacts into events and Communist-initiated campaigns and fund raisers. If someone tries this, tell them they are breaking unity and expel them if you have to (see #5 "Undemocratic Self-centered-ism"). Eventually some of the people who want to organize will leave, or get frustrated. It helps if you don't know how to organize in the first place and have never organized a campaign. That's the best way to add "un" in front of your Organizer title (again, see #4 "Those who flatter you the most are the most useful.")

7. Cold-case Communism. The first 24 hours in a missing person case are the most crucial in being able to find them alive. Similarly, to make the institutions of a Communist Party go missing and die off, like archives, bookstores, buildings (from being used for Communist work), publications like print magazines or print newspapers, eliminate them speedily without putting the question clearly in front of everyone and having an open discussion. It will be too late by the time everyone finds out.

Say that you "have to make cuts because of money, or because you haven't been using these resources, or because they've become outdated." Never mind that using these institutions collectively for organizing is what makes a Communist Party different and keeps it moving. Just say that "the same work will continue but without these resources or in a different way," even though you haven't been using these resources anyway (see #6 "Unorganize the organized"). If you're worried they won't buy it, resort to a Straw Man by saying "the opposition is trying to make it look like you can't both use these resources and do things in a new way," even though you are the one cutting the basic resources of the party.

8. "There is a Stalinist under my bed!" If any member actually starts arguing for socialism or revolution, or says anything good about the Soviet Union, or quotes Marx and Lenin to express their own ideas in a more articulate way, call them "Stalinists" or "dogmatic" or any other name you can think of. Label them "a small, sectarian" group or whatever else you have to say to isolate them from everyone else. It's best if you use the Straw Man frequently and say they said things that they never actually said. In a speakers list, arrange that someone who can do a really abusive hatchet job on them will speak next, so as to kill the discussion.

Also it helps if you keep repeating any slander uttered about the Soviet Union, Stalin, and the world Communist movement during the Cold War, as if they are true. Use only anti-Communist citations. Never mind that academic historians are admitting that a lot of the Cold War propaganda just wasn't true, or that Communist parties have been exposing these lies for decades. Just keep insisting it's obvious, or that everyone knows it's true. A bit like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

9. Marx and Lenin said "Don't listen to Marx and Lenin." You know the game is almost up when members start actually reading Marx and Lenin and the real context of your quotes from them, or study their party's history and see how you are using a foul old playbook and calling it "fresh" and "creative." This is why it's vital to create as much confusion about Marx and Lenin as possible. Show how they changed their mind about a side-issue to make it look like they went back and forth, when in fact what makes them different from the other philosophers and politicians is that they could keep marching forward on the same path they started on because they were correct. If the members realize this, they would realize they should keep going down that tested and proven path instead of believing there is no firm path and ending up in a swamp. Argue against quoting Marx and Lenin to support anything they actually said. Instead say "they should only be quoted to show one can change one's mind." It's even better if you can cut their quotes up and take a fragment to make it look like we shouldn't listen to them. For example, you could say Marx said "I am not a Marxist" when what he really said was "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist," referring to an ultra-leftist of his time , rather than denying he had developed an ideology. The more you can make it look like Marx and Lenin didn't really mean for us to study what they were saying, or that they said anything at all, the better.

10. "Better Dead than Read!" Marx and Lenin were against turning their ideas into a dead ritual where you just say their magic words and then a revolution happens. Instead, they said you have to apply their teachings to your situation, and as we learn things through experience we can add to Marxism what we learn, in a way that continues what Marx started. However, you can turn this around to say that "Marx and Lenin said their ideas can be changed "(instead of being added to) and that "their basic teachings could be wrong" (not merely some secondary ideas  and facts that are not an essential part of their science), and that "it would still be Marxism if you took out what you didn't like." Claim that "times have changed." Of course, times do change, but not in a way that makes capitalism and imperialism change into something completely different, rather in a way that develops capitalism and imperialism further down the road Marx and Lenin analyzed in their time. You'll need to do some slick switcheroos to turn dialectical materialism, which explains the nature and causes of change in society, nature, and thought, into relativism, which is about things changing in any direction that's convenient for your agenda. But this can be done by appealing against "dogmatism" and then adding that naturally this means "everything is relative" and so it's OK to take anything revolutionary out of Marxism because it no longer applies, because you said so.

Of course, the reformist ideas you are inserting into Marxism under the excuse that "everything changes" are actually old dogmas that were defeated by Marx and Lenin in their time. Better hope your members don't read those old debates, and treat them as dead (see #9 "Marx and Lenin said don't listen to Marx and Lenin"). Otherwise they will realize you are the real dogmatist, resurrecting zombie ideas out of the grave in a desperate attempt to bury what is still alive and kicking in the working class.

Beware that once you liquidate the Communist Party, it will keep coming back because this movement is an inevitable (but not automatic) part of history. The working class will resist. People will keep rediscovering the ideas of Marx and Lenin. So it's very important to keep repeating these steps over and over again. You might even get caught by the members in the middle of wiping out their Party. They might get together and expel you. This is what happened to Browder in 1946. Don't worry though; you can still start the process all over again, just as long as the members aren't systematically getting Marxist-Leninist education to enable them to figure out what you are doing. Remember, as long as there is capitalism there will be Communists, but there will also be revisionists like us to bring the Communists back to capitalism.

This is a race -- to liquidate the party before its members put a stop to us. Better move fast before the members make it impossible for you to do any more damage by challenging you everywhere, voting according to their principles, and holding you accountable!

Come abbattere un partito comunista in 10 semplici mosse (resistenze.org)

http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/cu/li/culi9l08-005597.htm

www.resistenze.org - cultura e memoria resistenti - linguaggio e comunicazione - 08-10-09 - n. 290

da MLToday - http://mltoday.com/en/how-to-take-down-a-communist-party-in-10-easy-steps-653.html

Traduzione dall'inglese per www.resistenze.org a cura del Centro di Cultura e Documentazione Popolare

Come abbattere un partito comunista in 10 semplici mosse

di Simon Capehart

Da un documento ritrovato in un cassonetto per il riciclaggio del vetro al numero 235 West della 23° Strada a New York [indirizzo del Partito Comunista USA, ndr], nel 2010:

Ti è capitato di assistere ad una riunione politica di sinistra e constatare che le tue convinzioni vengono attaccate e sconfitte dai comunisti? Se permetti a costoro di fare i comunisti, essi prenderanno il sopravvento perché le loro idee piacciono!

Se sei un imprenditore ti accorgerai che gli attivisti sindacali che hanno la meglio sono tutti comunisti o loro alleati. I comunisti sono in grado di contrastare i lavoratori "malleabili", quelli che ti sono complici nel sottoscrivere accordi per favorire pochi a scapito di molti.

Questi comunisti conoscono le teorie di Marx e Lenin. Marx e Lenin oltre 100 anni fa si batterono contro le tue idee insensate (e tutte le altre ideologie borghesi) e dimostrarono che le persone unite in organizzazioni rivoluzionarie possono sconfiggerci. Per esempio, queste idee hanno funzionato quando gli operai, i contadini e le minoranze in Russia se ne sono serviti per unirsi e rovesciare lo Zar. È un’ideologia assai pericolosa quella che i poveri possono utilizzare per sconfiggere i ricchi! Ma non temere, esiste un modo per fare fuori questi fastidiosi comunisti e fare andare di nuovo tutto come vuoi. Basta seguire queste 10 semplici mosse, simultaneamente:

1. "Socialismo a patto che permanga il capitalismo". Il modo migliore per far accettare il capitalismo ai comunisti è dire loro che questo è socialismo. Come si può fare? È semplice. Basta dire che il socialismo, l'abolizione della proprietà privata capitalista che costituisce la radice del problema, è troppo difficile da raggiungere. Quindi, dobbiamo andare verso il socialismo, ma non in un modo che consenta effettivamente di raggiungerlo.

Dobbiamo dire: "Non possiamo prevedere quando arriveremo al socialismo. Dobbiamo proseguire nelle riforme finché un giorno arriveremo al traguardo". Possiamo definire socialismo un sistema che contenga elementi di pianificazione centrale e/o alcune proprietà pubbliche, lasciando però nell’insieme intatta la proprietà privata capitalista. Cerca attentamente nelle opere di Marx e Lenin  i passaggi in cui hanno parlato della transizione al socialismo; poi racconta solo una parte, lasciando intendere che loro abbiano scritto: "È impossibile dire come portare a compimento questo processo e come sbarazzarsi della proprietà privata". Non importa che le loro idee mostrino scientificamente come arrivare al socialismo; tu sostieni che occorre diffidare di tutto ciò che va oltre il riformismo e scoraggia le previsioni: "Non si può predire il futuro, perché è come il tempo meteorologico" (prima che la meteorologia fosse oggetto di studio scientifico, s’intende). Ti sarà di aiuto se usi come esempio l'Unione Sovietica e prosegui inventando storie sulla ragione della sua fine, del tipo: "i sovietici hanno veramente cercato di arrivare al socialismo (e ci sono arrivati) invece di prendere la strada graduale delle riforme". Puoi definire l'obiettivo da raggiungere come "socialismo di mercato" o "economia socialista di mercato" o "socialismo con caratteristiche americane" (scegli l’aggettivo che più è conveniente). Ci siamo capiti.

2. "Attenzione alle coalizioni!" Quello che rende pericolosi questi comunisti è che riescono a costruire alleanze ampie attorno a loro, capaci di contrastare qualunque operazione capitalista. Fanno questo rendendo pubbliche le loro linee politiche, che sono più avanzate di quelle di chiunque altro; la gente si unisce a loro perché ne comprende la lotta, capisce che risponde concretamente ai suoi bisogni. L’unica opzione che resta ai riformisti è di allearsi ai comunisti, per non rimanere isolati.

Il modo migliore per uccidere il ruolo indipendente e di primo piano del Partito Comunista è dire che esso "combatte da solo"; bisogna sostenere che le sue idee non sono diffusamente sentite e accettate dalla maggioranza. Non importa che i comunisti abbiano sempre lavorato in coalizioni, basterà dire che "linee politiche indipendenti comportano la marginalità" e che "una coalizione vera è quella in cui non si possano distinguere i comunisti dai riformisti". Bisogna dire ai comunisti: "I riformisti avranno paura se dite qualcosa di troppo ardito". In questo modo i comunisti non potranno più rivolgersi al gran numero di persone che non vogliono mezze misure, e si dimenticheranno che l’unica opzione dei riformisti sarebbe di unirsi a loro. 

    

3. "La guerra è pace; l'imperialismo può essere progressivo". Il modo migliore per ottenere l’appoggio dei comunisti a una guerra è di cominciare fingendo di essere a favore di idee come "Ritiro immediato delle truppe", ma poi sottolineare come siano pericolose le vittime dell'imperialismo. È utile riciclare la propaganda di guerra sul nemico islamico come una minaccia alla civiltà, e dire "Abbiamo bisogno di proteggere il mondo da queste bestie". È utile chiamare i membri della resistenza "islamo-fascisti", anche se è l'imperialismo ad invadere ed occupare un paese dopo l'altro. È possibile presentare l'imperialismo sotto mentite spoglie piuttosto facilmente dicendo: "Questa volta è diverso perché ci sarà la cooperazione internazionale degli imperialisti con tutti gli altri, per il progresso dell'umanità". Questo è ciò che Browder fece nel 1944, dicendo che sarebbe stato nell'interesse degli imperialisti governare il mondo insieme senza litigare per avere un vantaggio l’uno sull’altro. Non importa che la proprietà privata li porti ad entrare in conflitto con chi domina, bisogna dire ai membri del Partito Comunista che "Il nuovo Presidente o il candidato del Partito Democratico farà in modo che questa volta tutto sarà diverso", perché deve essere così.

4. "Non lasciare che un comunista sviluppi una sua base". I comunisti che vogliono veramente organizzare ed educare possono essere pericolosi in posizioni di leadership. È meglio assumerli, così è possibile controllarli meglio. Poi, più tardi, si potrà licenziarli o espellerli. Ci saranno sempre dei dipendenti delatori che accetteranno qualsiasi cosa pur di mantenere il loro stipendio e il loro prestigio. Queste persone forse non hanno effettivamente mai fatto qualcosa. Forse non hanno delle idee proprie. Ma così va anche meglio, perché saranno condizionati da te. Coloro che ti lusingano maggiormente sono i più utili. Più ossequiosi sono, più in alto dovresti promuoverli.

5. "Praticare l’egocentrismo non-democratico". L'idea comunista del centralismo democratico è pericolosa perché ti costringe prima a discutere tutto in modo libero (democratico), quindi ad attenerti alle decisioni prese a maggioranza (centralismo). Puoi liquidare la parte democratica decidendo tutto prima della riunione, uccidendo o prevenendo in tal modo ogni dibattito vero. Minaccia e spaventa tutti coloro che dissentono. Assicura una massiccia presenza dei tuoi sostenitori alle riunioni (in particolare persone pagate da te). Impedisci alle persone con cui non sei d'accordo di essere anche solo presenti alle riunioni.

Uccidere il centralismo è altrettanto facile. Non seguire o non attuare le decisioni che non ti piacciono. Si può farla franca se non c’è nessuno a cui devi rendere conto del tuo operato. Invece di avere una leadership centrale, sii tu il centro, prendi tutte le decisioni, quindi ottieni l'accordo di tutti senza cercare di ascoltarli perché, dopo tutto, sei tu il leader. È utile formare una fazione con quelli che accettano le tue proposte (vedi il punto 4 " Coloro che ti lusingano maggiormente sono i più utili") in modo che sia troppo tardi quando finalmente vi sarà un accordo.

Espelli chiunque non accetti le tue proposte, anche se non lo fai in modo costituzionale, dicendo (e qui che sta l'ironia deliziosa) che queste persone "hanno violato il centralismo democratico," o sono "anti-partito" oppure sono "settari". Ricorda che una volta che gli iscritti avranno capito quello che stai facendo, opporranno resistenza. Così, devi essere ogni volta ancora più antidemocratico ed egocentrico per rimanere davanti a loro.

6. "De-organizzare chi è organizzato!" Il modo migliore per de-organizzare un Partito Comunista consiste nel non organizzare. Ostacola chiunque stia organizzando delle iniziative. Quando si comincia a capire quello che stai facendo, organizza delle azioni di pura facciata fatte di mini-progetti inefficaci od opuscoli elettorali/informativi che non vedranno mai la luce. Non organizzare la distribuzione del giornale e nemmeno di scuole comuniste che spieghino il vero marxismo. Cerca di evitare di indire riunioni o di organizzare i tuoi contatti per eventi e campagne di iniziativa comunista per raccogliere fondi. Se qualcuno tenta di farlo, digli che sta distruggendo l'unità del gruppo ed espellilo se devi (vedi punto 5 "Praticare l’egocentrismo non-democratico"). Alla fine, alcune delle persone che desiderano organizzare andranno via o si frustreranno. È utile se non sei capace ad organizzare e non hai mai organizzato una campagna. Questo costituisce il modo migliore per aggiungere un "de" davanti al tuo titolo di “organizzatore” (ancora una volta, vedi il punto 4 " Coloro che ti lusingano maggiormente sono i più utili")

7. Comunismo “cold case” cioè a traccia debole. Le prime 24 ore dopo la scomparsa di una persona sono quelle decisive nel determinare la possibilità di ritrovarla viva. Si possono adoperare tecniche simili per assicurarsi che le istituzioni di un partito comunista scompaiano e muoiano una dopo l’altra: gli archivi, le librerie, gli edifici (utilizzati per il lavoro comunista), le pubblicazioni cartacee come riviste o giornali. Basta eliminarli rapidamente, senza porre la questione con chiarezza di fronte a tutti ed evitando una aperta discussione. Quando gli altri scopriranno cos’è successo, sarà ormai troppo tardi.

Puoi dire che "È necessario effettuare dei tagli per ragioni economiche, o perché non avete usato queste risorse, o perché sono diventate superate." Non importa che l'utilizzo collettivo di queste istituzioni per il lavoro di organizzazione sia ciò che rende diverso un partito comunista e ne consente l’avanzamento. Devi solo dire che "Lo stesso lavoro continuerà, ma senza queste risorse o in un altro modo", anche se in ogni caso non utilizzerete queste risorse (vedi punto 6 "De-organizzare chi è organizzato"). Se sei preoccupato che non la bevano, puoi ricorrere ad un uomo di paglia, dicendo "L'opposizione sta cercando di far credere che non è possibile utilizzare queste risorse e fare le cose in modo nuovo", anche se sei tu quello che sta tagliando le risorse vitali del partito.

8. "C'è uno stalinista sotto il mio letto!" Qualora un membro del partito inizi a sostenere con argomenti convincenti il socialismo o la rivoluzione, oppure dica qualcosa di positivo a proposito dell’Unione Sovietica, o cita Marx o Lenin per esprimere le proprie idee in modo più articolato, dovresti etichettarlo come "stalinista" o "dogmatico". Definisci queste persone come un gruppo "piccolo e settario", o qualsiasi altra cosa sia utile per isolarli dagli altri. È meglio utilizzare spesso l'uomo di paglia che metta in bocca parole mai pronunciate. Nell’ordine degli interventi, fai in modo che qualcuno capace di sferrare un attacco malevolo contro di loro prenda la parola subito dopo di te, in modo da stroncare il dibattito.

È anche utile continuare a ripetere, come se fosse vera, qualsiasi calunnia pronunciata contro l’Unione Sovietica, Stalin ed il movimento comunista mondiale durante la guerra fredda. Utilizza solo citazioni anticomuniste. Non importa che gli storici accademici ora ammettano che molta propaganda della guerra fredda non era vera, o che da decenni i partiti comunisti hanno smascherato queste menzogne. Devi soltanto continuare ad insistere dicendo che tutto questo è ovvio, o che tutti sanno che è vero. Un po’ come quelle armi di distruzione di massa in Iraq.

9. Marx e Lenin dissero: “Non date retta a Marx e Lenin”. Sai che i membri del partito scopriranno il tuo giochino quando cominceranno a leggere Marx e Lenin e troveranno il vero contesto delle tue citazioni nelle loro opere, oppure quando studieranno la storia del loro partito e si accorgeranno che stai usando un vecchio e fetido programma politico chiamandolo "fresco" e "creativo". È per questo che è fondamentale creare più confusione possibile su Marx e Lenin. Dimostra come hanno cambiato le loro idee su problemi marginale per dare l’idea che andavano avanti e indietro, quando in realtà ciò che li rende diversi dagli altri filosofi e politici è di essere stati capaci di continuare ad avanzare sulla stessa strada che avevano intrapreso proprio perché avevano ragione. Se i membri del partito comprendono ciò, si renderanno conto che devono continuare a percorrere questa stessa strada di comprovata efficacia invece di credere che non vi sia alcun percorso affidabile e finire così in una palude. Sostieni che non è lecito citare Marx e Lenin per sostenere qualsiasi cosa che loro hanno veramente detto e afferma invece "Devono essere citati soltanto per dimostrare che si può cambiare idea". Meglio ancora se riesci spezzettare le citazioni e a prendere un frammento per far apparire che non dovremmo ascoltarli. Ad esempio, si potrebbe ribadire che Marx disse: "Io non sono un marxista" quando ciò che egli realmente ha detto è "Se questo è il marxismo, allora io non sono un marxista", riferendosi ad un contemporaneo dell’ultra-sinistra e non negando di aver sviluppato un’ideologia. Più riesci a far sembrare che Marx e Lenin in realtà non intendevano che si dovesse studiare quello che hanno detto, oppure che non hanno detto niente, meglio è.

10. "Better dead than read!/Meglio morti che informati!" [allusione allo slogan della guerra fredda, “Better dead than red”, N.d.T] Marx e Lenin si opponevano alla cristallizzazione e alla trasformazione delle loro idee in rituali morti, come se bastasse pronunciare alcune parole magiche per far avvenire la rivoluzione. Marx e Lenin invece hanno detto che ognuno deve applicare i loro insegnamenti alla propria situazione e aggiungere al marxismo ciò che di nuovo viene appreso proseguendo la lotta, continuando così l'opera che Marx aveva iniziato. Tuttavia, è possibile rovesciare questo concetto e dichiarare che "Marx e Lenin dissero che le loro idee possono essere cambiate" (anziché sviluppate) e che "I loro insegnamenti di base potrebbero essere sbagliati" (non solo alcune idee e fatti secondari e che non sono parte essenziale della loro scienza), e che "Sarebbe ancora marxismo pur togliendo quello che non piace". Puoi sostenere che "I tempi sono cambiati". Certo che i tempi cambiano, ma non in un modo per cui il capitalismo e l'imperialismo si trasformino in qualcosa di completamente diverso, quanto piuttosto che si sviluppino ulteriormente seguendo il percorso analizzato da Marx e Lenin nella loro epoca. Dovrai fare qualche capovolgimento ingegnoso per trasformare il materialismo dialettico, che spiega la natura e le cause del cambiamento della società, della natura e del pensiero, nel relativismo, ovvero che le cose cambiano in qualsiasi direzione torni comoda ai tuoi programmi. Ma ci si può riuscire facendo appello contro il "dogmatismo" e aggiungendo che "Tutto è relativo" e quindi è giusto togliere dal marxismo tutto quello che è rivoluzionario perché non è più valido, perché lo hai detto tu.

Naturalmente, le idee riformiste che introduci nel marxismo con la scusa che "tutto cambia" sono in realtà i ferri vecchi già a suo tempo sconfitti da Marx e Lenin. La tua unica speranza è che gli iscritti non leggano i dibattiti avvenuti allora (vedi punto 9 “Marx e Lenin dissero: ‘Non date retta a Marx e Lenin’"), altrimenti si renderanno conto che sei tu quello veramente dogmatico, quello che sta resuscitando dalla tomba delle idee morte nel disperato tentativo di seppellire ciò che è ancora vivo e vegeto nella classe operaia.

Attenzione però, perché una volta che avrai liquidato il Partito Comunista, ci si tornerà continuamente, dato che questo movimento è parte inevitabile (anche se non meccanica) della storia. La classe operaia resisterà. La gente continuerà a riscoprire le idee di Marx e di Lenin. Quindi è molto importante continuare a ripetere questi passi mille volte. Potrebbe anche succedere che gli iscritti ti sorprendano nel bel mezzo del tentativo di demolire il loro partito. Potrebbero unirsi ed espellerti. Questo è ciò che è successo a Browder nel 1946. Ma non ti preoccupare, è comunque possibile avviare il processo da capo, basta che i militanti non apprendano gli insegnamenti del marxismo-leninismo, perchè altrimenti capiscono cosa stai facendo. Ricordati che finché c'è il capitalismo ci saranno i comunisti, ma ci saranno anche i revisionisti come noi per ricondurre i comunisti al capitalismo.

È una gara: liquidare il partito prima che i suoi membri pongano fine a noi. Devi muoverti rapidamente prima che essi ti contestino ogni punto, votino secondo i loro principi e ti ritengano responsabile del tuo operato, neutralizzandoti in modo che tu non possa causare altri danni.

The Political Economy of an Outsource Call Center Job: Or How To Cut Through the Boss’s BS (Rebel Youth)

The Political Economy of an Outsource Call Center Job

Or How To Cut Through the Boss’s BS

(Rebel Youth)

By Bilal Awami

At almost any job you’ve had you’ve probably wondering why things were setup the way they were. If you asked a manager you would probably get a BS answer that stops making sense if you dig deeper. Talk at work probably included trying to figure out what was really going on.

Political economy is the science of how we relate to each other in making wealth, which under capitalism is for those who own the equipment we use. An outsourced call centre might do the same physical work as an in-house call centre, but the difference is with outsourcing are making a direct profit for the owner by the call. Marx wrote that in his time people who didn’t make anything physical but still made a profit for someone, and so are “productive” in the capitalist sense, were very few. Today however, according to the Government of Canada, Canadian outsourced call centres pull in US$14 billion/year and are the second-biggest market after to India.¹

Understanding the political economy of where you work is important for figuring out what’s really going on, why things are setup the way they are, and where they are headed. It isn’t as simple as it looks from the surface: as Marx said if things worked on the inside the way they looked on the outside we wouldn’t need science to tell us anything.

This is just a taste of what lurks behind the way your workplace is setup. Dig into your own workplace’s political economy and write in to Rebel Youth with what you and your co-workers have figured out.

1. Why don’t they let us work all the overtime that’s available, they’d still be making more they pay us even with overtime?

It’s true that call centre outsourcers pull in so much more money per hour or minute or call than they pay, that they could be paying overtime and still make a profit. It might look like a win-win to get lots of overtime so you can make money while the call centre owner makes money too. But it’s the profit rate (profit per $ spent) and not actually profit that the call centre owner is after. This rate has to be a higher than what other industries (not just other call centres) offer.

Think about it from the perspective of an investor. If an investor is going to put in a dollar, they don’t just care that you will bring in some money on that dollar, they want to know how much so they don’t invest somewhereelse. Even though with paying overtime the total profit will be higher for the call centre than not having anyone do the work they don’t have people for, it would lower their profit rate since you would get to keep more of the money that’s brought in than if you were working the regular wage rate. In other words, the rate of exploitation is lower when you are paid overtime because the owner gets to keep less of the money you bring in.

So the call centre owner would rather make a lower total profit, and have less calls answered, than taking a lower profit rate by paying for overtime for someone to take the extra calls they didn’t schedule people for.

There are some situations where call centre owners will want people to work a lot of overtime however, if the penalty for not answering a certain number of calls is looking too high for example.

2. Why do supervisors send us home on VDT (Voluntary Down Time) when I know that there will be more calls coming than the people who are left can handle?

Outsourced call centre managers are judged on the profitability of their queue or section or department. But even the managers and supervisors ultimately can’t make whatever decision they want, they have to defend their decisions based on call forecasts from the client.

The forecasts are based on a mathemetical model, called the Erlang C equation, which basically assumes a random distribution except that some people will give up and call back later. However, call centres often don’t know day to day how many people are out there who would want to call (the customer universe), so the model is a guide at best. The model might tell you, based on last year’s calls, when there will be a bump in calls, but not how big of a bump.

For this reason managers think it’s better to make a safe decision they know is wrong that they can defend with the client’s forecast than take a risk in keeping people on that could end up costing them unnecessarily if they’re wrong, because when the managers are put on the spot by their managers the upper management can pull out the forecast and blast them for wasting money when the forecast said there wouldn’t be any calls coming in. On the other hand, if calls gets missed because more came in than were forecast, the manager can always hide behind the forecast and blame the client.

3. Why do they care so much about my being late – is it because they don’t want too many calls to be in queue?

Outsourced call centres will want you to be on time even if there are no calls in queue, it has nothing to do with catching calls. Their forecasts for how many calls are coming in aren’t that accurate.

The real reason call centres are big on tardiness is because they make money for every minute you are on the phone or taking a call or, in some cases, in your seat regardless of whether there is a call or not. Losing money because agents aren’t bullied enough for tardiness by a manager will make the manager look like they can’t manage to their supervisors, and since tardiness is one of the things managers think they can control more than other things they will pick on tardiness. They might excuse it saying it puts stress on the team to not have someone who is scheduled there to take calls in queue, but that’s not why the manager cares about attendance.

4. What does the outsourced call centre’s profit rate have to do with auto and steel, or general, profit rates?

Outsourced call centre’s biggest expense per dollar spent on a call is the wage they have to pay a worker – their variable cost of production (taking calls which bring in money). The fixed costs of the telephone bill and equipment you use is relatively low. Call centres are labour intensive rather than capital intensive, constant capital (the means of production) is low compared to labour costs. In other words the “organic composition” of capital is low (less constant capital than variable capital). With auto and steel plants the organic composition of capital is high: the equipment and raw materials that go into a car or roll of steel take up more per dollar invested than the labour that makes the wealth.

Because profit is made from only the labour and not the equipment and raw materials, i.e. a telephone or car factory only makes money while someone is working on it, call centres should have a higher profit rate than auto and steel factories (more profit per each dollar invested). This is because more of a dollar spent in a call centre pays for work bringing in money than in an auto plant or steel factory, where for each dollar spent much more of it is going into equipment than the labour. An hour of labour might produce more in an auto plant or steel factory, but the capitalist’s dollar doesn’t buy as much labour there because more of the dollar goes to the expensive equipment and raw materials. Remember the profit rate is per dollar invested in both capital and labour, not how much you get out of an hour of labour which is the exploitation rate.

But outsourced call centres aren’t in a different society than auto and steel factories, capitalists can shift their dollars from auto and steel plants with lower profit rates to call centres with higher profit rates. Capitalists don’t care about the total profit as much as the profit rate, since to maximize profits they need to make more for each dollar they put in. In this way in capitalist society as a whole more investment goes for a while into industries with higher profit rates, until because of competition from all these capitalists crowding into call centres the profit rate goes down in call centres, and goes up in auto and steel factories from capitalists pulling out and decreasing competition. In this way most of the businesses in a capitalist society end up with a similar, average rate of profit. If any industry could do better than average, and they do, capitalists would crowd into there and drive the profit rate towards a new average. This is constantly happening under capitalism as the economy develops.

So what does this average rate of profit under capitalism mean for your call centre job? It means that the profit rate the owner of your call centre takes in doesn’t just depend on the industry your calls are in or the call centre industry itself, but it depends on the whole of capitalist society and what the average rate of profit is.

From my own call centre company’s numbers there are different minimum profit rates to do business in different countries. Profit rates from centres in underdeveloped ex-colonies are about 150% the rate for an imperialist country like Canada. 40% profit might be super in Canada but won’t cut it in the Philippines. This is related in part to less capital-intensive industry (lower organic composition of capital) in ex-colonies, but that is changing.

Notice how because call centres will initially turn a higher profit for each dollar invested (even though they may require fewer dollars), their profit rates go down from the competition from the different capitalists getting in to the business. This means call centres end up charging their clients less than the value of the calls they take as the price is driven down by competition. Similarly in capital-intensive (high organic composition) industries, because there is decreased competition from a lower profit rate (less profit per dollar invested because more of the dollar goes to equipment and raw materials that doesn’t do anything by itself), they can sell their goods for a higher price than the real value since there is much less competition.

This means that when you look at what’s happening from the perspective of capitalist society as a whole, the value produced by workers in industries with a low organic composition of capital is effectively “moved” to the capitalists in industries with a higher organic composition of capital by the averaging out of profit rates.

In other words, when you take a call you are not only making money for the owner of your call centre but also for the owner of an auto plant or steel mill. More broadly, under capitalism workers aren’t just making money for their employers but as a class we are making money for the capitalists as a class. This is a big reason why call centre workers should be in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in auto plants and steel mills, and vice-versa. This analysis is not obvious and requires some serious following of the money, as Marx said in Capital III “The actual difference of magnitude between profit and surplus value (money you bring in over your wage) … in the various spheres of production now conceals completely the true nature and origin of profit, not only for the capitalist who has a special interest in deceiving himself on this score, also for the labourer.”²

1 “Canada’s Key Sectors”, Government of Canada (http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/publications/invest-in-canada-brochure-summary.aspx

)

2 Capital vol. 3, Karl Marx, Kerr Edition, p. 198

Understanding Racism, Sexism, and Heterosexism (Rebel Youth)

Understanding Racism, Sexism, and Heterosexism

Published in Rebel Youth 2009

Based on talk on understanding Racism, Sexism, and Heterosexism given at YCL Ontario school in 2008

by Asad Ali

1. Why this understanding racism, sexism, and heterosexism important: do we reflect the full potential of a revolutionary org as we are here today? Does racism, sexism, heterosexism exist outside the YCL? If you think it does, are we immune from it? No one is immune from the racism, sexism and heterosexism that exists outside. We can't overthrow capitalism in Canada by ourselves as we exist today, the revolutionary movement will need to include broader sections of people of colour, women, and queers if we're going to have a chance. This talk is about some of the things we need to understand so we can grow even further than we already have.

2. We need to understand racial and patriarchal supremacy, and the liberation from it, as historical and social processes. These aren't arbitrary oppressions that divide the working class. For example, there is discrimination against left-handed people too, but why don't we find capitalists dividing workers into right-handed workers who oppress left-handed workers? The processes or racism, sexism, and heterosexism aren't arbitrary but are historical processes like capitalism, that predate capitalism. Marx wrote to Engels that they got the whole idea of “class struggle” from the theory of “race struggle”, which said that the ruling class before capitalism was the conquering people and the working class was the conquered people, and the classes of capitalism aren't the only classes we have. Engels in “The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and State” explains how these processes developed with private property and pre-capitalist economic systems, how patriarchy developed so men, fathers specifically, could keep control of private property and the state developed so one people could dominate other peoples. Similarly the movement to liberate ourselves from these historical and social oppressions are also historical and social, like the class movement against capitalism it is rooted in our development as humanity.

There are social processes that maintain racial and patriarchal supremacy and social processes are trying to break out of it. It's not a zero sum game. Capitalism uses these pre-existing systems of oppressions and transforms them, but they do exist apart from capitalism because they are rooted in pre-capitalist systems of production that haven't disappeared even though capitalism is the dominant one.

Be aware that religion is closely tied with different forms of racism in terms of why some peoples adopted certain religions throughout their communities. It's no accident that the northern Germans and Swedes are protestants while the French, Spanish, and Italians are catholics. Religions were adopted by different people as part of a historical and social process as well.

3. Recognize denial and dodging admission of privileges as a defense mechanism, slow down to take a breath if you feel the defense mechanism kicking in and consider where it's going. When we're getting screwed over we can usually feel it in our gut even if we don't understand how we're getting screwed over sometimes, so it's good to trust your gut in those situations, but if you don't fully understand racism, or sexism, or heterosexism don't trust your got as it might bes better not to say something is not racist, sexist, or heterosexist even if you don't see why it is. Avoid jumping to an opinion as you might not get it yet, avoid giving uninformed opinions. Realize your own role in the historical systems of racism, sexism, heterosexism to check yourself before you dodge an uncomfortable responsibility.

4. What are the ways white, male, and straight supremacy are perpetuated? What ways are people of colour, women, queers kept in their place or threatened, even if it's just a suggestion that things could get ugly for them? Could we be reproducing or repeating stereotypes, jokes, behaviors, references? What is the role of the news and media in perpetuating white supremacy, and how might we be playing into that? Putting racism, sexism, and heterosexism out of an analysis of any news event or event can give twisted results that are the opposite of what's going in. Marx said "there is something in human history like retribution: and it is a rule of historical retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself." (The Indian Revolt, New York Tribune, Sept. 16 1857). What Marx is saying is that there is such a thing as payback, and it's in the same coin as it was first dealt. In this particular case Marx was criticizing the British public for being horrified at the tactics of Indian revolutionaries when if they wanted to see the source of the horror they should look instead of how the British were treating the Indians and others before the revolution. If you took the sexist and male supremacist attacks Thelma and Louise went through in the movie, you might end up blaming Thelma and Louise for the violence instead of what they are just giving payback to.

5. How can we perpetuate anti-racist, anti-patriarchal, and queer liberation? We should support the development of leadership of people of colour, women, and queers, and orient ourselves towards the organizing happening within communities of people of colour, women, queers. If we're not aware of the organizing happening in these communities it's not because it isn't happening, but it just seems that way because we're not paying attention. In personal interactions be aware of interrupting and listen - pay attention. What's here today is not what could be here tomorrow in terms of different movements. This is different from tokenism which is just including a representative for formality instead of connecting with the process of change, revolution.

6. Conduct meetings, events, and ourselves everywhere not just for today's YCLers but for future YCLers who will be joining us from communities we haven't reached yet. Would we act the same way if they were here today? Would the people of colour, women, and queers who will be joining the current YCL people of colour, women, and queers find our group to be different in terms of racism, sexism, heterosexism than other groups out there? We should make sure that we don't tell jokes or make comments that perpetuate the racism, sexism and heterosexism that exists outside the YCL and not echo the subtle and open threats that reverberate outside.

7. Get the people, issues, and communities of color, women, and queers on your radar: if it looks like nothing is going on it probably means you're not looking deeply enough or with the an orientation that works with what is developing. As we build relationships with each other and learn to recognize each other our ties will come in handy when the shit hits the fan and we need support from people we can trust.

8. Initiate solidarity and support when people of colour, women, and queers are under attack and initiate corrections and challenges within the YCL and workplaces and other organizations. Do the capitalists have a better sexual harassment policy than we do? Would we initiate disciplinary charges against someone for racist sexist homophobic remarks? Initiate criticism and self-criticism, don't leave anyone hanging alone to fight for themselves as that will be a mortal danger to our organizations.

9. Privilege is not the same as power. True solidarity is when it counts, when you have to sacrifice privilege/comfort to defend those who have no comfort in the current situation and pay a price alongside those who don't have a choice. Solidarity is empty if it doesn't go into action when it's needed and is just words said from comfortable positions. Trust is built only when it counts. If you hold back support because it makes you feel uncomfortable, who is winning: white/patriarchal supremacy or liberation from it?

10. Keep reading and discussing current events as an exercise. Is a certain news story part of a racist, patriarchal, sexist, or heterosexist project? Be aware of the stereotypes and how you might be perpetuating them.

11. Don't be silent or passive or accepting of anything just to avoid dominating if you are white/male/heterosexual, play your role in liberation because no one else will play it for you.

12. We are part of the social change we are fighting for and things don't stay standing. If you are not developing forward on these questions the chances are that you are developing alright, but not in the direction you choose – in the direction the boss chooses for you! Stay on top of these issues because you might not realize it if it's racism, sexism, and heterosexism that is staying on top of you and using you.

additional readings:

(1) http://colours.mahost.org/org/whitestudents.html

Ten Things to Remember:
Anti-Racist Strategies for White Student Radicals

by Chris Dixon

(2) http://colours.mahost.org/org/whatiwish.html

What I Wish I Knew:
My Own Goals for Anti-Racist Practice

by Catherine Jones

(3) http://colours.mahost.org/articles/karens.html

The White Collective (a blinding glimpse of the obvious)

by Barbara Karens

(4) www.nccri.ie/cdsu-cop.html

Anti-Racist Code of Practice Printer Friendly Version

National Community Development Programme

Equality in Community Development

An Anti-Racist Code of Practice

December 1999

(5) From the classics: Engels Preface to Origins of the Family Private Property and State

www.marx2mao.com/M&E/OFPS84.html