The Earthquake in Haiti, A Man-Made Disaster with No End in Sight

This is the First Article of a three part series.

Many of us feel terribly sorry about what is happening in Haiti. Of course, we try to give aid in this situation, hoping to do our part to help Haitians survive.

But we should feel more than pity, and sorrow, and sadness. We should be furious.

The results of this earthquake are more of a man-made disaster than a natural disaster. It goes without saying that the failure of the U.S. government and NGO's to deliver aid is a man-made disaster.

But how can there be a lack of aid, with all the giving that has been going on?

Andy Gallagher of the BBC reports that aid groups complain that it is difficult to get aid where it is needed because of the inherent difficulty in organizing such aid, and the lack of infrastructure in Haiti. These alibis seem to work fairly well, until we realize that giving aid usually involves crises in places with weak infrastructure.

A more telling comment comes from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who, according to Andy Gallagher's BBC report said that the U.S. is not dropping aid from the air because it could lead to riots. Imagine that your community was in dire straits, and someone who had the capability of delivering aid rapidly did not do so because "you might riot if we did?" You might respond "How dare you suggest that we are not 'civilized' enough for you to give us the help we need!"

Nelson Valdez, writing for Counterpunch, describes more of this racist attitude. He states that clearly, aid to Haitians is not the first priority. He quotes a Scottish reporter as saying that "aid workers in Haiti today called for more security amid fears of attacks by increasing desperate earthquake survivors." Valdez also cites a report stating that "security squads" have moved aid providers to "secure locations."

There is just one problem with this concern for security. The rioting and looting that lies beyond these concerns isn't happening. The people aren't rioting, they are begging for help.

Jesse Hagopian, writing for the Socialist Worker, has his own observations regarding this crisis. When asked "What role has the U.N. been playing?" He replied "I really didn't see them at all, even though the hotel I was staying at became a center where hundreds of people came for relief." This is more significant than it appears, since the U.N. has a large presence there. In fact, they have been occupying the country since 2004.

Of course, the U.S. marines have also arrived. Why are they there if not to help? Reading between the lines, we can conclude that they are part of the plan for "security" in Haiti. The U.S. government fears unrest. (I will get into more about U.S. imperialism later, but the U.S. would not want a new regime implementing progressive policies due to this disaster).

In addition to "aid" involving a racist fear of Haitians instead of a rapid delivery of aid, we have the U.S. government putting on a show every bit as ridiculous as Bush's disappearance during Hurricane Katrina. Hagopian explains that the airport at Port-au-Prince was shut down for three hours, preventing aid from arriving during that time. Why? So that Hillary Clinton could arrive there to show support! In addition, former presidents Bush Jr. and Clinton have been asked by Obama to help support the relief effort. Of course, this is the same George Bush that led the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. In short, this isn't about helping Haiti, it's about politicians pretending to care.

I would say that the U.S. doesn't care about what is happening in Haiti, except that U.S. actions over the last century reveal that it cares a lot. However, the U.S. cares about its own imperialist interests, not about the people of Haiti.

A world without risk is a world that doesn't exist

The terrorist attack on Christmas got me thinking. When it happened, I thought that it might be a random person. Of course, there has been a lot more evidence since then, evidence that the government should have known something, considering that the intelligence stated that a person referred to as "the Nigerian" was going to be involved in an attack planned in Yemen. But I digress...

When I was thinking that it was some lone nut, I asked myself, what would we do if it was? Indeed, what if it wasn't on a plane? And what is the story when horrible incidents don't involve terrorism but still involve death, like the shooting up of a school? Or, as far as we know, the shooting in Fort Hood?

My point is this, we cannot create a world where there is no danger. Consider this simple fact, when the passengers got on the plane, their was a higher probability of them dying in a plane crash caused by a malfunction than a plane crash caused by a terrorist. And then, there was still an even greater chance of them dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.

Of course, our ideas about security did not start after 9/11. If a person who committed a crime is placed "out on the streets" and then commits another crime, the problem is that we let him out on the streets too soon.

In short, our society wants no risk, at least not from other people. Even if we really did weaken crime by dealing with the causes instead of the symptoms, even if we had the perfect society, does anyone really think that there wouldn't be one person who murders someone else in a world of over 6 billion people?

Not only are we foolish enough to believe that we would be more protected if only the government is tough enough, we also believe that our government can completely protect us (or wants to, but that's another post). It's nonsense.

I think its a psychological trick. We rightly choose to take risks in order to enjoy life to the fullest. However, to deal with the discomfort of doing so, we imagine that we live in a world without risk. The media, of course, scares us all the time, every time we hear a crime story, we're supposed to imagine that it could happen to us. Of course, it could, but that doesn't mean it will, or that its remotely likely.

With a terrorist attack on American soil, its even worse. We're supposed to imagine that not only could it happen to us, but that it did happen to us. It doesn't matter that it didn't happen to you or I. "Us" means any American. Of course, if you have the misfortune to be the victim of an American bombing instead, well, the media makes sure we didn't think that happened to anyone, let alone us.

I would argue that if America were to end imperialism, there would be little motivation for terrorists to attack America. I would also argue that "crime" in America is a result of an unjust society. However, I think some people hope that the government is this super protective being that can provide us with absolute security. Under capitalism, the government does not even serve the people it claims to protect. But even an ideal government can't play God, and protect everyone at all times. It's a good thing too, since who would ever want a government with that much power?

My Mother's Letter to Newsday on the Recent Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations

Before I post the letter, I would just like to make a few comments. First of all, I am convinced that these recommendations were intended to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for mammograms.

Secondly, it is under capitalism that women can be treated like statistics instead of people. In the eyes of the elite, we are all statistics, and our fate is decided based on whether or not we produce a profit for certain companies (in this case, the insurance companies).

Without further ado, here is my mom's letter:

Thirteen years ago I wrote to Newsday in response to the National Cancer Institute’s review of mammogram    guidelines which were initially eerily similar to the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast cancer screening. These current recommendations are telling us that women in their 40s don’t require mammograms, nor should women of any age perform self exams or even get examined by a doctor because these methods are not foolproof, and not enough women will be saved.

I am that “1- in-1,900 woman” who was saved by getting a mammogram at 41 years old when I was diagnosed with a virulent, fast-growing cancer that would have killed me if I had even waited another year.

My kids were four and seven years old when I was diagnosed. They are now 19 and 22, one a college graduate, the other a college sophomore. I’ve lived a very full 15 years since my diagnosis, watching my kids turn into fine young men, enjoying the company of my husband of 28 years, pursuing my passions, volunteering for causes dear to my heart: - pet therapy, helping foster kids, and fighting breast cancer.

For many women like myself, there is often no way to know whether we are at high risk for breast cancer. Younger women are at a higher risk for fast-growing cancers that require early detection to survive. Early detection can also allow for the cancer treatment to be less invasive and less traumatic.

To say that self exams and possibly even a doctor’s exam of one’s breasts are worthless makes no sense. Do these exams work every time? No, but they’re non-invasive, easy, inexpensive (or free!) tools that find many cancers, - certainly not worthless when a woman’s life is at stake. This task force may think women will follow these recommendations like sheep, but we’ve become educated and savvy. The current breast cancer screening methods may not be foolproof, but we are not fools.

How many cancers found are required to be significant when one of them ends up being yours? I’m not just a statistic, nor are the scores of women who won’t be as lucky as me if these new guidelines are adopted.

Sometimes, Opposites Think Alike

In the U.S., liberalism is typically contrasted with conservatism. Conservatism is supposedly the ideology of anyone who sits on the right wing in the U.S. It is the religious right, the CEO's of major corporations, Rush Limbaugh, etc. It combines ideas about the government controlling of people's personal lives, with keeping the government out of people's lives, combined with pro-corporate policies. In other words, there is very little to hold it together as an ideology, it lacks the consistency of an ideology, because it is simply a proxy for ideas that the Republican Party meshes together and takes as their own.

Liberalism is in some ways even more contradictory outside of the marketplace, in that liberals want the government to stay out of our personal lives, and to have our personal lives controlled via law, ie. government.

However, I want to discuss something different all together, namely, the two views of the market and the government that dominate in this country. These are referred to as liberalism and libertarianism (although it really refers to right wing libertarianism, since the term really only refers to opposition to government).

While liberalism consists of the belief that government should intervene to protect us from the market, libertarianism is the belief that the government should stay out of the market, and our lives, because we need to be protected from the government. Liberals believe government is good, the market is evil, libertarians believe that the market is good, government is evil.

Both ideologies are correct about what is evil, and wrong about what is good. To repeat a quote I've used before from the communist manifesto: "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” In other words, the market controls the government, and they are both evil for the same reason, namely, they are tools of the capitalist class. (This is more of a left wing libertarian position, anti-government, and anti-market).

In this sense, "conservatism" begins to make a little more sense than Rush Limbaugh when we realize that one of the instincts within it is correct, namely the libertarian opposition to government. Likewise, liberalism makes sense in that it isn't supposed to be "big government" at the expense of the people, so much as it is supposed to be government protecting the people from "big business."

Of course, both are wrong, in that in both cases, asking one to take care of the other is like asking an arsonist to put out a fire. The government cannot save us from the people that it works for, anymore than the market can save us from the government that works for it.

Even worse, the political parties that claim to represent these ideologies fail to do so. The Democrats pretend to oppose big business, but they are just as pro big business as the Republicans. Likewise, the Republicans pretend to oppose big government, but they are just as pro big government as the Democrats. For example, its hard to be more pro big business than Obama's trillions of dollars in bailouts, just as it is hard to be more pro big government than Bush's Patriot Act. Of course, these are not just acts of the president, both parties supported these acts in Congress, making them truly bipartisan affairs.

People instinctively understand this. That is why, even when they are ideological opposites, they tend to find themselves voting for the "lesser of two evils" or not voting at all. We tend to underestimate the act of not bothering to vote. We assume people are lazy, yet we forget that the political elite as convinced us to frown upon people who don't vote. Let's not forget how "important" the last election was supposed to be, particularly if you were for Obama. If not voting was not considered to be taboo, we'd probably have less than 20% of people voting during a presidential election!

In conclusion, regarding the market and the government, Many Americans have been divided along two ideological lines. They feel vindicated, because half of what they think really is true. They vote for political parties that they know don't even support their ideology, but they consider them the "lesser of two evils." Some of us try to oppose this farce all together, but are few in number and fairly powerless because most who see the farce for what it is, give up, and believe that if change via elections is not possible, then no change is possible. This system is ideal for the elite, because under this system, nothing ever changes. Ultimately, it is time for us to realize that change is only possible when we unite to revolt against this oppressive capitalist system, instead of siding with one half of it over the other.

What does it really mean to be Antiwar?

Imagine there is a country out there thinking of war. They examine the U.S. They see the many problems the U.S. has. They count the number of prisoners we have, and conclude, that since we have the most of any other nation, we must be the most oppressive country in the world. Incidentally, they claim that they have the most freedom of any nation in the world, and they hope to bring their freedom over here. They invade the U.S., and they occupy our country indefinitely. Oh, and by the way, they've killed a million of our civilians, making 9/11 seem irrelevant in comparison.

What would we say in this scenario? Would we simply say, "thank you for bring us freedom?" Or would we say "get out now!" Would we be justified in fighting back? Or would our soldiers be "terrorists" for fighting against those who "bring freedom?" Would we believe that they are in fact bringing us freedom? Or that they have some other motive? Would we say "clean up the mess and then leave?"

Of course, the reverse of this scenario is exactly what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet few people have truly been antiwar regarding both since Obama has taken office.

Iraq, of course, is supposed to be "Bush's war." At this point, most Americans are against it. Nevertheless, Obama has quietly continued the occupation of Iraq (since occupying a foreign nation is not news, even when U.S. troops die). Newsflash, we aren't getting out anytime soon, at least we aren't if there continues to be no antiwar movement.

Afghanistan is the one that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have consistently failed to oppose. Sure, more and more Americans want the U.S. to withdraw because it is a "quagmire" that we can't "win." This position did not constitute an antiwar position during the Vietnam war, and it does not now. Rather, this position is essentially, "we've lost, lets cut our losses." If you are rooting for the U.S. to "win," that means that you think that there is something to win, and furthermore, that that could have been won through war. By definition, you are pro-war.

The truth is, the invasion of Afghanistan was just as unjust as the invasion of Iraq. Yes, terrorists that had bases in Afghanistan attacked the U.S. However, let's reverse the scenario again. Some Americans, with support from the U.S. government, attack Cuba. Cuba now has the right to take over our country, kill civilians, and occupy it indefinitely, while deciding our politics. Right? I don't think so.

That neither Iraq or Afghanistan has been brought democracy at the barrel of a gun and that just about everyone in both countries is suffering, and may even be worse off than they were before, just adds to the absurdity. But simply condemning the wars by describing all of the sordid details or even saying that these are occupations and not wars is wrong. Both of these positions imply that these wars could be just.

They cannot. War is wrong, period. Far from being a crazy position, this argument is simple. If all people are created equal, we cannot declare otherwise. If it is wrong for someone to kill U.S. civilians, and it clearly is, than it is equally wrong for the U.S. to kill foreign civilians. If it is wrong for someone to occupy our country in the name of freedom, than it is wrong for the U.S. to occupy a country.

And, groups like Codepink, who support an "exit strategy," are pro-war and pro-occupation. To argue that the U.S. should get out after "fixing the mess," cannot possibly be an antiwar position. Obama has the same position, Bush had the same position. It is still the same position even if their timetables for withdrawal are quite different.

The only position that is antiwar and anti-occupation is "Get Out Now!" That includes everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but a large number of other countries, ie. South Korea.

Capitalism May be a Bad Love Story, But Even Michael Moore Can't Break up with It

I usually don't write movie reviews, but obviously, Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism, a Love Story" is not a normal movie.

First of all, before I critique it, I highly recommend you go see it. Everything but the last few minutes of the movie is about the harm caused by capitalists. We're talking about everyone from kids who are jailed because a corporation bought of a judge to people kicked out of their homes, to airline pilots on food stamps. It doesn't really matter who you vote for, if you are amongst the 70% of Americans who do not like corporations, you will like this movie. And even if you do like corporations but want to here the stories of what Americans are facing today, you should see this movie.

Michael Moore concludes that "capitalism is evil and you cannot regulate evil." Only a socialist can make this argument, therefore Michael Moore must be a socialist? Right? Wrong.

What is socialism? It is when the community as a whole owns the means of production. In other words, we are talking about the factories and the machines that produce the goods. And ultimately, we are talking about democracy instead of dictatorship in the workplace, which Michael Moore explicitly endorses.

What fails to qualify as socialism? These so called "mixed economies" are not socialist, they are capitalist economies with a social safety net. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, no matter what he claims. You can disagree with socialism. But being for a social safety net does not make you a socialist just because Republican politicians are declaring everyone to the left of Milton Friedman (right wing economist) a socialist.

Now, if you "cannot regulate evil," then socialism is the only other option. You could argue that capitalism isn't evil. You can argue that it is evil but it can be regulated. But you cannot conclude that the solution to a system that cannot be regulated is to regulate it.

What are regulations? Laws of course. A nation under the law is the perfect form of regulation. Laws come in many forms, including a bill of rights.

Why do I say all this? Because after saying that you "cannot regulate evil," Michael Moore mentions FDR's economic bill of rights, which, though never enacted, was supposed to guarantee basic necessities like food, healthcare, and housing. In other words, FDR's economic bill of rights is a series of regulations that are designed to save us from the excesses of capitalism. He even goes so far as to claim that this works in Europe. Of course, the workplace democracy that Moore proposes isn't the norm in Europe any more than it is here.

To me, if socialism is worker control of the workplace, and ultimately society, and capitalism is control by the elite of the few, then a call for regulated capitalism is the same as a call for benevolent dictatorship. I've noticed something funny about dictatorships though. Wishful thinking rarely makes them benevolent. The same is true under capitalism. As long as capitalists are in charge, they make the rules. They aren't going to make them to benefit us.

It's easy to criticize Michael Moore, but this is rather typical of many people on the left. I know I'm starting to repeat myself, but this is a recurring theme. The grass is not pink, 2+2 does not equal 5, and capitalism with a safety net does not make the workplace democratic, and its not socialism.


Update: It's worth adding that Michael Moore actually says in the movie that a system should replace capitalism, which contradicts what he endorses at the end of the movie.

For those of you who get my posts via email, you can comment on this and other articles at thesocialistidealist.blogspot.com

Civility is the New Silence

We've been hearing an awful lot about civility lately. For example, the huffington post reveals that Nancy Pelosi called for more civility. "We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance," she said.

The media has picked up where she left off. Joe Wilson shouting "liar," in the middle of Obama's speech, Serena Williams arguing with the referee and Kanye West dismissing Taylor Swift are the two examples that have been used of "incivility." No question, Kanye West behaved inappropriately. And no, its not good to curse at the referees, but its worth noting that Roger Federer did the same, and that baseball players argue with the umpire all the time, but that's another story for another post.

I'm not going to claim that we should all scream at each other, curse at each other, and start beating each other up. We should be nice to people. At face value, this is what the media is telling us. But we shouldn't assume that what the media tells us should be taken at face value.

At this point you may ask: What are you suggesting they really mean? The context Nancy Pelosi used it in is instructive. She doesn't want people complaining about Obama's health care plan.

But, aren't the Republicans behaving like a bunch of two year olds? Maybe. Certainly, shouting out that Obama is a "liar" right in the middle of his speech is ridiculous. And of course, even though Obama does say one thing and then do another, his particular objection about illegal immigrants receiving care had no basis in reality (even though they should, like every other human being, have a right to health care.

However, "stop being so uncivil" is a narrative that has been brought out before. Where do you draw the line? The media draws the line at anything that challenges the status quo.

Drew Bogner, president of Malloy College, wrote an op ed in Newsday today, talking about civility. In this piece, he combines looking at both sides of an issue, with being polite about sharing opinions. Like Nancy Pelosi, he also suggests that this "incivility" threatens to turn into violence.

In order to analyze something, we must determine what belongs together and what doesn't. Simply put, disagreement, impoliteness, (even if it is extreme and unreasonable) and violence are three very different things. People can politely agree to disagree, and people can be rude without being violent. And people can challenge the status quo without being nasty about it.

The reason the debate is framed this way is to silence dissent. If opposing the status quo is equal to being mean, which is in turn equal to violence, then we will all agree that we should put up with the status quo. But it isn't. When the status quo is unjust (the number of hungry people has passed 1 billion, according to the World Socialist Web Site, for example) we are right to oppose it. When this is caused by an oppressive elite, we have the right to oppose them. This opposition isn't polite. As a Marxist, I might argue for the overthrow of the capitalist class. There is nothing nice about it.

However, this doesn't have to be violent either. I would argue that the many simply need to see their power in numbers, and use it. The failure of the elite to control the vast majority is sufficient to cause a revolution. For example, anarcho-syndycalists have argued that a general strike could be used to cause the collapse of the system, simply because they decided to refuse to work for capitalists.

You do not have to agree with either the goals or the means in which that goal would be achieved to see the point. It's simple word association, and its not an intellectual exercise. The media is telling us that change= impoliteness= opposition= violence. Of course, there are many examples of this. Obama= socialism (I wish) is one of them. Free market= freedom. Anarchy= disorder= violence.

The important point is that there is no debate. You can make the case that Anarchy=disorder=violence. However, an anarchist would not agree with that statement. Anarchy itself is the absence of the state, not the absence of order. In other words, first, you ask yourself whether it is possible to have order without the state. Then, you ask whether disorder inherently means violence. If you have thought about it, and answered yes, than you can agree with that statement. But simply putting words together does not create a true statement.

In terms of "civility," it should be clear that being rude is not the same as being violent. And disagreeing with people is not the same as being rude. So lets speak loud and clear that we will not be silenced, no matter what our views are. If that makes us "uncivil" than so be it.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/pelosi-warns-of-violence_n_289999.html