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.

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.

Anzac: Why do we celebrate death?

Tomorrow we will be again seeing flags raised across New Zealand, bands piping at 7 am and crowds gathering around every cenotaph in the country. This is a commemoration of war, but is war worth remembering? Well of course we are not remembering war, but who we have lost in it. We remember the stupidity of war, we remember that killing people we don't know is irrational when they have done nothing to us. Because they haven't personally, nor has their country. We remember all those who died for somebody else's war, the war of an empire our great-grandfathers may have never seen first hand.
This wasn't the war of our fathers nor our grandfathers, they are now our great-grandfathers, people so distant we can hardly imagine them. They didn't listen to the radio and half of New Zealand was still rural. All their information, all their sense of nationalism was very different to ours. They read newspapers that reported the information a week late and who were they but an amalgamation of Brits and Irish fighting for their livelihoods in a quite unknown climate? They still saw Maori as savages and some even hoped they would go extinct, like a beast...
So why do we remember those we do not know?
I guess I cannot really speak. I come from a nation, Catalonia, that celebrates the defeat to Spain and its empire on September 11th 1714. When the Spanish finished sieging my hometown Lleida in 1708, less than 2000 people were reported still alive. Hitherto Lleida had been an important agricultural centre, the most important city of a trade-route between Catalonia and Aragon and from there Spain, and was the seat of one of Europe's oldest universities, our contributions to the field of medecine are innumerable, in part because Jews and Muslims participated in scholarly life. Spain though destroyed the city and killed the wounded in the hospital of St Mary. All universities in Catalonia were torn down, in Lleida the Queen's castle, where she lived for 200 years was destroyed as well as all the other noble buildings. We went from 300 noble palaces to none, overnight. Saying that the city was destroyed is an understatement, it did not recover until the early 20th century. Spain prohibited the use of the Catalan language too and imposed military rule, further breaking up the territory, half of which had recently been given to France.
Yet we celebrate the loss. We are insistent and we survive, the language is blooming, 10th most important on the internet according to Google, culture re-rooting and we are looking at starting our own path once more. The two previous times we did led to the loss in 1714 and the loss in the civil war in 1939. Looking at 1714 shows the unity of the Catalan people and our tenacity, we never gave up. It is a source of pride.

New Zealand and Anzac could be something similar, in a sense it did unite the country in grief. 95 years since the first service and we still cry. New Zealand though wasn't fighting for itself, it was fighting for an empire that took lots from its colonies but seldom gave back. Moreover, Gallipoli is an example of racism:
My great-grandfather almost fought there. His regiment had been selected to train for it, in Tanganyika and in Gaza. Both of these were a failure, the army was left to jump off boats and sink- the navy did not want to get any closer. It was a failure in logistics repeated in Gallipoli and a success for the Turkish who in some areas were well outnumbered. My great-grandfather though was not allowed to fight because he was in the East Indian regiment. Churchill decided Gallipoli would be for the French and the British to recapture, Europe would be in safe hands once again as the oldest nations tied the continent back together. Because the Indians were not European, they were not allowed to attack, even though they had been preparing for it for the last year.
Anzac is a day of unity, almost every Kiwi has someone who fought in the Great War. New Zealand is a small country yet it committed itself more than anyone else. Gallipoli entitles the kiwi to a sense of pride much like Catalonia's, even though we may be small, we matter. We tread twice as hard to make ourselves heard. This sense of pride can be seen in every town and atop mountains and tomorrow New Zealanders will remember the dead there, but are we celebrating New Zealand or celebrating a bygone empire.

Why don't we celebrate the day New Zealand was discovered? Because it could be offensive to Maori. Why don't we celebrate the day Maori and Pakeha put down their arms after the Maori Wars? Because we slaughtered so many in order to take away their land.
New Zealand's problem is that it has to celebrate a day it truly united and it hasn't got one. Even in WWI many Maori iwi refused to participate. Maori did not see why they should be fighting for an empire that had abandoned them.

I bought a white poppy to show my stance on war: it kills. It doesn't mean I refuse to remember, it means I will not forget war's price. 2271 Kiwis died in Gallipoli, why are we still fighting then? Shouldn't Anzac day symbolise the day we put down arms and war remind us of what we should never do again?

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.

Military and the Revolution.

At the ISO's meeting today we talked about the military's power in social revolution, it was interesting, fairly weighty stuff. Of course we don't want the Egyptian revolution to die down, but it seems the army is acting in counter-revolutionary ways: hey are trying to get those still camped out in Tahrir square to budge, to go back to work.
It's important to note the army will never be able to create a state like the one it witnessed fall. By now the people are conscious of their power, they know they can achieve what they want and they know that they can shut down the most powerful state in the Middle East. There has been a shift in consciousness that has proved that revolutions are still possible in the 21st century, indeed revolutions aren't a bit of the past but maybe an undeniable piece of future. As a comrade said, we are more connected now than ever, it is easier for us to organize, an example of this is the UKuncut campaign that has blocked stores of companies that dodge tax, including vodafone.
However, capitalism is an always shifting system, it continuosly gives more powers to the rulers, but their technology will always trickle down. In order to keep the revolution working and to keep the new military government in check, people will always have to be one step quicker than the governments. They will have to keep their demands and not bend down.

The army doesn't have to go against its people, right now I'm not commenting about the situation in Egypt. In Portugal in '74 the army helped topple down the fascist dictatorship of Salazar. Within three weeks of the provisional government, the number of unions rose by a thousand percent.

In part this is because the army will always have a working class element. Even though it is one of the state's traditional powerhouses, they are mostly formed by the working class. Those who get their hands all bloodied are sons of workers. So they will always be reluctant to go against the people, because they too have worked as tanners or in market stalls or on the dumps of the city.
The army and the police are quite different.  The army is nationalistic, it exists to protect its citizens from foreigners and it is a working class source of pride to be in it.The army is seen as the ultimate power symbol of the country and because it represents the country in all its classes, it will not always go against the people.
For example, in the more than famous Tianamen square protests, reform protesters had been demonstrating for weeks. The army was present, it was the local branch though so it felt unable to shoot against people they potentially knew. In order to 'disperse' the crowds, China was forced to send troops from elsewhere. Then the tanks rolled in, curtains fell and hidden behind sheets thousands were murdered. This shows that the military is reluctant to shoot its own people, the same isn't true of the police. The police were the ones reported to kill many in Egypt and Tunisia and very recently in Bahrain.

The police, on the other hand, exist to maintain the status quo ante, the class system. It is there to protect the richer. If there is a robbery in a store, the police will be there quick, if there is a robbery in a house, the police will take more time, it simply isn't as important.

The military could thus be seen as a potential weapon in favour of the revolution, but of course, who says armed revolutions work out?

Non-Violence quote by Chinese philosopher Mozi.

“To kill one man is to be guilty of a capital crime, to kill ten
men is to increase the guilt ten-fold, to kill a hundred men is
to increase it a hundred-fold. This the rulers of the earth all
recognize and yet when it comes to the greatest crime—waging
war on another state—they praise it!
It is clear they do not know it is wrong, for they record
such deeds to be handed down to posterity; if they knew they
were wrong, why should they wish to record them and have
them handed down to posterity?
If a man on seeing a little black were to say it is black, but
on seeing a lot of black were to say it were white, it would be
clear that such a man could not distinguish between black and white.
Or if he were to taste a few bitter things were to pronounce
them sweet, clearly he would be incapable of distinguishing
between sweetness and bitterness. So those who recognize a
small crime as such, but do not recognize the wickedness of the
greatest crime of all—the waging of war on another state–but
actually praise it—cannot distinguish between right and wrong.
So as to right or wrong, the rulers of the world are in confusion.”
–Mozi, China, circa 470-391 B.C.

Non-violence.

I have to say, I am one of the spines of the ISO in Dunedin. As we've often commented ourselves, we are a small organization in the backwaters of the backwaters of the world. Dunedin is much more cultured than the countryside surrounding it but still, the area tends to be conservative especially when it comes to issues such as socialism. It is almost a taboo word here too. We do our best to spread socialist ideas, through our quarterly mag, through public meetings and in general being quite loud or just there. This annoys many, no doubt.

I'm non-violent though. The group often gets into more or less agressive agressive arguments about what violence means and how a non-violent revolution is a laughable state of affairs. To me it seems logical though: if one imposes their ideas, people will rebel against them, maybe just in thought though. However if one slowly debates his/hers ideas, they will either be picked up or not. If they're not, well free speech says that we should be able to think what we want to. After all, a new society will come when a majority wants it. There will always be people against it, this is what makes each of us human: we can all decide to follow the ideas that we think are best.

Radio and the Catalan Protest Music.

I'll soon be going to the radio as I've started that again. If I want to be a journalist/reporter the best thing is to get myself a name. So I do the news, this year I'm hoping to write some for critic, of course I'm in the ISO mag and I may soon be involved in a politics program on the radio. Exciting!

The radio has always been a medium for change. Especially as in the 40s and 50s it was possible to broadcast under the radar, this is how the Catalan language was able to survive its prohibition for the first 20 years of Franco's regime. Speaking the language in public could land you in prison, especially in the bigger Catalan cities. However there were multiple clandestine gatherings across the nation and the continued presence of the Catalan government in exile gave strength to those fighting against fascism.
In the late fifties an article came out in a clandestine magazine published by the monks of Montserrat close to Barcelona. The article, by a singer called Serrahima said that "we need present songs [in Catalan]". From this article musicians started to get together and soon the group els setze jutges was born in Lleida. Its goal was to create Catalan music that was relevant to the times. Under the umbrella of this group dozens of musicians appeared. They would use the relative weakening of the regime to normalize Catalan. Or at least, make those too young to hear it in the street aware that it was also spoken outside of their houses or farms, that Catalan had its own existence as a language and its existence would only survive with the toppling of Franco and his cronies. The lyrics of these songs were extremely rich in metaphor. People knew what they actually meant but as they weren't explicit and sometimes non-understandable to the authorities, the singers were granted permission to tour. Sometimes their songs would be prohibited in one town, but allowed in another 30 km down the road. It all depended on the strength of the authorities around.

Father, tell me what they have done to the river,
that has ceased to sing.
It slips like a thorn, dead under an inch of white foam.
[...]
Father, the fields are no longer the fields,
Father, from the skies blood rains,
and the wind sings this crying.
[...]
Father, they're killing the earth,
Father stop crying,
they have declared war on us.

The snipets of this song by Serrat, called Pare, show how there is something wrong with this land, Catalonia & Valencia. We are not allowed to look after it any more and it is dying, the language is dying, as is the culture. With the song L'Estaca, by Lluis Llach, Franco is mentioned directly. The name Siset is a loving Catalan form of Francisco.

Siset can you not see the stake,
to which we are all tied?
If we can't undo ourselves 
we'll never be able to walk.
If we all pull
it'll surely fall
and much more time it cannot hold.
Surely it'll fall, fall, fall,
it must be rotten enough by now.

This song calls for everyone to help pull down the regime, the protest song called for civil liberties and a social welfare unknown of and only imaginable across those borders it was so hard to cross. It helped re-liven Catalan nationalism and it helped to topple the regime, or at least keep peoples' hopes up until the time was adequate.

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.

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.