Kritisch Links

De Labour Party Pakistan, een van de meer belangrijke links-socialistische organisaties in het land, heeft naar aanleiding van de moord op Benazir Bhutto deze verklaring uitgebracht. Omdat hun site (www.laborpakistan.org) plat lijkt te liggen plaats ik hem hier maar helemaal.

Labour Party Pakistan mourns Benazir’s tragic death

It’s a murder of democracy. Musharraf should resign

A tragedy wrought by combination of dictatorship, fundamentalism, imperialism

Lahore (PR): The Labour Party Pakistan (LPP) strongly condemns the tragic murder of Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister and chairperson Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).

In a joint statement issued here on Friday, LPP spokesperson Farooq Tariq and National Secretary Nisar Shah said: ` It is not mere a murder of an individual but murder of democracy and political culture in Pakistan’. They said it was the duty of the regime to provide Benazir Bhutto with a fool-proof security. `This is a failure on the part of the regime hence exposing country to an unprecedented danger and chaos. Therefore, we demand an immediate resignation of Pervez Musharraf and his cabinet,’ they added.
They said the tragedy that struck Pakistan yesterday was yet another expression of the instability created in the region owing to the US presence in the region.

`Her brutal murder is a tragedy jointly wrought by religious fundamentalists, military dictatorships in Pakistan and the USA’, they commented. They said Al-Qaida had taken upon itself the responsibility for this horrendous crime according to media reports. `But the Frankenstein of Al-Qaida would not have been ruling the roost in Pakistan had it not been created by the USA and pampered by military dictatorships in Pakistan’, they said.

Urging the PPP workers restraint, they said LPP workers were with them in that hour of grief. `We must turn this anger on the culprits who plotted this dastardly murder”, they said. They appreciated Pakistan Muslim League (N)’s decision to boycott the elections due on January 8 and APDM decision to suspend the campaign recently launched for the boycott of elections. (ends)

Farooq Sulehria

Alan Woods schreef het volgende commentaar naar aanleiding van de moord op Benazair Bhutto in Pakistan. Het is misschien een beetje te optimistisch over de Pakistan People’s Party maar toch nuttig.

Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a suicide bomb attack.

The leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had just addressed a rally of PPP supporters in the town of Rawalpindi when the attack took place. First reports talked of at least 100 killed in the attack, but more recent news put the figure at 15.

This murderous onslaught on the PPP came in the middle of an election campaign where, after years of military dictatorship, the masses were striving for a change. There was a wave of support for the PPP, which was sure to win National and provincial assembly elections that were due to be held on 8 January 2008.

The campaign was gathering strength, and the PPP Marxist wing was getting enthusiastic support for its revolutionary socialist message in places as far apart as Karachi and the tribal areas of Waziristan in the far north. These elections would have reflected a big shift to the left in Pakistan. This prospect was causing alarm in the ruling clique. That is what was behind today’s atrocity.

Lees verder op de In Defence of Marxism site

Tariq Ali schreef een meer kritische kijk op Bhutto, enige tijd geleden:
Arranged marriages can be a messy business. Designed principally as a means of accumulating wealth, circumventing undesirable flirtations or transcending clandestine love affairs, they often don’t work. Where both parties are known to loathe each other, only a rash parent, desensitised by the thought of short-term gain, will continue with the process knowing full well that it will end in misery and possibly violence. That this is equally true in political life became clear in the recent attempt by Washington to tie Benazir Bhutto to Pervez Musharraf.

The single, strong parent in this case was a desperate State Department
Daughter of the West

Stand Up For Judas
(Leon Rosselson)

The Romans were the masters
When Jesus walked the land
In Judea and in Galilee
They ruled with an iron hand
The poor were sick with hunger
And the rich were clothed in splendour
And the rebels, whipped and crucified
Hung rotting as a warning
And Jesus knew the answer -
“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”
Said, “Love your enemies”
But Judas was a Zealot and he
Wanted to be free
“Resist”, he said, “the Romans’ tyranny”

So stand up, stand up for Judas
And the cause that Judas served
It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word

Now Jesus was a conjuror,
Miracles were his game
He fed the hungry thousands
And they glorified his name
He cured the lame and leper
He calmed the wind and the weather
And the wretched flocked to touch him
So their troubles would be taken
And Jesus knew the answer -
“All you who labour, all you who suffer
Only believe in me”
But Judas sought a world where no-one
Starved or begged for bread
“The poor are always with us”, Jesus said

So stand up, stand up for Judas
And the cause that Judas served
It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word

Now Jesus sowed division
Where none had been before
Not the slave against the master
But the poor against the poor
Caused son to rise up against father
And brother to fight against brother
For “He that is not with me
Is against me” was his teaching
Said Jesus, “I am the answer
You unbelievers shall burn forever
Shall die in your sins”
“Not sheep or goats” said Judas but
“Together we may dare
Shake off the chains of tyranny we share”

So stand up, stand up for Judas
And the cause that Judas served
It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word

Jesus stood upon the mountain
With a distance in his eyes
“I am the Way, the Life” he cried
“The Light that never dies
So renounce all earthly treasures
And pray to your heavenly father”
And he pacified the hopeless
With the hope of life eternal
Said Jesus, “I am the answer
And you who hunger only remember
Your reward’s in heaven”
So Jesus preached the other world
But Judas wanted this
And he betrayed his master with a kiss

So stand up, stand up for Judas
And the cause that Judas served
It was Jesus who betrayed the poor with his word

By sword and gun and crucifix
Christ’s gospel has been spread
And two thousand cruel years have shown
The way that Jesus led
The heretics burned and tortured
And the butchering bloody Crusaders
The bombs and rockets sanctified
That rain down death from heaven
They followed Jesus, they knew the answer
All unbelievers must be believers
Or else be broken
“So place no trust in saviours”
Judas said, “for everyone
Must be to his or her own self a sun”

Hier een stuk van Tariq Ali dat ik vond op www.venezuelanalysis.com… 

Hugo Chavez’ narrow defeat in the referendum was the result of large-scale abstentions by his supporters. 44 percent of the electorate stayed at home. Why? First, because they did not either understand or accept that this was a necessary referendum. The measures related to the working week and some other proposed social reforms could be easily legislated by the existing parliament. The key issues were the removal of restrictions on the election of the head of government (as is the case in most of Europe) and moves towards ‘a socialist state.’ On the latter there was simply not enough debate and discussion on a grassroots level.

As Edgardo Lander, a friendly critic pointed out:

“Before voting in favour of a constitutional reform which will define the State, the economy, and the democracy as socialist, we citizens have the right to take participate in these definitions. What is understood by the term socialist state? What is understood by the term socialist economy? What is understood by the term socialist democracy? In what way are these different to the states, economies, and democracies that accompanied socialism of the 20th century? Here, we are not talking about entering into a debate on semantics, rather on basic decisions about the future of the country.”

And this was further amplified by Greg Wilpert, a sympathetic journalist whose website, venezuelaanalysis.com, is the best source of information on the country:

“By rushing the reform process Chavez presented the opposition with a nearly unprecedented opportunity to deal him a serious blow. Also, the rush in which the process was pushed forward opened him to criticism that the process was fundamentally flawed, which has become one of the main criticisms of the more moderate critics of the reform.”

Another error was the insistence on voting for all the proposals en bloc on a take it or leave it basis. It’s perfectly possibly that a number of the proposals might have got through if a vote on each had been allowed. This would have compelled the Bolivarians to campaign more effectively at grassroots level through organised discussions and debates (as the French Left did to win the argument and defeat the EU Constitution ). It is always a mistake to underestimate the electorate and Chavez knows this better than most.

What is to be done now? The President is in office till 2013 and whatever else Chavez may be the description of ‘lame-duck’ will never fit him. He is a fighter and he will be thinking of how to strengthen the process. If properly handled the defeat could be a blessing in disguise. It has, after all, punctured the arguments of the Western pundits who were claiming for the last eight years that democracy in Venezuela was dead and authoritarianism had won.

Anyone who saw Chavez’ speech accepting defeat last night (as I did here in Guadalajara with Mexican friends) will not be in any doubt regarding his commitment to a democratically embedded social process. That much is clear. One of the weaknesses of the movement in Venezuela has been the over-dependence on one person. It is dangerous for the person (one bullet can be enough) and it is unhealthy for the Bolivarian process. There will be a great deal of soul-searching taking place in Caracas, but the key now is an open debate analysing the causes of the setback and a move towards a collective leadership to decide on the next candidate. It’s a long time ahead but the discussions should start now. Deepening popular participation and encouraging social inclusion (as envisaged in the defeated constitutional changes) should be done anyway.

The referendum defeat will undoubtedly boost the Venezuelan opposition and the Right in Latin America, but they would be foolish to imagine that this victory will automatically win them the Presidency. If the lessons of the defeat are understood it is the Bolivarians who will win.

Tariq Ali’s new book, Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, is published by Verso. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

Samir Amin over de ‘politieke Islam’:

Political Islam is not anti-imperialist, even if its militants think otherwise! It is an invaluable ally for imperialism and the latter knows it.