When we stop eating with people. When we start shooting strangers.

Nicky Hager recently published a book, Other People's Wars, in which he demonstrates New Zealand's true war "aid". With stats from the Ministry of Defence, private testimony and other sources, he shows the SAS are not there to reconstruct. Instead they take an active part in the war in Afghanistan. This is known to many left wing activists, but to some it has always had the ring of a conspiracy theory. Now they could be proven wrong.
As Nicky says, very few people know what is actually going on in Afghanistan. All we get is "candy-flossed" media coverage, always showing the New Zealand troops as didactic peace-keepers. Why then do they die "in combat"? We all thought they weren't combating? You see the media does not lie, but it may often hide the truth. Peace-keepers are sometimes described under the term "peace enforcers", this would be a much more accurate representation of their role. NATO is enforcing our defenition of peace, our defintion of society and to our economical or political benefit. This is New Zealand's longest war, yet we have nothing to do there. The war on terror, whatever that is, finished 4 months ago with the death of Osama.
Nicky tells us that the SAS are not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a presence in Oman and Yemen too as well as other regions of the world. We are lied to in this case, but mainly it is because of politicians and a corrupt media system, no longer a watchdog of public interests but a lapdog of private greed.
Here is a Press interview with Nicky about his book.

Politicians also lie to us about the policy that gets passed in parliament, or that which is still on the books. A food bill will go through soon, it is vague and weighs a ton and a half and we wouldn't be wrong to see it as our own food bible. It tells us what we will and will not be able to do, for our health and security. There is the potential that food stalls, sausage sizzles, lemonade stands, community gardens etc., will be closed or restricted to only a few sellers and users. If not it will definetly be covered and wrapped with thick red tape.
In the US people have already been arrested for sharing food, bartering and growing it in their own gardens/manufacturing it. We do not want a law like this to pass,  even especially if it has been created by the WTO.

Last, New Zealanders will soon have to vote in a referendum. Many of us do not know, but we are going to have to vote on our system of vote. According to Metiria Turei, the referendum is being pushed by National because FPP (First past the post) would give it an absolute majority in parliament. ACT is also behind it, even though FPP would destroy its presence in parliament, just like it will destroy the presence of all minor New Zealand parties, possibly even the Greens. A voting system that does not allow a party with 8% of the vote to get in is far from representative.
In the referendum we will be asked whether we want to keep MMP or not. MMP is the current system. It is much more representative as it allows the presence of minor parties. While it could become more representative, even if we decide to keep it it will be reviewed in order to improve it.
Become informed, you will be asked to vote in a month's time. The campaign has been shortened because of the rugby so you should inform yourselves, it is to National's interests to keep you apathetic.
Here are some short youtube vids on the referendum, MMP anf FPP.

These issues and a couple of others were talked about on the Social Justice League, on radio 1 10-12 Fridays.

London's Burning, Police Found Guilty.

On Saturday in Hackney an individual was stopped and searched by police, on the same day as a peaceful vigil was held commemorating the fatal shooting of a civilian again by the police. Later, police in riot gear were attacked.

What connections do we see? Police, Pigs, PoPo. Though titles on the BBC read: 'Police Attacked', 'Mobs in London', 'Violence hits new parts of London'; they should read 'Police behind it'. Can we actually believe the sensationalist reports saying it's 'an absolute war-zone'? or misleading ideas saying shop-owners are losing their livelihoods? were police just walking around, casually on a weekend stroll, in their riot gear when they were attacked?

I've been following the reporting by the BBC. It says who: criminals/youths; when: Saturday, yesterday, today; where: London; what: rioting; how: through violence... But why? Journalism follows a series of conventions, as a to-be journalist I will not follow them. Objectivity benefits the right, the status quo and authority. Moreover it is a myth. Foucault would say it is part of a media discourse, itself a product of the discourses of capitalism and government. Reality is subjective, I see things personally, I project my experiences and ideas to every news story I read. The events in London are done by people.. angry at the way they are constantly mishandled by police.

The Met Deputy Assistant Comissioner says: "When we have large numbers of criminals intent on that type of violence [i.e. burning, looting, protesting], we can only do that, get lots of officers there quickly and try to protect local businesses and local people."

A misconstrued reality, the people are on the street. Business will be payed back by insurers.

We have to look at the reasons why the police are being attacked. Last week an individual was shot, this week someone was being searched. What authority do they have? I have often seen police speed, I have been stopped and photos have been taken of me. I never did anything wrong but go to protests. London has been protesting for much more than just three days. Last year there were 50.000 on the street, the year before as well. It's always youth. What are they unhappy about? Is generation Z anarchic and ungrateful? Or are we having to push the boundaries to express a systematic reality. Climate change, education and the economy are all constructed in a certain way. Neo-liberalism runs wilder and burns faster than and doubledecker bus in London. It's in our food, we spoon it for breakfast, at school, on the couch watching TV. 

The markets are currently crashing, this double-dip has been predicted but the brunt of the hit will again go to beneficiaries and workers, while corporations will receive yet another budget bail-out like the one recently approved by "Left-wing" Obama.

I don't agree with attacking the police, there should be a clear differentiation between attacking property and people. Property is inanimate, it represents the state's authority. People act knowing these institutions exist. I don't think the police should have as much power as they do, but this is not their fault as individuals, the police body stands in front of the government in its protection. Any individual policeman is innocent of the way the system works, so they should not become targets. What if they attack Tottenham blacks and jews? London has not fully integrated these populations, nor has the rest of Europe. From here we see the violence these groups of the population suffer from, like in Sweden. Jews were once scapegoats, now Islam is.

Attacking property though only gives the state an excuse to repress and create culprits. On the other hand it brings the point across. The media love a class-based conflict with burning stores.

A protest scam.

Yesterday there was a protest to keep Hillside jobs and work in Dunedin. It was a failure. I arrived and the Octagon was full, I'd say with around 500 people although the media has said 1000. Talking to socialist comrades, we noticed that the majority of protesters looked as if it had been their first protest ever. There were families and kids, grandparents sitting on benches and then of course hillsiders in their suits and a multitude of unions. This is good and bad. Good because it looks as if solidarity amongst unions is increasing also because many have reached a point which they can no longer stand, and they have become aware that protesting is an effective way of standing up. It is bad though because many protesters had never protested before. The protest was rigged and the wind was blowing wind into the sails of the labour party. It was not democratic and people did not have a voice- their representatives did. There were three Labour speakers, a Green, for some reason someone from Greenpeace and then about three Hillsiders. No open mic, it was electoral propaganda for Labour. It was hardly even against the National party, it was just Labour saying we would not do this. Notice the would not, it is always followed by an if. Labour's trajectory says that Labour would in fact have done the same. And they never stopped the privatisation of KiwiRail, even though they said they would have if they could to the masses.

I have to say I left early, the speeches were seriously boring- going on for 5 or 10 minutes. Chants were worse: "Jobkiller Joyce, Give us a choice". Cringeworthy.
No one else was allowed to speak, all the protesters got was an event prepared for the news, with the last full stop included. On the meanwhile though, the protesters were slowly escaping yawning. It was bad, seriously bad. And bad because people who seemingly have never protested before took part in it. They left probably not ever wanting to participate again, disapointed maybe. I almost did. This event was not democratic. It simply relayed the story we have heard again and again, give your power to representatives and every now and then they will pretend to listen, they will come down or maybe just send down a letter, and they will bore you to death. Politics you see is not a thing for you and I. We shouldn't have to know what's going on. An example of this is the speeches themselves, which sometimes got quite technical. They want us to leave it to them, ransack the countries not on our behalf but to our loss. Protesting and striking shows who has the real power, you and I can stop this groth-focussed profit-driven economy. We are the ones who get to choose when machines start and stop and we too can block the roads and demand a true democracy.

The indignation within you and I is a cross-cultural experience, fruit of capitalism in desperation.

On the 15th of May a movement started in Spain, still active now almost a month later. In this article I will look into the reasons for the movement, these are embedded in history but are also a fruit of the capitalist system. The indignant who claim to be “autonomous” and “a-political”, have been left unemployed by the austerity measures imposed by the IMF. The autonomous and a-political nature of the protests though can be seen as a threat. They are tags imposed on the protesters by the media, protesting is political and the idea of autonomously and coincidentally coming together for the same cause is irrational. Wanting a better future is being  political and mass strikes are one of the many ways to achieve it, what this better future looks like and who envisages it is the key. I will argue that only socialism can achieve a better future for the working class and the majority of the people, but to do this socialists have to be not only involved but also leading the movement with their ideas and experience. This movement is currently not present in Spain to a significant enough degree. As a last point I will talk about socialism’s role in the future struggles of Aotearoa.

This movement did not spring out of nowhere, Spain has a long history of mass movements. In the ‘far-left’, anarchists, communists and socialists had successfully put their ideas into practice on a large scale in the 1930’s. In 1931 Spain got rid of the monarchy and within a couple of years had put the foundations of one of the most ambitious social projects in Europe, with reforms to industry, education, marital laws, religious laws... The government though, intent on keeping control of the power void it created tried to put restrictions onto the social revolution that was taking place. Whole communities became fully independent of the state and fully self-sufficient too. Individuals were no longer subjugated to the orders of the nobility and the church. The government though, run by the new bourgeoise class, was mired with corruption and inefficiency. Ministers were being sworn in and out continuously. Its inability to hand out the benefits Spanish society had been promised and so eagerly needed led to widespread dissatisfaction. Anarcho-syndicalist, socialist and communist ideas were spreading, promising a better society. The rising number of strikes and the powerful union movement derived from these ideas became objectives of a government which had quickly failed. The Spanish republic relied heavily on the old military apparatus, thanks to this the generals, who had interests with the old sources of power saw an opportunity to take control of a state which was on the verge of breaking up, economically (as 7 million Spanish were living in communes by 1936 and factories had been appropriated by the working classes) and politically, as Catalonia and the Basque Country threatened to become independent. The military organised a wide-spread coup d’êtat in August 1936. Even though the Anarchist movement had foretold of the date and time, thanks to its spy network, the Republican government was caught by surprise. The efficiency of workers councils, organised by Anarcho-syndicalists and socialists stopped the fascist coup on its tracks but lead to a bitter civil war.

In short the civil war was a failure on the behalf of the Republic. At the time the European powers were wary of the costs of war so the Republic was left to recuperate a country it never fully controlled by itself- until the USSR got involved. As Franco’s military possessed more arms and had the aid and support of Mussolini and Hitler, the Republic called for the military aid of the USSR. Stalin was opposed to the more democratic nature of the anarcho-syndicalist and socialist troops fighting for the Republic. He actively fought against them, instead of actually fighting the common enemy: Franco. Many anarchists and socialists were executed, if not by Stalin by Franco once he won the war. This decimated the number of Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist groups working around the country. The fascist dictatorship, which lasted as long as 40 years in some parts of the country imposed a culture, a history and sense of unity which have only started to be questioned now. To understand Spain now we have to be aware that it has only had 30 years worth of ‘democracy’, moreover its transition to a democratic state took place when the UK and the USA were jumping onto the ideas of neo-liberalism. Spain has had low-salaried jobs for decades, unions have never had much strength since the late thirties and the introduction to the EU in 87 forced it to become even more of a low-wage economy with few incentives for a higher education. Nowadays a ‘good’ job in Spain is one earning a 1000 euros a month and the minimum wage is 624 euros, incomparable to the rest of Europe. In France the minimum wage is above 1350 euros a month. Housing in Barcelona or Madrid can easily cost around 600 euros, add on to that the relatively high price of food, the price of electricity, transport, education... It is no wonder Spanish youths live at home until they’re thirty. Low-paying jobs, high rents, an awful system of education and the constant bombardment of capitalist products makes it difficult, but more so if unemployment is at an average of 21%, 45% for youths. In this aspect Spain resembles Northern Africa, the series of governments have happily abided the orders of the IMF- making Spain a heavily poor and indebted society- a lapdog of US interests since Franco’s time. In the last couple of years there have been job losses in the public sector, cut-backs in education, a raise in the retirement age and some unemployment benefits have been done with.

Where Spain doesn’t resemble Northern Africa though is in the fact that Spain is supposedly democratic. Democracy is relative, when the citizens don’t have any actual input into how society should run, when there are only two parties who represent the same set of companies, when the benefits of society are not reaped by those who overwork for little pay and when the individuals ‘participating’ in the democracy are constantly being lied by media sympathetic and benefited by a system advertised as pluralistic and free; democracy starts to resemble an oligarchy, or a dictatorship by a handful of individuals. Spanish are starting to wake up from their somber mid-day nap to realise they are being robbed. These protests, with protesters ranging from high school kids to grandparents, are against the current parliamentary system.

In the squares the protesters almost seem like an amorphous range of individuals with nothing in common but a desire for a job, a flat and some money. There is no actual, concerted, goal. Some groups within the ‘plataformas’ are demonstrating for a better electoral system while others are wanting to create an actual revolution out of the spurs of fury. The media and the politicians have used this to their advantage. It is hard to find objective news articles in the Spanish press that do not call the protesters anti-system, rebels or “ni-nis”, a term used to describe Spanish youths, who “neither work nor study”. It is also difficult to find news on sites such as the BBC, CNN or even Al-Jazeera; there has been an effective media blackout. The anarchist group FAI, present at the protests, says that though the political and media circles were initially shocked: “Naturally, we couldn’t be hopeful, we knew there was the danger of the situation becoming midiatised: criticising the more radical propositions and reducing the situation to a simple critique of bipartisanship and the financial system without shaking the foundations of the state and capital”#. It definitely does look like the media have taken control of the situation to say it is run by the “fringes of society”, this way giving legitimacy to any police or government action. They go on to say that the right has in effect always been in power to differing degrees at different points in time. A case which in Spain is very much true and the Anarchists of FIJA agree, going so far as to say that the current protest movement is “suspicious” and aims to “dissipate frustrations”#.

Although these ideas seem to verge on the side of wacky conspiracy theories, what is true is that political groups and campaigning has been banned. This is because the organisers did not want mainstream parties to use the platforms as a rallying point for the 22nd of May elections (In which by the way the ruling party lost 40% of its vote).FIJA points out that there is an inconsistency with the platforms position as by protesting you are being political, however these protests are not actually imposing too much of a threat to the capitalist system for the time being. The government could simply call for a vote to change the electoral system, thus appeasing many of the present.

These two anarchist groups are calling for a social revolution: “a radical change at all levels to decentralise politics and the economy through direct action”. These two groups have been involved in the protests, the direct action they call for verges on the IST idea of an armed insurrection. At OGNA we agree that political organisations should be able to show a presence at the protests but we disagree with armed insurrection: this will only alienate the majority of the ‘indignados’, who are admittedly apolitical individuals. Socialists though have not had much of a say. En Lucha, a trotskyist organisation, has had some involvement, mainly in Madrid, but other than that there are many groups that are even rejecting to participate- as the ideas held by the organisers are reformist. These groups that are against participating are Stalinist and their position is similar to that taken by Stalinist groups in Greece a couple of years ago. In our view, it is upto socialists to point out the injustices of the system and call for a concerted struggle against the ruling top echelon. We have to point out that unions “signed agreements with the ruling Socialist Party which attacked workers’ rights. [Making] it easier to sack people, attack[ing] pensions and rais[ing] the retirement age.#” At the same time though we have to prove that unions are the only protection mechanism the working class has and that it is through the cooperation amongst unions that we will achieve an educated proletariat ready to confront the government non-violently. What’s more, we have to show that this recession is an inevitable downfall of capitalism, it will happen again in 10 years time and again and again until we defeat the system, worldwide.

Socialists in Spain have hitherto not seen the potential of these protests. One month on and we still have people on the streets, still largely ignored by politicians and the media. Although recently police have been more violent against the peaceful gatherers. The youths in Spain, like in Tunisia and Egypt, have nothing to lose as they admit they cannot see a future as a part of capitalism. The potential lies in how far Marxist ideas can be spread. As a general rule the protesters see the problem as lying in the system. For now though they have been given no alternatives. As the days go on, numbers are stagnating. While the police violence used to get rid of protesters in Barcelona caused them to come back in multiplied numbers, after a couple of hours the protest was back to its usual size#. The failure of socialist organisations to see the importance of these protests and also to show up with significant numbers is a key to the slow decimation of the movement.

Only with the spread of socialist ideas can the movement increase in size and span.Youths are unemployed and furious. Quite reasonably, Spanish workers are disenchanted with unions, it is up to socialists though to prove the unions’ worth. Spain has been hit hard by the IMF, but only because it is in the interest of capitalism to seek for profit instead of humanity. Socialists should use the platform to spread their ideas to youths and to workers, this way we can achieve a conscious working class. Socialists must also promote ideas of tolerance in terms of sex, sexuality and immigration- the inability of Spanish society to accept these is a remnant of fascist Spain. It is curious to see how little immigrant involvement there has been, compared to their percentage of the population. We must also see the spread of ideas as the only way to achieve an equal and fair world system. Spreading the ideas through Spain will push the ideas to Portugal, France and Central Europe. For now Greek and Italian ‘indignados’ have already started to protest.

For OGNA, the only way forward for Spain is to keep the protests strong and to remain non-violent. Non-violence attracts more followers and non-violent direct action is much more difficult for governments to confront. There has been talk of dismantling the platforms, in Barcelona there was a decision to pack up. Even then, 80% of tents are still pitched#. We think this is a mistake, these platforms provide the opportunity to express the widespread dissatisfaction society feels and the symbolic presence in central squares of cities across Spain will be like a thorn constantly jabbing the ribs of the politicians. It will be a forum for debate. Breaking up the presence counts as a victory for the ruling class, a pat on the back of the policemen who have brutally battoned protesters, this way showing the true nature of democracy in Europe.
In New Zealand the situation would be treated much the same by the media, for this reason it is up to unions and revolutionary organisations to lay the seeds for revolution and disseminate the truths of who does and who should hold the power in society. The large number of revolutionary organisations and the emergence of working class oriented unions and parties such as Unite and Mana is a significant development. The situation here is not too indifferent from that in Spain, youth unemployment is at 26% and there are some obviously underprivileged sectors of society, namely Maori and Pacifica. As socialists we have to break down ideas of racism and unite forces across Aotearoa. The government is not supplying jobs and is raising the hurdles to get in to education and for decent health care, it is time for Kiwis to protest too.

If we want a true democracy socialists have to direct the working class, history has shown that privilege belongs to the rulers but it is being handled by the working class, we must take grasp of this privilege and distribute it fairly to society as a whole.

Scottish independance would open up the European march for freedom.

On the 5th of May the Scottish election took place. A while back now. That the SNP won with an overwhelming turn in vote was surprising. After full scrutiny, it took 69 seats out of 129, a significant majority- with seats they stole from the Libdems and Labour. Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, is openly pro-worker but also pro-independance, and the you can see the connotations in the speech he gave when he was declared winner: "I'll govern for all the ambitions of Scotland and for all the people who can imagine we can live in a better land. This party- the Scottish party - the national party- carries your hope and we shall carry it carefully and make the nation proud".

Now there are only a couple of reasons to explain why the SNP achieved such a turnaround, despite its support for independance. Either it was simply a product of an anti-coalition vote, or the number of Scottish in favour of independance is increasing. Your choice but it is mine to hope for the latter. We cannot say that those who voted for the SNP weren't at least expecting a referendum for secession.

Scotland is of course like so many other hidden nations of Europe. Both Catalonia and Scotland were empires in their own right, they ended up losing their territories due to monarchies intermarrying. Of course, your average person at the time was no more than a slave, with no freedoms nor any rights. The culture of many territories got at least difused, if not surpressed and/or lost altogether.

What is important though, is that when Scotland actually calls the refendum, which is scheduled for the second half of the five-year term, it will be very hard for nations like Spain to not allow the Basque Country and Catalonia to hold one, or France one for Northern Catalonia and Brittany. There is also the Val d'Aosta, Sicily, Corsega, Napoli, Flanders. the Suomi people, Chechnya... There are so many nations across Europe looking for greater autonomy or independance; what will happen to Northern Ireland? Scotland is just the blow of air that can help reignite seemingly dying embers.

Those opposed to independance give economic and social reasons. I'll address the economic reasons first. It is simply not true that independance will cut-off markets. Capitalism will continue to make its ties regardless of borders or lack therof. I rather think the new international projection will boost the tourism and industry of many of these nations. I'll step in to say that I am looking to argue against the reasons against independance set down by imperialism, and not really from a socialist perspective this time around. Many of these nations mentioned above are currently deemed dependant on central governments because the taxes of these nations go into the treasure chests of these central governments. The Basque country is an exception which many nations are jealous of, as it manages its own taxes. 
In terms of social factors, I doubt many of the states would spiral into war. Even though I think Spain could- clause 8 of the constitution says that if the unity of the country is under threat, the military is legally obliged to step in (They have certainly done so every other time Catalonia has seeked greater self-determination). I don't think people would necesarily leave the country even if it does become a new one. Physically your situation hasn't changed, you haven't been thrown in a tumble dryer! People will still live in Catalonia or Scotland and the biggest mistake on the behalf of any new government would be to create differences between the 'natives' and the 'foreigners'.

The way people is going to potray Scotland in the near future is important. Like they already say of Catalonia, they will say Scotland is already breaking up the state. To see how far the nonsense goes in Spain, watch this investigative report. What is a nation though, if there is no shared sentiment of cultural unity?

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.

Revolting.

Apparently my blog isn’t working, I cannot write anything. If I were a conspiricist I’d probably think the government is monitoring my activity with such excitement that they’ve caused my blog to crash. Tough luck for them as my activity lately has been relatively low. We have arrived at that time of the year when we walk out of the library every day with four new books, balancing them on the jacket it’s too hot to wear and limping with our laptop bag that makes us walk lopsided. It is both cold and warm, the rising mists in the morning though should be a warning to not bring a jacket, it’s just too cold though. I wake up shaking and a shower in the nude just doesn’t sound appealing, it doesn’t help that the water practically scalds me as it falls onto my chest- I’m probably only asking for the cold to come back, cling on and want some warmth too. Years ago, a teacher in Lleida told us that it is more rational to take cold showers in winter, because then the temperature difference isn’t as great. Well, easier said then done. I’d much rather boil! My activist-tivity has been low too, I have a radio program though! Me and a socialist comrade are running a show about politics, radio1 on Fridays-10 to 12am. Having done my advertising for the day, Oh! Tune in! 91fm, I’ll jump on to more important issues.
The world is being forced to accept the ACTA bill, its name may be different in your country but do not be fooled, it is no cute and fuzzy four-letter acronym! The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an excuse to shut down our freedom of speech and shut us off from a growing culture. Its excuse? Those poor artists: singers, writers, etc. Now don’t get me wrong, I love music and books and photography and painting, I really do! I have not been to an art gallery in a wee while but I hardly have less than a few hours and what’s the point? I would want to appreciate it. I wish I were an artist. This bill though is not actually in their benefit, it is in the benefit of corporations. If it was actually in the benefit of artists the CEOs of Sony et all may choose to cut their salaries a bit, who are we kidding though, these corporates have worked their arses off to get where they are haven’t they? They themselves are probably musicians and have gone through it all already. Meeeek, no wrong. These corporates have simply done a couple of courses in marketing at the local branch of a little known university, their degrees unfinished.
Artists earn shit all from their record sales, it takes them more effort than anything else. Starting off unknown, the first thing you want is to get your name out there, you want to hear your music is being played in Timbuktoo. For every sold song on iTunes, artists get 9 cents, only 10% of the profit, and believe me, that is a lot to music standards. They earn much less off record sales. Many artists are against this law coming in, they have been using alternative ways of spreading their music for free, or for donations and a much higher profit. This law has been put in place to keep the industry on stilts even when it’s being sawed down with every technological change. There have been bands that have ripped fresh music from the concert onto blank cds and giving them to the spectators as they walk out the door. Other bands give free poor quality downloads or payable high quality ones, giving a chance for all incomes and a taster of what the album tastes like. Writers have published their works online, photographers theirs on Creative Commons. Creating an audience is the first step to stardom is it not? And if you are small in this everexpanding world, isn’t it first just a pleasure to know you are wanted, to know people believe you are talented too? After an audience is created one can ask for donations. Artists sell their own locally made merchandise now, the corporations are the only ones missing out.
I don’t feel sorry for them. As an article on Critic says, artists now have to continuously tour, not for the audience but for themselves, to make money from door entries. The profits from cd sales get siphoned away into all sorts of hidden holes.
This bill will restrict us from sharing music or videos, it will not only detain the uploader, it will fine and impinge the downloader’s privacy-potentially cutting him/her off from the internet altogether. It has been said the internet is becoming a fundamental right, on the one hand we applaude when we hear small third-world countries can finally surf the web, on the other we get fined for sharing what we enjoy most? This seems incompatible. With books there are no restrictions to sharing, I can give my book to anyone, I can found a library, with music I’m not allowed to. My preferences must be kept private, I must hide in  this socially created bubble a bit more- we must stop sharing, enjoying and laughing together. Even though sharing is what we do and culture is built through references to older material. Mesh-ups are a new thing, born with the rising internet culture. One can now create art through the internet, by picking a song from here, a rift from Japan, a sound effect from Star Wars, put it all together and voila. Here we now have something personal, but global and for everyone. If we can write books referencing Shakespeare, why can’t we make music referencing our favourite band?
With this law we will lose our privacy, possibly our rights to the internet, we will all lose out on music but culture will be affected deeply too. We are being forced into individuals by a system that doesn’t believe in “mass” in any context other than profit and entertainment. We are being dumbed down, we are being titty-fed and milked at the same time and we will never get out of this tiring cycle unless we stand up. Internet has been called a revolution in terms of communications and human interaction, for some reason though we are letting them take it off us.

Why is my tv off?

While many of us get on with our routinely cooking tasks, two people will get married. Getting married at half past seven would seem a bit weird here, but thats not the only weird thing going on... The world has succumbed to madness, a third of it, or 2billion people, will be watching two people get married. One could ask how the hell they will all fit into the abbey, well the majority have been given plenty of room in personal couches and enough wine to forget the fact that those getting married are people they've never met nor will do. I have to confess I find it quite tacky. If someone payed for my upbringing, education and salary, I would have the courtesy to invite them to my wedding. Well actually the vast majority of those who care are spending there own money on wine in their own couches- it is a shame they weren't invited. Those who have have had the luck to live the same easy life.
I wasn't invited either I'm not going to lie. I've invested lots in the royal family- mostly unknowingly. It seems I owe them something. My right to live under laws and all that. I think I'm paying them because they are so kind they decided to give me some personal freedoms once. They have the right to do that you see, they aren't your ordinary people- they are special. They are our representatives. I've never met them nor can I ever pick up the phone to talk to them. Every now and then though, when they take a walk they are kind enough to say hello. Not to me but to some mad people who decided to live on the streets for a couple of days just to see what the experience is like. It is hard is all I can tell them. Not that I have. It is good to see people be compassionate though- it is good to see people put themselves in the shoes of the homeless who have to sleep on the floors everyday.
If you don't care too much about this person getting married, you may be arrested for wanting to have some fun- a loud party in central London on a Friday. Whilst most Fridays thsi would be perfectly fine, we must remember it is still daylight and British are all too traditional to be caught drinking before 4.
Too traditional too to get rid of an old piece of furniture that doesn't allow one to open the door fully. This massive object is a nuisance. It is expensive to keep in the room- it costs me too much to keep clean. It doesn't allow me to use my room as I wish and it has been here for bloody 1500 years. Everytime I raise my nose I catch a whiff of it that makes me cough. The thick musty smell looms over my room as I am sitting in this bed. Its dark shape holds so many cracks it can only have a hundred thousand diseases harbouring within it. I look at the computer screen wondering why I still have such a piece of furniture. There is the old there, blocking my door with a thick layer of dust I cannot possibly clean by myself and there is this computer- not too new but it whirrs and whizzes. If only I could use the new to get rid of the old by myself...
If I had a tv, it would probably be behind the big object anyhow so what's the point?

Take note of what goes on or you'll forget.

We are all forgetful, many of us can hardly remember what we ate for breakfast let alone what was on the news yesterday. That was just yesterday's news, today is today isn't it? Well we can't just move on. What happens today is a direct consequence of what took place yesterday. It affects us greatly, yet we don't really know the world we live in. It is said that with so much information at such small snippets, we only get a superficial scratching of what goes on. It doesn't help that each website is a labyrinth in which to get entertained on the wrong path. How often do you turn on the computer to look something up and realizing 20 minutes later as you're shutting it down that you've forgotten to check what you wanted? I know I'm not the only one out there.
The internet is no less entertainment than Coronation street, in a sense it is our personal street; it is no more information than the BBC wants to give us-  unless we actually go out and look for it. And then, will it be there or deleted from our collective memories altogether?

Did you know that the Government has granted itself wartime-like powers in Canterbury? The parliament has given support to the governments actions in Canterbury, controlling what goes on for the next five years! The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been given the power "to get information from any source, to requisition and build on land and to carry out demolitions. It can also take over local authorities if they are not working effectively on recovery work". Yep, it can decide that local councils are powerless and insignificant, take them over and this way take over democratically elected institutions. Excellent! So, no food, no roads and no-one to complain to! It has hardly made a scene in the media. And any it did has been forgotten all too quickly.
It seems Labour and National are just two shades of gray. The fact that we aren't told tells us a lot about New Zealand media. They aren't watchdogs of the public interest  but the lapdogs of a private interest.

This is a part 1 of three, next Oil-protests by iwi and then ACTA.

Non-violence, the world and Lybia.

It is often thought that revolutions are bloody, tragic events that kill so many for nothing, in the end. Regimes that have sprung up from these revolutions haven't always played up to the expectations, and that's an understatement! However non-violent revolutions do exist: Poland and Checkoslovakia cracked communism, South Africa made a transition to a fully democratic state, Iran in 2009 made it onto the streets and spread the word across the globe; this word may have been a powerful antecedent to the Egyptian, Omani, Suadi, Syrian, Bahraini and all the other revolutions taking place right now. When non-violence strikes, no-one knows how to respond. The strike isn't dripping in blood but rage, and hope. Martin Luther King was one of those men who could rally thousands for a cause we all think is just now, he harmed no-one. Gandhi too, as well as Mandela, Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama...
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.

On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.

Imagine.

Libya and Europe.

The revolutions in Northern Africa have recently escaped our news, first because of Christchurch and now Japan. However we all know that libya is still struggling in a situation of de facto civil war.

Gaddafi is being told to leave by the EU and the US. He now seems to have the upper hands against the rebels, who at one point in time occupied more than half the country. However Gaddafi won't budge because of some western threats, the US and the EU may have to get involved. For democracy of course, or that's what they'll tell us... Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and it has significant amounts of natural gas as well. Any US and/or European involvement will be for two reasons: to protect the sacred tenet of democracy which would stabilize the country and in the short run protect Europe and for the large oil companies to win a new share in a new land with the possibility of finding new reserves. Again it is back to oil. That black crud we all rely on.
The authorities may even be open about it and say that they're going in to stabilize oil prices as well as democracy; the barrel of brent has gone up by more than 25% in the last couple of weeks. Any involvement will also be for the oil, for the markets and for the people. Those who own everything we have and need of course.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that it is sad that Libyans face shooting if they walk out of their houses and that bombs will be dropped on protesters but with direct foreign involvement, Libyans will become Iraqis with another name. The rebels are still strong and every day that passes more join the forces. I believe they can win, if we want to help, we should give them arms and medical supplies but no doctors unless asked and especially no soldiers. Libya doesn't want to be a colony again.

Elsewhere in the Middle East the US is more influential. In Bahrain human rights groups are under threat, in Yemen the protesters are being attacked by police. The US is losing its grip on the region just as it wants to take troops out of Iraq, and while American democracy does seem to be winning, the new governments won't kowtow as easily.

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.

Is Egypt Free at last??

I have taken my time to comment on Egypt, mostly because I haven't found it. I have been working quite a bit and I really just haven't been able to. It's also been very dificult to comment on something we don't completely understand. Al Jazeera is giving us a lot of info, but I don't know how many of you tune on, and I myself haven't really been able to. But even Al Jazeera has been hiding info (it too is a a product of foreign policy), they mostly talk to English talking people,  so we aren't actually able to get information from your average Caireine slum dweller, rubbish scavenger or fruit vendor. Moreover, the last time I watched Al Jaz they were talking about protests, but at that point in time didn't tell us what the chants were, now this is important. It's very different to chant "Mubarak out now" than "We want change, we want democracy we want socialism", I don't think the latter would be apropriated though, Egypt isn't ready. It would be 1917 again, a repetition of already made errors which just paved the streets for a new tyrant under another banner, an even bigger lie.

Yesterday Mubarak stepped down, after thirty years in power, after almost three weeks of on-going protests that have swept the world's attention. Mubarak's forces tried to hold up as much as possible, it has been difficult to know who the military were backing. There have been times where army and people backed each other up or protected each other, others in which people were shot down for shouting. Now they are the ones controlling the country, they have vowed for a smooth transition, but it is the people who will have to keep them in check. Their barricades must stay strong and Tahrir square must continue to be the centre-point of the revolution, because it has not yet ended. I believe the people will get democracy in Egypt, a democracy still bad, resembling ours, but a democracy nontheless. I hope Egypt and Tunisia manage to create a liberal democracy in which all people will be represented. This would become an example for the rest of the middle East, where the masses have yet to rise even though the conditions in Algeria, Morocco, Yemen and so many other nations differ so little.
All I know is that the Egyptian and Tunisian people spoke out and it worked, who says it can't elsewhere, in places where the government is less powerful? This is the best vid on the Egyptian revolution and here you can find how Tunisia is starting to take on its rebirth. The words "We will not be silenced, whether you're a Christian, whether you're a muslim, an atheist. You will get back your goddamn rights and we will have our rights one way or another", from a protestor are probably to become one of the lines of the revolution. It is a people's revolution. I'd call it for bread and butter. they want food, but they also want to become western, they want to become secular.
Jefferson said that "when the people fear their government it's a tyranny. When the government fears its people it's called liberty." We could say that both Tunisians and Egyptians are more free, but they still need their food and they're still going to have to fight for rights we consider normal, whether they are women's, gay or workers'. The future for them is young and full of hope.

And if you want to know what the Kiwi army is doing in Egypt check it out.

London shows the hidden side of Europe.

After being in Catalonia during December, I saw more racism than I had ever seen before, and it disgusted me. And Catalonia is a nation relatively open to newcomers, integration has been a part of their ethos for centuries. I'm not sure if this ethos started to fade as I left or if it was just a figment of my imagination. Maybe this ethos never existed. Maybe it existed because I wanted it to exist. The case is, as I've said previously, Catalonia, Spain and, frankly, most of central Europe, if not all, is racist. And I think this is because of our governments.

There are two theories, that I know of, which are used to integrate newcomers: assimilation and multiculturalism. Assimilation is the approach used by France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland... It basically consists of the new population having to become French, Spanish, etc. Multiculturalism is the approach used by Britain and until recently Germany. This approach accepts that many different cultures can live within a state and each one is allowed to maintain its traditions as long as they don't interfere with the wellbeing of other cultures therein.

I've explained Spain's immigration problems before and the Spaniards attitude of 'they should be like us' and in France it became clear that the assimilation route had failed with the riots in Paris' banlieues in 2005, staged mostly by sons-of-migrants.

London however isn't like that. I had this mental image of the city being incredibly Victorian. In the sense that it was dirty, people were closed and I guess it was too big and scary. It wasn't like that at all.
My Granny, before I left the Bury station to Liverpool Street had told me that if I got lost I should seek a black or a brown person, not someone who's white as they'd be foreigners. Far from being racist slur, I feel it is a representation of true, current London. Migrants from Africa and the West and East Indies have been in London so long that the city is theirs. This isn't a bad thing, au contraire, it shows that British society can be so much more accepting and tolerant than the rest of Europe. It is a society where it isn't strange to see people other than white nor will they be considered strangers straight off. Liverpool Street Station was the first glimpse of London I'd had in years, the train journey was dark as I left passed four. There, now six, it was rush hour and I, for the first time ever felt lost. Not lost in the sense of directionless, I'd been in plenty of aeroports; I was lost because I'd never seen so many people rushing from one place to another. And they did it so gracefully. No-one bumped into anyone else, they all knew where they were going and that they had to get there fast. I was overwhelmed and literally stood for thirty seconds without knowing what to do, I guess it's a sort of Kiwi curse.
When I finally managed to get back into character and took the train, I saw something I'd never seen before. I was sitting on central line and around me the faces were of african origin, or latino, or pacifica, or chinese, or philipino. All these people were going back from work, all were thinking of the meal they were going to have with their wife and kids, everyone was actually the same. London is the clearest example of multiculturalism. The person opposite could be speaking in Arabic on the phone and the one next to you reading a book in Hindi; standing, a jewish person and on the far seat someone holding a rosary. They are all Londoners, regardless of views, ethnicity or religion.

London may not be the centre of a vast empire anymore, instead it is in the limelight of globalisation. However one place where things have yet to change is in the theatre. The West End is where it used to be and the Lion King is still being played at the Lyceum. Whilst in there though, I only saw European faces. Maybe I was sitting in the wrong area or wasn't looking hard enough but it seems English higher culture is still restricted to the English.

Iran and its dissidents.

I'm back in Dunedin, jet-lagged but housed. In Iran though, one woman isn't allowed to be at home, or with the people she loves. She has been imprisoned because she decided her career would have as its foundations honesty and the needy. She was a human rights lawyer. In the Arab World, Iran is one of the few places that would let her learn law, let alone defend it. Iran is also one of the few places in the Arab World where defending the law could end you in prison. She got eleven years: five for undermining national security, five for spreading propaganda against the state and one for being a member of Dr. Ebadi's Centre for Human Rights Defenders. That's right, she's been enjailed for belonging to a human rights organization and moreover for defending the rights of the ones the state doesn't want to defend. Her name is Nasrin Satoudeh and as Dr. Enadi says, she's been emprisoned because "the regime is terrified of human rights lawyers who are not afraid to stand up in court for their clients or to give interviews."
She has also been barred of practising law and she won't be able to travel abroad for twenty years. She has in essence been imprisoned in the borders of her own country, but unable to see her children, to work or to hold beliefs.

Iran is a powerful state in the region, economically. It is powerful also because it is where the Iranian people decided to steal the power the American's had over the region. However its lack of freedoms put it in a tough situation. Many now also believe that Iran has nuclear weapons. This gives them more reasons to bomb the country.
All I can say is that if the Americans end up invading, they'll end up killing many more people than the Islamic regime has and its people won't be freed from rule, but merely handed, or snatched to/by someone else.

A war in Iran won't unveil its nuclear prowess, it will only give the Americans and/or Europeans another fighting ground, which will allow the media to stay well away from the scandals happening within. A war in Iran will not free its people, it will only trap them in a stateless run delimited territory, being bombed every day.

Only the people can stand up again to recapture their power. When that happens Iran will be truly free from itself and from others.

The Spanish Civil War: One enemy but no friends.

The Spanish Civil war was one of the bloodiest and most brutal conflicts of the 20th century. It is often untalked about or even unknown, but Spain was the first battleground in which Fascism and the Rest fought out for victory. It started when Franco wanted to reimpose the monarchy with a coup d'etat. The 2nd Spanish Republic was trying to lift Spain out of the feudal system it was still in. Only three regions had been industrialized: the Basque Country, Catalonia and Madrid. The rest of Spain was still agricultural and some parts, still remote. The Republic was in charge of introducing democracy into the country and of passing laws for agricultural reforms. However, because parliamentary democracy is a slow process and the country's peasants and workers had been organized by Anarchists and Socialists in unions or not, within weeks the country was paralysed by strikes and demonstrations. Very soon the Republic was forced to bring in the military, to maintain its power over the people, who were increasingly growing restless. The traditional centres of power: clergy, nobility and military and those close to them saw that the Republic could not control the situation and in 1936 organized a 'secret' coup d'etat. I say 'secret' because the Anarchists in the CNT-FAI (Anarchist Union) had discovered it through their espionage apparatus. So, in part, we could say that the Spanish Republic took part in the coup, as it did nothing to stop it; it ignored the information the Aarchists gave them. The Socialists and Anarchists practically controlled the factories and the fields. So when the military rised in every city in the country two days before the planned time, the resistance replied defeating half of them and giving out the weapons to the citizens. In the Spanish Civil War we can see how amazing workers unity can be and also how sectarian it can become. First of all, they took over half of the military forts of the country and then, when the power of the Republic had dissapeared, collectivised the land. Factories continued to run and communities continued to work, but without the elite in charge. But secondly, the many groups that formed part of the resistance: The International brigade and forces, Catalan and Basque nationalists, trotskyists, stalinists, anarchists and progressive capitalists were the key to the downfall of the movement. There was no cohesion amongst them. There was one common enemy, but the resistance would not fight in unity against it. In the backlines political skirmishes were constant. Barcelona had become the scene of "the civil war in the civil war". Its streets were a battleground amongst all of the resistance factions, even though the enemy was closing in 300 km to the west.
In the end the Republic collapsed and Franco won. 39 years of a fascist dictatorship followed, which caused many people to exile and at the end of the day a lot of suffering.

This lack of cohesion is still apparent in the revolutionary left. We may all have our differences and the way we reach our goals may be different, but it pays to create ties and help eachother every now and then, for specific long or short-term campaigns. The ISO may be trotskyist, Worker's Party Maoist and Beyond Resistance, Anarchist; but we all want to improve worker's rights. We all know that the parliamentary parties will not give us workers any improvements, so we should earn them ourselves, united. This doesn't mean we have to accept every opinion of the other groups, just that we have to remain united for the sake of the workers. This won't dilute our politics, it can only strengthen them. Through debates, arguments and demonstrations.

YFTR.

Julian Assange, accused of raping a system he merely exposed.

We all know who Julian Assange is and we've all developped our own opinions of him. For some he is a thief, for stealing secret documents which they believe can actually threaten the lives of a few. For others he has merely done the honest thing, showing the world's citizens what their governments are actually doing but deny. I'm closer to the latter position. I think those threatened are in positions where they can take the diplomatic immunity card. What's more, I don't think we can compare the lives of so many civilians dead in Afghanistan or Iraq, hitherto hidden from the public records with those of a few diplomats who've been living a relatively simple life.
I think we are in trouble if it becomes a crime to tell the truth, especially when those who represent us don't, and are paid to. All Wikileaks has done is expose the world's governments but especially the US's imperialist policies and secret wars. Because most of the leaks concern US embassies, or US wars or US economic policies. At the very least US intersts in the world.
Would Palestinians have been happy to know that Fatah wanted the Israelis to bomb Hamas, fellow Palestinians? I think not. Do Saudis want Iran bombed, by the U.S.? I think not. Was the UN aware that the US was spying on the organization and its members? I doubt it. Soon Wikileaks is going to reveal the actions of the Bank of America. Exposing the realities of the capitalist system as a whole. It is about time people realize that this system has stopped working for the masses. It works for the Prime ministers, Presidents, parliamentaries and polititians, but that's about it. People are no longer even allowed to know what is happening in the world. I quote from Socialist Alternative:

Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post op-ed columnist, was bluntest of all:
The problem is not that the purloined cables exposed US hypocrisy or double-dealing. Good God, that’s the essence of diplomacy. That’s what we do; that’s what everyone does…
“That’s what we do.” What sort of a system is this where those whose job it is supposed to be to hold those in power to account can be so blasé in the face of rank corruption of the highest order, at the highest levels? On what other planet could such forthright, frank assessment be useful propaganda? “Lies, assassinations, rank hypocrisy? Never mind, it has always been like this don’t you know?” 

Did you know that the lawyer defending the two rape victims, Claes Borgstrom, is also a polititian? Maybe he's also affected by the leaks? Why else did he re-open a closed case?

Assange isn't perfect either. If he in fact has raped those two victims, he should pay for it. However two judges have decided that he's innocent, and this accusation came just in time. If the US, interpol or whoever wanted to accuse assange of something, they had this. People despise thiefs and fraudsters but especially hate rapists. The trauma rapists cause doesn't go away. If these two victims aren't actually victims, they are downplaying the suffering millions, regretfully, suffer. They are almost making rape seem as an excuse, or a joke. It clearly isn't. Whether rapists do it because of society or their past is a different question but rape isn't something which we can laugh about, or misapply.
For all I know, Assange is reported to be authoritarian within Wikileaks, imposing his point of view among others. Also, Wikileaks' bank accounts have never been made public and when Bradley Manning was arrested in relation to the leaks, Wikileaks never gave him the money they had raised to help his case.

He may not be perfect, but in my world only liars are bad. He has been tagged a criminal for telling the truth. Free Speech has been kicked out of the backdoor. I'll finish with Assange's words:

[T]hose who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy. People of good conscience have always revealed abuses by ignoring abusive strictures. It is not Wikileaks that decides to reveal something. It is a whistleblower or a dissident who decides to reveal it. Our job is to make sure that these individuals are protected, the public is informed and the historical record is not denied…

We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying… I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards.

If everyone who believes what he believes were to be put in prison, we wouldn't find a continent big enough to put us in.

Here's an interview by Al-Jazeera with Wikileaks.

For the first time ever I was flying over this land, leaving its clouds, above everyone else. In a matter of minutes we had crossed 30 landscapes that took me 2 years to discover. Below me were the orange plains, farmland; then the imposing mountains, forlorn with strems diced with ice and valleys unvisited for centuries, if ever; then there was the thin strip I had only visited days ago, the strip of land from which New Zealand is born and to which so many waters flow. The plains, Aoraki and the washed incline had disappeared. For the first time ever I was flying from this land I will permanently be trapped in, or because.

In Munich I was able to hear the catalan rhythm again. I felt excited! For two and a half years I'd only heard my mother tongue from my mum. Now randoms, speaking about weather and politics. It's funny how every culture has favourite topics that spring up again and again when people talk. For Catalans it's these two. I was more than glad to overhear. I ell que es, Catala o Espanyol? [What is he, Catalan or Spainsh?] You see, you can't be both. Again Catalonia is reviving politically, as it did in the late 19th century and in the 1930s. Being Spanish rules you out from being Catalan, but being Catalan automatically, to the eyes of many, puts you in a bullfighters uniform, playing a Spainish guitar. It is a shame and painful. Something many won't understand. There is this pride in seeing your own do well. Catalans have been oppressed for more or less 300 out of the last 550 years, at intervals. A mi no em costa res parlar Castella, pero si m'obliguen em fot dels ous. No em costa res, pero jo se que em podrien entendre. [It isn't an effort for me to speak Spanish, but if they force me it fucks me off. It's no effort but I know they could understand me] For most of the three hundred years the language was prohibited. This has inevitably made it closer to spanish, as it is the language that had to be used in the streets. The influence was unavoidable, like French influenced the proto-English tongue. It is frustrating for Catalans to have to speak Spanish. Simply put, how would one feel about not being able to speak English in England, or Maori in Aotearoa? However, when entering the plane the guy answered the hostess in Spanish, because that is the language he was spoken to. Spanair is Catalan. It is such a cultural thing to do to drop Catalan straight away, when asked. Catalans are bilingual, or tri; Spanish don't give a damn. This is Spain they say. Catalans may always just accept, cot their head down and do as they're told. Of course they shouldn't. Independentist feelings have grown again, for the first time since the late 80's when the resistance movement of the Catalan terrorists Terra Lliure started to dwindle. If we want to be part of a democracy, we should become independant, this comes through fighting and resistance.

"No et limites a contemplar aquestes hores que ara venen, baixa al carrer i participa. No podran res davant un poble unit, alegre i combatiu" - Vicent Ferrer.

[Don't just sit and watch these hours here to come, go on to the streets and take part. They won't be able to do anything against a united, proud and fighting nation.

Citizen Journalism and Sentimental Education.

A few weeks ago I did my last news reading at radio 1 for the year. Now I’m in Spain, time flies! I’ve been doing the radio for more than a year now. I want to become a journalist, so it only makes sense to take all the opportunities that I can now, while they’re still free. Thanks to the radio I’ve managed to meet people from other radio stations, so next year I may have a program of my own on Radio Toroa, but we will see. I will also try to write for the student mag ‘critic’.

It makes sense for me to do so, of course, after all this is what I want to do. This is me. I write, I talk, I criticize, I ask, I assess, I reason. But this is also what I want everyone else to be able to do. I want everyone to be who they are, to reach their potential. Everyone should be able to write and talk and criticize and ask; but above all to assess and reason, as these stem from the others. I’m a firm believer in equality and freedom, everyone should have a right to education and everyone should be able to use this education to make the world a fairer, better place. This is where citizen, or grassroots, journalism comes in. If every individual could publish their thoughts, by definition there would be equality and full literacy. Citizen journalism doesn’t work though. First of all not everyone has access to education because not everyone has the same opportunities. Second, there aren’t many publications that do pick up unprofessional articles. Because they are unprofessional, they are likely to have bias or be badly written. Also, they may go against what the backers of the publications believe in. This here is the most important issue. Because all publications are biased, but probably not explicitly. You can tell through hints, like when TVONE interviews little girls who don’t like teachers striking because they fear for their grades. What utter bullshit. I think if you are worrying about your grades at the age of 7, not only you but your whole family has a problem.

If people have an access to education they’ll have an improved ability to reason. With reason comes the ability to see what is good and bad. Everyone should be able to criticize what they see as bad and show their idea of good. This breaches journalism’s golden rule of objectivity, some would say. I don’t think so: I think it is much better for a journalist two expose to sides and then defend a favourite than to show one as best without actually giving arguments for the other. The latter is what actually takes place. Newspapers will say that it is bad for nurses to strike because it is putting aside the lives of millions, but not that their own lives are constantly put aside because of their services to those millions. This is why so many are wary of striking, the media gives it a bad name. I think people should be able to openly give their assessment of the world. For example, if the Taliban are again doing atrocities, we should mention the ones we do, we should mention how we do not improve Afghanistan either and how we also kill innocent people. In fact we should say that we too are taliban, that women also have less rights in our world *High Five, Diplomacy, Diplomacy, Shake Hands* We should be able to say that they don’t have education, live in poverty and have no food, maybe have a passing reference on how we have kept the country in war, and thus no education, for thirty years.

This sort of journalism is much more sentimental. And much more real. Richard Rorty defended a sentimental education, thanks to which we would feel more attached to people we do not know. We will see that they are in fact like us, but different. Highlighting the similarities, which outnumber the differences is better than doing the opposite. If everyone had the access to this sentimental education, the world would be better. Journalism should have a tinge of sentimental too, because readers like that shit, as well as exposing two sides of a story. Many of these accounts we can pick can come straight out of citizen journalists. They can provide blurbs of information which we can fit into a good article, acknowledge them and voila, the world is slightly fairer, and people happier. At least those who contributed.