Spain: No time for siesta, we need true democracy first!

Just before Summer, Spain has taken onto the streets under the banner of revolution. Spain is the first European country to take onto the new craze- we need a better revolution and we in the West are entitled to an Arab Spring too! This 2nd Spanish revolution though will not achieve its goals unless it has a clear idea of changing the system though and for the moment, it is only being legal.

Spain was under Arab hands for 800 years in some areas. Although they are, for now, still very racist, I will argue that this is due to the sense of nationalism that has been instilled into Spaniards since the end of the 15th century. Most notably though, this sense of nationalism is a fruit of Franco's many trees which still exist in Spanish society- trees planted to shade and suffocate the saps of Communism and Anarchism, that were not only present but blooming before 1939- the end of the Spanish Civil War and Franco's consolidation into power.

I have talked about Franco's legacy before so if you're interested read here, where I talk about the reasons Franco won, or here where I talk about Spain still being under his influence. Briefly I'll say that, Franco appeared as the second 'great' Spanish dictator in the 20th century and he continued Primo de Rivera's objective of keeping Spain culturally united but speechless. As I've said many a time, Spain is not a country, it is an amalgamation of nationalities, many of which strive for freedom still. During the second republic these nationalities were being given increasing autonomy as the economy was swaying dangerously to the left. The old sources of power: Clergy, nobility and the military; were being slowly pushed out of politics. The nobility was taken down and many churches were burnt as the penitent turned against their priests, the military was also becoming minor but due to the complicated landscape of Spanish unity, they were deemed necessary to quell rebellion. This gave the military an open door to control Spanish politics and only 5 years after the foundation of the Republic, it staged a coup d'etat which would end up abolishing the freedoms of the Spanish people and reintroducing nobility, imposing religion and controlling all autonomy. Franco made it his task to unify Spain under [g]od and design a feeling of unity to keep the industrially more developped, historically independant and socially working class areas of the Basque country and Catalonia in Spanish hands. These two culturally different regions are two of the many, but they have suffered a longer history of suppression; they clung on to marxist and anarchist ideologies as a point of freedom and they fought for it long and hard during the Spanish Civil War.

When Franco took over he imposed a culturally Spanish state in order to force the Basques and Catalans to assimilate. History was rewritten but it hung on to the age of a strong Spanish monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries, where Spain was devoutly catholic but also a vast empire since the 15th. The focus on these latter two undoubtedly forced an idea of superiority in terms of both religion, thus the anti-islamism and culture, thus the anti-arabism. Of course the 16th and 17th centuries were when the Basques and Catalans were surpressed harshest, for this reason the inculcation Franco taught left a bitter after-taste in the mouths of these two cultures. Underground organisations in the two regions, including terrorist ones, kept the cultures alive and the spirits high, even if the languages were prohibited. The majority of the workers though, not forming part of secret literary circles nor holding any strong positions in the hitherto existing regional governments, were in large part left out and the failure of the USSR and the control over unions in already battered workplaces made them lose their ideology, in public.
Of course, when under oppression one will not happily accept the conditions enforced, he'll only comply. What is known as the first Spanish revolution took place with the coup d'etat. As the existing state collapsed and hid in official buildings, the ideology the Spanish had learnt during their short time of freedom of speech was put into practice. Anarchists, socialists and communists took hold of the factories and social life actually changed. Though it was a civil war, workers continued production and many fought for a better world. Education and civil life continued arguably better than it had done at any previous point in time. 8 million Spanish lived this alternative lifestyle, about half the population at the time. So when Spain became an authoritarian dictatorship, these people must've imprinted this burning desire for a better world to their children.

In the streets now we have the children of the children, but one protesters was reported as saying that she'd been waiting for the revolution for 50 years. The reality though is that the revolution in large part is being used by alternative sections of the Labour party, even if it was started off by anarchists especially. Many of those there are demanding better access to university, higher wages, more jobs, better wages but also a change in the electoral system. This is not a change in the democratic system and this is important, because it is this neo-liberal system which is the root of the problem. Much like in North Africa (and may I say, from day one the protesters themselves have linked this as a continuation of the Arab Spring, sympathising with the efforts of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya), this revolution is being run through the social networks- Facebook but also mobile phones. This is where they are easy to control, the political parties can see what the plans are and thus turn up to them and use them. Spain is voting in the Spanish elections in only a couple of days time, so these protesters have come as a shock to the system. The timing is also perfect because the government will have to see them gone in order to have the non-political period of reflexion just before the elections- during this period no political party is allowed to campaign. The Catalan government has already said that it will not forcefully move Catalan protesters, this way contradicting the decision of the supreme court. And if the regional governments push the protesters out, a chance for a real revolution is more possible. The protesters will be able to see that the system goes against there desires.

It is important to note that these protests have followed the Egyptian model of camping in the main square, they are more widespread then the Egyptian ones started out though. Every capital province has had protesters in some numbers, so that is 49 cities plus others. In different regions they have had different directions. In Catalonia they seem to be more anarchist and anti-system- with wide support from university lecturers. They are calling for an all-out boycott of the Spanish elections. They are also Catalan in spirit, with banners for independance as well. In Madrid they seem to be more mainstream and with more main party involvement, from what I can tell so far.

These protests though will not succeed unless they have an ideology behind them that tells the protesters that it is the system that is wrong. As I've said, anarchists are heavily involved in regions where they historically have been, communists on the other hand are staying away from it. I'm planning on writing a letter to the Trotskyist Communist Party of the Catalan People telling them that I think their position is wrong. They say they are not taking part because the ideas of the protesters seem to be focussed in fixing the system. I think that this is the best chance in 80 years to gain support. It is the task of communists to guide the protesters. At the very least what they will get is a bigger base with which to act next time. The anarcho-syndicalists are calling for a boycott in the elections and they are showing a larger than known presence in the demos, why then shouldn't the trots do the same?

The only way these revolutions can spread is by defying presidential and judicial orders, boycotting too but direction is needed to both teach the protesters about communism but also to show them that past revolutions have been succesful. I think these protests can grow, 45% of Spanish youths are unemplyed and the average of the population is almost 1 in 4. My mum is part of that group and so are friends of mine, they are fed up but they are not active. An organisation can provide information and tactics to get these people active.

The words of a Catalan poet from Valencia pop to mind: No et limitis a contemplar aquestes hores que ara venen, baixa al carrer i participa. No podran res davant d'un poble unit, alegre i combatiu.

Don't just sit there and watch those hours here to come, take the streets and participate. They won't be able to do anything against a united, happy and combative people. Vicent Andres Estelles.

Expressing dissent is akin to sin in totalitarian societies.

It would be wrong to say that no matter the size of a totalitarian society, it will always be bad. The bigger, the worse. A small movement has much less potential of harming millions who digress with them and will also be much less influential in the political sphere.

I strongly believe in beliefs. I don't believe in a God, but I do believe that everyone is genuinely a good person, I believe in second chances and I believe strongly in free speech. All three together, for me, constitute the basis for socialism, lets call it global equality. I'm happy to say I live by the three too.
I was doing the stall for the ISO today, a right-wing friend came by and we had a small chat. In the meanwhile the other three members of the organization doing the stall walked away and sat at a table nearby. I heard my name several times, but I figured I was just being paranoid. To be honest I almost should be hearing things, me and the ISO have had a fall out of late. When the three came back they sat around me. We made random chit-chat and then they made the move: one of the members (namely the one who is still more open to my differing opinions) started poking me. "What will your non-violent ways do against this huh?!" he said. I was going to take it as a joke when one of the other members asked me if I was a pacifist. He pretended to act surprised, but I've been openly a pacifist since it first came up in an ISO meeting a couple of years ago; his surprise was false and his tone gave it away. I said I was and that is when the barrage of questions and shouting started. They were shouting, they were condescending and it was three against one. I felt intimadated and I told them, they were ganging up on me.
I'll just mention that I am one of the most active members of the organization. I have written many articles and speeches, I have sold many magazines and been at practically every protest there has been since I entered the group, or shall I say society. Yet one differing view, a view that in student politics means bullocks is non-violence, but they cannot respect my individuality. The ISO, I quote "isn't formed of individuals" you see. They are an organization that hide behind a facade of 'true socialism', but what is true? They say they are democratic, yet they cannot accept dissent. They say they are pro-equality, yet they don't practice it; I know a couple of female members who feel disrespected and down-talked. They say they are going for a better world, yet they haven't even envisaged what it could look like. And if it's theirs we will be back to the mines and the factories and jackets of steels will be worn by those who pretend to be the most equal of us all.

The three members asked me what force meant to me, what violence was and then posed examples to prove that violence is legitimate. They truly think that violence will help solve problems, not create more. I didn't feel like it was a debate. It was an intent of brainwash. They would pound there points on me, and harder if I couldn't reply. What am I meant to say when they ask whether it is violent if a woman pepper-sprays her attackers when it is three against one- as well! look at that!- and they've pushed her down a dark alleyway, with all the connotations present in mind? I understand of course why she would pepper spray them. It is still vioent though, just like the act that the three attackers are committing. Both actions are wrong, that doesn't mean one is more justified than the other...

Non-violence doesn't seem to be a possibility within the ISO, even though non-violence is much more forceful. They would find legitimacy in some assassinations and mass murders of a minority. I can't. I believe that we each live life once only, due to this we should all have a second chance. People improve but above all, people are subjects of the conditions they grew up in and the conditions they live in. A disrespect for differing opinions is something you mimic when you see it as a child. That doesn't mean people will always be disrespectful, just that they are copying the behaviours of their elders. Aren't societies meant to evolve though? Shouldn't we by now open up to other opinions and be taught by them?

I'd rather not be down in a mine. I'm quite happy as a "middle-class bourgeois" studying my books. Of course, it'd be much more fun if everyone else could, but we all have perverse dreams.

Iran in the Media and Palestine.

A couple of days ago I was watching the news on the Spanish station Antena 3. I have always thought that Antena 3 is a bit too right wing but it seems to be the people's favourite, maybe they don't think it's right wing. Or maybe it's because it isn't hard to be a bit more right wing then i am. Antena 3 was talking about Iran and they mentioned that they had started to produce uranium enriched at 20% the night before the talks with the IAEA. They said that it was another step towards their program for the production of nuclear weapons. So not that the IAEA was scared that this could be the case, but that this was and is Iran's goal. Antena 3, at least in this case, is not even trying to be objective. They are scaremongering. After hearing the news I started to talk about it and the people I talked to couldn't even fathom the possibility that Iran's aim is to produce nuclear energy "for peaceful purposes" or to satisfy energy needs. When time comes Spanish people won't be against the invasion of Iran because they will have been told again and again for years that Iran is in fact in the "axis of evil". The proof will be there too; they will be able to point to the tv and say 'look what they're saying, the production is for nuclear weapons'!
The problem is that this evidence is unfounded. And the situation, to me, seems quite similar to that of Iraq years ago. Iraq was clearly in the 'axis of evil' because they had weapons of mass destruction all over the country. Inside cement, inside statues, under roads, in the air... Ofcourse these WOMD were never found. This wasn't what they were looking for, they were actually looking for petroleum, natural gas and Osama, who was a good chum of Saddam's. Likewise, Iran is in the 'axis of evil' because the production of nuclear energy together with the vastness of its natural resources make it a powerful country. A country that could be as powerful as many European economies if it was allowed to develop.
Iran is a threat, not because it will produce nuclear weapons but because it can rock the establishment. It will become a powerful country in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia doesn't want this. Israel doesn't want this. The U.S. doesn't want this. This is the main problem. The U.S., the main power in the Mid-East, feels that Iran is a geostrategic threat. Like Iraq was. For Israel, Iran also poses a threat. Iran is a big supporter of Syria, but most importantly Palestine. And by supporting Palestine you are not supporting zionist Israel. Ahmadinejad has more than once threatened Israel, he believes that Israel destroys the homes of Palestinians and that they stole Palestinian land. I don't think he's wrong. But by saying that they can send weapons towards Israel they are threatening one of America's proteges and one of Europe's guilty spots. This is why sanctions have increased and become more severe, they feel that if Iran continues its program, be it peaceful or not, it will become another power in the region, that could counterbalance the region. And that could do something for the Palestinian people.

Of course, Iran is Shi'a. To the eyes of most muslims, Iran is wrong in its path. Its Islam is bad. So almost all the nations around it are against it. Al-Qaeda is also against it, so I can't wait to hear the moment Antena 3 tries to lie to its people again. Ahmadinejad and/or the Iranian state will never be close to Al-Qaeda.

So someone has realized that the West cannot defeat extremism.

General Sir David Richards a few days ago told a BBC reporter that the West wouldn't be able to defeat Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That they would pose a threat to Britain for another thirty years at least... While alas(!) I celebrate that someone on the right has at last discovered something said by many around 2003-4, he has not yet reached the right conclusion. It may be another 7 years for that.
We may ask ourselves then, why are we staying in Afghanistan if they cannot be defeated? Surely it is just a mass grave of the unknown which we are helping fill? Yes it is. But he thinks that it is possible to 'contain' Al-Qaeda. Like we have [not] been doing since the beginning! What he is saying is that we should continue killing and displacing millions, making sure they have no access to education, health care or food and keeping women in the strangling clasps of men. What we are containing is their access to development and democracy. Because we know what is best for them, we are the West, a haven.
I'm a big fan of what is rational, so I think I'm a big fan of terrorism. While I don't support it and I think it will only make situations worse, I more than understand where it comes from. For the West it is rational to search half the world, destroying everything and everyone in the way, for one man. However we think it is irrational for people to resort to violence to protect their livelihoods and families and everything they've known. We see them as uneducated, but if we are the educated then maybe we should fall back into the world of Rousseau's noble savage, where civilization doesn't exist, where there are no worries, where we are free. If education is what we have and rationality guides the thinking processes of our leaders, maybe we should be more like the Afghanis instead of forcing them to accept what we impose.
Johann Hari described the terrorist situation very well. He says that the U.S. is creating far more jihadis than they are killing. He flips the situation around: imagine you are leading your normal life in whichever Western city and then, suddenly, your house gets bombed, and that of your neighbour and that of your mother. Family and friends are dieing all around you. You are a normal person, your family is normal and your friends are normal; there is no reason for the killings. Then someone comes to you under a name like 'Army of the People' says that this country called, say, Bangladesh is responsible for the bombings. Moreover, they (the AoftheP) have acquired the technology to actively fight against these people. With nothing left: no job, no wife, no kids, no food, but lots of frustration; isn't it fair to say that many would join this group? To prevent further killings, for your country? I'm not a patriot, but it is rational for people to protect that which is closest to them. It makes sense for people to feel close to people who are like them. It is a survival instinct. General Richards is right when he says that we will not defeat terrorism, but he is wrong when he says we will contain the ideology if we pursue the methods hitherto pursued.
The problem is that the people who have power in our countries are not all that concerned about the well-being of a few Muslims. Why? Because the threats from Al-Qaeda will always be directed to them. They are the exploiters of their countries as well as ours. The rich aren't all that concerned with us either. They don't care about laws. They only care about their own security, and this is when it is important [for the rest] to abide the law. They are allowed to bomb people as long as they are not bombed, if they are you are guaranteed to end up in jail with electrodes in your skin.

I read a fair while ago that the Taliban wouldn't put down their weapons until America and the rest leave the country. This is unacceptable to the West, because then we won't have the opportunity to control their resources, plunder their crops or spend billions on arms. However it is only logical. There are so many opportunities for Afghanistan, they can only start being drawn out when they become free after 40 years of war.

Only peace can create peace.