Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Images: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby Allegro » Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:15 am

Image

Image

Image
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:51 am


International solidarity is "not an act of charity but an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives."

- Samora Machel


"Unlike solidarity, which is horizontal and takes place between equals, charity is top-down, humiliating those who receive it and never challenging the implicit power relations."

- Eduardo Galeano


"Solidarity is not a matter of altruism. Solidarity comes from the inability to tolerate the affront to our own integrity of passive or active collaboration in the oppression of others, and from the deep recognition of our most expansive self-interest. From the recognition that, like it or not, our liberation is bound up with that of every other being on the planet, and that politically, spiritually, in our heart of hearts we know anything else is unaffordable."

- Aurora Levins Morales


"Solidarity does not assume that our struggles are the same struggles, or that our pain is the same pain, or that our hope is for the same future. Solidarity involves commitment, and work, as well as the recognition that even if we do not have the same feelings, or the same lives, or the same bodies, we do live on common ground."

-Sarah Ahmed


"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security."

- John Donne, Meditation XVII


"There exists an international citizenship that has its rights and its duties, and that obliges one to speak out against every abuse of power, whoever its author, whoever its victims. After all, we are all members of the community of the governed, and thereby obliged to show mutual solidarity."

Michel Foucault (1984) On the occasion of the announcement in Geneva of the creation of an International Committee against Piracy
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:27 pm

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?st ... 2052738913
On Solidarity


Down in an old buoy tender, a small ship that places buoys in the water and repairs buoys, I am working down in a very small tank below the bilge. We are working on rebuilding a sea water system that supplies sea water to the ship. On ships sea water is mainly used for the firemain, cooling water, flushing water, and ballast. The sea water comes up into the ship in what is called a sea chest, that is an opening in the bottom of the ship that is like a square box. Most ships will have a number of sea chests, depending upon their needs. If the piping of the system goes above the waterline that system will need a pump to move the water down the line. If the system stays below the waterline head-pressure will move the water.

The system I am working on needs pumps. This means that the pumps also must be below the water in order for them to be primed. The forward sea chest is located down in a tank and has a 6 inch pipe coming out of it. Most piping used is schedule 40 pipe, that has to do with the wall thickness of the pipe, and it is good for up to 150 PSI. But on salt water pipes schedule 80, double the wall thickness, is used because salt water corrodes steel pipe. So 6 inch schedule 80 pipe is rather heavy. Because of where the water line is most of the piping must be run through two tanks then up to the pumps. These tanks are small with not much room to work and only two people can work down there at a time. That means one pipefitter and a welder. My pipes come down through a soft patch in to the ship, but getting them to the tank and down through tank cover, I need help. “Hey buddy can you give me a hand?” I ask a near by pipefitter. That worker knows that in order to get the job done at times we need to help each other. Without question, without having to be told by some boss, that worker helps out. You can see this on most jobs. This is natural solidarity, the willingness to give a hand when needed.

Wake-up in the middle of the night. Try as you may, you just can’t go back to sleep. So many worries, so damn alone. Bills adding up like maggots on a corpse. You pay some some of the bills, then don’t have the money to pay the other bills. Do you pay your rent and not pay your lights? Do you pay the tickets on your old clunker of a car or to you buy clothes for the kids? Do you fix your car so that you are legal or do you buy medicine for your aching body?

The judge asks you if you have anything to say and you tell that beast that you only have so much money and if you fix your car, buy insurance then other needs will go unfulfilled. The judge says, as that beast has said to countless folks just like you, the law is the law and there are no exceptions to the law!” But you know that the laws are all written for the rich and damn the poor where ever they maybe.

So there you are alone worrying about the way things are. It seems you were born into a world that ain’t meant for you to ever make it. But you see on TV all them well off people and wonder why, no matter how hard you work, you will never be among them. They are well off because you and millions of other folks aren’t. Countless times throughout your life you are told about personal responsibility. How what ever happens in your life you, you alone are the one to blame.

You seek help and though there are programs, they all belittle you, shame you for the idea that someone else has to help you out.

Charity is the act of those that have more than they need giving to those that have less than they need. Their hearts bleed for you all the while they make it known that they are the better people and one such as yourself should be forever thankful. Though you are taught not to question the way things are, can you help but wonder why most of the people are just like you and the better off folks are so few?

The answer is greed. The rich folks believe that it is their God given right to exploit the world and all who live upon it for their personal wealth. And that the bad people of the world are those that seek to change that arrangement.

We bleed and die for the rich, fighting their wars where we try to kill people of other lands who are just like us. We bleed and die for the rich in the factories producing their wealth. So what can we do about this? Line up behind politicians and parties where we delegate to others our hopes for a better life? That be nothing more than a fool’s path for there is no one out there we can depend on but ourselves. There is something out there that the rich folks fear. They fear it more than an enemies army or even the wrath of their God. That such dreadful horror of the rich is solidarity of the exploited and oppressed. While plundering the earth and robbing the people to amass their great wealth, the capitalist class has also wielded epic effort historically to keep working people divided and fighting among themselves. They know that if working people stood together in solidarity, their way of life would end.

Solidarity is more than a slogan or a song, it is a natural instinct. Solidarity is the people helping each other fulfill their needs.

Natural solidarity can be found throughout our society. It could be just helping someone whose car broke down. Or in times of great need leading a hand. I remember a few years ago when a river was flooding its banks and I went down there to help build a wall of sandbags. I knew the people who needed help. As I was doing my part I looked around and saw that there was a number of people helping out that did not live there. I asked one person I knew who were those people and he said that some of them he had never seen before. They were just there to help out. There were even kids there helping out. As I was working a young girl, no more than 8 years old, comes up to me and hands me some water to drink. I looked into her eyes and I could see that she wanted to help, no one had to ask her to do that. Natural solidarity is an instinctive part of humans. She was no less important than anyone else there because she, like everyone else, was doing what they were able to do to help. Natural solidarity does not need bosses or great philosophers, people can see what needs to be done and they do it. I later asked around to try to find who asked that little girl to hand out water bottles. I found out that she saw a box of water bottles and just started to hand them out to people working to hold off the flood. That is natural solidarity.

No society can function without natural solidarity. In the society we live in we have this thing call capitalism that seeks personal profit for services and the production of goods. This system suppresses natural solidarity and replaces it with personal greed. Everything is looked upon by the capitalists as how it can be exploited for profit for a few. It is for that reason that working people are exploited, the environment is polluted and so on. This has created a world where most people do without so that a few can have far more than they need and is doing great harm to our world’s eco-systems. This will continue as long as we are forced to live under this system. Capitalism cannot be reformed.

Shall we leave the survival and well-being of the people and the planet to a system that cannot change its direction away from the exploitation of all for the benefit of a few? It does not take a great look at our world to clearly see that a change must take place. History has given us many examples that changing who runs the system or even changing the name of the system does little or nothing to change the exploitation of people and the planet. Matter of fact some of the worst polluters have been so-called socialist states.

The change that must take place has to, in my view, take place not only in changing systems but also in changing the way we live. We must not longer seek to rule over each other by competing for political power. Political power and greed as a purpose must be replaced with a common goal, that being the well-being of all. And for that to become a reality, solidarity must become a way of life. Solidarity is not charity. Charity only reinforces the class system. Solidarity is helping each other out when needed.

In order to make solidarity a way of life we need to look upon each other in a different manner. Though we all are distinctive individuals with each having their own desires, hopes, skills and talents, we are all in the same social boat together. All of us who are not of the ruling or managing classes are exploited and oppressed in some manner. Some are exploited and oppressed more than others, but as long as there is a class system in place there is the reality of exploitation and oppression that we will always face. In this society it is common to look at others as lesser than we are and not realize that only helps keeps us in our place. That viewpoint only aids the capitalist class in their purpose and helps keep all of us exploited and oppressed.

It maybe race or sex or religion or ethnicity, it could be what part of town someone lives in or what their culture is, the list of reasons people use to think they are better than someone else is almost endless. It is not a matter of having to like everything, but rather realizing what you do like is directly connected to what everyone else likes. There are forms of music and culture that I don’t care for. That is based upon my personal likes and dislikes. But that does not mean that I should view what I don’t care for as lesser than what I like or that those that like other music or cultures should be oppressed.

The only way oppression and exploitation can be challenged is to organize against it and to stand-up to it. This needs to be done by those of the different types oppressions who directly effect. Oppression and exploitation strips us of control over our lives and seeks to suppress our self-expression that defines who we are. Thus the struggle for liberation from oppression and exploitation needs to include self-determination both as individuals and as groups of people based upon the different forms of oppression and exploitation.

The culture of the class system grants privileges that are denied to others. The further up the hierarchy of the class system one is, the greater those privileges become something real. Thus how real other privileges are is based upon class privilege.

Such privileges as race privilege and sex privilege are designed to keep people in their "place" and it uses other oppressed and exploited people to enforce this. Even though at the bottom of the class system these privileges don't amount to much, the poor folks are told that if others, such as people of color or woman, makes gains through struggle that they will lose something and thus those people are a threat to them. The fact is that for those of the working class there are only real few things that privilege grants them:

1. The right to be less oppressed. A White worker is oppressed by class but is not oppressed by race, and so on.

2. The right to help maintain the the system and culture of oppression by helping to enforce it.


Back in the days of the old south (that is the south of the U.S.) there was a system and culture of segregation and heavy oppression of Black people. Black people organized a Civil Rights Movement to directly challenge institutionalize racism. Many poor Whites were used to try to help suppress this movement. Some did buy into the lie that Black people were trying to take something that they had. Some just sat on the sidelines not wanting to get involved. But a few realized that, as being very poor, as poor whites were, that if you ain't got nothing you ain't got nothing to lose and those that were trying to use them were those that had most everything and thus were the reason they had nothing at all. And thus it was not Black people who were the threat to them but rather those that exploited them were those to blame for their situation.

Long ago when I lived in New Orleans a Black veteran of the Civil Rights Movement told me that economically poor Whites gained more from the Civil Rights Movement than did poor Blacks. The reason was that when the rich White power structure, as seen in the White Business Councils, mostly collapsed, that gave room for poor Whites to make gains. Though the system of oppression and exploitation continued, and racism was still a part of it, the struggle of Black people was no threat to poor Whiles but they also benefited from it in real terms.

All resistance to the way things are is connected in two ways. First, all oppressed and exploited people are that way because of the class system and capitalism. Next, the privileges granted by the system are only a means to help keep the system in place. Thus, all the resistance benefits all of the oppressed and exploited. And the only protection against you or I from oppression and exploitation is to get rid of all oppression and exploitation.

We need to respect the importance of self-determination and not interfere with that process. Some may point out that self-determination does not always go where they would like it. But we all must realize that all struggle for liberation from oppression and exploitation is a continuing process, even among high minded anarchists. If we believe in the idea of true liberty and self-management being the only means to get rid of the class system then we must understand that others will reach the same conclusion in time.

For example, the Black Panther Party was a self-determination organization and was a progressive step in the process of liberation. It collapsed because of government repression and the conflicts created by a hierarchical structure. Learning from that a number of former Black Panthers became anarchists. Along with other people of color, people of color have organized together as anarchists and for them anarchism has become a part of self-determination organizing.

Though we need to respect self-determination organization, but we also need to realize that we do have connections and how well our liberation goes depends on all of us. Thus, though we do not seek to control or interfere with self-determination organizations, but in times of need and when asked, we do need to stand in direct solidarity with them.

Forms of oppression do overlap. For example Woman may organize Women's groups that include Women of color. So those self-determination organizations would overlap with self-determination organizations of people of color.

The largest area of overlapping is with working class self-determination organizations. Yes such organizations as the IWW or anarcho-syndicalist unions are self-determination organizations. The reason why this is true is because they seek to organize working folks to the point that they can take control over their labor and determine for themselves how they labor will be used. That is called worker self-management.

Like all forms of oppression and exploitation, class oppression and exploitation is directly connected to all other forms of oppression and exploitation. And thus the working class directly benefits by standing in solidarity with other self-determination organizations. This is important for three main reasons:

1. All oppression and exploitation is connected and none can be liberated without liberation for all.

2. By standing together in solidarity people learn about the cultural oppressions that exist even in self-determination organizing. For example there is still racism and sexism within the working class. Black self-determination organizing could free Black people from the White power structure, only to find some Black people replacing the White bosses.

3. The capitalist class is very powerful and well organized with its control over governments. It will take even greater power to free ourselves. Thus there needs to be united solidarity action by all oppressed and exploited people.


Solidarity should become a way of life for us all. It should be as much a part of our natural life as is eating, sleeping or anything else. From giving a helping hand to the person next to us when they are in need, to standing in direct solidarity with other oppressed and exploited people, to walking a picketline in support of striking workers, to standing together in direct action against the dirty rotten system, solidarity needs to become our reality of living and in that way we are creating a new world for the well-being of all.

In Solidarity

Arthur J. Miller
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:37 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:14 pm

American Dream wrote:
‘TIS THE SEASON FOR REINFORCING GENDER DIFFERENCES

by Gwen Sharp


Time for another round-up of gendered kids’ items!

Will L. noticed something interesting recently at Old Navy. The boys’ section offered two styles of jeans, Skinny and Regular:

Image


But when he looked at the corresponding section in the girls’ clothing, he found not Skinny and Regular, but Skinny and…Super Skinny:

Image


Caro Reusch sent us an example of kids;’ t-shirts with messages about what we value for men and women. She saw the following at a mall in Berlin:

Image

The blue one says “My daddy is stronger than yours,” while the pink announces, “My mommy is prettier than yours.”


Similarly, Lindsey B. saw two themed bibs for sale at Target. The blue bib is a doctor and the pink one is a ballerina:

Image

Image



Shantal Marshall, a postdoc student at UCLA with a Ph.D. in social psych and blogger at Smartie Pops, noticed that Crayola has a new product out, the Crayola Story Studio. It lets you upload a photo of yourself, have it turned into a cartoon, and then it’s inserted into one of 3 themed templates: Disney Princess, Spiderman, or Cars. You can then print off various versions of coloring books based on those templates. The commercial for the Spiderman version shows a boy excitedly becoming a superhero:





For the Disney Princess version, we see a girl excited to become a princess, then dancing in the background with her very own Prince Charming:




As Shantal said, it’s a bit dispiriting that Crayola’s slogan for these items is “give everything imaginable,” but the pre-existing templates, and their marketing, don’t seem to include an imaginable alternative to the “boys = superheroes” and “girls = princesses” division we see so often in kids’ toys.


Continues at: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... fferences/



Young girl rages over pink toys and gendered play-choices
By Cory Doctorow, Wednesday, Dec 28


Young Riley, seen here in a video shot in a toy store, drops some science about the way that toys are marketed to boys and girls, and demands better from the world.

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:10 pm

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... rformance/

SEMENYA’S MAKEOVER: GENDER AS PERFORMANCE

by Lisa Wade, Sep 12, 2009


We posted earlier about the biology behind the controversy over Caster Semenya’s sex. Germán I. R.-E. and Philip Cohen (who has his own post on the topic) asked that we comment on her recent makeover.

Some sociologists argue that gender (as opposed to sex) is really more about performance than it is about our bodies. That is, we do gender and, when we do it in ways that other people recognize, everyone feels satisfied. This is, perhaps, what Caster Semenya’s handlers were hoping for when she submitted to a makeover for South Africa’s YOU Magazine:

Image

Notice that Semenya carries the same body into this photoshoot, but she is properly adorned with make up, feminine clothing, jewelry, a passive pose, and a pleasant and inviting facial expression (because to be feminine is to be accommodating).

Image

Perhaps more importantly, the copy and the interview tells the reader that Semenya likes dressing up and looking pretty, another important indicator of both femininity and non-masculinity. The cover says:

WE TURN SA’S POWER GIRL INTO A GLAMOUR GIRL – AND SHE LOVES IT!

(Notice, too, the implication that power and glamour are opposed.)

This insistence that Semenya feels (or wants to feel) feminine, as well as looks it, is mirrored in the text (as summarized by the Guardian):

It carries an interview with the 18-year-old student. “I’d like to dress up more often and wear dresses but I never get the chance,” she says. “I’d also like to learn to do my own makeup.”

The lifestyle magazine quotes Semenya’s university friends saying that she wants to buy stilettos and have a manicure and pedicure. Semenya adds: “I’ve never bought my own clothes – my mum buys them for me. But now that I know what I can look like, I’d like to dress like this more often.”

You magazine says that, after the photoshoot, Semenya told her manager that she would like to buy all the outfits she had modelled.


So, in the face of the leaked and unconfirmed finding that Semenya has undescended testicles and higher levels of testosterone than the “average” woman (see note at end*), there is an assertion here that what matters (i.e., the measure of sex that we should attend to) is her gender identity (feeling feminine) and her gender performance (doing femininity).

Anna N. at Jezebel points to how the public interest in Semenya’s sex may have pressured her, and those around her, to play this gender game. She writes:

…up until now, Semenya and her family have been unapologetic about the way she looks and dresses. Her father said that she had always preferred pants, but that she was still a woman — and the idea that she has to put on a dress and lipstick to prove her femaleness to people is pretty depressing.

It is also something that almost all women in Western countries do everyday. We perform gender, in part out of habit and in part consciously, all the time. Semenya hasn’t cared about this performance and that is at least in part why the controversy over her sex is taking the form that it is.

* Note: The release of male-related hormones, androgens, isn’t the whole story here. Cells must also have the relevant receptors for the presence of the hormones to matter. Semenya likely is lacking some of those receptors, either in her whole body on in parts of her body, because her body obviously didn’t respond to the hormones (otherwise she would have a penis and scrotum). My point here is dual: (1) the presence of testicles and testosterone doesn’t tell the whole story and (2) even if we knew the whole story, it doesn’t tell us if she is female or male. What if her body doesn’t detect the presence of those androgens? What if it reads the presence of some of them, but not others? What if she is chimera or mosaic? All these are interesting questions biologically, but the answers will not tell us whether she is male or female because sex, like gender, is a social construction.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:56 pm

http://www.drugwar.com/neocolonialism.shtm

Strategic Suicide: The Birth of the Modern American Drug War: Neocolonialism

Image


Coffee prices multiply approximately 3-fold from producer's wholesale to retail. Heroin multiplies approximately 200-fold from its Prohibition-inflated wholesale price to retail. Heroin now retails, by weight, for 10 times the price of gold. That, of course, makes it the basis of military power in Burma.

Military power is built on money, and, thanks to Prohibition, drug trafficking is the most profitable business on the planet. As the State Department itself puts it, in its end-of-year 1996 Enforcement Affairs report, "In terms of weight and availability, there is currently no commodity more lucrative than drugs. They are relatively cheap to produce and offer enormous profit margins that allow the drug trade to generate criminal revenues on a scale without historical precedent."

As anyone who has grown it knows, pot is as cheap and easy to grow as corn or squash, and can be mass-produced for a few dollars a pound. A legal pound of primo pot would retail for about $300. An illegal pound of primo pot now retails for about $3000.

The U.N estimates the global drug trade in the early 1990's to be worth 400 billion untaxed dollars a year. In 1994 Apolinar Biaz-Callejas of the Andean Commission of Jurists put it at $460 billion. That's about one-tenth of all global commerce. The legal value of that trade would be about a tenth of that.

Since military power is built on money, and since governments, or at least relations between governments, are built on military power, the structural effect of the artificial value has been to create, over the decades, an unbreakable symbiosis between drug-dealing and covert military intelligence. Each is the greatest strategic ally of the other. The political effect has been the institutionalization of global industrial fascism, death-squad genocide, wherever campesinos threaten to take control of their own land. I speak of Burma, Guatemala, the Philippines, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uruguay, Congo, Liberia, Nigeria - the list is endless.

According to the U.N. Drug Control Program, the biggest heroin and cocaine trading institutions in the world are the Burmese, Pakistani, Mexican, Peruvian and Colombian militaries - all armed and trained by U.S. military intelligence - in the name of the anti-drug effort, of course. Funny how all that effort never has any strategic effect.

The centers of power controlling the trade in these demanded global commodities are the same centers of power disseminating the artificial hysteria necessary for their continued criminalization. That keeps the retail price a hundred times higher than the legal value and the trade exclusively in the hands of the muscle.

Another name for the muscle is military intelligence. The $500 billion dollar drug trade is run by allies we train and arm. Batista was no more an aberration than Somoza, or Diem, or Ne Win, or Chiang, or the Shah, or Marcos, or Salazar, or Papadopoulos, or Stroessner, or Mobutu, or Amin, or Videla, or Noriega, or Cedras, or Samper, or Salinas, or Suharto, or Fujimori.

The politic Clinton administration, on June 28, 1996, released the report of its Intelligence Oversight Board: “The Army School of the Americas . . . used improper instruction materials . . . certain passages appeared to condone practices such as executions of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion, and false imprisonment.” As Clinton’s continued support for the military fascists in Indonesia, Burma, Peru, Colombia, etc. proves, that understatement was just a “partial hangout,” intelligence damage control, not a basic policy shift.

Guatemala is the archetypal CIA-OPS operation, a real pattern-setter. In October of 1944 a popular coup led by liberal young army officers finished the brutal 14-year dictatorship of General Jorge Úbico.

Image
The triumvirate that led the 1944 coup: Major Francisco Arana,
Jorge Toriello and Captain Jacobo Arbenz; Rafael Morales

In March, Dr. Juan Arévalo, an idealistic scholar, was elected president with 85% of the vote. Arévalo's political hero was Franklin Roosevelt, whose "four freedoms" - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear - became the basis of his political program.

The 1951 elections saw Arévalo replaced by his Defense Minister, 41 year old Jacobo Arbenz, one of the engineers of the 1944 October Revolution that brought electoral democracy to Guatemala. Arbenz was elected with the votes of 63% of an electorate that now included literate women. The problem with the brilliantly competent Arbenz was that he proceeded to do everything Arévalo had so eloquently promised.

Arbenz nationalized nothing except some unused rural land. He left all businesses in place, but set out to break the most destructive monopolies, what he called "feudalism," by competing with them, creating a "a national and independent capitalism."

He began the construction of a government-run hydroelectric facility to compete with the Fruit-run monopoly and also initiated rural electrification and telephone service. These were, of course, the same infrastructure techniques that had been used to build the United States. Private enterprise built none of our highways, public schools or harbors, and almost all of our seminal railroads and hydroelectric facilities were publicly financed.

Arbenz then challenged United Fruit's rural slave-labor system, which dominated 90% of the country's 3 million people, 60% of them Indians, and most of the rest mestizos, known as ladinos. The 1952 Agrarian Reform Law aimed mostly at plantations larger than 670 acres, although fincas of over 223 acres were vulnerable if more than a third of the land was unused. Arbenz confiscated only unused arable land, distributing 1.5 million acres to 100,000 landless families, in 42 acre plots. Arbenz himself, his extraordinary Salvadoran wife and his Foreign Minister, lost thousands of acres.

Image
Arbenz at his inauguration; Rafael Morales

Practicing sweat-equity free-enterprise, Arbenz immediately put the confiscated land into production by providing government-run support systems, as Roosevelt had done. He instituted no political repression of any kind in a mixed economy that was, for the first time, beginning to grow by leaps and bounds. United Fruit, Ike and the Dulles brothers insisted that this constituted "Communism in the Caribbean" and "a Russian toehold" in the hemisphere.

Guatemala, of course, had virtually no relations at all with Russia. The Communist Party, in fact, had been the only party that remained illegal under the idealistic libertarian Arévalo, who insisted that communism was "contrary to human nature." Arbenz' Revolutionary Action Party legalized the Guatemalan Workers Party in 1951, and it held 4 of 56 seats in Congress.

Arbenz used Arévalo's 1947 Labor Code, which was based on Roosevelt's Wagner Act. It insisted on the right of plantation workers to unionize, strike and bargain collectively. For the first time in Guatemalan history, the campesinos had military protection. Arbenz established rural cooperatives, public schools, public clinics, public buses and local cultural institutions. Everything Arbenz did, in fact, conformed to John Kennedy's 1961 Alliance for Progress model.

One of the designers of the Alliance for Progress, Kennedy's Special Assistant Arthur Schlesinger, wrote in 1946: "All across Latin America the ancient oligarchies - landholders, Church, and Army - are losing their grip. There is a groundswell of inarticulate mass dissatisfaction on the part of peons, Indians, miners, plantation workers, factory hands, classes held down past all endurance and now approaching a state of revolt."

Like Arbenz, Schlesinger understood that the key to political stability was economic, so he looked to the inclusive social democratic parties, which built from the ground up. Kennedy would have given Arbenz all the help he could, in order, as Schlesinger put it, "to check Peronismo and Communism." The Dulles brothers, quite literally, chose Peronismo.

Since Arbenz was serious about land reform, he put committed Marxists, whom he trusted not to sell out, in charge of administering the Agrarian Reform program. But they were bound by the strictures of the law, and the basis of that law was sweat-equity free-enterprise. The market that the campesinos were encouraged to enter was just that, a free market. Arbenz' Agrarian Reform Program was his idea of a rural Small Business Administration. He was succeeding in rendering thousands of campesinos economically independent, creating a genuinely nationalist, capitalist alternative to corporate colonialism. What the U.S. proceeded to do, however, convinced the 25 year-old Argentine doctor Ché Guevara, who was part of this, and quite a few others, that militaristic communism was indeed the only alternative to United Fruit.

Arbenz seized nearly 400,000 of United Fruit's 550,000 acres, all unused, and all originally seized from the Indians. He compensated United Fruit in government bonds based on the company's own radically deflated 1952 book value, which the company had used to lower its already miniscule land taxes. The company was enraged, and the company was led by Sam "the Banana Man" Zemurray, one of the craftiest and most dangerous fighters ever to rise from the streets of New Orleans.

Zemurray's team included not only his Mafia partners on the New Orleans docks, led by the deadly Carlos Marcello, but the Boston Brahmin Thomas Cabot, for a short while a president of United Fruit. Thomas Cabot was the brother of John Moors Cabot, the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. Another major Fruit stockholder was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who violently denounced Arévalo's unionism from the Senate floor in 1949.

Both Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, CIA Director since 1953, were major Fruit stockholders. Through their law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, they had helped arrange, through Schroeder Banking, the 1936 United Fruit takeover of Guatemala's rail system, the International Railways of Central America.

Allen Dulles was a director of the British-based Schroeder Banking Ltd, which he had turned into a key conduit of CIA funds. United Fruit was, therefore, a de facto CIA proprietary. When the Dulles brothers engineered the destruction of the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, the largest corporate beneficiary was the de-nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, largely controlled by Schroeder Banking. Like Arévalo, Mossadegh had in fact refused to legalize the Communist (Tudeh) Party. Mossadegh's threat was economic nationalism, not the communism the Dulles brothers had falsely accused him of. Like Arbenz, Mossadegh was a liberal democrat replaced by a murderous fascist dope peddler. The results, as we have seen, have not been happy.

Peron's Argentina, Stroessner's Paraguay and Papadopoulos' Greece became major drug entrepôts thanks to cooperating German, British, French and American secret services. During the 1947 civil war in Greece between the popular leftist coalition that had defeated the Nazis and the British-backed Royalists, the U.S., using Gehlen's agents, backed IDEA, the Holy Bond of Greek Officers. These were the fascist elements in the professional army that had fought with the Nazis during the war. With enough American matériel for 15,000 men, Colonel Papadopoulos, a Nazi war criminal, was able to take control of Greek intelligence, the KYP, and thereby control the Greek military. In 1967, Papadopoulos took direct control of Greece in a bloody coup that initiated a period of death squad assassinations for which Greek democrats have yet to forgive the U.S.

Aside from the "Peronist" Dulles brothers and the high command in the State Department, Zemurray's United Fruit team included "Tommy the Cork" Corcoran, one of Roosevelt's original brain trusters. Corcoran represented the Teamster insurance company, U. S. Life, Chiang Kai-shek's brother-in-law, and the CIA's proprietary airline, Civil Air Transport, which serviced the Kuomintang opium armies in Burma.

The KMT's main Bangkok connection, General Phao, the commander of the Thai police who coordinated CAT air traffic with the KMT, was also the commander of the Thai government's relationship with the CIA. Explained KMT Gen. Tuan Shi-wen, "To fight you must have an army, and an army must have guns, and to buy guns you must have money. In these mountains, the only money is opium." According to Professor McCoy, to whom Gen. Tuan was speaking, the first snow-white #4 heroin lab was opened by KMT-affiliated Hong Kong chemists on the Thai-Burma border in the late 60's. The KMT are also known, fittingly, as the "White Chinese."

The KMT's lawyer, "Tommy the Cork" Corcoran, was also United Fruit's lawyer. Corcoran was intimate with the entire leadership of the CIA, which he had helped to organize, and which was, in any case, extremely sympathetic to United Fruit. Walter Bedell Smith, Gen. Eisenhower's wartime chief of staff and Truman's CIA director, was now John Foster Dulles' Undersecretary of State. In 1953 he had asked Corcoran for the presidency of United Fruit, and in 1955 was named to its board of directors. Gen. Robert Cutler, chairman of the National Security Council, already sat on the United Fruit board. Robert Hill, ambassador to Costa Rica, got to the UF board in 1960. Hill was connected to Grace Shipping, another CIA friend heavily invested in Guatemala.

Sam "the Banana Man" Zemurray's team also included Edward Bernays, the formidable "father of public relations," who filled the American media with phony reportage about "communism in Guatemala." The right-wing John Clements, a Hearst vice-president with his own major magazines and PR firm, did the same. Once the "demographics" had been taken care of, Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers had the support of every Democrat in Congress. With Nicaragua's Somoza, the Dominican Republic's Trujillo and Cuba's Batista champing at the bit, Operation Success began in early June of 1954.

With control of the air, the sea and all the neighboring countries, Allen Dulles' CIA had no trouble overwhelming Jacobo Arbenz with a military and propaganda campaign coordinated from both inside and outside the country. Aerial bombardment of the presidential palace was combined with a mercenary ground force of about 180 men, led by Guatemalan Col. Castillo Armas, the size and popularity of which was wildly exaggerated by well placed Radio Liberty transmitters.

In 1957 the intrepid Mafia point-man and Batista operative, Johnny Rosselli, made another trip to Guatemala City, as he had done many times throughout 1956. This time the trip was in reaction to Castillo's jailing of his partner, casino operator Ted Lewin. Castillo was promptly gunned down, and Col. Enrique Trinidad Oliva, Johnny Rosselli's gambling and narcotics partner, became the new head of Guatemala's secret police.

Col. Trinidad Oliva was also the key CIA contact in the Guatemalan government, working under his half-brother, the defense minister. Trinidad Oliva coordinated all "foreign aid" coming through the CIA conduit ICA, the International Cooperation Administration, the forerunner of the Agency for International Development, AID.

Rosselli and Trinidad then helped the murderous old Gen. Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes, one of Úbico's assassins with close ties to mob partner Trujillo, to become head of state. Mario Sandoval Alarcón. "the father of Latin America's death squads," organized the right-wing of Castillo's party into the National Liberation Movement and hired himself out to Trinidad and Rosselli.

The same year that Johnny Rosselli helped the CIA engineer the change in the Guatemalan government, he was asked by his Syndicate associates to put together Giancana in Chicago, Costello in New York, Lansky in Miami, and Marcello in New Orleans for the huge $50 million Tropicana construction project in Las Vegas. According to Fred Black, a political fixer who was close to Rosselli, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson, Rosselli's influence was such that he gave orders to the Dorfmans, who controlled the Teamsters' huge Central States Pension Fund. During the 50's and 60's, it was Johnny Rosselli who "set up protection" in Las Vegas.

Throughout 1956 and 57 Rosselli travelled back and forth from Mexico City, the planning center for all CIA operations in Latin America, and Guatemala City. An experienced ICA operative noted that "John had access to everyone and everything that was going on there. He had an open door at the embassy in Guatemala, and in Costa Rica. He was in there plenty of times. I know because I saw him. He supplied information to the government, and had a hand in a lot of the intrigues that were going on."

This means, operationally, that Johnny Rosselli's interests became the CIA's interests. "Throughout Latin America," notes Frank McNeil, a junior political officer in the Guatemalan Embassy in 1960, "there were two American governments - one intelligence and one official." McNeil's boss, Ambassador John Muccio, learned of the Bay of Pigs invasion force being trained in Guatemala only after the story broke in The New York Times. As John Kennedy found out to his chagrin, Rosselli, his Syndicate and Batistiano allies, had more operational clout than the State Department.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:42 pm

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh ... nd-the-U.S

Peter Dale Scott: Transnationalised Repression - Parafascism and the U.S

The following Peter Dale Scott essay has been cited in a few different books (including some by Scott himself) but seems to be fairly hard to find online. It first appeared in Issue #12 of Robin Ramsay’s British magazine ‘Lobster’ in 1986, and was written (as Scott notes in his preface) several years before that. Scott has since returned to a few of these subjects in greater detail, but I still find this essay illuminating as an exercise in joining the dots.



Transnationalised Repression; Parafascism and the U.S.

by Peter Dale Scott



CONTENTS


Preface
Tolerated Crime and Tolerated Murder
The CIA-Mafia-Narcotics Connection and the U.S. Press
Protection for Intelligence Assets
Assassins, Narcotics and Watergate
Domestic Repression and DEA Narcotics Enforcement
CIA, DEA, and Their Assassination Capacity
DEA, Crime and the Press Today
The U.S.A. and Transnationalised Repression
Drugs and Parafascism: Orlando Bosch and Christian David
Post-war Nazi Networks and the United States
The Case of Otto Skorzeny
Fascism and Parafascism
Transnational Parafascism and the CIA
The U.S., Chile and the Aginter Press
After Watergate: the Chilean-Cuban Exile Alliance
World Parafascism, Drugs and Crime
International Fascista in Action
World Parafascism and the U.S. Chile Lobby
The CIA and the Politics of Countervalence
Post-war Disposal Problems: De Gaulle and Watergate
Disposal as a Flight from Public Control: Thailand
Suppression by Proxy: the Superclient States
Economic Recession and Arms Sales Increases
Conclusions
From 'Political' to 'Human': the Lessons of Watergate and Vietnam




Preface

This essay was written in the summer of 1977. I lost track of it in subsequent summers, when I first suffered a major illness, and then was side-tracked into preparation of a trade book on the Kennedy Assassination (Beyond Conspiracy) that was eventually killed by its publisher on the eve of its appearance. I am grateful to Lobster for reviving 'Transnationalised Repression'. Though the essay starts from events of the seventies (Watergate, the murder of Orlando Letelier in Washington, the Nixon war on drugs) which have since passed into history, the essay also builds to a general overview of transnationalised backing for right-wing repressive forces, or parafascists, that operate on the fringes of state intelligence and security systems.

Except in details, I have not attempted to update the essay, whose general thesis has been unfortunately only too corroborated by ensuing events. The assassins of Letelier did in fact go to jail, but with sentences that were either token, or soon reversed in higher courts. On a higher level, the fall of the Shah in Iran and of Marcos in the Philippines have been followed by new revelations of those dictators' links to private as well as public forces in the United States. Indeed the speculation reported in this essay (at footnote 159), that Asian bribes had influenced Nixon's Vietnam interventions through the Watergate period, seems only too relevant today, as we learn how much money had been channelled by Marcos into U.S. political campaigns over the last decade and a half. The thesis of "Transnationalised Repression" also seems only too relevant to U.S. politics in Nicaragua, as we learn of support for the Contras from first Argentina and Israel, and now allegedly from South Africa.

The restrained optimism of the essay's conclusions, written in the first year of the Carter presidency, may sound a little odd after six years of Reagan. Support for drug- running criminals has moved from being the dark underside of U.S. foreign policy to (in the case of the Nicaraguan Contras) being at that policy's visible centre. In 1977 I was concerned about the access of foreign parafascists and WACL publicists to the office of Senator Thurmond and the staff of the National Security Council. Today General Singlaub, the President of WACL, has access, through his support work for the Contras, to the Reagan White House (cf. footnote 50).

In my view, this continuing demoralisation of U.S. foreign policy and the concomitant trivialisation of domestic U.S. political debate, makes my modest hopes for change through "new human groupings", or what since the fall of Marcos has become famous as "people power", not less but more relevant. It is not that I am at all sanguine about the possibilities for such transpolitical change outside the traditional political system. It is just all the clearer that such new human forces, however weak and immature at present, are ultimately our best hope.

PETER DALE SCOTT






Tolerated Crime and Tolerated Murder


On September 21, 1976, a sophisticated bomb killed former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and an American friend while they were driving to work down Washington's fashionable Embassy Row.

Two weeks later, on October 6, a Cuban commercial airliner exploded in mid-air over the Caribbean, killing all 73 passengers on board.

Confessions in the latter case implicated Dr. Orlando Bosch Avila, a Cuban emigre then living in Venezuela and a veteran of at least three anti-Castro plots with CIA and/or Mafia backing. Bosch, in turn, had participated enough in the planning of the Letelier assassination by Cuban exiles to give information leading to subpoenas for several former CIA Cuban proteges in the United States, one of whom has since been sentenced to jail for refusing to testify.

If past U.S. history is to repeat itself, the killers of Letelier, if they have not indeed been correctly identified as part of the CIA/Mafia milieu will not be sent to jail. (1) In 1943, the prominent Italian-American anti-fascist editor, Carlo Tresca, was murdered in the streets of New York. The case against New York Mafioso, Carmine Galante of the Bonanno family, might have seemed air-tight; he was under surveillance at that time, for parole violation, and thus was placed in the murder vehicle at the time and place of the killing. But he was not arrested or brought to trial and shortly after a leading anti-Communist informant for the FBI claimed to have learnt that the Communist Party was responsible for the killing. (2) Today - i.e. in 1977 - Galante is commonly referred to as the head of the United States' Mafia.

In 1956, a distinguished emigre scholar from the Dominican Republic, Jesus de Galindez, was kidnapped on the streets of New York and flown to his home country, where he was almost certainly murdered by order of his political enemy, the dictator Trujillo. In this case, a former FBI agent, John Joseph Frank (who had worked for the CIA as well as a Trujillo lobbyist) pleaded nolo contendere for his role in chartering the kidnap plane; he was let off with a $500 fine. Ten years later Life reported that the plane had been chartered by Mafioso Bayonne Joe Zicarelli, another member and a 'fast' friend of Trujillo whom he had supplied with over $1 million worth of arms. (3)

More recent revelations indicate that both killings have escaped adjudication because of their proximity to current intelligence-Mafia collaborations. We know now that by January 1943, when Tresca was killed, two U.S. intelligence services, OSS and ONI (Naval Intelligence) were in direct negotiation with Meyer Lansky for the provision of Mafia collaboration with the Allied invasion of Sicily. In exchange for this, Lucky Luciano would be released from jail by Governor Dewey and deported to his native Italy.

The underboss of Luciano's family, Vito Genovese, had already been deported to Italy and must have figured in the OSS-ONI-Mafia plans, since immediately following the U.S. occupation we find him running massive black market operations from his post as official translator for the chief of the Allied Military Government, a former senior Democratic politician and Lieutenant-governor from New York.Recent Mafia histories report that the anti-fascist, Tresca, was killed by Galante on orders from Genovese, who was then running narcotics traffic from North Africa, with the blessing of Mussolini. (4) Genovese was already wanted in the U.S. for another murder charge, yet when a young army CID captain arrested him, he was able to predict confidently that he would escape conviction. So he did - until new narcotics charges in 1958. The only witness in the murder case was conveniently murdered while in protective custody in a Brooklyn jail. (5) A vigorous prosecution of the Tresca case was even less likely than of the earlier murder case, since national security could easily rationalise the decision not to risk exposing any intelligence-Mafia contacts in court.

The same intelligence-Mafia background overshadows the Galindez affair. We now know that in 1961, when the U.S.-CIA shifted from Trujillo to those around him, three M1 carbines were provided by the U.S. Embassy, on CIA authority, to those who soon afterwards assassinated Trujillo. The recipient of the arms was one Antonio de la Maza, whose brother Octavio had been implicated in the Galindez killing (he was suspected in 1957 of murdering the pilot of the kidnap plane in Santa Domingo, in order to silence him). (6) At this time, the CIA was in contact, through former FBI agent, Robert Maheu, with Mafia figures Sam Giancana, John Roselli and Santo Trafficante - in the hope of arranging the assassination of Fidel Castro. Trafficante, by most accounts at this time was succeeding Meyer Lansky in the role of chief organiser for the world heroin traffic, put together by Luciano, Lansky and Genovese after World War 2. (7) A confidential White House memorandum of January 25, 1971, prepared one week after Jack Anderson's disclosure of Maheu's role in the CIA-Mafia plot, noted that Maheu "was a close associate of rogue FBI agent John Frank, generally believed to have engineered the assassination of Jesus de Galindez in New York City on March 12 1956, on behalf of the assassinated Rafael Trujillo." (8)

The memo's author, Jack Caulfield, was in a position to speak authoritatively. From 1955 to 1966 he served with the New York City Police Department's Bureau of Special Services (BOSS) where he was assigned to a number of political plots involving other countries. (9)

The foregoing facts suggest how embarrassing it would be to see court convictions of those close to this high level CIA-Mafia connection. Subsequent Justice Department initiatives to prosecute Maheu, Giancana and Roselli were frustrated by the invocation of their CIA immunity. We now know of an official CIA memo in 1962 informing that a pending prosecution of Maheu (and possibly Giancana) "would not be in the national interest". (10)

The third, and most powerful collaborator with Maheu, Santo Trafficante, has never faced indictment despite repeated indications that he has succeeded Lansky as the top organiser of the world heroin traffic. (11)

One should not immediately conclude that the CIA-Mafia connection is unassailable, or the only relevant factor in US politics. A New York Times editorial called for vigorous prosecution in the Galindez case, just as the Washington Post has done recently in the Letelier case. Justice in the Tresca and Galindez killings was demanded repeatedly by U.S. socialist leader Norman Thomas, who himself enjoyed a CIA connection of sorts; just as Galindez had a special relationship to Thomas' "left" section of CIA (the International Organisations Division), while Frank and Maheu worked with the CIA's competing right-wing (Western Hemisphere and Security).


The CIA-Mafia-Narcotics Connection and the U.S. Press

The fact remains that prior to about 1970, the invocation of an alleged "national interest" seems to have protected those actively involved in the intelligence-Mafia connection from serious harassment by either the courts or the establishment press. (For the sake of verifiability we shall define the 'establishment media' as including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time-Life, Newsweek, Readers Digest and the three major television networks). Since Watergate, and the dramatic collapse of the press-government anti-Communist consensus, it in possible that this relative immunity is no longer unassailable. First in conjunction with Vietnam, then in conjunction with Watergate and since around 1974 in conjunction with the CIA itself, the establishment press has begun to reveal marginal details of the post-war CIA-Mafia connection and even of its involvement in the post-war restoration of the world heroin traffic.

But the revelations of the past few years make the establishment media before 1970 appear guilty not merely of silence but of active collusion in disseminating false official cover-ups of the facts. Take, for example, the post-war development of new opium growing areas in non-Communist South-east Asia to replace fields which the Chinese revolution now denied to Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. For two decades the most flagrant of official Thai and KMT involvement in this traffic, to say nothing of the US infrastructure support, was systematically downplayed by the U.S. Narcotics Bureau, with the necessary collaboration of the U.S. establishment media. (12)

The key figures in this official U.S. cover-up were U.S. Narcotics Commissioner, Anslinger - a Treasury official - and his West coast chief, George White, a former OSS official and CIA consultant who had represented OSS in the Operation Underworld negotiations with Meyer Lansky.

For years Anslinger would uncritically transmit KMT propaganda about a world-wide Red Chinese opium conspiracy and document it persuasively with evidence of what he knew very well was in fact the KMT's own narcotics traffic. Thus, Anslinger would use the term 'Yunnan Opium' to describe the opium grown under KMT auspices in Burma, Laos and Thailand; and would document the involvement of officials from the Bank of Canton, without noting that this was controlled by the Soong family of Taiwan. (13)

Supporting these misleading charges, George White announced, in 1959, the breaking of what was reported in the New York Times as "the biggest Chinese narcotics operation 'that we've come across'". White also spoke of 270 pounds of heroin "mostof it from a vast poppy field near Chungking". (14) Only in the local San Francisco papers, where the arrests and the trial occurred, did one learn that a key co-conspirator in the case (not prosecuted) was Chung Wing Fong, identified as a former official in Chinatown's powerful Six Companies (key overseas KMT supporters) and also of the Chinese Anti-Communist League here. (15)

The Chinese Anti-Communist League was, in fact, a U.S. branch of the KMT's world- wide intelligence network. Fong, a former President of the pro-KMT Hip Sing tong, had been spared arrest by timely U.S. Government intervention. When he visited Hong Kong in 1958 "the American consul in Hong Kong seized his passport and he was ordered to Taipei/Taiwan". He and others were then named as unindicted co- conspirators "because they are out of U.S. jurisdiction." (16)

White's carefully worded but wholly misleading claims of a Chinese Communist (rather than anti-Communist) conspiracy were later supported in official Narcotics Bureau (FBN) reports by so-called 'documentary evidence' which came from the pro- KMT defendants. (17) Such elementary distortions by 'responsible' officials of the true facts about the international heroin traffic were still being repeated as late as 1973, though they have since been officially refuted by the new Drug Enforcement Agency. The latest accusation against China was made by two veteran New York crime fighters, Frank Rogers - city-wide prosecutor of narcotics cases - and Brooklyn District Attorney, Eugene Gold at a press conference. Rogers showed reporters a plastic bag on which the words 'Peoples' Republic of China' were printed in English and Chinese. (18) Needless to say, such distortions could never have succeeded if 'responsible' papers like the New York Times had not followed the Narcotics Bureau in suppressing the locally published facts about men like Chung Wing Fong.

What was at stake in these high-level cover-ups was nothing less than the CIA's basic strategy for the containment of Communism in East and South-East Asia, which (as documents published with the Pentagon Papers have confirmed) relied heavily on the opium growing KMT troops of the Burma-Laos-Thailand border areas and their contacts with the pro-KMT secret societies in the overseas Chinese communities. (19) Through its 'proprietaries' like Civil Air Transport (CAT) and Sea Supply Inc., the CIA had provided logistic support to the anti-Communist 'assets' in the region, whose profitable involvement in the narcotics traffic very soon took priority over their political responsibilities. No doubt the CIA branch responsible (the Office of Policy Co-ordination, or OPC) could rationalise its role in restoring the narcotics traffic in this area with the thought that it was merely prolonging a regional practice common both to the imperialist powers of Britain, France and Japan, and to the native rulers of Thailand and Kuomintang China.


Protection for Intelligence Assets

In 1953-4, as the Eisenhower Administration faced growing KMT resistance to its proposed disengagement from Korea and Indochina, so also the CIA disengaged somewhat from its disreputable OPC proteges in Thailand as their opium trafficking became notorious. By 1959, Council on Foreign Relations spokesmen, backed by the influential CIA-backed Conlon Report, were even suggesting some kind of normalisation of relations with mainland China. This context of detente makes all the more remarkable the propaganda activities of the Narcotics Bureau and George White in the 1959 Hip Sing opium case. In effect, the FBN was covering up for the KMT- narcotics network overseas, even while attempting to crush its movement of heroin into the continental United States. Such a two-faced policy was probably impractical, in as much as in 1959 the world's only sizeable population of heroin addicts was in the U.S. It was, however, understandable in terms of national policy, if one recollects in 1959 all the leading anti-Communist U.S. proteges of the region - Ngo dihn Nhu of South Vietnam, Sarit Thanarat and Prapas Charusathien of Thailand and Phoumi Nosavan of Laos - were profiting in one way or another from the KMT narcotics traffic. (20)

The fact remains that in 1959 the official U.S. position on the KMT troops was that it was no longer supplying them and therefore in no position to control their narcotics activities: the U.S. arms which Burma found at the KMT camps in 1961, still packed in boxes showing their trans-shipment through a Californian air force base, just weeks before, had gone first to Taiwan and then to Burma in a CAT-Air America plane leased by an affiliate of the KMT-Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League. This is a disturbing analogy with the present status of the former CIA Cubans operating around Orlando Bosch. Like the KMT troops, they too have now been officially disowned by the CIA because of their illegal activities and are now supported by other governments and intelligence agencies, most notably the governments of Chile, of Nicaragua and of the Dominican Republic. (21) More specifically, a chief reason for the closing down of the last of the CIA's Miami station JM/ Wave operations - a counter intelligence operation under Joaquin Sangenis Perdomo, usually referred to by its original CIA name of Operation 40 - was because one of the group's CIA planes had been apprehended in the act of smuggling narcotics into the U.S. (22)Today, no one seems to deny the illegality of the CIA's domestic JM/Wave station in Miami, which employed from 300 to 700 U.S. agents and from 2,000 to as many as 6,000 Cubans. (23) An Bill Moyers has noted, "seducing the press was critical" to JM/Wave's maintenance in Miami; the CIA secured "explicit agreements with the press here to keep their secret operations from being reported, except when it was mutually convenient ... It amounted to a massive conspiracy to violate the country's Neutrality Acts and other federal, state and local laws as well". (24)


Assassins, Narcotics and Watergate

Seven years after the event, to its credit, the New York Times finally revealed a little of the story about the wind-up of the CIA's Operation 40 because of its narcotics activities.(25) It did so an part of a series of stories exposing operations for which the CIA's counter-intelligence chief, James Angleton, had been responsible, and Angleton himself has recently confirmed (to author Edward Jay Epstein) the published suggestions that these stories were being leaked by Angleton's chief enemy within the agency, CIA Director, William Colby, an part of a successful campaign to force Angleton's resignation. (26)

What concerns us, as in the case of the KMT-Hip Sing narcotics case, is the refusal of the New York Times to tell the most significant features of the Operation 40 narcotics story:

(a) Operation 40, originally, at least, included professional assassins. According to the former New York Times reporter, Tad Szulc, it was originally designed by Sangenis as part of the Bay of Pigs planning "to assure that a post-Castro regime contained no trouble makers", i.e. men opposed to Howard Hunt's political protege, Manuel Artime. (27) (As political action officer for the Bay of Pigs operation, Hunt would almost certainly have been responsible for this phase of Operation 40). Szulc adds that "According to well informed Cubans, Operation 40 also had a second task; that of assassinating, if necessary, political leaders who stood in the way. It was reported that the project included a hand-picked task force of professional killers". (28)

(b) The New York Times failed to name the Bay of Pigs veteran who, in its words, "was part of the group and who was accused by the Federal authorities of being a large cocaine smuggler [and] was killed in a gun battle with the Miami police". (29) This was Juan Restoy, arrested in June 1970 as part of the Justice Department's 'OperationEagle', against what Attorney General Mitchell called "a nation-wide ring of wholesalers handling about 30% of all heroin sales and 75 to 80% of all cocaine sales in the United States". (30) Of the three Cuban ringleaders of this network, one had his conviction thrown out on a technicality, and the third, Bay of Pigs veteran Jorge Alonson Pujol y Bermudez, was eventually released and placed on probation. (31)

(c) Of the nine Cubans who came to Washington for the Watergate break-in of June 1972, at least four, and possibly all nine, had been members of the Sangenis counter intelligence phase of 'Operation 40'.

Bernard Barker testified that Felipe de Diego, who, with Barker and Rolando Martinez, had previously burgled the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist for Howard Hunt and the Nixon White House, "had been a member of Operation 40";(32) this aspect of Barker's testimony was neither reported by the New York Times nor included in its transcripts of the Watergate Hearings. Other members of the Sangenis operation included Barker himself, who, according to Helms, was fired by the CIA when "we found out that he was involved in certain gambling and criminal elements". (33) A third member was almost certainly Eugenio Martinez who, back in 1957, had been part of an anti-Batista assassination plot funded by former Cuba president Carlos Prio Socarras. In November 1963 Martinez skippered the ill-fated Rex mission from Florida against Cuba, a mission involving the Somoza family of Nicaragua.

To sum up, the New York Times systematically ignored or understated the involvement of 'Operation 40' in political assassinations, the world heroin network, and Watergate. Exactly the same can be said about the Times and entire establishment press coverage before this year: in all its thousands of words about the so-called 'Plumbers' of Watergate itself it never mentioned that the Nixon White House had recruited, for the ostensible purpose of combating the drug traffic, an illegal covert action team with links to organised crime and (through 'Operation 40') the drug traffic itself. At its peak the Sangenis operation had some 150 Cubans; and we know now from a recent CBS news interview of Bernard Barker by Bill Moyers, that no less than 120 ex-CIA Cubans were recruited for 'Operation Diamond' under the Hunt-Liddy 'Plumbers Unit' at the White House. (34) This group included "people superbly trained in explosives" and "specialists in weapons": as Bill Moyers observed, it too was "a small secret army". Barker dissented from Moyers' allegations that Operation Diamond was preparing to perform political "kidnappings" and "assassinations", but only on semantic grounds: ("there is a difference between assassination and killing .... The word 'kidnap' sounds to me like a term used in - in law. Remember that I'm a CIA agent, CIA background. We neutralise these things. We don't think... in criminal terms".)(35)

According to the CBS-Moyers programme:

the secret army was not to be disbanded after Watergate. It was to be used in President Nixon's drug war, in Barker's words, "to hit the Mafia using the tactics of the Mafia". (36)

Barker and his colleagues, meanwhile, hoped that their participation would help lead to the "liberation of Cuba". (37) He explained that the key to this liberation lay in helping Mr Hunt, "in the way where hundreds of Cubans have been helping [ie the CIA and the U.S. armed services] in Africa, in Vietnam and in other areas of the world." (38)


Domestic Repression and DEA Narcotics Enforcement


All this should be very disturbing. Liddy's own original plans for Operation Diamond, after it moved from the cover of White House narcotics enforcement to the Committee to Re-elect the President, also included political kidnappings and "men who have worked successfully as street-fighting teams at the CIA". (39) At that time, when San Diego was the projected Republican convention site, Liddy had proposed that Hunt recruit some "400 or 500... Bay of Pigs veterans who were located in the southern California area"; Hunt actually obtained print-outs of the available veterans, from Brigade 2506 Veterans Association (the AVBC) in Miami.(40)

These plans for organised governmental violence were by no means wholly forestalled by the timely exposure of Hunt's Cubans at the July 17 1972 Watergate break-in.Some of them have survived Nixon's fall from power and are today officially established under the guidance of narcotics control. To see how this could happen, however, we must look at the co-ordinated use of ex-CIA assets for 'black operations' which followed the Watergate arrests.

One Watergate-related Nixon horror never investigated by either the Ervin or the Church Committee was the use of Hunt's ex-CIA Cuban, Pablo Fernandez, as a provocateur planning to protest at the 1972 Republican Convention in Miami. Fernandez, who in May 1972 had been recruited by Hunt's aid Barker to 'get' Daniel Ellsberg at an anti-war rally in Washington - whether by merely punching him or possibly by more serious violence, is not clear. In June and July, under the overall guidance of Robert Mardian at the Justice Department's Internal Security Division, Fernandez, working with the Miami Police and the FBI, was recruited to offer machine guns to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, in the hope that this would produce some sort of overt act of violence. A Miami police detective later confirmed to the Miami Herald that 'We were hoping for the overt act necessary to produce a charge of conspiracy". (41) The ensuing court case against Scott Camil and the other VVAW leaders saw apparent perjury by a Justice Department representative on the subject of government informants, and a break-in at the office of Camil's lawyer which (in the words of the Times correspondent, Anthony Lukas) is one of many unsolved break-ins which "may have been carried out by 'contract' operatives hired by the CIA". (42)

Scott Camil himself, after being acquitted along with the other VVAW defendants, was reindicted after being first set up and then shot and almost killed by DEA narcotics agents. (The national establishment media, whose attention helped expose the false government testimony by the Nixon administration at the first trial, showed little interest in the second.) But Camil was only one instance where the government's expanded 'war on drugs' was used, at least under Nixon, to harass selected political targets - and possibly in support of major CIA covert operations against countries like Cyprus, Argentina, Lebanon and Chile.

It must be kept in mind that OSS and CIA has been using the connections of the international heroin traffic for covert operations virtually without interruption since 'Operation Underworld' in 1943. At first these operations may have been tactical rather than strategic: to expel the Fascists and forestall the Communists in Italy, to break Communist control of the French docks during the first Indochina War, to support a string of anti-Communist puppets in Southeast Asia. But as a former CIA agent and publicist confirms, this intelligence-Mafia connection was seen as vitally important.

Nixon himself has left office, and the public style of his two successors has been visibly muted, but none of the repressive legislation which his administration put together for the silencing of dissent has been repealed; and indeed the Carter administration has taken up Nixon's demand for an Official Secrets Act which would provide criminal sanctions against future Daniel Ellsbergs.


CIA, DEA, and Their Assassination Capacity

It is true that on June 11, 1973, the Justice Department abolished the Intelligence Evaluation Committee which had co-ordinated the harassment of Camil in Miami, for which the special grand juries had collected political intelligence, and which had, in its first two months of existence alone "compiled computerised dossiers on nearly 14,000 Americans, including selected political officials and moderates". (43) The IEC was secretly terminated on June 11, 1973, or shortly after press accounts of Dean's highly- bowdlerised revelations concerning IEC which he was about to make to the Ervin Watergate Committee. Such evasive tactics do not mean very much in today's age of computerised intelligence. Revelations about Army surveillance of U.S. citizens before another of Senator Ervin's Committee in 1970 had led to the formal termination of that programme on June 9, 1970, which we now know was four days after White House planning had begun on the escalated Huston Plan which resulted in the IEC.(44) Public assurances that the Army's intelligence dossiers had been destroyed were misleading, if we are to credit subsequent reports that:

on 29 July 1970, the day after the President moved to reconsider the Huston Plan, army intelligence had given the entire print-out of its civilian surveillance computers to ISD (i.e. IEC in Mardian's Internal Security Division). (45)

In like vein the CIA's new director, William Colby, as part of his reorientation of the CIA towards foreign targets, terminated, in 1974, the CIA's Operation Chaos for the surveillance of U.S. citizens in conjunction with the IEC (though when the Rockefeller Commission reported this fact 15 months later it noted that the Chaos "files and computerised index are still intact"). (46) Two years earlier CIA director Helms, in response to U.S press reports about CIA involvement in assassinations, had directed that "no such activity or operation be undertaken, assisted or suggested by any of our personnel". (47) But the official reports on both of these controversial operations ignore the relevant fact that a high level 1968 meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations of CIA veterans and their colleagues in the New York-CIA financial establishment had already agreed CIA operations had become too visible and too bureaucratic, and in future should be left, where possible, in the hands of "private organisations, many of the personnel of which would be non-U.S ... hands of third parties, particularly third country nationals". (48)

A series of working groups to implement these proposals were officially recognisedwhen Richard Nixon, in 1969, appointed Franklin Lindsay, a CIA veteran and chairman of the chief working group (as well as of the Rockefeller-financed Itek Corp.) to head up an advisory panel on reorganisation of the CIA. (49)

In the ensuing years many of the key 1968 proposals were implemented by successive CIA directors, most notably the recommendation that the ageing CIA bureaucracy had become too large and should be dramatically cut back. In the context of this reversion to "unofficial cover", the March 1972 Helms injunction against assassination seems to have been a case of carefully locking the door of an already empty stable. Nine months earlier Lucien Conein, the CIA's case officer in the Diem assassination and a high level contact with the heroin trafficking Corsican Mafia, resigned from CIA, to be brought back at the suggestion of his old OSS colleague Howard Hunt into the White House narcotics effort. There, Conein (by his own admission) supervised a special unit which would have the capacity to assassinate selected targets in the narcotics business. (50)

A memo of late May 1972, drafted by Hunt's superior in narcotic matters, Egil Krogh, reports on what is apparently President Nixon's authorisation for the Conein assassination squad, with the staggering budget of $100 million in non-accountable funds:

According to Krogh's detailed 'Outline of Discussion with the President on Drugs', the President agreed to 'forceful action in [stopping] International trafficking of heroin in the host country'. Specifically the memorandum of the meeting noted, 'it is anticipated that a material reduction in the supply of heroin to the U.S. can be accomplished through a $100 million (over three years) fund which can be used for clandestine law enforcement activities abroad and for which BNDD would not be accountable. This decisive action is our only hope for destroying or immobilising the highest level of drug traffickers.'....According to Krogh, this [flexible law enforcement..for clandestine activities] would be used for underworld contacts and disruptive tactics, with the eventual goal of destroying those deemed to be heroin traffickers. (51)

According to the Washington Post at least twelve other CIA operatives, all of them first-generation (i.e. naturalised) Americans, joined in this BNDD assassination squad. (52)

In the fall of 1971:

Hunt also approached the Cuban exile leader, Manuel Artime, in Miami and - according to Artime - asked him about the possibility of forming a team of Cuban exile hit men to assassinate Latin American traffickers still outside the bailiwick of United States law. (53)

Artime told other reporters that the anti-narcotics operations would take place in Panama (pinpointed after the arrest of the son of Panamanian Ambassador to Taiwan on July 8, 1971 - the day Hunt spoke to Conein in the White House) after Frank Sturgis independently told the press that in 1971 he had joined Hunt in an investigation of the drug traffic reaching the U.S. from Paraguay through Panama. (54)

This lends strength to the recurring rumour that Hunt's narcotics activities included an assassination plan against the Panamanian President Torrijos, whose brother had been fingered by U.S. Customs commissioner Ambrose as a major heroin trafficker. (55)


DEA, Crime and the Press Today

If these reports are true, we can reasonably conclude that the old CIA-organised crime connection. though technically banished from the CIA after Jack Anderson's exposure of it in January 1971, was still pursuing its old political objectives under White House -narcotics cover in 1971-2, pending its intended integration into a new superagency, the Drug Enforcement Agency of July 1, 1973, which many observers have compared to a domestic CIA. Hunt and Artime had both been associated with previous CIA assassination plots against Castro, who, at that time, had been named by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics as the man behind the heroin trade of anti-Castro Cubans. Torrijos, too, was at least as much a political as a narcotics target: he and Chilean President Salvador Allende were the only heads of state to defy the CIA-enforced ban on friendly relations with Castro's Cuba. Barker and Artime, as we have seen, had been allegedly dropped from the CIA for their involvement in criminal activities - the latter for smuggling activities from a Costa Rica base owned by Anastasio Somoza, the patron of Torrijos' current enemy Orlando Bosch. According to an FBI report on Frank Sturgis in 1972, when Hunt recruited him and Barker for Watergate "sources in Miami say that he is now associated with organised crime activities". (emphasis added) (56)

When this FBI claim was made part of the highly publicised Senate Hearings in February 1973 on the nomination of L. Patrick Gray, the New York Times and Washington Post, then locked in battle with Nixon, declined to report it. The press interviews with Artime and Sturgis about their anti-narcotics activities were likewise ignored at the time, as were all the growing indications that the White House, under the guise of anti-narcotics activities, had begun to assemble a secret parallel police, with an assassination potential, from former CIA assets dropped after the exposure of their associates in the narcotics traffic.

This reticence or resistance to expressing the criminal scope of Watergate was assuredly not inspired by a desire to protect President Nixon. It indicates, I believe, an understanding at high levels, that when right-wing CIA assets are formally 'disposed of', their potential usefulness to other employers should not be diminished. Take for example, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) itself which now employs somewhere between 50 and 100 CIA agents in addition to Conein and his twelve assassins.

Of all the 'White House horrors' to come out of the so-called 'plumbers' in Room 16, DEA is perhaps the most dangerous. A super-agency, whose very statutory authority is open to challenge, it has been plagued from the outset with serious charges of illegal behaviour, high-level corruption, and protection of Mafia figures in the narcotics traffic. Its first designated chief, Myles Ambrose, resigned before taking office in May 1973, after it was disclosed he had visited the Texas ranch of a suspected smuggler, Richard Harper, who was under indictment for an arms shipment aimed at the overthrow of the Castro government. (57) It was Ambrose, we should remember, who fingered the brother of the Cubans' target, Omar Torrijos. His deputy and successor, John Bartels, either resigned or was fired after reports by a Congressional committee that he had been in the company of a suspected courier of narcotics to Washingtonfrom Laredo, the nearest city to the Harper Ranch. (58)

Walter Minnick, the nominal author of 'Reorganisation Plan No 2' that produced DEA, was, with Hunt, Liddy and their superior, David Young, one of the four key figures in the so-called 'Plumbers' at Room 16. It was Young, a former Rockefeller employee, who wrote the orders leading to the first Plumbers break-in at the office of Dr. Fielding (Ellsberg's psychiatrist). It was Young and Minnick with whom John Ehrlichman discussed the Watergate break-in and cover-up on the Monday morning after the break-in.(59) Yet Young, who authorised the break-in, escaped state prosecution for the Fielding break-in by co-operating in a pre-emptive federal indictment; while Minnick, throughout the thousands of words on the Watergate scandals, was never once listed in the index of either the Washington Post or the New York Times.

The same papers were either reticent or grossly misleading about activities which Hunt and Liddy performed, without Nixon's knowledge, on behalf of Intertel, the private intelligence group now controlling the Nevada casinos of the CIA-linked Howard Hughes organisation. Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post actually used a Hunt story given them by Robert Bennett, the Washington head of the CIA front and Howard Hughes PR firm where Hunt worked at the time, as part of their litany of 'White House horrors'; even though the 'horror' in question - an interview with one Clifton DeMotte about Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick - had been suggested to Hunt, not by the White House, but by Robert Bennett himself. (60)

Senator Baker's Minority Report about this and other CIA aspects of Watergate was, in turn, grossly distorted by the Post. (61). This is hardly surprising; the Baker Report revealed a CIA report from Bennett that Woodward was "suitably grateful" for the DeMotte and other "fine stories" which Bennett had been "feeding" Woodward; and also an arrangement between Bennett and attorney Edward Bennett Williams to "kill off" revelations of the CIA's relationship to Bennett's agency, the Mullen Company. Edward Bennett Williams, the lawyer who previously had done work for the CIA with his and their Mafia contact, Robert Maheu, was, at this time, both the attorney for the Democratic National Committee in their suit about Hunt's Watergate break-in, and also the attorney for the Washington Post. (62)

In short, the Washington Post was not at arms length from the CIA-Howard Hughes- Intertel complex, whose involvement in the Watergate scandal was hardly indicated by their reporters' stories. In like manner, the Washington Post barely reported the Congressional revelations in 1975 about scandals in DEA, where one of the agents scrutinised by the Jackson Subcommittee Report is one of the two agents (let us call them X and Y) said to have boasted widely inside DEA of their personal contact with - and plans to retire to - Intertel. The Jackson Subcommittee investigated the DEA for its improper favours to the Howard Hughes-Intertel interests and also to the Robert Vesco-IOS interests. Although these two supergroups have been depicted as competitors vying to acquire the same Paradise Island casino, the fact remains that both have had dealings with the CIA, and also with Cuban exile groups planning to oust Fidel Castro. (63)

An even more critical article in Playboy about DEA, calling it an 'American Gestapo', describes how, in April 1974, a DEA intelligence team was ready to go on a major narcotics operation involving the flow of Mexican drugs to "a Las Vegas associate of [New York Mafia chief] Joseph Colombo":

Instead ... the agent in charge barked out a sharp dozen words or so and ordered the project dropped. "He informed us that he didn't want us wasting our time on organised-crime probes, that the real problem was the Mexicans and we were to drop this." (64)

It would appear that the old CIA-Mafia narcotics connection was still alive and well in the new DEA, especially when we consider that (according to reliable sources) the responsible 'agent in charge' was the same X (acting in conjunction with Y); that X had almost been forced to leave the Narcotics Bureau because of the scandals under his jurisdiction as New York Regional Director; and that X became the agent in charge of CIA veteran Lucien Conein and his assassination squad. The same sources say that the suspected courier who associated with DEA Director Bartels has also admitted to being 'friends' with the suspected Mafia ringleader, the "Las Vegas associate of Joseph Colombo".


The U.S.A. and Transnationalised Repression

Both inside and outside the U.S. narcotics enforcement is particularly susceptible to corruption. It is also inescapably a political matter, especially in those areas of covert intelligence and operations which, up to now, have been concerns of the CIA. It is undeniable that DEA has picked up at least one former CIA operation - that of trainingand equipping foreign police forces - after this was terminated by Congress in 1974. Congressional investigations had disclosed that the Office of Public Safety, responsible for those training programmes, had become involved in programs of torture and even wholesale assassination in Vietnam (Colby's Operation Phoenix) and in Latin America. As a consequence of the 1974 Foreign Assistance Act, OPS and its some 400 positions in Latin America were abolished. The Act however, did not affect AID's new International Narcotics Program set up with CIA participation alongside OPS in mid-1971 - about the time that Conein and other CIA agents migrated from CIA to the Narcotics Bureau. A subsequent report by the General Accounting Office, investigating DEA and INC to see if Congressional intentions had been circumvented, disclosed in effect that:

(a) By Fiscal Year 1974 DEA had 400 agents in Latin America, or roughly the number of abolished OPS positions;

(b) police equipment transferred abroad under the INC jumped $2.2 million in Fiscal Year 1973 to $12.5 million in Fiscal Year 1974, almost exactly offsetting the decrease resulting from the abolition of OPS. Essentially, the same equipment was being forwarded to the same units: the chief change was in the name of the authorisation.


As State Department Narcotics adviser Sheldon Vance testified in 1976, the U.S. maintains no control over the disposition which the receiving country will make of the equipment and trainees. In fact, from Mexico to Argentina, receiving countries - following the example of Richard Nixon in the United States - have not hesitated to use narcotics aid to deal with domestic insurgency, by the simple expedient of identifying insurgents with narcotics. In May 1974, at a special press conference to publicise the stepped-up U.S.-Argentine anti-narcotics program, Argentine Security Chief Lopez Rega announced (in the presence of U.S. Ambassador Robert Hill):

We hope to wipe out the drug traffic in Argentina. We have caught guerillas after attacks who were high on drugs. Guerillas are the main users of drugs in Argentina. Therefore, the anti-drug campaign will automatically be an anti-guerilla campaign as well.

Soon afterwards, a visiting DEA team held training seminars for 150 Argentine policemen, while the Argentine penal code was amended to give the Federal Police direct nation-wide jurisdiction to make investigations and arrests in narcotics-related cases. (65) The latter development, if not the former, seems to have been important to the development of Lopez Rega's dreaded 'death squads' of 1974-5, the Argentine Anti-Communist Alliance (AAA). Like the White House Cubans, these squads specialised in extra-legal kidnappings and murders. Dozens and perhaps hundreds of leftists were killed by the AAA before Lopez Rega, whose responsibility was established by an Argentine Congressional investigation, was forced to leave the country as a fugitive in the Fall of 1975.


Drugs and Parafascism: Orlando Bosch and Christian David

All this has a very direct bearing on the career of Orlando Bosch, who boasts of having collaborated with the AAA in the murder of two Cuban diplomats as late as August 1976. (66) It is quite possible that this collaboration was facilitated through the international narcotics traffic, since both Lopez Rega and Bosch, along with other high-level security figures in Latin America, have been accused of financing their anti- Communist activities in part through cocaine. (67) Bosch's daughter and son-in-law, Miriam and Carlos Rogers, were arrested in June 1977 on charges of smuggling cocaine, while his other son-in-law, Ruben Blinder, is said to be a member of the AAA. In 1975 a provincial Argentine investigation into a cocaine estancia near the Bolivian border, which was said (by the admittedly hostile Argentine military intelligence) to have involved Lopez Rega and his son-in-law, was frustrated by a timely federal intervention.

CIA defector Philip Agee has charged that the Brazilian dictatorship, established with U.S. encouragement and participation in 1964, was, in turn, responsible for the spread of fascism to Bolivia in 1971, Uruguay in February 1973, and Chile in September 1973. (68) Recent French books report that in this same general period former French members of the anti-Gaullist Secret Army (OAS), along with their opposite numbers from the pro-Gaullist barbouzes, worked for the security forces of Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay ... and Venezuela and Argentina, where the Peronists returned to power in May 1973. Among the rewards sought by these men were diplomatic passports, for some of these Frenchmen were working simultaneously as part of the international Ricord narcotics network. (69)

One key figure in this network was Christian David, of whom a U.S. account blandly notes "reports that he infiltrated Uruguay's Tupamaro guerillas and identified several for the police". (70) French accounts add that David, based in Argentina and possessing an Argentine diplomatic passport in the name of Carlos Eduardo Devreux- Bergeret, also collaborated regularly with the Argentine and Brazilian political police in conjunction with the French intelligence service. (71) An encyclopaedic study of David by the Danish journalist Henrik Kruger speculates that David's activities (which also included projects in Venezuela and Bolivia) were also co-ordinated with CIA, noting that CIA-OPS agents Dan Mitrione and Claude Fry were advising the anti- Tupamaro effort. (72).

In Argentina David worked under the direction of the OAS veteran Francois Chiappe, another member of the Ricord gang. (73). In 1972 Chiappe and David were both arrested in BNDD's crackdown on the Ricord network; Chiappe, however, was liberated 'by error' when the Peronistas came to power in Argentina with the election of Hector Campora in May 1973. Shortly afterwards, under the command of Lopez Riga's close subordinate Colonel Jorge Osinde, Chiappe and Colonel Gardes, another OAS veteran, took part in the Ezeizi airport massacre of June 20 1973.(74) The same article that explored Lopez Rega's links to the cocaine traffic claimed that the cocainemoved north from the Salta estancia to Paraguay, the former headquarters of Ricord, where "one of Lopez Rega's closest allies, Colonel Jorge Sinde, became Ambassador". The cocaine there was handled by General Andres Rodriguez, who, according to Jack Anderson, was one of the three top Paraguayan officials who had worked directly with Ricord. (75)


Post-war Nazi Networks and the United States


The evidence, in short, suggests that while individuals like David, Chiappe and Ricord can rise and fall, the connection in Latin America between narcotics and para-legal repression is an old and enduring one. In its post-war phase it can be traced to the exfiltration to Latin America of wanted Nazi war criminals and their collaborators. Ricord himself, arriving in Paraguay via a Nazi escape route, had been one. (76) Originally arriving in Latin America thanks to networks like Die Spinne with the collaboration of such eminences as Gustav Frupp von Bohlen and Vatican titular Bishop Alois Hudal, a few of these in situ anti-Communist 'assets' turned to narcotics and gun running. (77) Of these, a ringleader was the wanted Nazi mass murderer Klaus Barbie, alias Altmann, who prospered in Bolivia until 1972 as the business partner of the Admiral in charge of Bolivia's 'navy'. Ricord's Latin American traffics were associated with the Barbie-Schwend Nazi narcotics gun running network, which in turn had been financed by illegal wartime Nazi operations. (78) Author William Stevenson has charged that "the normal police investigative agencies of Britain andthe United States" were "hamstrung" in their pursuit of this illicit network: "it seemed as if the bureaucrats, the Establishment intelligence agencies, and the departments concerned with foreign affairs had intervened". (79)

The key to this Allied protection of post-war Nazi networks, Stevenson shrewdly surmised, was the U.S. decision in 1945 to take over and subsidise the Nazi intelligence network of General Reinhard von Gehlen. Gehlen in turn helped place numerous former Nazis as his agents in other countries, some (like Barbie) as employees of import-export firms established by his own agency, others as local representatives of Krupp, Daimler-Benz and other large West German firms. The Gehlen network, financed by the CIA but not directly controlled by it, soon had agents employed in a number of activities in violation of U.S. law, from illegal arms sales and narcotics trafficking (the two often going together) to murder.

When the Gehlen Org became the West German Intelligence Service in 1956, CIA support, though not terminated, was drastically reduced. (80) And, as a rule, the CIA has not exercised direct operational control over the Gehlen Org's ex-Nazis. Instead, the relationship, to the satisfaction of all concerned, has become more complex and inscrutable. For example, in the 1945-50 period, the U.S. State Department generally - in contrast to some of its more powerful members, such as Ambassador Adolf Berle and then Assistant Secretary Nelson Rockefeller - was opposed to Juan Peron, the most important patron in Latin America of the ex-Nazi Spinne network. (81)

U.S. opposition to networks of ex-Nazis like Barbie and Ricord appeared to be unrelenting in the period of 1970-72, when Nixon, with important help from the CIA, pressured and eventually destroyed the Ricord network of French Corsican drug traffickers in Latin America. But even the Ricord crackdown, so often recounted by Customs and BNDD flacks as proof of U.S. determination and success in the war against drugs, has been seen in other countries as an effort to gain control over the drug traffic, not to eliminate it. Even the respectable French newspaper Le Monde has charged bluntly that the arrest of Ricord and his Corsican network, which had become highly competitive with the U.S. Mafia, was due to a "close Mafia-police-Narcotics Bureau collaboration" in the United States, the result of which was to shatter Corsican influence in the world-wide narcotics traffic, and create a virtual monopoly for the U.S. Italian Mafia connections (whose key figures were Santos Trafficante in America and Luciano Liggio in Europe). (82) An authoritative French book on the drug traffic has added that the fall of Ricord, for which "the Mafia was possibly responsible" followed a campaign by an Italian representative of the Miami Mafia, Tomasso Buscetta, to regain control of the runaway Ricord operation. (83)

Though Le Monde's alarming accusation has been passed over in silence by the responsible U.S. press, it is in fact partly confirmed by Newsday's Pulitzer Prize- winning book, The Heroin Trail. Newsday notes that Buscetta "was ordered by the Mafia to go to South America", where he acted as "the representative of Luciano Liggio". (84) Newsday adds that "Buscetta was ordered out of the U.S. as an undesirable by the Justice Department in 1970"; it does not mention that Buscetta had earlier been released from a U.S. jail "through the direct intervention of an [Italian] Christian Democrat MP". (85)

In both countries, it would appear, Buscetta had powerful connections.

According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, the elimination of the Ricord network by Nixon and the BNDD in late 1972 was promptly followed by the establishment of a new Latin American drug network with international fascist connections, under the leadership of Alberto Sicilia Falcon, a Cuban exile. When arrested by Mexican police in 1975, as the chief of Mexico's largest heroin ring, Sicilia told police that he was a CIA protege, trained at Fort Jackson as a partisan in the secret war against Cuba. According to Mexican authorities, he was also working in Chile against the socialist government of Salvador Allende until he returned to Miami in early 1973. He also told the Mexican police of a special 'deal' with the CIA. They eased his way for heroin shipments and, in return, his organisation smuggled weapons for terror-groups in Central America - groups whose activities forced their governments to be more dependent on U.S. aid and advice. He built up his ring in less than two years, and as the daily Mexican El Sol de Mexico said:

"How could he do that without help from a powerful organisation?"

Falcon started to create his huge ring in 1973, and the Mexican police started to watch his operations from the beginning of 1975. He was operating from a house in Cuernavaca, 50 miles south of Mexico City. Almost daily he had long visits from one of his neighbours, and the Mexican police decided to find out the identity of the visitor who was trying to hide his face under large hats and behind sunglasses. One day agents got hold of a bottle which had been in the hands of the visiting neighbour. They sent the bottle to the FBI and the answer was quick - the man was Sam Giancana. Falcon was arrested and Giancana sent back to the U.S. where he was killed one year after his return. In Sicilia Falcon's house the Mexican police found papers from two Swiss banks telling that Falcon had $260 million in the bank. In April 1976 Falcon and three of his top gang members escaped jail through a 97 meter tunnel, dug by outsiders and lit up with electric light. Three days later Falcon was caught again. According to Der Spiegel he told his full story under torture-like conditions, and, after spelling it out, he said he was afraid that the CIA would kill him. He demanded to be brought to an isolated cell under special guard in the newest prison 'Reclusorio Norte'. (86)

If Der Spiegel's charges are correct. they suggest a possible explanation for Playboy's disturbing charges that DEA officials close to Intertel (and hence, it must be said, to the CIA), were shielding a Mafia higher-up in the Mexican heroin connection (a man who coincidentally happened to have graduated, like Sam Giancana, from the Chicago Mafia). It would appear that in the mid 1970s, as in the 1940s, the U.S. turned for help in combating the Left to the milieux of right-wing parafascist gangsterism (such as the Aginter Press - of whom more shortly) and of narcotics. Indeed, the more closely we look at the evidence, the more such disturbing alliances appear to have been, not just occasional, but virtually continuous.

Even if we ignore the Der Spiegel story, there are many indications that the United States has repeatedly used, and hence encouraged, the parafascist successors (such as Aginter Press) of the Nazis who escaped after World War 2 to Latin America. On the surface the opposite might appear to be the case, since the global U.S. interest in multinational trade and capital movements has tended to oppose post-war variants of fascism as a state ideology - most notably Peronism in Argentina. But where Communism - either indigenous or international - is feared, parafascism, even where mistrusted by the U.S. as a form of government, has still been supported and used by the CIA as an 'asset' or resource.


The Case of Otto Skorzeny

The key figure in the post-war organisation of Nazi remnants was S.S. Major Otto Skorzeny, acting in collaboration with his close war-time colleague and personal friend, General Reinhard von Gehlen. First, Gehlen made a deal in 1946 with U.S. intelligence leaders like General Donovan and Allen Dulles, transferring his former anti-communist Nazi intelligence network to the future CIA. (The financial details were allegedly arranged by Walter Reid Wolf, a Citybank official on loan to CIA, who made similar arrangements in 1951 for the CIA's Air America Inc.). Then Skorzeny was acquitted at a brief trial at Nuremberg, when his U.S. defence attorney produced a British army officer (actually a secret service agent) who testified that what Skorzeny had done (i.e. shoot prisoners), he would have done also. Although Skorzeny faced further charges in Denmark and Czechoslovakia, he was allowed to walk away from his prison camp. He soon found a berth in Peron's Argentina, "amply supplied with Krupp money" (87). By 1950, when Gehlen was functioning at Munich on a CIA budget, Skorzeny had opened an 'unconventional warfare' consultancy under cover in Madrid, the post-war home of his father-in-law Hjalmar Schacht. Schacht, the bankerwho, with Gustav Krupp, had delivered levies from German industry to Hitler's Reich leader Martin Bormann, had likewise been acquitted at Nuremberg and protected by the British from serving an independent eight year sentence for his Nazi activities. As a Krupp sales representative, Skorzeny became an influential figure in, first, Argentina, and then in Franco's Spain - especially after he and Schacht (another Krupp representative) negotiated "the biggest post-war deal between Spain and Germany, for the delivery in 1952 of $5 million worth of railway stock and machine tools". (88)

In this period Skorzeny lectured at Spanish universities on the 'new warfare' that would turn to such techniques as 'assassinations and kidnappings'. (89) His offer to recruit a foreign legion of ex-Nazis to aid the Americans in Korea was vigorously supported in the United States by those elements in the Spain-China lobby - many of them right-wing Catholics - who later would support similar proposals from the Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League. Though these offers were not publicly accepted by the U.S., some Gehlen and KMT personnel, from about 1950, began to train what became the U.S. Special Forces, as well as the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs.

Following the rise of Nasser to power in 1952-53, with CIA support, Nasser asked his CIA contact, Kermit Roosevelt, for help in reorganising the Egyptian intelligence services. Roosevelt wired Dulles; Dulles approached Gehlen; Gehlen suggested Skorzeny; and Skorzeny accepted when the CIA agreed to supplement his modest Egyptian salary. He did so partly on the urging of Schacht, who himself went to Indonesia as an advisor to Sukarno and advance man for Krupp. (90)

The consequences of this CIA favour to Nasser and the Nazis were to be widespread and long term. Skorzeny left Egypt after about a year, but he left behind him about 50 former S.S. and Gestapo men, many of them recruited from Argentina and neighbouring countries by Skorzeny's Nazi colleague in Buenos Aires, Colonel Hans- Ulrich Rudel. Among these was the chief post-war theorist of Nazism in Latin America, Peron's friend, Johannes von Leers, a wanted war criminal who, like Rudel, had escaped to Argentina with Vatican help. After the fall of Peron, Von Leers temporarily left his Argentina Nazi paper Der Weg and, under the alias of Omar Amin, directed Nasser's propaganda against Israel. His assistant in this work was another former member of Goebbels' propaganda ministry, Dr. Gerhardt Harmut von Schubert, who later moved on to a similar task in Iraq. (91)

Skorzeny's legitimisation by the CIA at Cairo gave him new status in the countries which had to worry about American public opinion: Germany, South Africa and Spain. German Chancellor Adenauer and General Gehlen (still on the CIA payroll) could now lend active support to Skorzeny's private political warfare agency in Madrid, along with right-wing German businessmen in the post-war Circle of Friends. (92) At the same time, as former CIA agent Miles Copeland wrote in 1969, Skorzeny "to this day remains on the best of terms ... with the American friends who were instrumental in getting him to Egypt in the first place". (93) One of these friends, apparently, was, as we shall see, his fellow arms salesman and veteran of CIA operations in Egypt, Kermit Roosevelt.


Fascism and Parafascism

In 1939 Britain and the United States were forced into fighting German Nazism, an aggressive ideological movement for political expansion and mercantilist autarky, which threatened the alternative Anglo-Saxon system for world trade and investment. Skorzeny himself, like his father-in-law Hjalmar Schacht, steered relatively clear of post-war political fascist movements. His self-perceived role, and that which made him useful to his British and American friends, was not as a fascist politician but as a parafascist mercenary asset, analogous to those German Freikorps leaders employed by German industrialists in 1919 to murder Communist activists, but unlike them, active in the transnational arena.

Let us adumbrate this distinction. Fascism is a fully-fledged political movement, marked by a demagogy, a mass party, the cult of violence, and a militant ideology emphasising nationalism and militarism against both bourgeois democracy and its concomitant, international capitalism. (94) Parafascism, which in Germany -but not Italy- preceded Fascism, is content to operate covertly, without ideological fanfare or grass-roots organisation; to destroy its Communist opponents by those same techniques of organised violence - above all murder - which fascist ideology eulogises. Fascism aspires to autonomous political power: parafascism, at least in the short run, is a service, often remarkably apolitical, to protect the power of others. Especially since World War 2, traditional fascism has tended to be anti-American, and opposed to the global reach of transnational banks and corporations - the very forces which parafascists like Skorzeny and his disciples, as well as Orlando Bosch, have been only too happy to serve.

It follows that, at least in the short run, parafascism rather than fascism is the current danger to democracy and human values. Parafascism rather than fascism can be said to have murdered Orlando Letelier, even though of all the feuding anti-Castro fractions, that of the suspected Novo brothers (the MNC or Christian Nationalist Movement) was the only one to claim an explicitly authoritarian ideology.

But the distinction between fascism and parafascism is less clear in practice. Reliance on the tolerated crimes of organised parafascist gangsters is an inimical alternative to democratic procedure, not a supplement to it. Perhaps its most immediate result is to force a determined left-wing movement into mimetic violence and terrorism. It mayeven desire this, since a militant movement relying on small arms and specialists in the use of them is, as we saw in the case of the Uruguayan Tupamaros, all the more prone to penetration by parafascists like Christian David.

Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and now Thailand are all countries where, in the last 15 years, parafascism has been followed by the fascist overthrow of democracy. Reliance on parafascist assets in Europe has, as we shall see, led to the establishment of a shadowy but credible Internacional Fascista there. So parafascism is not merely abhorrent in itself, and a threat to exposed individuals like Letelier. In so far as it appears to represent part of a world-wide trend towards fascism, it represents a threat to democracy, even in the United States.


Transnational Parafascism and the CIA

In its search for disciplined criminal operators, the CIA originally drew upon narcotics traffickers, notably the Italian networks of Luciano in Marseilles (1948-50). Later the CIA drew on the French gangsters employed for penetration and assassination purposes by Colonel Pierre Fourcald of French intelligence (SDECE). (The CIA already knew Colonel Fourcald from its collaboration with his Service Action Indochine - a special warfare operation financed by the sale of opium to the world- wide Corsican networks.) (95) It is rumoured in Europe that QJ/WIN, "the foreign citizen with a criminal background", who was recruited by the CIA in Europe to assassinate Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba, was none other than the famous French heroin financier and SDECE assassin, Joe Attia, who Fourcald once defended as "an absolutely extraordinary agent". (96)

But the relationship between the CIA and Skorzeny's parafascist services became more complicated in the 1960s, as democracies disappeared in South America while the world's major powers and industries competed fiercely in the rest of the third world, using whatever covert resources were available. As Skorzeny approached retirement, in Spain his place was taken by his former Egyptian subordinate Dr. Gerhardt Hartmut von Schubert, who slowly developed a small international squad of commandos, the so-called Paladingruppe, from former French Foreign Legionnaires, paratroopers and barbouzes. (97) The successive tumult of French politics supplied him and other similar services with waves of recruits whose proven capacity for violence was no longer desired at home. Thus the former anti-Gaullists of the OAS were joined by their one-time mortal enemies, the counter-terrorist barbouzes of Foccart's Service d'Action Civique. (SAC).

Clients for Von Schubert's Paladins ranged from the West German firm Rheinmetall to the Greek intelligence service (KYP) under the ambitiously fascist junta of the Greek colonels which lasted from April 1967 to July 1974. The KYP, which the CIA originally organised and always remained close to, played a major role - along withExxon and its Greek-American partner Tom Pappas - in the 1967 coup. The KYP, always in collaboration with the CIA, then expanded its activities tenfold in the other countries of Southern Europe where democracy was weak or non-existent - Italy, Spain and Portugal. (98)

In the case of Italy the KYP became involved in fascist (MSI) plotting against the slowly decaying Christian Democratic government. So did the CIA, according to revelations in the suppressed House Congressional Report on Intelligence - the so- called Pike Report - whose unprecedented suppression has itself been attributed to the domestic political strength of the CIA. (99) The Pike Report revealed that the U.S. Ambassador in Rome had channelled CIA money to Vito Miceli, chief of the Italian intelligence (SID), for distribution to right-wing groups. Miceli was subsequently arrested for his role in the KYP-supported coup of Prince Valerio Borghese, the fascist MSI leader, in December 1970.(100)

The CIA's subsidy to Miceli, like its efforts in 1970 to foment a military coup against Chilean President-elect Allende, can be construed as a culmination of previous support to fascist and parafascist groups in more marginal democracies, but it is important to discern what was new in these intrigues. In contrast to the role of the CIA in the coups of Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1975) and Greece (1967), the CIA under Nixon had never before intervened so directly on behalf of privilege against an established democracy. Retired CIA spokesman, David Phillips, in exculpating his own role in the 1970 anti- Allende operation, has blamed it on Richard Nixon - neglecting to mention that the CIA drew on U.S. contacts with the Chilean Right (particularly the military) which had been carefully cultivated over a period of years and which were continued, in fact intensified, up to the successful military coup of September 1973. (101)


The U.S., Chile and the Aginter Press

In particular the CIA had subsidised a right-wing conspiratorial Chilean parafascist group - Patria y Libertad, headed by former CIA contacts like Julio Duran - which received special counter-revolutionary training from former French OAS operatives close to the Skorzeny - von Schubert Paladingruppe. These operatives were then part of the Lisbon-based Aginter Press, a cover for a world-wide network of counter- terrorist services, which functioned chiefly out of the old Portuguese colonies. Some of these Aginter operatives, including an American, Jay Sablonsky, had already taken part with former CIA Cubans and U.S. Green Berets in the great Guatemalan counter- terror of 1968-71, when some 50,000 people are estimated to have been killed. Aginter Press operatives were also present in Chile for the September 1973 coup. (102)

The Portuguese coup of April 1974 forced the Aginter Press OAS operatives to abandon Lisbon (and their files) abruptly. Some of these French rightists plotted vainly with right-wing General Spinola against the Portuguese centrists who enjoyed the support of President Ford's State Department. Their strategy envisaged an independent Azores, which would then function as an offshore base for covert operations against the Portuguese mainland and elsewhere.

The plan failed, but not before it had demonstrated the ability of the OAS plotters to establish contacts with the staffs of U.S. Senator, Strom Thurmond, and with a businessman enjoying contacts with the Gambino Mafia family, with the CIA, and with two of the Cuban exiles questioned by a grand jury in connection with the killing of Orlando Letelier. Meanwhile, other Aginter operatives, including their leader Yves Guerin-Serac, had escaped to the Paladingruppe headquarters in Albufereta, Spain, and thence to Caracas, the present headquarters of Orlando Bosch. Their travel was facilitated through fresh passports supplied via the French parallel police (SAC) networks of their long-time collaborator Jacques Foccart. (103)


After Watergate: the Chilean-Cuban Exile Alliance

There is no doubt that the decline and fall of Richard Nixon in 1973-4, along with the flood of revelations which washed him out of office, meant - at least in the short run - a weakening of U.S. support for reaction overseas. After the Chilean bloodbath of September 1973 the tide turned briefly the other way, as a paralysed Washington didnothing to prevent the fall of Caetano in Portugal (April 1974) and of the Greek colonels (July 1974). By early 1976, following the death of Franco in Spain and the Lebanese civil war, it appeared that the organised headquarters of multinational parafascism (Aginter Press and the Paladingruppe) might be driven from the Iberian peninsula to scattered points in Latin America and Africa.

Likewise, the hopes of the Cuban exiles seemed much dimmer after the resignation of the U.S. president who, years before, had arranged for the Bay of Pigs; who had used Artime, the alleged would-be assassin of Castro and Torrijos, to launder the White House Watergate defence money; and whose close friend, Bebe Rebozo, was directly involved with Cuban exiles prominent in both the efforts to reoccupy Cuba and the international narcotics traffic. All through 1976 the FBI and Miami police moved increasingly to crack down on right-wing Cuban terrorism in Miami and elsewhere, especially after the talk in Washington of resuming trade with Cuba.

When a confidential informant told the Miami police that Henry Kissinger might be assassinated during his trip of 1976 to Costa Rica, Orlando Bosch, who was also in Costa Rica on a false Chilean passport from the Chilean intelligence service (DINA), was jailed for the duration of Kissinger's visit. (104) The friend who helped arrange his release, former Bay of Pigs leader, Manuel Artime, could not exercise as much influence back in the United States as in the Nixon era, when he had formed the committee to launder White House money from his other friend, Howard Hunt, to the Cuban Watergate defendants. (105)

With the election of President Carter, the hopes of the Cuban revanchists appeared to have turned definitely from the U.S. government to the right-wing dictatorships of Latin America, above all Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala. According to former Cuban exile Carlos Rivero Collado, the Chilean-Cuban exile alliance was formed shortly after the Chilean coup of September 1973, when the junta sent one of the representatives of its intelligence network DINA, Eduardo Sepulveda, to be Chilean consul in Miami. Sepulveda quickly contacted Ramiro de la Fe Perez, a Bay of Pigs veteran terrorist leader who once faced Florida charges for piracy. (106) Sepulveda reportedly promised material support for Cuban right-wing terrorism in exchange for help in promoting the junta's image in the United States.

According to Washington Post writer George Crile:

State Department files indicate that the Chileans were offering safe haven, passports and even the use of diplomatic pouches to some Cuban terrorists. One government investigator says that a remote control detonating device, used in the assassination of the exile leader Rolando Masferrer in 1975 [Orlando Bosch's one time room-mate and later enemy], had been brought into the United States in a Chilean diplomatic pouch. (107)

For its part, the Bay of Pigs Brigade 2506 Association, with Nixon gone and their go- between Howard Hunt in jail, gave its first Freedom Award in 1975 to Chilean junta leader, General Pinochet. Meanwhile, at least since 1975, Bosch was drawing money and a false passport supplied by DINA, whose national security advisor, Walter Rauff, was a Nazi war criminal wanted for the murder of 97,000 Jews in gassing vans. Rauff, who escaped via the Vatican monasteries of Bishop Hudal in 1947, became a leading representative of the Skorzeny network in Chile. (108)

In late 1974, junta Ambassador Julio Duran, a long-time CIA contact and organiser of Patria Y Libertad, appeared at a Miami Cuban rally organised by Sepulveda's contact Ramiro de la Fe Perez. (109) One year later junta Ambassador Mario Arnelo, reportedly the organiser of the Chilean Nazi party, appeared on a Union City, New Jersey platform with three persons who would later become prime suspects in the murder of Orlando Letelier; Guillermo Novo, Dionisio Suarez and Alvin Ross. (110) In July 1976 the junta Secretary of Culture attended the Miami congress of the terrorist organisation Alpha 66, one of the most active U.S. participants in the KMT-Gehlen- World Anti-Communist League (WACL).

After the junta's condemnation in 1975 by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights which had been refused permission to enter Chile, and especially after the election of Jimmy Carter, who had made human rights a foreign policy election issue, the United States showed increasing disenchantment with the Chilean junta along with their exile Cuban terrorist proteges. U.S. industry, mindful of a Congressional cut-off of military aid to Chile in 1974, had been slow to risk investing in Chile; and indeed the success of Letelier in dissuading private and public foreign investors and banks is the most frequently cited motive for his assassination.


World Parafascism, Drugs and Crime

In general, the fall of Nixon and the eventual election of Carter cut off the CIA subsidies to the Right, which does much to explain the recent financing of both West European fascists and Chile's Cuban proteges by criminal activities, including narcotics. In late 1974 Italian Interior Minister Andreotti produced revelations of a tie- in between the followers of MSI leader Prince Borghese (who had recently died after fleeing to Spain) and organised kidnappings and bank robberies of the Italian Mafia (specifically a northern Italian cosca or gang, the so-called 'Anonima Sequestri', headed by the afore-mentioned Luciano Liggio and Tomasso Buscetta). (111)

A similar tie-in between neo-fascism and crime became evident in France in 1976 following two spectacular, probably related crimes. In June 1976, Jean Kay, a Paladingruppe veteran of the Katanga and Biafra independence campaigns, helpedembezzle $1.5 million from the French Mirage jet company, funds which reportedly went to a right-wing organisation with members in Italy, Lebanon, Britain, and elsewhere. (112) One month later, Albert Spaggiari, a veteran of the famous OAS Delta-6 commando of Roger Degueldre, as well as of the Indochina and Algerian campaigns, stole $12 million from a Nice bank which his gang reached through a tunnel from the city sewers. Spaggiari claimed to have given his money to an Italian fascist organisation in Turin called La Catena, which the police could not trace. They did, however, link Spaggiari to "the Turin-based CIDAS group and the French GRECE group, both fascist organisations". (113) Later, the police speculated that Spaggiari's loot, along with the funds extorted by Jean Kay in the assault-de Vathaic blackmail scandal, found their way to the Christian Falangist Party in Lebanon. (114)

In June 1977, as we have already noted, Orlando Bosch's daughter and son-in-law were arrested for attempting to smuggle $200,000 worth of cocaine. There are, moreover, grounds for suspecting an organised connection between the criminal activities of the European neo-fascists and the Cuban exiles. Both Kay and Spaggiari visited Miami in the summer of 1976, where, according to Henrik Kruger and the Journal de Dimanche (September 5 1976), Kay met with Cuban exiles. (The even more suggestive contact between Spaggiari and the CIA, in Miami, will be discussed in a moment.)


International Fascista in Action

Orlando Bosch's most recent umbrella alliance, CORU (Co-ordination of United Revolutionary Organisations) had just been assembled in June 1976. In October 1976, according to Kruger, CORU representatives attended meetings in Barcelona, Spain, which established a new International Fascista. This comprised elements from the Italian MSI (the Ordine Nuovo of Pino Rauti and Giovanni Ventura), Argentine fascists, the hard-liners of the Spanish Falange (the Fuerza Neuva of deputy Blas Pinar), the Cristi Rey Guerillas of the right-wing and anti-Vatican Spanish Catholic Mariano Sanchez Covisa, Cuban exile terrorists, the remnants of Aginter Press (now known as the ELP, or Portuguese Liberation Army, but still headed by OAS veteran Yves Guerin-Serac), and - always according to Kruger - former terrorist agents of the Skorzeny-von Schubert Paladingruppe and of the CIA. (115)

In January and February 1977, according to the New York and London Times, members or associates of the first five groups were arrested by Spanish police for theirrole in six terrorist murders designed to prevent the forthcoming Spanish general election. Noting the persistent stories in the Spanish press (particularly the liberal El Pais) "of the so-called Fascist International", the New York Times reported the arrest of the Argentine fascist Jorge Cesarsky, linked to both the Fuerza Nueva and to "the right-wing Peronism", and later of his colleague Carlos Perez, a Cuban exile. (116) Cesarsky is said to have been a member of the Argentina AAA (Alianza Anticommunista de Argentina) and the next day a new Spanish AAA (Alianza Anticomunista Apostolica) claimed responsibility for his crime. (117) He was detained as part of a group of twenty-four rightists reported to be of at least six nationalities, including seven Argentines and three Cubans. (118)

Mariano Sanchez Covisa was also arrested twice by police in this period - first with Cesarsky, and one month later with a group of eight Italians. One of these was Giancarlo Rognoni, convicted for his role in an attempt to blow up the Turin-Rome express; this plot, according to Italian left-wing sources, had been financed by the Ordine Nuovo-Giovanni Ventura group, at that time in touch with the Greek KYP agent Costas Plevris. (119)

All of this multinational neo-fascist violence in Spain appeared at first to be mirroring comparable violence on the left by the so-called GRAPO (First of October Anti- Fascist Resistance), to which the New York Times, at first, devoted much attention. But, in mid-January a high Spanish official suggested that GRAPO's Maoist appearance might cloak a right-wing agenda; the London Times later noted its links to a party (the PCER, or Reconstructed Spanish Communist Party), which had been heavily infiltrated by the Spanish police. (120)

The New York Times tended to downplay the right-wing killings, or what it called "the machinations of the so-called Fascist International", as a "last gasp" - albeit violent - before elections in which the right-wing knew it would do badly. (It is true that violence in Spain has subsided since the 1977 elections; but it is also true that fears of right-wing terrorism in Portugal and other parts of Europe have increased.) The New York Times index, which often appears to have been sanitised by the CIA's (or DEA's) computers, considers Communism worth of an Index entry, but not fascism. To my knowledge, the Times has not, in recent years, printed any investigative story on international fascism: it is no longer the paper that dared to note, back in 1923, the almost certainly accurate reports that an obscure German thug called Adolph Hitler was being secretly financed by Henry Ford. (121) It did, however, transmit the intriguing and (I believe) highly significant detail that the Spanish AAA behind the Argentine Cesarsky and the Cuban Carlos Perez "has supporters in Argentina and South Korea". (122) Like the Greek junta, the Park regime has taken steps throughout the world to ensure that it will never be isolated in its authoritarianism.


World Parafascism and the U.S. Chile Lobby

South Korea, since the spectacular collapse of South Vietnam in 1975, is perhaps the most conspicuous example of a nation whose existence and survival are directly attributed to U.S. support. This does not, of course, mean that every political act is somehow under U.S. control - as Kennedy and Eisenhower learned in their painful travails of Ngo dinh Diem and Syngham Ree. But in certain respects both the government and the economy of South Korea are less powerful, and less relevant to that nation's survival, than the South Korean lobby in Washington.

That such a situation was true of South Vietnam became evident in 1975. Saigon's fall in that year was not attributable to internal political or economic developments: there the situation continued as before to be "hopeless but not serious". The collapse followed the realisation that the once intransigent Vietnam lobby in Washington - which, as we shall see in a moment, was largely continuous with the China Lobby of the 1950s and the South Korean Lobby of the 1970s - no longer regarded South Vietnam as a crucial priority.

In like manner, in 1977, the survival of the para-fascist terrorist groups or 'assets' like the Aginter Press-OAS and CORU-Cubans is less a function of their own criminal resources than of their 'protection' in high places - above all Washington.

The core of that support is the essentially continuous anti-democratic lobby that harassed Democratic presidents since WW2 - whether as the China Lobby against Trueman, the Cuba-Vietnam Lobby against Kennedy, or now the Chile- Rhodesia/South Korea-Panama Canal Lobby which has begun to shape against President Carter. With the passage of years this lobby has become increasingly sophisticated, faceless and multinational; the clumsy excesses of the original China Lobby are not likely to be repeated. But the integrity of the old China Lobby coalition has never been broken; and, at least under the Ford Administration, its contact with foreign parafascism and neo-fascism has never been more overt.

Perhaps the key elements in this lobby today are - on the outside - the various committees organised from the public relations office of Marvin Liebman on Madison Avenue, and - on the inside - the Congressional power mustered by Senator Strom Thurmond. This coalition is strengthened inside Congress by the pay-off system refined most recently by the unregistered South Korean lobbyist, Tongsun Park, and outside it by the old military-industrial coalition, the American Security Council. All four elements have worked in collaboration since the days when Chinese nationalistgold, via a Mafia-tainted public relations firm, first made Richard Nixon a senator in 1950. (123)

Take, for example, the American-Chilean Council (ACC) which Marvin Liebman founded in 1975, for a Chilean fee of $36,000 a year plus expenses.(124) At least a third of the ACC's founding members had been active in the China Lobby from as early as 1946. Of ten ACC members dating from this period, six were prominent in the China Lobby, six were members of Liebman's support group for Moise Tshombe (American Committee to Aid Katanga Freedom Fighters) in 1961, members of Liebman's Cuba lobby (Committee for the Monroe Doctrine) in 1963, and five were on the National Board of the Buckley - Liebman Young Americans for Freedom in 1963. Of the eight Americans who helped draft the WACL Charter at Seoul in 1966, four became leading members of the ACC.

In May 1976, lobbying vainly to prevent the cut-off of aid to the Chilean junta, the ACC turned for help to Cuban exiles and members of Sun Myung Moon's Freedom Leadership Foundation. The Moon group (linked by Tongsun Park to the Korean CIA) was supplied with pro-junta propaganda by Chile's Washington lobbyist, Dimitru Danielopol, a veteran of the CIA-subsidised Copley News Service and former spokesman (in collaboration with Senator Thurmond) for the Greek junta. (125) Danielpo also fed materials to Cuban exiles and others working for the American Security Council (which, in turn, interlocked with the ACC). Meanwhile Senator Thurmond was key senate contact of Tongsun Park, while in 1973 Park's House proteges Richard Hanna and Robert Leggett helped set up a new pro-Taiwan lobby after a KMT-sponsored visit to Taipei. (126) Until the fall of the right-wing Cambodian government in 1975, the Moon paper, Rising Tide (full of Cuban exile, Chilean junta and WACL propaganda) was distributed free of charge by the Cambodian Embassy in Washington - a service ultimately paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

In 1975 Senator Thurmond was the focal point for visits from European neo-fascists, most notably the Italian MSI leader Giorgio Almirante, the intellectual patron of Ordine Nuovo's paramilitary leader Paolo Gambescia. Some months earlier Thurmond had been contacted by another representative of the Ordine Nuovo milieu, the OAS- Aginter Press mercenary, Jean-Denis de la Raingeard, together with U.S. supporters of the short-lived Azores Liberation Front.

Back in 1969, when OAS-Aginter operatives assassinated Mozambique independence leader Eduardo Mondlane, Thurmond had placed in the Congressional Record an editorial from his home-state newspaper, the Charleston News and Courier, which hailed the murder as an act in defence of Western civilisation. (127) For some years the newspaper had printed pro-Portuguese articles on Africa generated by the U.S. lobbyists for the Portuguese overseas companies, Selvage and Lee. The key figure here seems to have been Associate Editor Anthony Harrigan, who moved to Washington in 1969 to become editor of the American Security Council's Washington Report.

In 1975, when Ford was President, Almirante and de la Rangeard were able to consult not only with Thurmond but also with the staff of the National Security Council. The CIA, meanwhile, after helping the Chilean junta to write its exculpatory White Paper, subsidised the English-language propaganda book Chile's Marxist Experiment by the London Economist staff writer, Robert Moss. (A two part piece on Chile by Moss, which had appeared in Buckley's National Review, was sent to 4,000 editors in this country by Liebman's ACC).


The CIA and the Politics of Countervalence

It is in this context that one must take seriously the contacts between Miami CIA and the French neo-fascist-OAS commando Albert Spaggiari, the Nice bank robber. According to a story in the London Observer, reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle, Spaggiari contacted the CIA "in the United States" after the robbery and told them he had organised it. Later Spaggiari was arrested in France because a tip by an informer to whom he had tried to sell gold was acted on by Marseilles police. It was only then that detectives were given a dossier originating in the U.S. after the Nice raid. He told the CIA he had organised the Nice robbery and offered to blow up the Communist party headquarters in Paris. (128)

Henrik Kruger supplies the additional information that Spaggiari came to Miami. (129) This detail, together with the AIP-Aginter connection to the Micile-MSI network (which may or may not have included Spaggiari's Italian contacts) suggests that in 1976 the old JM/Wave coalition of criminal anti-Communist 'assets', far from being dissolved as the CIA had assured the Church Committee, was merely dispersed to deeper cover overseas.

Why has the CIA continued to maintain such contacts? Probably not for covert operations funded from its own budget, since after 1974 these have been subjected to new requirements for Presidential authorisation and Congressional review. (130) But the chief problem for small plots which favour the very rich is not funding. Instead, they look to the CIA for protection of their day-to-day illegal activities, and for legitimisation, some sign that they will enjoy the mandate of the American heaven, when these activities confront the existing regiment of power. Spaggiari's well- organised escape in March 1977, and the reluctance of police to search for him thereafter, convinced the London Observer that he was part of a "Fascist plot under the protection of highly placed [French] politicians and civil servants." (131) There is no way this protection could not have been enhanced by his ostentatious involvement ofthe CIA in a cover-up of the robbery.

The CIA, it is true, did not back the OAS neo-fascists of the ex-Aginter Press Portuguese Liberation Front (ELP) and Azorean Liberation Front (FLA) under deposed General Spinola, even after Spinola's visit to the New York Council on Foreign Relations in November 1975 in the midst of his conspiratorial travels. In the Iberian peninsula, where there is no strongly based radical movement, the U.S. had favoured a moderately progressive centrist politics against a seizure of power by autarkic (and hence anti-American) neo-fascism.

How the US would respond to the threat of a Eurocommunist government in Italy or France is much less clear. In these countries, where the leading alternative to the centre is on the left rather than the right, it appears that the CIA will maintain its historic contacts to the old and new fascist right as a potential counterweight. Kissinger's last official remarks suggest that U.S. opposition to Communist victories in Western Europe is no longer, as in 1948, motivated by a fear of Soviet expansion in that area. If so, the rationale for such right-wing alliances has become increasingly cynical, just as the tactics for counter-terror have become increasingly brutal.

For the time being, however, the CIA is probably more interested in the European OAS as mercenary parafascist assets in Arab countries and Africa, than as a political neo-fascist movement in Europe. In the CIA's defence, it can be argued that in Africa (as opposed to Italy), the U.S. CIA is now responding to Soviet KGB manoeuvres on a grand scale, and not merely provoking them. This KGB threat has been used to justify the CIA's strong involvement with Moroccan intelligence forces - which led to their implication with Christian David and other members of Joe Attia's gang in the 1965 murder of Moroccan opposition leader Mehdi Ben Barka. (132) In 1977, when an Angolan MPLA force with Soviet and Cuban backing invaded Zaire, Moroccan forces with French-U.S. backing were there to respond. In a less overt fashion the French OAS and SAC operatives will continue, as for the last two decades, to be active in 'decolonised' Africa, in murder and other covert operations which at least occasionally have enjoyed CIA support.


Post-war Disposal Problems: De Gaulle and Watergate

A glance at the recent partial dismantling of De Gaulle's secret networks is perhaps the best way to understand the 'CIA problem' confronting Jimmy Carter after Richard Nixon. De Gaulle's intensive use of SDECE and SAC operatives in illegal activities left himself, and, above all, his successors Pompidou and Gisgard d'Estaing with a 'disposal' problem: what to do with large numbers of dangerous activists of no certain loyalty who could easily blackmail the state. The answer of de Gaulle's successors was to follow De Gaulle's own footsteps and allow the more dangerous to disperse into private employment or overseas, some of them with Aginter Press and the Paladingruppe. Henceforward the SDECE (Intelligence) and SAC (parallel police) would present a cleaner and more legal image: the most ruthless operatives, some of them quasi-independent black mercenaries, would no longer be government agents.

But the cleansing of the official French networks contributed to the strengthening of unofficial networks like Aginter Press and the Paladingruppe in the international milieu. As we have seen, it also contributed to a temporary intensification of the international narcotics traffic, as well-trained operatives with good personal police connections attempted to finance their activities by unofficial means. Thus SAC agent Christian David, in flight after the Ben Barka scandal, joined the Ricord heroin network. (133) Thus Roger Delouette, a strongly Gaullist SDECE agent, after Pompidou's purging of SDECE, seems to have turned to heroin trafficking (with Christian David's contacts) to finance the African arms sales he had developed in 1969 with the OAS-SAC-backed secessionist forces of Biafra. (134)

Along with the strengthening of an uncontrollable international milieu and narcotics, a third by-product of the disposal process has been a wave of publicity about covert operations. Some of this have come from angry disposees who absconded with microfilms of their files. (135) Some of it has been inspired from above, not so much by the 'controlled leak' - an institution more congenial to Washington than to Paris - as by the selective arrest of disposees whose protection in higher places had now lapsed.

A key example of this was the October 1971 arrest in Paris of Andre Labay, the former SAC contact with Moise Tshombe of Katanga and SDECE agent in Haiti. Labay, a higher-up in the Delouette narcotics connection, was arrested four months after Delouette as the result of a tip-off from the U.S. narcotics bureau in Paris to their French counterparts. (136) Indeed, there are many sceptics who speculate that most of the high-level French-Corsican narcotics arrests which followed the Pompidou-Nixon visit of March 1970 and the formal Marcellin-Mitchell narcotics agreement of February 1971 were not so much simple police actions as political operations against a common enemy: the intransigent Gaullist remnants like Delouette (arrested in April 1971) inside and outside of SDECE and SAC.

In the 1960s CIA clashes with SAC and SDECE had been frequent - specifically in Katanga and Haiti - and the 1970-73 U.S.-French anti-narcotics campaign coincides almost exactly with the dates (December 1970 - July 1973) of the clearly illegal collaboration of the CIA with the BNDD in the U.S.. (137) In this same period Charles Pasqua, founder of SAC, recruiter of SAC gangsters like Christian David, and the former overseer in private business of the narcotics trafficker Jean Venturi, emerged asPresident of the French Parliamentary Commission on Narcotics Problems (138). There he was joined by a veteran cold war warrior and participant in WACL-group meetings, Mme. Suzanne Labin.

All accounts of the SDECE-SAC purges of 1970-74 agree that the purpose was not to neutralise these agencies but merely to make them more amenable to central oversight in a less militant period. The by-product of an intensified international milieu pullulating with private arms merchants and mercenary operations networks also suited the mature phase of French 'decolonisation' in which the SDECE and SAC - having organised many of the most spectacular African assassinations and kidnappings of the 1960s - were now only too happy to assume a lower profile. Pompidou's political patrons - most notably the Rothschild family with their huge complex of African investments - could, in future, have their corporations exploit this international milieu without governmental supervision.

A similar process, culminating in a similar privatisation of covert operations assets, can be discerned in the recent history of America, particularly since Watergate. Here too, although much less is known, there has been a purge of CIA, a dispersal of former CIA Cuban operatives into new multinational networks, and a number of what appear to be controlled selective arrests of former CIA agents who had been driven into narcotics trafficking with the Ricord network. Both a Presidential Commission and a Senate Select Committee have encouraged this process of disposal by their partial revelations; and it is probably significant that a member of the former, former Treasury Secretary C.Douglas Dillon, chaired the 1968 secret Council on Foreign Relations panel which recommended that the CIA should move to a lower profile.


Disposal as a Flight from Public Control: Thailand

There is, of course, much to commend in the steps which Congress has taken to restrain the CIA and all forms of U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of other states. But the effect of these measures will be frustrated as long as new agencies - such as the DEA - are allowed to pick up the training and assassination tasks denied to CIA; as long as the U.S.-financed lobbies of client states (such as the China, Vietnamand South Korea lobbies) are used, with CIA benevolence, as a means of tilting Congress towards global intervention; and as long as the intelligence backgrounds and contacts of criminals like Orlando Bosch protects them from punishment for their no- longer-sanctioned revanchist activities.

Take, for example, the useful revelations of the Church Committee about CIA subvention for the parafascist forces which helped overthrow Allende in Chile - the Patria y Libertad whose Operation Djakarta of extermination is said to have first "been made in an internal memorandum of a United States transnational company in 1970". (139) These revelations did nothing to prevent the recurrence of three crucial elements of the Djakarta-Santiago scenario in the bloody and nakedly anti-democratic coup of October 1976 in Bangkok. Here, as before, overt CIA interference - of the type which went out with the Bay of Pigs - was replaced by the following recurring symptoms of a U.S. supported conspiracy:

(a) a symbolic tilting of U.S. aid away from the civilian government towards the military, which in Thailand were notoriously anti- democratic. (U.S. economic aid declined from $39 million in Fiscal 1973 to $17 million in Fiscal 1975; military and police aid increased in the same period from $68 million to $83 million. (140)

(b) the recruiting of student goon squads - the so-called Red Gaurs - who consulted freely with U.S. personnel in Bangkok about their long-laid plans to assassinate their opponents. (141) The pre-coup reports that the Red Gaurs were directly or indirectly subsidised by the CIA should be investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

(c) the training, equipping and rewarding of anti-government elements in the police and military who made little or no secret of their intentions. In particular the Thai Border Patrol Police, now trained and equipped by the DEA in place of the CIA, were the principal murders of the unarmed Thai students at Thammasat University, killing at least one hundred.
(142)

Only one month later the U.S. government, under its International Narcotics Control Programme, delivered five new helicopters to the Thai Border Patrol Police "to help the police hunt down narcotics traffickers".(143)

Even if the Thai BPP are no longer, as in the past, profiting themselves from the movement of drugs out of the 'golden triangle', their activities will certainly be political. The new Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the Thai anti-narcotics campaign, Amporn Chanvijit, is a product of the Thai Defence School of Psychological Warfare. (144) But then, if the CIA had suffered any remorse after the bloody 'Operation Djakartas' of Indonesia (1965) and Chile (1973), it would not have in the latter year sent Bernardo Hugh Tovar, the 1965 CIA Station Chief in Djakarta, and a veteran of student operations there, to preside over a third bloody coup followed by extermination in Bangkok.

In Latin America, as in Thailand, INC and DEA aid to foreign police is channelled (like OPS and CIA before it) to the leading counter-insurgency forces. This is not just because guerillas and narcotics are to be found together in the same inaccessible mountainous regions. It is because the war against highly-organised narcotics activities requires a special breed of killer-police which, in unstable countries, are certain to be deployed against enemies of the regime. This is rationalised by the ideology of counter-insurgency, which assumes that guerillas and traffickers are part of the same anti-state culture. Thus Lopez Rega's statement in 1974 that guerillas are dope users was echoed in 1977 by Argentine Foreign Minister Cesar Guzzetti. Speaking of the drug problem, he proclaimed that "we attack its body through the war against guerillas and its spirit through the war against drug traffic, both carriers of nihilistic and collectivist ideas". (145)

The U.S. officials of INC and DEA know all this, and evidently approve of it. The two years of AAA counter-terror in Argentina under Lopez Rega (1973-75) saw a sudden upsurge of INC support expenditure from $20,000 in fiscal year 1972-74 (before Rega's rise to power) to $428,000, falling again to $20,000 in fiscal 1976 (after his fall). In Argentina, as in Thailand, the bulk of this increase went to spotter aircraft for the Border Patrol (even though Argentina, unlike Thailand, is not a major source of any drug at all). A recent DEA report on U.S.-sponsored narcotics operations in Mexico, which are concentrated in the northern mountain areas favoured by left-wing forces, notes approvingly that "the special impact units made numerous criminal arrests" and that roadblocks netted "several persons on 'most wanted listings' ".(146)


Suppression by Proxy: the Superclient States

The CIA, having already moved assassination-coup specialists like Conein into DEA, seems intent on preserving for itself a much lower profile (in accordance with theBissell-CFR recommendations of 1968). In its recent operations it has shown a preference to work through the employees of other U.S. agencies, and, increasingly, the agents and agencies of third countries. Thus in the Cambodia coup-slaughter of March 1970, modelled (as Newsweek reported) on the Djakarta operation of 1965, the key training role was played by the Indonesian military; and a similar training role was played by the Brazilian army and police in Bolivia, prior to the Chilean coup-slaughter of 1973.(147) This is consistent both with the Nixon doctrine and with its corollary that (in the words of the Rand Corp's Indonesia expert, Guy Pauker) "Brazil, Nigeria, Iran and Indonesia....are expected to assume a dominant position in their respective part of the world...possibly as a result of a tacit devolution of responsibilities by global powers". (148) The responsibilities are thus devolved, but the Djakarta scenario of coup-slaughter remains, except for refinements of technology, essentially the same.

Pauker, a strenuous advocate of the Indonesian military take-over, also approves of this devolution to four notoriously murderous regimes, at least three of which are militarised dictatorships. It is no accident that three of Pauker's four favoured nations are also OPEC oil producing countries, able, since the spectacular 1973 increase in crude oil prices, to assume an increasing share of the former U.S. government's role as subsidiser of the U.S. defence industry and as aid patron to less-advantaged nations.

This vision of transnationalised order has emerged from U.S. think tanks at a time when transnational corporations, particularly oil companies, are assuming greater independence from U.S. or indeed any form of sovereign political control. It is, however, not the recipe for stability and disengagement that Nixon and Kissinger would have had us think. Dictatorships like Brazil and Indonesia are clearly not neutral arbiters of order and the status quo. Like the Greek junta of the late 1960s, they are committed to repression and fearful of open democracy in any country - particularly in the United States.

Thus, I suspect that in time we shall see more and more clearly apparently disparate lobby actions in the United States - Madame Chennault for the KMT and Saigon, Kermit Roosevelt and Richard Allen for the Portuguese colonies, Nixon's extra- national suppliers of untraceable funds through Watergate, and now the Chile and South Korea lobbies - as one single interlocking lobby for repressive violence abroad. As in the case of China in the 1940s or Vietnam in 1963-4, increasing weakness abroad - such as we may well anticipate in Chile and South Korea - will be accompanied by intensified lobbying in Washington, not just by these countries, but by those U.S. agencies (or elements within them) with which they have become identified.


Economic Recession and Arms Sales Increases

In this way weakness at the periphery of the U.S. transnational system will generate forces for instability and reactionary oppression at its centre. There is also the immediate risk that this long-run political disequilibrium will be reinforced by long- run economic disequilibrium as well. Looking back in history, it is not difficult to see capitalism's recurring lapses from the productive phase of a new industrial technology to a militaristic phase, as the only viable alternative to the paralysis of economic depression.

The precedent of the railroads a century ago is still relevant, if ominous. The great railroad companies were in the forefront of all industry, opening up the continents...But the companies soon cut each others throats in their ferocious competition, the construction boom collapsed as the networks covered the industrial nations...With the end of the railroad boom the steelmakers like Krupp, Vickers and Carnegie, who had built up whole cities in Essen, Sheffield and Pittsburg...looked to the industry which was most profitable and which was also in the vanguard of invention - to arms.

The end of the American aerospace boom has also coincided with the huge expansion of arms sales abroad, prompted by the withdrawal of American and British forces, the flow of oil money into the Middle East and the recession...it is not surprising that so many of the companies are former intelligence agents. Their trade is always a kind of espionage and subterranean warfare, calling for subterfuge, high-level contacts and Swiss bank accounts. (149)

After the first U.S. foreign trade deficit of the century, in 1971, U.S. arms sales abroad which had averaged $2 billion a year through most of the 1960s leapt to $3.9 billion in 1973, then to $8.3 billion in 1974, after the oil price increases of 1973 put new dollar surpluses in the hands of the OPEC countries - including three of the four new U.S. superclient states (Iran, Nigeria and Indonesia).

This swelling of the international arms trade also pumped new resources into the hands of the international sales and payoff system which had grown up to market such sales. Most of these arms traffickers were recruited from the international right-wing and/or intelligence community. Not surprisingly, many of the key contacts for illicit pay-offs on arms contracts between Washington and the client states were also key figures in Washington's lobbying corruption scene as well - among them Saigon lobbyist Madame Chennault, West German lobbyist Frank de Francis and the Saudi Arabian Adnan Khashoggi, a close friend of Bebe Rebozo. By the 1970s Kermit Roosevelt's flamboyant career - from CIA coup specialist to lobbyist for one of the oil companies (Gulf) he helped to put into Iran, to a lobbyist for Iran itself - had turned him into an arms salesman: his principal activity, from the point of both influence and affluence, was the promotion of military aircraft sales in Iran and Saudi Arabia. From Prince Bernhard of Holland to Yoshio Kodama of Japan, the transnational realm of influence in which these arms salesmen moved seems to have overlapped heavily with, and may have been indistinguishable from the 'world-wide infrastructure' ofpolitical agents developed by the CIA. (150)

If the burgeoning of military aerospace sales fostered the influence of superlobbyists in Washington and the global scene, the closely related burgeoning of small arms sales fostered the influence of small arms salesmen and employers like Skorzeny and his successors, Aginter Press and the Paladingruppe. In terms of both dollars and high- level influence, the small arms traffic is dwarfed by the aerospace traffic: the cost of the arms supplies in the whole Lebanese war, even at the highest estimate of a billion dollars, amounts to only one-twentieth of the estimated arms exports from the West in 1975.(151) But the same Lebanese war meant unprecedented sales commissions and status for the criminals and parafascists who exploited it - men like the French extortionist-mercenary Jean Kay, Stephane Zanettaci of the neo-fascist 'Action Jeunesse'. (152)

In the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate, post-oil embargo era of wars by proxy (such as Angola or Lebanon), in which the United States has willingly devolved its former responsibility to reactionary superclients like Iran, the status and influence of parafascist mercenaries is likely to continue to increase. The Carter administration has acted unilaterally to cut back on the export of arms from the United States; and, much more cautiously, it has challenged the interventionist lobby over such issues as the Panama Canal Treaty, human rights in Chile, the CIA's clandestine services and the corruption of Congress by South Korean agents. Carter's options in a period of economic uncertainty are not easy. Above all, if he resists the current pressures from the Right for a major increase in U.S. defence spending, he risks the kind of major world-wide recession and reaction which would be conducive to the rapid growth of right-wing power. But if he is successfully to challenge the political forces for repressive intervention, he must respond, not by compromise and partial capitulation (which will further weaken the forces for peace), but by a strong alternative vision of economic innovation. (153)




Continues at: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh ... nd-the-U.S
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:38 pm

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/18384

The political organisation and the mass organisation

December 23, 2010 by Keir Snow



Whilst organising closely with politically like-minded comrades may seem like an obvious instinct, it is worth evaluating what role a political organisation can or should play. In this essay I will build a model of working class organisation, as a means of comparing the nature and functions of the political organisation and the mass organisation. Like all such models, this will be idealised, and more of a statement as to how things perhaps ought to be, than how they are at present.

Also available in Italian: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/17434

Image


How mass organisation should relate to political organisations is a key question for socialists as clearly permanent mass organisations are required to sustain and grow class consciousness, and to allow victories to be built upon and turned into further victories.

So what are the key attributes of a coherent political organisation? Tight theoretical and tactical unity are to be expected, with everyone being on the same page and pushing in the same direction. Because of this, the size of a political organisation is often greatly limited, as there are only so many people out there who believe in whichever specific brand of socialism the organisation defines itself as, and who simultaneously have a shared attitude towards the practical day to day tasks of activism.

In contrast to this is the mass economic organisation, which for most libertarians is the key to the revolution. This most obviously could be a trade union, however other organisations such as residents groups may also fall under this banner. As the name suggests, mass organisations are very large in size, but consequently lack a great deal of political coherency. Another important factor in analysing organisations is their capacity. A small political group will have little capacity, as this capacity is primarily derived from financial resources and man-hours, however, with collective discipline, its capacity can be increased somewhat. In contrast mass organisation have large capacity, generally having a lot of funding and human resource available to them, however whether or not this capacity is utilised, and in what direction, is another question.

Some socialists, both in the libertarian and statist camps, believe that the mass organisation should be the political organisation, in other words, they are “partyists”. A good example of partyism from the statist side is the Scottish Socialist Party, who’s basic strategy is growth. However, in the Libertarian camp we can also find similar ideas, the most obvious example being the IWA affiliated groups, each of which seeks to build hybrid political/economic mass organisations.

This approach however, can only succeed where either the revolutionary politics of the organisation are de-emphasised (such as in the case of the SSP) , as most working class people in the UK at least are social democrats and thus unlikely to join a revolutionary organisation, or the political “mass” organisation remains small, such as in the case of IWA affiliates. It is worth noting at this point that I am observing general trends, and I am sure there are people in both the SSP and IWA who do not think their organisations should work this way.

A more sophisticated approach to mass organisations can be found in both statist and libertarian camps, where the political organisation participates and agitates within the wider mass organisation. This is the model adopted by most platformist anarchist groups and also many trotskyist groups, at least when it comes to their industrial work. This model typically means the the political organisation will attempt to engage directly with the mass membership of the economic organisation in which they find themselves. This model allows the mass organisation to grow and play some role in developing the consciousness in the wider working class, through the implicit strengthening of the class that comes through organisation.

The flaw with this model however is that a small political group still has little capacity, and its constituency, now the membership of the mass organisation rather than the whole of the working class, is still very large and whilst closer to its politics, is still most likely to be social-democratic, therefore the influence of the political organisation is constrained.

Enter the tendency organisation. The tendency organisation sits in between the political organisation and the mass organisation, both in terms of size, capacity and political coherency. The tendency allows the political organisation to pursue a subset of its goals with like-minded allies, thus granting it larger capacity. The tendency also creates a smaller, though politically closer, constituency where the political organisation can hope to wield greater influence and has better prospects of recruitment.

A classic example of a tendency is the Industrial Syndicalist Education League, essentially a syndicalist faction within the wider UK labour movement from 1910-1914, though there are plenty of others. Sometimes, where appropriate tendencies to not exist, the political organisation may have to set them up from scratch, attempting to find allies throughout the broader mass organisation. Tendencies may also be multi-layered, with tendencies working within other tendencies to build or reform them.

This model of organisation quite naturally fits in to the ladder of engagement. Typically the political organisation will want to recruit experienced militants, and obviously those militants should be politically close to the organisation. Those individuals who start out joining the mass organisation, then a tendency, have already gone on a political and experiential journey, developing their skills and ideas and drawing closer to the political organisation. It is therefore within these tendencies that recruits are to be found.

In real life of course, things are never quite so simple, and most political organisations, rather than falling neatly into one of the above strategies, alternate between them, at times agitating at the whole of the working class, at times within mass organisations and sometimes in tendencies. For example, when it comes to propaganda, most socialist groups produce all their own materials, usually aimed at the general public, as ineffectual as that may be due to their limited capacity, instead of distributing propaganda for a mass organisation, which a member of the public is more likely to join, and consequently take their first step on the ladder of engagement.

The same is often true of community work, where rather than trying to build a mass organisation such as a residents group the political organisation will instead set up temporary campaigns, with the only permanent organisation being the political group itself.

Hopefully, the model outlined above can serve some use in understanding how political organisations interact with the working class. The left’s current partyist trends away from mass organisation work in all but the industrial sphere, and the inadequate use of tendencies and other alliances have contributed greatly to the ineffectualness of the left. If we change our tactics to account for our limited capacity, I believe we can achieve far more, increasing our capacity many times.


Related Link: http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/node/99
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:17 pm

.

Erotic Capital???


What's LOVE got to do with it?



(NSFW language, cupcakes)
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:28 pm

OK, may as well just go ahead and publish this in its entirety:

http://globalcomment.com/2011/feminism- ... rie-penny/

Feminism, Socialism and the Meat Market: An Interview With Laurie Penny

APRIL 19, 2011


Laurie Penny is an English journalist who came into the public eye last year with her gripping coverage of the student protests and occupations. She writes a column for the New Statesman, as well as appearing in The Guardian and the Evening Standard. Her first book Meat Market: Female Flesh Under Capitalism is out on Zero from April 29th, while her edited collection (co-edited with Tania Palmieri and Clare Solomon) Springtime: The New Student Rebellions is forthcoming on Verso in September. I caught up with Laurie recently to talk about her book, and the situation facing women today.


Emily Manuel: Ok, so Meat Market. It’s a short book, but packs quite a punch in its 60 pages. What was the basic goal with the book?

Laurie Penny: Hmm, the basic goal… I wanted to see if I could extend some of my feminist thinking into a larger space, and I wanted to explore the ideas I’d had for ages about gender, power and the body. It was an experiment, really. I never thought anyone would read it, I was entirely unknown when I signed up to do it. Not that I didn’t put time and care into it, of course.

E.M: Of course. In the book you say that for women,“our bodies are not our own.” That’s a really bracing comment given some feminisms’ bias towards liberal individualism, was there any particular strain of feminism you were conscious of writing against?

L.P: Oh God yes. I think the notion of choice and individualism as shibboleths of all contemporary feminism is really, really pernicious. Women grow up surrounded by messages that our bodies are not okay, not acceptable, need to be changed, everyone has an opinion on how we look and what we eat and what we wear. We also live in a world of physical threat – the threat of rape, sexual violence and other violence – and finally the work our bodies do and our reproductive capacity are not ours to determine. Then we are told that the ultimate liberation is to have control over the body, to ‘free’ the body from this artificially-induced state of liminality, that freedom, that individual liberation, always somehow seems to involve being quiet and well-behaved and buying all the things. And that’s freedom. The absolute limit of what bourgeois feminism can offer us is terminal exhaustion and a cupboard full of beautiful shoes. I think that’s massively unambitious.

E.M: Ha! And maybe a few women in power making the same neoliberal decisions. It seems to me that in particular a lot of American feminists don’t really like thinking about economics as a form of coercion… echoes of the rugged American individualist?

Laurie: Oh, I think that’s the case in Britain too. And it’s also a deeply uncomfortable thing to think about, emotionally. for women in particular, spending power is often the only form of power we really feel we have. To question that is to question people’s identities – and a purchased identity is still an identity. But identity is not unassailable, nor should it be. All politics are identity politics!

Also, there’s a strain of feminism springing up on both sides of the pond, I think, which is being touted as a ‘feminist revival’, but which really doesn’t have any of the radicalism or ambition of previous feminist ‘waves’. None of the depth or breadth of social critique – limiting its ideas to isolated discussions of sex discrimination or sexual violence, which are important, but context is important too

E.M: It’s not world-making.

L.P: No, nor world-shaking.

E.M: Which is a depressing development to be sure, because there’s a narrowing of ambition. I wanted to talk a bit about “erotic capital” – which is a wonderful phrase. What’s the relationship between women and erotic capital?

L.P: I think a lot of women don’t really believe that their individual, private problems are politically important, or have any relationship to the world of work and money and power. And that’s a scam, because they do. Well, erotic capital is all about placing a price on sexuality – not just sex, but sexual performativity. Many women grow up understanding that our net worth to society is directly proportional to the erotic response we can provoke, chiefly in men. If you’re not hot, you’re not a person of value. and the definition of hotness narrows every year – quite literally, in many cases.

E.M: What I really liked about this idea is you introduced Judith Butler to Marx.

L.P: I’m sure Judith Butler is deeply aware of Marx. It remains unspoken, though, that aspect of commodity value – although we do speak of the ‘commodification’ of women’s bodies, there isn’t much acknowledgement that femininity and sexuality really are commodities, purchased and traded for profit. Sex work is a part of that, but not the whole part by any means.

And I think a lot of current feminist anxieties around sex work – the huge, interminable debates about how and whether feminists should support prostitutes – reflect that inability to deal with the wider problem of commodification, the violence of erotic capital. We discuss sex workers as if they existed in a dark, separate sphere, when in fact there is a spectrum of sexuality and profit that encompasses all of us.

E.M: Right. So what’s the place of men in this economy of erotic capital?

L.P: Not as powerful as they’re told they are. Men are almost entirely consumers, and almost entirely marginalised as individuals. Instead of intimacy, excitement and individual tastes and desires, they are given an empty purchasing power and told to feel big and strong and fulfilled because of it.

E.M: So men’s dehumanisation is that of the consumer, women’s is the product?

L.P: Not just of the product, that’s what makes it interesting. Women are required to purchase their own marginalisation because they are told that if they don’t, they are degendered, they will be mistreated or ignored and definitely unfulfilled.

E.M:As a punishment, that degendering seems to link into your discussion of trans women.

L.P: Well, trans women are no different from cis women in that they are also obliged to purchase their femininity and play at erotic capital. But for trans women that balance sheet starts out in deficit. And trans women offend a lot of people because their very existence makes it clear that femininity – not femaleness, but femininity, erotic capital and the gender identity that is facilitated by erotic capital – is something that you can walk into a shop and purchase.

E.M: And that’s scary because the whole inorganic system is legitimated with a discourse of the “natural.”

L.P: Oh yes. Since when did you need to buy a pot of moisturiser to be a ‘real woman’?

E.M: Reading that section, I was thinking – is trans-misogyny (as Julia Serano calls it) one of the more intense forms of sexism? Why have some cis feminists been hesitant to see it as part of the same system?

L.P: I think trans women scare a lot of feminists, especially trans women who are feminists! They challenge a lot of lazy thinking and prejudice within the movement as well as outside it, again, by their very existence. To acknowledge that trans women are women is to unpack a lot of received orthodoxies within traditional ‘radical’ feminism (which i don’t believe is radical at all). Practically speaking, as well, I felt it was important to have some trans-positive feminism within the context of a book written by a cis feminist. A lot of trans friends worked with me on that chapter.

E.M: Getting back to the idea of identity-as-purchase – you talk about anorexia as a kind of tragic resistance to compulsory sexualisation.

L.P: It’s a way of evading patriarchal surveillance. It’s also a form of violent submission! Doing exactly what you’re told to an extent that it hurts you and others around you. It is self-harm, but it is also a lethal form of passive aggression. Always has been, since the first documented cases in the 1500s. We hunger strike because we haven’t the energy or the ideological framework to offer any other form of resistance, but a hunger strike is also aggressive, we must never forget that. It’s peaceful, passive aggression. a way of saying to one’s captors: look what you made me do. A way of expressing the inhumanity of the way we are obliged to live, as women, as workers and as consumers.

E.M: Right. Your solution to this ideological deadlock is “riot, don’t diet” – what kinds of steps did you have in mind? A literal riot – taking up physical space?

L.P: I think a lot of revolutionary potential is wasted in moral decisions over whether or not to eat a given cookie. We need to focus our energies outward, we need to stop fighting to control our own bodies and try to take back control of our own lives. By force if necessary.

E.M: And sometimes go on strike?

Laurie: Oh yes. Striking, organising, occupying, agitating, reading, resisting – all this can go on within the home as well as outside it.

E.M: A labour movement dedicated to the kind of work women do every day, for free?

L.P: That would be wonderful. People really did used to think in those terms, too. There is enough work for everyone in our economies, if it were shared out fairly.

E.M: That’s the trick, the fairness. that strikes me as a good place to finish up – I could really talk about feminism and socialism all night.

L.P: Me too!

E.M: Thanks for your time, it’s been a pleasure.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:25 pm

An older column from Laurie Penny:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-misogyny

This jiggle-fest has nothing to do with sex or power

As a former burlesque dancer, a new film about the artform confirms to me how it has now been reduced to glib titillation

Image
Laurie Penny
guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 December 2010



There's more to subversion than stripping and sequins. Burlesque was once a truly radical form of working-class theatre, with 19th-century spit-and-sawdust shows that were as much about gender-bending and poking fun at the rich as they were about striptease. But it has now become a byword for bourgeois sexual performance, the same old objectification tastefully repackaged in ostrich feathers and expensive corsetry. The new big-budget Hollywood jiggle-fest Burlesque, starring Christina Aguilera and Cher, signals the final co-option of this once challenging artform into a glib titillation parade, lapdancing with a retro aesthetic. This troubles me greatly, as a feminist and a former burlesque performer.

During Saturday's X Factor final, Aguilera promoted the film with a live performance of one of the tie-in tracks, complete with writhing backing dancers in skimpy, old-fashioned panties. Parents all over the country called in to complain about the explicit nature of the pre-watershed segment, with Mumsnet and other parents' forums taking issue with the sheer amount of flesh on show. The Daily Mail, predictably, reacted to this pageant of pre-watershed gusset-waggling with paroxysms of moral hand-wringing, conveniently illustrated with pictures of waxed, half-naked 20-year-olds.

Burlesque as an artform began to lose its underground credentials the moment bourgeois gymnasiums started marketing "keep-fit burlesque classes", but the film is the final glittering nail in the corporate coffin of radical burlesque. It features Aguilera as a nubile young dreamer trying to make her way as a waitress, before finding fame, fortune and personal fulfilment when she realises that she has a talent for taking off her clothes to a big-band soundtrack. So far, so Hollywood.

I wouldn't want my little sisters to see the film either, but not because I have any desire to protect them from sexual content: the truly damaging message of the film and of the industry as a whole is the notion that female empowerment is all about the "power of the tease".

"Show a little leg, gotta shimmy your chest," sings Aguilera on the promotional track, Express. "Can you imagine what would happen if I let you close enough to touch?" That's the key question – indeed, it's the only question now raised by erotic dancing, which has become the acceptable face of the sex industry for middle-class women. It is about power, but only in a limited form – the power of imagination and sexual frustration.

Apologists tend to enthuse about its empowering nature – and indeed, as I learned when I was a performer, there is a certain cold joy in the realisation that you can make men watch you and want you. Since the dawn of time, women have been told that their most important social bargaining chip is the power to suggest sex and then withhold it, denying our own desires and manipulating the desires of men. There is nothing at all new about that sort of empowerment, and I don't want my little sisters learning that artfully withholding intercourse is the best they can hope for.

If the most empowering activity modern women can take part in is a ritualised form of the denial of sex, then we really have to question how far sexual politics have come after 50 years of feminism. As pop stars and presenters clamour for their turn with the nipple tassels, businesswoman and burlesque superstar Dita Von Teese extemporises on what she calls "the art of the tease": "Burlesque is a world of illusion and dreams and, of course, the striptease. As a burlesque performer, I entice my audience, bringing their minds closer and closer to sex and then – as a good temptress must – snatching it away."

The increasing aesthetic similarity of burlesque dancing to plain old stripping is often excused by producers and performers who wish us to believe that this bland rehearsal of sexual frustration is ironic, and hence not seriously meant. There is nothing ironic about an erection, however – nor about a payslip. While there may well be some men who get off on the idea of nestling between a taut, bouncy pair of inverted commas, sexual irony as a form of art can never be truly subversive.

Call me an iron-knickered feminazi, but I'm bored of being sold weary, old-fashioned misogyny and told that it is new, ironic and empowering. If you want to feel sexy, have sex – and if you want to be empowered, join a political movement.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:08 pm

Hope in Common

May 21, 2009

By David Graeber



We seem to have reached an impasse. Capitalism as we know it appears to be coming apart. But as financial institutions stagger and crumble, there is no obvious alternative. Organized resistance appears scattered and incoherent; the global justice movement a shadow of its former self. There is good reason to believe that, in a generation or so, capitalism will no longer exist: for the simple reason that it's impossible to maintain an engine of perpetual growth forever on a finite planet. Faced with the prospect, the knee-jerk reaction—even of "progressives"—is, often, fear, to cling to capitalism because they simply can't imagine an alternative that wouldn't be even worse.

The first question we should be asking is: How did this happen? Is it normal for human beings to be unable to imagine what a better world would even be like?

Hopelessness isn't natural. It needs to be produced. If we really want to understand this situation, we have to begin by understanding that the last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a kind of giant machine that is designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, to flourish, to propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police, various forms of private security firms and police and military intelligence apparatus, propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as they create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy. Maintaining this apparatus seems even more important, to exponents of the "free market," even than maintaining any sort of viable market economy. How else can one explain, for instance, what happened in the former Soviet Union, where one would have imagined the end of the Cold War would have led to the dismantling of the army and KGB and rebuilding the factories, but in fact what happened was precisely the other way around? This is just one extreme example of what has been happening everywhere. Economically, this apparatus is pure dead weight; all the guns, surveillance cameras, and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and really produce nothing, and as a result, it's dragging the entire capitalist system down with it, and possibly, the earth itself.

The spirals of financialization and endless string of economic bubbles we've been experience are a direct result of this apparatus. It's no coincidence that the United States has become both the world's major military ("security") power and the major promoter of bogus securities. This apparatus exists to shred and pulverize the human imagination, to destroy any possibility of envisioning alternative futures. As a result, the only thing left to imagine is more and more money, and debt spirals entirely out of control. What is debt, after all, but imaginary money whose value can only be realized in the future: future profits, the proceeds of the exploitation of workers not yet born. Finance capital in turn is the buying and selling of these imaginary future profits; and once one assumes that capitalism itself will be around for all eternity, the only kind of economic democracy left to imagine is one everyone is equally free to invest in the market—to grab their own piece in the game of buying and selling imaginary future profits, even if these profits are to be extracted from themselves. Freedom has become the right to share in the proceeds of one's own permanent enslavement.

And since the bubble had built on the destruction of futures, once it collapsed there appeared to be—at least for the moment—simply nothing left.

The effect however is clearly temporary. If the story of the global justice movement tells us anything it's that the moment there appears to be any sense of an opening, the imagination will immediately spring forth. This is what effectively happened in the late ‘90s when it looked, for a moment, like we might be moving toward a world at peace. In the US, for the last fifty years, whenever there seems to be any possibility of peace breaking out, the same thing happens: the emergence of a radical social movement dedicated to principles of direct action and participatory democracy, aiming to revolutionize the very meaning of political life. In the late ‘50s it was the civil rights movement; in the late ‘70s, the anti-nuclear movement. This time it happened on a planetary scale, and challenged capitalism head-on. These movements tend to be extraordinarily effective. Certainly the global justice movement was. Few realize that one of the main reasons it seemed to flicker in and out of existence so rapidly was that it achieved its principle goals so quickly. None of us dreamed, when we were organizing the protests in Seattle in 1999 or at the IMF meetings in DC in 2000, that within a mere three or four years, the WTO process would have collapsed, that "free trade" ideologies would be considered almost entirely discredited, that every new trade pact they threw at us—from the MIA to Free Trade Areas of the Americas act—would have been defeated, the World Bank hobbled, the power of the IMF over most of the world's population, effectively destroyed. But this is precisely what happened. The fate of the IMF is particularly startling. Once the terror of the Global South, it is, by now, a shattered remnant of its former self, reviled and discredited, reduced to selling off its gold reserves and desperately searching for a new global mission.

Meanwhile, most of the "third world debt" has simply vanished. All of this was a direct result of a movement that managed to mobilize global resistance so effectively that the reigning institutions were first discredited, and ultimately, that those running governments in Asia and especially Latin America were forced by their own populations to call the bluff of the international financial system. Much of the reason the movement was thrown into confusion was because none of us had really considered we might win.

But of course there's another reason. Nothing terrifies the rulers of the world, and particularly of the United States, as much as the danger of grassroots democracy. Whenever a genuinely democratic movement begins to emerge—particularly, one based on principles of civil disobedience and direct action—the reaction is the same; the government makes immediate concessions (fine, you can have voting rights; no nukes), then starts ratcheting up military tensions abroad. The movement is then forced to transform itself into an anti-war movement; which, pretty much invariably, is far less democratically organized. So the civil rights movement was followed by Vietnam, the anti-nuclear movement by proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, the global justice movement, by the "War on Terror."

But at this point, we can see that "war" for what it was: as the flailing and obviously doomed effort of a declining power to make its peculiar combination of bureaucratic war machines and speculative financial capitalism into a permanent global condition. If the rotten architecture collapsed abruptly at the end of 2008, it was at least in part because so much of the work had already been accomplished by a movement that had, in the face of the surge of repression after 911, combined with confusion over how to follow up its startling initial success, had seemed to have largely disappeared from the scene.

Of course it hasn't really.

We are clearly at the verge of another mass resurgence of the popular imagination. It shouldn't be that difficult. Most of the elements are already there. The problem is that, our perceptions having been twisted into knots by decades of relentless propaganda, we are no longer able to see them. Consider here the term "communism." Rarely has a term come to be so utterly reviled. The standard line, which we accept more or less unthinkingly, is that communism means state control of the economy, and this is an impossible utopian dream because history has shown it simply "doesn't work." Capitalism, however unpleasant, is thus the only remaining option. But in fact communism really just means any situation where people act according to the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"—which is the way pretty much everyone always act if they are working together to get something done. If two people are fixing a pipe and one says "hand me the wrench," the other doesn't say, "and what do I get for it?"(That is, if they actually want it to be fixed.) This is true even if they happen to be employed by Bechtel or Citigroup. They apply principles of communism because it's the only thing that really works. This is also the reason whole cities or countries revert to some form of rough-and-ready communism in the wake of natural disasters, or economic collapse (one might say, in those circumstances, markets and hierarchical chains of command are luxuries they can't afford.) The more creativity is required, the more people have to improvise at a given task, the more egalitarian the resulting form of communism is likely to be: that's why even Republican computer engineers, when trying to innovate new software ideas, tend to form small democratic collectives. It's only when work becomes standardized and boring—as on production lines—that it becomes possible to impose more authoritarian, even fascistic forms of communism. But the fact is that even private companies are, internally, organized communistically.

Communism then is already here. The question is how to further democratize it. Capitalism, in turn, is just one possible way of managing communism—and, it has become increasingly clear, rather a disastrous one. Clearly we need to be thinking about a better one: preferably, one that does not quite so systematically set us all at each others' throats.

All this makes it much easier to understand why capitalists are willing to pour such extraordinary resources into the machinery of hopelessness. Capitalism is not just a poor system for managing communism: it has a notorious tendency to periodically come spinning apart. Each time it does, those who profit from it have to convince everyone—and most of all the technical people, the doctors and teachers and surveyors and insurance claims adjustors—that there is really no choice but to dutifully paste it all back together again, in something like the original form. This despite the fact that most of those who will end up doing the work of rebuilding the system don't even like it very much, and all have at least the vague suspicion, rooted in their own innumerable experiences of everyday communism, that it really ought to be possible to create a system at least a little less stupid and unfair.

This is why, as the Great Depression showed, the existence of any plausible-seeming alternative—even one so dubious as the Soviet Union in the 1930s—can turn a downswing into an apparently insoluble political crisis.

Those wishing to subvert the system have learned by now, from bitter experience, that we cannot place our faith in states. The last decade has instead seen the development of thousands of forms of mutual aid association, most of which have not even made it onto the radar of the global media. They range from tiny cooperatives and associations to vast anti-capitalist experiments, archipelagos of occupied factories in Paraguay or Argentina or of self-organized tea plantations and fisheries in India, autonomous institutes in Korea, whole insurgent communities in Chiapas or Bolivia, associations of landless peasants, urban squatters, neighborhood alliances, that spring up pretty much anywhere that where state power and global capital seem to temporarily looking the other way. They might have almost no ideological unity and many are not even aware of the other's existence, but all are marked by a common desire to break with the logic of capital. And in many places, they are beginning to combine. "Economies of solidarity" exist on every continent, in at least eighty different countries. We are at the point where we can begin to perceive the outlines of how these can knit together on a global level, creating new forms of planetary commons to create a genuine insurgent civilization.

Visible alternatives shatter the sense of inevitability, that the system must, necessarily, be patched together in the same form—this is why it became such an imperative of global governance to stamp them out, or, when that's not possible, to ensure that no one knows about them. To become aware of it allows us to see everything we are already doing in a new light. To realize we're all already communists when working on a common projects, all already anarchists when we solve problems without recourse to lawyers or police, all revolutionaries when we make something genuinely new.

One might object: a revolution cannot confine itself to this. That's true. In this respect, the great strategic debates are really just beginning. I'll offer one suggestion though. For at least five thousand years, popular movements have tended to center on struggles over debt—this was true long before capitalism even existed. There is a reason for this. Debt is the most efficient means ever created to take relations that are fundamentally based on violence and violent inequality and to make them seem right and moral to everyone concerned. When the trick no longer works, everything explodes. As it is now. Clearly, debt has shown itself to be the point of greatest weakness of the system, the point where it spirals out of anyone's control. It also allows endless opportunities for organizing. Some speak of a debtor's strike, or debtor's cartel.

Perhaps so—but at the very least we can start with a pledge against evictions: to pledge, neighborhood by neighborhood, to support each other if any of us are to be driven from our homes. The power is not just that to challenge regimes of debt is to challenge the very fiber of capitalism—its moral foundation—now revealed to be a collection of broken promises—but in doing so, to create a new one. A debt after all is only that: a promise, and the present world abounds with promises that have not been kept. One might speak here of the promise made us by the state; that if we abandon any right to collectively manage our own affairs, we would at least be provided with basic life security. Or of the promise offered by capitalism—that we could live like kings if we were willing to buy stock in our own collective subordination. All of this has come crashing down. What remains is what we are able to promise one another. Directly. Without the mediation of economic and political bureaucracies. The revolution begins by asking: what sort of promises do free men and women make to one another, and how, by making them, do we begin to make another world?

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/hope-in- ... id-graeber
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:51 pm

SILVIA FEDERICI — FEMINISM AND THE POLITICS OF THE COMMONS

At least since the Zapatistas took over the zócalo in San Cristobal de las Casas on December 31, 1993 to protest legislation dissolving the ejidal lands of Mexico, the concept of ‘the commons’ has been gaining popularity among the radical left, internationally and in the U.S., appearing as a basis for convergence among anarchists, Marxists, socialists, ecologists, and eco-feminists.

There are important reasons why this apparently archaic idea has come to the center of political discussion in contemporary social movements. Two in particular stand out. On one side is the demise of the statist model of revolution that for decades had sapped the efforts of radical movements to build an alternative to capitalism. On the other, the neo-liberal attempt to subordinate every form of life and knowledge to the logic of the market has heightened our awareness of the danger of living in a world in which we no longer have access to seas, trees, animals, and our fellow beings except through the cash-nexus. The ‘new enclosures’ have also made visible a world of communal properties and relations that many had believed to be extinct or had not valued until threatened with privatization. Ironically, the new enclosures have demonstrated that not only the common has not vanished, but also new forms of social cooperation are constantly being produced, including in areas of life where none previously existed like, for example, the internet.




Available at

http://www.commoner.org.uk/wp-content/u ... ommons.pdf
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:40 pm

http://gatheringforces.org/2010/01/08/q ... -struggle/

Queer Liberation is Class Struggle

2010 JANUARY 8
by JOMO


Image
my friend, Sarah Hopkins, made this flag after we watched "Flag Wars," a film about middle class,
white gay men gentrifying a black neighborhood. The rainbow flag became a symbol of gentrification,
so we realized we need to make our own flag which symbolizes working class, queer liberation.



In the past two years, the issue of gay marriage has dominated the scene of queer struggles. Some of us are actively supportive, others, grudgingly supportive, and more others who rail that yet again, queer struggles are being monopolized by assimilationist, middle class versions of normality and family: “We are the same as you, except for in bed.”

Some supporters of gay marriage point to the economic benefits of marriage. Working class and poor queers need marriage to help alleviate their poverty; immigrant queers need marriage to get US citizenship. I agree. Yet, let’s not forget that many queers will never get married because of their suspicions of state institutions. Granting gay marriage doesn’t guarantee that immigrant spouses get visas or are free from ICE harassment. Also, around us we see families for whom marriage has not helped alleviate the race and class oppressions that they face everyday. While it may be true that gay marriage does benefit some immigrant couples, oftentimes this comes as an afterthought rather than a decisive theme of gay marriage struggles. It is undeniable that the struggle for gay marriage has been dominated by white, middle class queers who support the Democrats and are ashamed of those of us who don’t fit in their status quo.

One may see gay marriage as a reform to be won to open up space for more gains for queer liberation. Indeed, if gay marriage was simply a tactic within a broader strategy that integrated class, race and queer struggles, perhaps it wouldn’t cause so much anxiety among radical queer circles. In the absence of a broader strategy and vision however, all our hopes get pinned on this one struggle and the questions become stressful, burdensome and intense: Are we betraying our roots? Are we fighting for the society we envision through this struggle? Exactly what is this broader vision of queer liberation that gay marriage is a reform toward?

That the issue of gay marriage has dominated and overshadowed other important discussions that should be had among queer radicals shows that there has been a lack of strategy and vision of queer liberation that integrates anti-racist, anti-patriarchy, class struggle and anti-ableist perspectives. While academics have churned out thousands of books on queer theory, spinning our heads dizzy with abstract lingo, those of us on the ground have not similarly churned out our own theory and practice of queer struggles. This is not to say people have not led successful and important campaigns around queer liberation. However, the strategy and vision has not been clearly articulated and insufficiently theorized for it to be replicated and generalized in different places and conditions. The result is the domination of liberals, with their pro-capitalist, liberal racist, ableist, “tolerate us” ideologies.

The limits of middle class ideology

One glaring question is: Where is the working class in our strategizing and vision of queer liberation?

What kind of politics has defined queer liberation in such a way that has led to the erasure of the working class, which composes the majority of US society and the world?

Most queers are workers. That means the queer struggle is also a class struggle. Why hasn’t it been seen as such?

How do we organize as workers to demand queer liberation? Who are our friends, and who are our enemies? Will the union bureaucracy or the rank and file lead the movement?

These questions lead us to examine how middle class politics have dominated queer organizing. This domination has led to the erasure of working class and poor queers. This is not simply a coincidence.

Middle class academics have produced middle class theories to understand our oppression. In the post 1960s era, with the demise of class struggle politics, identity politics have taken reign. Similarly, the failure of revolutionary groups to take up gender and sexuality as decisive parts of the class struggle has meant that academics had the free reign to monopolize queer theory. As a result, middle class academics could get away with claiming that class struggle politics has nothing to do with queer politics because they confused the class-reductionist and often heterosexist politics of degenerate Leftist sects with the struggle of the working class itself, including its many queer members.

The result of all of this is that our movement is left with a shallow analysis of “intersectionality” rather than a full strategy by which the oppressed – people of color, women, queer folks, people with disabiliteies — can unite to fight our common enemies. Among progressive circles, the idea of “intersectionality” has been taken up by the non profit industrial complex (NPIC). In the absence of working class organizations like revolutionary organizations and thriving unions, academia and the NPIC have become the dominant progressive institutions today. The theories they espouse understandably have lasting impacts.

It is commonly explained, that “our oppressions intersect.” That race, class, disability oppression (the –isms) all come together to support one another. When activists reference these intersections, it is usually a call for different identity based groups to work together, to counter a divide and conquer. It is also an attempt to recognize the specific struggles of each identity-based oppression. The intentions are good, and serve initially as a useful lens for understanding various experiences, yet fall flat as an organizing theory.

The erasure of class in the intersectionality theory is most clearly expressed through the replacement of class oppression with the defanged term, “classism.” Rather than advocating for class struggle of the working class and the poor taking over the means of production and the running of society, the “classism” analysis is an attempt to raise the consciousness of the rich, to be NICE, FRIENDLY, SENSITIVE to their poorer brethren. Under “classism” ideology, working and poor folks become the rich man’s burden, not an agent for change in our own right. In fact, the organizing that arises from such an ideology is as condescending and patronizing toward working class and poor folk as the snobbishness it aims to criticize.

At its worst, intersectionality theory compartmentalizes our identities — we are a “class” compartment, lying next to a “woman” compartment, lying next to a “people of color” compartment, and then a “person with disabilities” compartment, and the list goes on. In reality, we aren’t neatly arranged compartments segregated and then intersected. That each of those individual compartments is further divided into those with more and less institutional power is also erased. In reality, we are a mesh of working class, queer, gendered, differently abled and colored people. We don’t naturally have more allegiance to the queer segment of ourselves than the colored segment – we are all of it at once. We hate the white supremacist queers, as much as we disdain the ruling class people of color or labor bureaucracy who will readily sacrifice us for their own self interest. We also don’t naturally have more allegiance to the queer middle class than we do to the rank and file straight workers. Our self-conception is more complicated, and our liberations, more explosive.

I have heard vague calls for queers to work with labor. Yet, broadly speaking, what is labor? By labor do we mean the labor bureaucracy or the rank and file? Also, what is queer? Is queer the assimilationist white, rich, patriarchal gay men or the transfolk denied jobs for their gender expression? When queer works with labor, who exactly are we talking about?

The majority of the world is the rank and file of the working class, not the union bureaucrats. The majority of queers are not middle class and white. In fact, union bureaucracies and queer middle classes have betrayed us in their grab for their own power, making shameless alliances with the very forces that exploit our labor and erase our identities. We are mostly working class, rank and file, queer people of color and that’s who most of us see when we look into the mirror everyday. Any attempt to build an “alliance” between labor and queers needs to begin from this starting point. An “alliance” or “intersection” should not even be necessary, it is only made necessary by the fact that the union bureaucracy dominates “labor” and the gay elites dominate “queerness.” If we can break down these twin dominations then it will be much easier to build an “alliance” because most queers already are labor and many laborers are queer. This involves struggle and organizing.

Queer Struggle is Class Struggle

Selma James is a Marxist feminist who wrote the seminal piece, “Sex, Race and Class,” among other feminists texts that reclaim women’s liberation from middle-class, racist ideology. She and others in the Global Women’s Strike were pioneers in organizing Wages for Housework, demanding that women who engage in the often invisible and devalued reproductive labor, be compensated for their work as laborers in capitalist society. I draw heavily from their perspectives toward women’s liberation to understand queer struggles as also manifestations of class struggle, hoping to expand beyond the heteronormative theories that nonetheless, were so groundbreaking at the time.

To adapt James: the queer struggle need not wander off into the class struggle. The queer struggle is the class struggle.

Rather than dissecting who we are and dividing ourselves into neat compartments that await token representatives to “intersect” our oppressions for us, is it possible for us to see that these oppressions are manifestations of class oppression? Our experiences and oppressions as women, as queers, as folks with disabilities, cannot be separated from the capitalist structure of society.

The old, white, male revolutionary left would have us think that class struggle was only in the factories. In “Sex, Race and Class” Selma James decisively shows that the class struggle extends beyond the factory. Unwaged labor done by housewives in heterosexual families, provide the reproductive labor that is essential for the system to maintain itself. Whether it is bringing up the next generation of workers through nurturing children, or replenishing the labor of their partners through the maintenance of the home and the bare necessities, housewives conduct the work that is often invisible, but necessary for the continued and intensive looting of labor by the capitalist.

The emphasis and dogged maintenance of the heterosexual nuclear family is a product of capitalism. All who violate it are criminalized. To the extent that women and queers challenge the eternity of this heteronormative institution, we are not wanted.

Queer Families

The heterosexual nuclear family ensures that the responsibility for reproductive labor can be contained within the household, stripping the state, or the capitalist bosses of any responsibility for maintaining their workers’ health, sanity, desires. Besides being an institution that replaces society in meeting the material needs of workers, the heterosexual nuclear family also serves other emotive purposes.

As John d’Emilio describes, the nuclear family under capitalism is supposed to function as an affective site, a “personal space” that is an escape from the stresses of public work life, that helps workers to deal with the alienation they experience on a day to day basis. We are taught to believe that even though works sucks during the day, at least you have your cozy family to return to. The fact that many blood families are actually dysfunctional, patriarchal, homophobic, or damaging to our self esteems, in large part also a product of the stresses of daily living under capitalism, is besides the point. We are often told that it is something to be tolerated since it is the only imagined site of reliability and comfort that we can count on in a dog eat dog world. We are taught from young that aside from blood, other relations are tested and many don’t survive. The reality is, every relationship is tested and stressed under capitalism and we cannot escape the alienation in a definitive manner, nuclear family or not, without struggle.

Queer liberation is deeply tied to the existence of non-heteronormative families as legitimate families with access to social services, jobs, education, shelter and support. These families go beyond gay marriage even though the latter could arguably serve as a useful reform. Our need to encompass struggles for different families has to do with the fact that the possibility of total rejection and abandonment by our blood families and communities, a loss of financial and emotional support from them, has been a real fear for many of us. Some of us are pleasantly surprised by families that have accepted and loved us nonetheless, and yet more others have been brutally disappointed. Regardless, in light of theories that will continue to see our trangressions of heterosexual norms as a sign of individual mental instability, a community that affirms our desires and needs is all the more necessary. Chosen families, non-heteronormative families, are not merely luxuries, they are needed for our very real, daily survival.

Yet under capitalism, these families are illegitimate. Single mother households, or households with people with disabilities, or extended families with elderly and young dependents, or communities that take in non-blood relatives as their own, struggle to survive off of welfare checks or minimal paychecks. These families do not readily and predictably churn out the future, obedient disciplined workers that will deliver their bodies to capitalism, in exchange for a pittance of a wage. Our rejection of capitalist discipline is written off, as our cultural inadequacies. Perceiving our labor as unwanted and untrustworthy, capitalists reject us from the economy and ship us off to prisons, nursing homes, mental institutions or into the informal economy of the streets, still managing in the process, to extract some profit for themselves through our oppression.

Middle class ideology cannot liberate us because it reiterates capitalist attacks on our chosen, non-heteronormative families. It will teach us to reject the families we have, and to settle for the more nuclear, more hetero, the more “responsible” family. Yet another non profit will offer us job training programs for the worst, cheapest, most demeaning service sector jobs and expect us to be thankful. Clinton’s welfare act did just that and masqueraded itself as a well-meaning “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” program. This is couched in terms of us learning “life skills,” learning to be responsible citizens under a capitalist system, to unlearn our rebellion. Yet there is no understanding that many of us disdain these programs and these jobs, not because we are lazy, but because class oppression at the workplace, in the service sector is not a desirable alternative. That we would find a minimum wage job ruled by an increasingly heavy- handed managements, demeaning and undesirable, is then blamed on us: We are undeserving, lazy and untrustworthy.

It is not a surprise that Stonewall took place on the streets, in the dingiest bar that made its business serving queers ostracized from other parts of the city. Fierce queers, many whom were people of color and sex workers, worked the streets and came out in defense of it. Where jobs in the formal economy shut out queers, particularly transfolk, the streets and its informal economy was and still is, seen as the only place to find money, and family. Where hormones are too expensive and inaccessible because our needs are seen only as elective options by the insurance industries, then street versions make for sufficient transitions. However, the rise of AIDS among queer communities in the 1980s is a reflection of the challenges of street lives, of poverty, and of a lack of accessible comprehensive healthcare, lest we should over-romanticize its dangers. The complete neglect of the state, the rhetoric of blame that rained on queer communities as a result of the AIDS epidemic, shows how our survival cannot happen without a fight.

Recognizing that any struggle needs strategic allies, where do we turn to? Middle class ideology, through the state and the non profit industrial complex, advocates to save us from ourselves, and help us overcome our queerness, abandoning our chosen families in the process. Even the progressive non profits advocate for us through back room deals with the state or the Democrats, who have proven only to be the worst, two-faced betrayers of queer liberation. If we can agree that such resolutions are unsatisfying, who then can queers who engage in the informal economy, for whom the streets is home, turn to for our collective liberation? How can we make the struggle against discrimination of transfolk at workplaces, the struggle for better wages and more desirable jobs, a real struggle on the streets, and not mere legal reform negotiated in back room deals that too many of us are shut out from?

Homophobia and Transphobia is also Class phobia

For all its talk of fostering creativity through competiton, the capitalist system is the most repressive in stifling the creativity and motivation of its workers. It insists on seeing us merely as cogs in a system, devoid of thought, emotions, and desires. When queers are discriminated in the hiring process for being too gender deviant, too campy, too out, it is because we jarringly disrupt the capitalist fantasy of a brainless, emotionless, machine-like worker. We are punished for showing that there really isn’t a division between the public life in the workplace, and our private lives as sexual, emotional, gendered beings. We bring our private lives into our public lives, the workplace, either because we have no intention or no way to hide who we are.

The attack on queer expressions of gender and sexuality in the workplace under capitalism is an attempt to strip us of our agency, creativity, sexuality, intelligence. Yet these same traits are the ones that queer and straight workers alike utilize to get through the grueling workday. We improvise our jobs with lessons learned from years of experience or stories exchanged by reliable co-workers; We hold ourselves to an integrity at the workplace that bosses keep pushing us to betray: we refuse to snitch on our co-workers, we help the slowest and newest workers get through so they get paid like all of us; We also know better than the next new manager where all the safety hazards in the workplace are, or how best to organize the work. All these aspects of labor cannot be found in the employers manuals, but are lessons transmitted through conversations in the break rooms or on the job, or during rants in the clock-in stations. Just as queer workers are seen as too outrageous for our transgressions of what is normal at the workplace, so are these invaluable conversations seen as too bold, too unruly by an inhumane capitalist system.

These demands for our freedom, from gender expression to workplace control, go beyond the contract, or our wages. At their best, these are demands that arise from our desire as workers to see the workplace not merely as sites of alienation, but also as extensions of who we are and our relationships. Currently, it is only the top echelon, the CEOs who get to put their own unique, personalized stamp at their workplace. These desires challenge the fundamental basis of capitalist control over our labor. For that reason, they are beyond the confines of trade union politics and cannot be successfully negotiated through the contract. It is the daily struggles of the rank and file workers where such tension is experienced and so it will be through our daily, independent, and militant action that this tension can be overcome.

Patriarchy

Under capitalism, patriarchy serves the dual functions of devaluing female labor, particularly that of women of color, as well as appeasing oppressed male labor. The gender binary, the patriarchal family and heterosexual marriage are key manifestations of patriarchy that affect the everyday lives of working people.

The gender binary limits and enforces the division between male and female genders, subjugating the latter under the former. Historically, male workers, particularly white men, have been attributed of rationality, scientific knowledge, and power relative to women workers. Women, the supposedly lesser sex, are cast with hysteria, emotions, instability, needing male supervision and control. Women of color have been devalued in society, the targets of racism and sexism, and their labor, the most devalued. Our cheap and accessible labor has provided capitalism an unending pool of female workers who will accept low wages.

The fraternity of male supremacy also institutionalizes this division to prevent male workers from questioning their own oppressions — there is always someone worse off. Through the process of slavery and white supremacy, the U.S. ruling class realized that it could keep white workers under its thumb by giving them better wages and other benefits denied to Black workers. It encouraged them to reflect on the fact that, as miserable as they may be, at least they’re not Black. Similarly, too many male workers congratulate themselves for not being sexualized, objectified and devalued as women workers under the capitalist system. There is always someone worse off. Under this binary, gender benders, trans workers cannot find a stable liberated place. To the male supremacists, the transwomen have betrayed their gender, and transmen desecrate the male gender. By their crossing, both render the division undesirable, indefensible and transgressible.

Our mere existence as queers do not imply naturally that we are anti-patriarchal or anti-capitalist, yet our existence threatens this binary under capitalism and it is up to us to bring forward a politics that utilizes this power. Through a queer politics that also draws from anti-patriarchal struggles, we challenge the notion that women workers need to be subservient, or that male workers need to cling on to the chains of their imprisonment. We can smash the gender binary everywhere we go, and through that, dismantle the systems that are premised on its existence.

As the capitalist system abandons previously thriving and unionized American cities to exploit cheaper labor elsewhere, deindustrialized cities are full of unemployed and poor people of all genders. Lisa Duggan’s luminal essay[1] suggests that where white privilege and male privilege had once guaranteed white folks and men a sense of entitlement on the basis of their race, gender and citizenship, today’s capitalist race to the bottom strip these benefits and present instead unemployment and welfare as the few viable options. In lieu of these losses, white male workers either acknowledge the need to stand side by side with other oppressed workers, or they resent their loss and seek to reinforce that sense of superiority and entitlement. One may argue that Vincent Chin and Brandon Teena were victims of a last grasp at masculinity and its privileges in deindustrilaizing cities.

Brandon Teena was a transman who was raped and murdered in cold blood in 1993, in Lincoln Nebraska after his transgender identity was revealed. His story was depicted in Boys Don’t Cry, as well as the Brandon Teena Story. Lisa Duggan situates what happens to Teena in the context of the deindustrializing Lincoln, Nebraska. In the absence of jobs and presence of abject poverty, those who transgressed boundaries were subjected to violence. They threatened an existing order that could not deal with any trepidation. She insightfully says,

A politics that cannot grasp the constraints, coercions, pressures and deprivations imposed through class hierarchies and economic exploitation, or that fails to imagine the realities of rural, agricultural and other non-metropolitan lives, cannot possibly speak to the Brandons in our midst. Brandon needed a labor movement, a working class politics, a critique of economic cruelties.[2] (emphasis mine)

Duggan’s quote and its analysis are important because it discusses homophobia and transphobia not simply as an incomprehensible form of hate by straight folks, but rather situates it in the context of deindustrialization, poverty, and pressures that such economic deprivation creates for all folks who live in that environment. This is important for us to understand, not to excuse the violence of the perpetuator’s crimes, but rather to understand its origins so we can fight back and change the conditions that created it. An incomprehensible hate cannot be destroyed and neither can it be transformed, but through mass struggle, an economic condition and its pressures that lead to transphobia and homophobia can potentially be changed.

Yet, contrary to what middle class chauvinism would have us believe, homophobia and transphobia are not just the realms of deindustrailized cities and the working class. The recognition of the existence of homophobia and transphobia within working class communities is simply a sober assessment and recognition of the challenges we have to overcome in concreting organizing toward a vision of a working class queer liberation. As Joanna Kadi says, the caricature of the homophobic worker is also a fantasy of elitist queers who have either have had no meaningful contact, or simply outright disdain and class hatred for the working class. Middle class folks and their urban chauvinism would have us believe that queers outside of metropolitan areas are subject to even greater hate crime, or violence from their communities. These folks have no ways of understanding the myriad ways in which our families and communities have also expressed their love and support for our chosen lifestyles and partners. Bound by less rigid social etiquette norms that rich folks are socialized into, our working class families are less inclined to hide what they believe. This doesn’t mean we are more or less homophobic, simply more vocal about whatever it is. When the spotlights shine on the question of working class homophobia, what is instead left invisible, is the institutionalized heteronormativity, racism, ableism and class oppressions that have destroyed more queer lives than hate crimes ever have. The military, the abject healthcare system that increase our risk of HIV/AIDS, unemployment, and police brutality are only some examples. Let us not forget that the blood is on the hands of the capitalist ruling class and the middle class that create, support and enforce those policies.

Will we be degenerating into a class reductionism by situating queer struggles within class oppression?

Are we in danger of saying “Queers and Straight, Unite and Fight?” along the same lines that the Communist Party once envisioned for Black workers? The vision of “Black and White Unite and Fight” put black workers demands as secondary to white worker demands, claiming that black workers had to silence their struggles against racism for a façade of unity. Instead of demanding white workers overcome white supremacy,, black workers were accused of dividing the class through their resistance against their racist co-workers. For our purposes, how do we avoid the same class reductionist strategies that call for an undemocratic popular front between queer workers and a by-far heteronormative labor movement?

There are some precious lessons to take from the Black Power movement. In her piece, James discusses how Malcolm X, a figure whom many would associate only with Black nationalist politics, was able to hit at the crux of working class struggle. To quote her:

Intellectuals in Harlem and Malcolm X, that great revolutionary, were both nationalists, both appeared to place colour above class when the white Left were still chanting variations of “Black and white unite and fight,” or “Negroes and Labour must join together.” The Black working class were able through this nationalism to redefine class: overwhelmingly Black and Labour were synonymous (with no other group was Labour as synonymous-except perhaps with women), the demands of Blacks and the forms of struggle created by Blacks were the most comprehensive working class struggle.[3] (emphasis mine)

Where class is racialized and oppression exacerbated along racial lines, then race was also another redefinition of class. The League of Revolutionary Black Workers was one such example. Based in Detroit in the late 1960s, the LRBW was a Black autoworkers organization that was independent from the union bureaucracy. They saw that the union bureaucracy, in its collaboration with management, was unable and unwilling to fight against the racism that Black workers were facing. They were always the last ones hired and first ones fired, and subject to extremely dangerous working conditions because their lives didn’t matter to the capitalists and the union bureaucracy. The LRBW took independent action on the shopfloor, such as wildcat strikes, to fight for their safety, through a message of Black workers struggle against racism. When the demands were achieved, it was a victory for all of the working class. The Black struggle is the class struggle.

How can we form organizations today that take up the struggles that queer workers, both employed and unemployed, face at the workplace and in doing so, further the struggle for all of the working class? So that our victories are also class victories?

The need for a working class queer liberation theory and practice is not just an academic foray. It is a necessity for us to reach out beyond the abstract lingo of queer theory, beyond the annals of academia, urban centers and progressive non profit scenes. If we are to appeal to queers who are working class, are people of color, are differently abled, and who may not even identify as queer but, whose love lives, sex lives, gender expressions and family formations are all queerly out of heteronormativity, then we need to articulate a politics that reflects this diversity.

Drawing from the words of the Combahee River Collective, working class queers across race, ability and gender have to be responsible for our own liberation. We have to build power in such a way that those who accuse us of dividing their heterosexist labor movement, or their white, middle-class queer movements will have to realize that “they might not only lose valuable and hardworking allies in their struggles,” but that they might also be forced to change their habitually heterosexist ways of interacting with and oppressing working class queers.

In 1978, the Black lesbian feminists of the Combahee River Collective said,

We might use our position at the bottom, however, to make a clear leap into revolutionary action. If Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression.[4]

We do well to learn from that history to build on our theory and practice on a queer liberation that weaves in anti-racist, anti-patriarchal, anti-ableist class struggle politics.

Power to queers, and therefore to the class.



[1] Lisa Duggan, “The Brandon Teena Case and the Social Psychology of Working-Class Resentment, ” New Labor Forum 13(3)2004
[2] ibid

[3] Selma James, “Sex, Race and Class,” <http://libcom.org/library/sex-race-class-james-selma>

[4] Combahee River Collective Statement, <http://circuitous.org/scraps/combahee.html>
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests