What Now For Iran?

The dramatic events unfolding in Iran demonstrate the decaying of Iran's theocratic-capitalist state. Iran has always been portrayed as a barbaric evil nation by the West only because a bunch of crazy theocrats run the government. However, as we have all seen in the past weeks, the determination and courage of the Iranian people has quickly dispered these wild assmptions.

Why have the western capitalist 'democracies', who were all very eager to denounce this evil nation, their government and their nuclear programs, become so quiet? It was the vogue to line up and voice their criticisms against Iran. But now they have all become very timid. Why? It is because a potential revolutionary movement has arose which has the power to overthrow the weak Iranian regime from below. NONE of the western capitalist nations have even lended support to this opposition movement! But why? It is because none of the western 'demoracies' want this movement, nor do they like the prospect of the regime being overthrown by the people rather than from imperialist intervention. It is also dangerous to their interests since Iran is a very strategic part of the world. It stradles two continents and the last thing the imperialists need is instability and anarchy. This instability and revolution could spread to Egypt or even Saudi Arabia and this is why the imperialists are trembling in their boots. And so this explains why these "foreign democrats" have kept so quiet.

A Perspective For Workers and Communists in Scotland-The National Question

Leninists recognise the need for a consistent democratic outlook whenever the national question arises. Lenin believed that nations had the right to self-determination-whether the majority of the peoples of that particular nation decided to form a separate smaller state, or remain part of a larger state. The national question has became a prominent issue which reaches into many aspects of Scottish public life. The further degeneration of the reformist 'socialist' parties such as the SSP and Solidarity, which have drifted into Scottish nationalist deviations, which goes against the interests of the Scottish working-class since it dampens the class struggle and transforms it into a national struggle-makes it obligatory for Scottish Marxists to pay more attention to the national question more than ever.

The purpose of this article is give a general outline of the perspectives that Marxists should take in Scotland. To do this, it would be convenient to start with the party of Scottish Independence-the SNP.

The Scottish National Party under the leadership of Alex Salmond, draws support from both disillusioned New Labour voters while forging a cosy relationship with prominent Scottish capitalists, such as Brian Souter head of Stagecoach and former RBS chief George Mathewson.

The SNP hold the self-proclaimed label of being a "centre-left" party-this can be observed when the SNP appeal to anti-war sentiment along with an important emphasis on NHS funding. These 'leftist' moves should be regarded as moves by a clearly capitalist party (as we shall see) to draw in working-class voters. The SNP most definetly do not conceal their sympathies for the super-rich when Brian Souter had donated £500.000 to Salmond's party. Nor do Scottish Marxists forget that Brian Souter is a a right-wing homophobe who has a vicious hatred for trade unions. And former chief of the Royal Bank of Scotland, the 5th largest bank on the planet, George Mathewson supported Salmond as First Minister and still does. It seems very difficult for Salmond and the SNP to support the working-class and the national bourgeoisie since both have contradicting demands which are viciously opposed to one another. The SNP have pursued policies that appeal to the Scottish working-class-its opposition to nuclear weapons and the Private Finance Intiative (PFI), abolition of the hated council tax and student fees and free central heating for pensionsers etc. These are progressive policies, but the inherent contradiction to be found in the SNP's policies is when it adopts a purely neo-liberal programe of financial deregulation, tax cuts for business and the massive support and promotion of Scottish corporations home and abroad.

Salmond justifies this mishmash of conflicting class interests and policies in an interview with Total Politics saying that Scots “didn't mind the economic side [of Margaret Thatcher's policies] so much. But we didn't like the social side at all.”

Yes, Thatcher's economic policies that destroyed Scotland's industry and condemmed the people of Scotland to poverty, mass unemployment and misery were alright, but Salmond was unahppy about the 'way it was implemented' and that it could be imposed in a much more friendly and nicer manner! Well, Mr Salmond that is very thoughtful of you, but try as you might, the theme of this article so far is that you cannot keep the workers and capitalists happy-helping one usually means attacking the other-this is even more true in times of economic recession.

Now straight to the question of how communists should view this.

1.If YOU, an ordinary person, a Marxist, a worker, in short, anyone who wants to see the demise of Scottish capitalism and capitalism as a global system, needs to oppose Salmond and the SNP and convince the working and middle class supporters that they have voted for the wrong party-the crushing domination of big capital (supported by the SNP) in Scotland will mean thousands of the middle class and smaller businesses will go under, and the neo-liberal pro-business policies will mean millions of the working-class will go under. It is simple. The SNP is against the working-class, it is a party for the Souters and Mathewsons.

One thing we must keep in mind, is that even though Scotland is a small nation, it does not mean we are safe from the exploitation of the capitalists, the stripping away of the welfare of the working people and massive tax cuts for the rich.

2. The separation of Scotland from the UK would not be a progressive step forward for the Scottish working-class. (for the reasons stated above).

3.The visible crisis in the Scottish Labour Party (and the British) gives all the more reason for all revolutionary and progressive-revolutionary elements in society to form a new revolutionary workers party which would build and spread itself within the Scottish working-class and make links with counter-parts throughout the rest of Britain. The purpose of a genuine workers party is not to create and and strengthen the tensions of of the national question in favour of independence, like that of the so-called "workers" parties such as the SSP and Solidarity, not to create a new patchwork of tiny bouregeois states, but to overthrow the state in which they live and replace it with a workers state that smashes the economic power of the capitalists and places it under the democratic control of the working-class itself.

The straight answer to the question "Do you want Scotland to separate from Britain and be independent?", which will appear in the referendum, it is the duty of the Scottish Communists to call for a 'No' vote. This in no way implies we support the British state. It because we stand for a united proletarian rebellion to get rid of and smash the undemocratic British institutions such as the House Of Lords, and finally, for the complete and final abolition of the Monarchy. Communists seek to establish a Socialist Republic Of Britain.

If however, the Scottish people in their majority decided that they do want independence, communists would activley support their democratic decision to do so. The working-class in Wales, England and Northen Ireland would support the Scottish people to do this, taking direct action if Westminster try to prevent Scotland from separating. The fact is that if this sort of action was to be taken up, Westminster would simply strengthen nationalist sentiment in Scotland. This is in turn would lead to sharp divisions among the various working-classes of all countries within the UK, which would weaken working-class power and dampen the consciousness with national prejudice and hatred.

Communists are not nationalists, but proletarian internationalists. We follow the words of Karl Marx when he said "the working class have no country". "Nations" are simply boundaries which were divided up by the bourgeoisie. The concept of "nationalism" is a ploy for the workers to take sides with "their bourgeoisie" and not unify with their fellow workers and take the fight to the capitalists. Words like "national interest" come to mind, where the bourgeoisie make it out that they and the working-class have the same interests. An outright lie.

This is why the 'left' parties such as the SSP and Solidarity put workers into a dangerous position with their flirtations with independence and nationalism.

An Analysis Of Hayek's 'Road To Serfdom'.

By Me.
Hayek once famously remarked that his 'Road To Serfdom' was dedicated to 'socialists of all parties'. His book has long been in fashion for the most notorious reactionary sects and study circles that have had an extreme hatred and hostility towards socialism. It has recieved praise from various groups and individuals, for example, Keynes said that: In my opinion it is a grand book...Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement" (http://www.reason.com/news/show/33304.html) The book has also been put on the best "100 non-fiction books of the 20th century" by the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html)

Hayek's message to 'socialists of all parties' is nothing but a variation of the old lie used by Big Business that capitalism is in some way superior to socialism. The sudden burst of interest by reactionary circles in Hayek and the recycling of his old arguements is due to alleged "good case" against socialism. I do think it has to be said that Hayek's method of presentation is indeed not mainstream and very unusual compared to various other red-baiters and "professional" bourgeois intellectuals. Hayek chooses his audience from the outset and limits his aims. By observing what kind of individual he wishes to address, we come to view his incredibly weak and easily refuted arguements. He does not wish to address the factory worker, the ordinary wage slave, the bored office worker and not even the Communist. He directs his propaganda to the small section of the middle class which is inclined to support socialism and consider socialism the only alternative to the continual imperialist wars and depressions of capitalism. He wants to persuade this section of the middle class that socialism "is not for them" and lead them onto the capitalist path. This book can thus be considered as a piece of transitional propaganda that wants to persuade the more 'radical' section of the middle class to gradually reject socialism and fully embrace capitalism.

Hayek begins by establishing himself as a professional economist and professor. He tries to make an immediate connection with the reader by seeking common grounds of interest. He states that he was a socialist "as a young man". He still has an idealistic outlook with "certain ultimate values". We are astonished by how self-sacrifcing, having painfully carried out his "duty" to speak out despite "every possible reason for not writing or publishing this book".

In the introduction, he wants to further establish emotional connections with the reader. To believe in socialism, allegedly, is not a rare happening. It is only too human. Furthermore, it arises from the best intentions.

"If we take the people whose views influence developments, they are now in the democracies in some measure all socialists. If it is no longer fashionable to emphasize that ‘we are all socialists now,’ this is so merely because the fact is too obvious.”

This "professional" bourgeois intellectual has immersed himself in lies and falsehoods. Socialism is most certainly not a common people belief among people, at least not in the USA, the most powerful stronghold of the capitalist system. Socialism is only, at the moment, being promoted by various international vanguard parties (whether genuine working-class vanguards, or isolated self proclaimed 'vanguards', does not concern us). Contrary to the paranoid rants of Hayek, the people "whose views influence developments" are not "all socialists". This fact, in no way concerns Hayek. He is simply putting forward an emotional appeal for the 'radical' middle class that was fed up and tired over the growth of Stalinism, muddled by its ostensible alikeness to Nazism, despairing over the alleged weakness and impussiance of genuine Marxism and swept away by tidal waves of bourgeois war propaganda. The professor's principal aim, as we shall come to see again and again, is to enter into an emotional resonance with the reader in order convert him or her into an openly hostile enemy of socialism. He then says:

"Is it not possible that if the people whose convictions now give now an irrisistible momentum began to see what only a few yet apprehend, they would recoil in horror and abandon the quest

An Analysis On Nepal.

By Me.

I have recently heard comments made by the Maoist leaders in Nepal, Bhattarai, Prachanda and various other leaders, that they intend to seize power in Nepal in open collabaration with the capitalists, not in opposition to them. I feel that it is very clear that this so-called "New Democracy" is nothing but a blueprint for bourgeois democracy.

I had also came across a website called http://alternatives-international.net/article2489.html that further explains the essence of this "New Democracy".
This article states that the Nepali government is the dictatorship of two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat:

"The new Maoist government in our country is also different in the sense that it is based on the joint dictatorship of both the proletariat and the bourgeois class. There are not any references of such kind of joint dictatorship in any of the Marxist thesis; the Marxist principle that the joint dictatorship of two antagonistic classes in the state is impossible. However, the experience of Nepal has shown it otherwise. The philosophical and theoretical base of the Nepali experience and experiment will have to be synthesized in the days to come. History has put the onus to justify dual dictatorship of the state on the shoulders of Maoists of the twenty first century.”

So in just a few sentences, this particular comrade has completely forgot about and shoved aside a century and a half of the experience of the class struggle. Basic Marxist theory teaches that we cannot reconcile the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

On the pretext of the national peculiarities of Nepal, a roadmap for unbridled capitalist development has been prepared, which expresses support for local and international capitalists. Following this road, the Maoist leadership is behaving as the agency of these capitalist interests, equipped with an agenda of class conciliation to ensure the development of Nepal on a capitalist path. This will inevitably open up divisions within the Maoist party and even at a certain stage will open up conflict between the government and the masses.

The “national revolution” of Nepal, unfolding in the world of the 21st century, cannot take one further step forward, even an inch, in alliance with the bourgeois. In alliance with this class it can only advance in the opposite direction. The bogus and unrealisable slogan of the combined dictatorship of the “bourgeoisie and proletariat,” is nothing but the proclamation of the domination of the bourgeoisie, an outright betrayal of the revolution.

Revolutionary advances aside, even the petty reforms allowed within this context are slipping off the agenda of the Maoists. Peaceful economic growth, i.e. the capitalist advance of the economy is becoming the only objective. They are striving to attract the investments of world capital to Nepal and are reassuring the imperialists that they are no longer those old-style Marxists of yesteryear to worry about, but pragmatic “Marxists of 21st Century”. The Maoist leaders are in fact issuing cynical warnings against any attempt to thwart this national progress, which according to them is the common agenda of all classes in Nepal.

Is this what the revolutionary masses and the rebel army fought for? Are these policies preparing victory or paving the way to disaster? In spite of all this, revolutionary ferment in society is still powerful. The masses have only given their support to Prachanda because they believed that decisive change would soon be forthcoming. If Prachanda were to move against the vested interests of the bourgeoisie and the imperialists, he would receive the overwhelming support of the masses. If, on the contrary, as unfortunately it seems clearly their intention, the Maoist leaders follow the bourgeois path they will inevitably clash with the aspirations of the masses and divisions will develop within the Maoist movement itself on which way to go forward. My advice to the Nepali revolutionaries that are looking for a way out of this dilemma is to orient towards the working class and build on the tradition of the 2006 uprising in opposition to those who want to capitulate to the bourgeoisie.

Bailout Package? No Thanks!

Well, another day of excitement and panic! The $700bn bailout plan was rejected by the House of Representatives. Well, not that we Marxists were too upset. This massive amount of money wasn't going to the much needed healthcare system, education etc. Nope, they weren't too interested in that at all. Bush and Paulson wanted to buy a huge amount of debt from banks and financial institutions so that they could return to 'normality' (making huge profits again!).

The American working and middle classes wouldn't tolerate the actions of the US government. Letters, emails, phonecalls, you name it, were flooding Congress demanding that this piece of rushed legislation be scrapped. The American people were not worrying that this package was the 'last hope' and a 'safeguard for taxpayers'. The class-conscious electorate knew that this 'package' was only going to benefit the rich and ruling class at the expense of the great majority of working-class people.

Its a sad fact that Paulson represents 1% of the population, those 450 billionaires in the USA and 3million millionaires who between them all own 25% of America's wealth. They were losing their money due to the credit crunch. So they demanded that the we should cough up the money for them.

What happens now? The US ruling class will keep trying to get the package passed and voted for. They might succeed. Capitalism has 2 paths. The vote fails and more banks collapse and the stock market will keep falling. America would be staring depression right in the face, just like the 1930's.

The second is that the vote eventually goes through. That will mean massive government spending to bail out the banks and huge printing of money to help the fat cats. That will mean inflation alongside stagnation of the economy in America, Britain and Europe.

So the alternatives are depression worldwide or stagflation worldwide. Americans are beginning to see the reality of capitalism.

Analysis On The International Capitalist Crisis Part 1

By Me.

We are living in a period of excitment and panic. Weird isn't it? Me and many Marxists have often been accused of 'wanting' a crisis and trying to a create a sense of panic. That is because we had predicted beforehand the financial panic that was going to being pushed by the debt-driven bubble economy and risky finance capitalism thus creating the present conditions of crisis. Oh, and just to let everyone know, I or any other of my comrades never announced a catastrophe, we were simply working out concrete, truthful, reasearched analysis of each stage of economic development. Unfortunately for our opponents from the bourgeois camp, our analysis has now turned into reality and their bourgeois theories of the smooth development of neo-liberalism have been completely bulldozed and discredited. It is the bourgeoisie, not the Marxists who are the pessimists that keep proclaiming the crisis of capitalism.

Massive protests have emerged in response to the bailout plan by created by Bush, including a demonstration by the New York Central Labor Council on the 25th of September. They were fighting against $700bn to go to, what the demonstrators described as a "privaleged band of overpaid executives". The protesters also called for the government to spend money on education and healthcare and housing as readily as they were handing out money to Wall Street. What was most striking was that the workers were calling for a general strike if the the bailout only benefited the rich. This signifies a complete change in the class consciousness of the workers, and not only in the USA.

I believe that the multi-billion dollar rescue of the whole financial system by Bush is inflicting severe damage on the US model of free-market capitalism. Its common to hear that the major financial insitutions are being "nationalised", but in reality, the colossal debts, errors and greed of modern-day predatory finance capitalism are being dropped on the backs of the proletariat. The American government were well aware that if they didn't intervene, it would threaten the very survival of the capitalist system. We will have to wait patiently and observe if Paulsons package is a success. However, that won't mean that the crisis will come to a halt, there is still more to come.

The bourgeois economists are afraid to refer back to 1929. They are afraid to have confidence in the markets because they stubbornly believe that this confidence (or lack of it) is the real cause of booms and slumps. In reality, however, booms and slumps are rooted in objective conditions. The rise and fall of confidence reflects actual conditions, although it can then itself become part of these conditions, helping to drive the market up - or, as in this case, down.

What I am basically trying to get across is, the government bailouts of the financial institutions and the de facto nationalisations, and more recently, the $700bn rescue plan, is a tragic blow to the prestige of US capitalism and free-market ideology.

Now, there are many leftists who believe that these "nationalisations" represents "socialism". One could not have it more wrong. The nationalisations carried out by the Bush regime aims to use government resources, including a massive increase in public debt, to re-stablise that capitalist system for a full recovery later on. Where does the bill go for the bailout? The working-class, who contribute the biggest share of taxes to the US state. Now one would ask, what would genuine socialism do in this situation? Well, it would involve nationalising the finance sector and the commanding heights of the economy by a workers state, ran democratically under the control of those who produce the wealth. Democratic planning would replace market anarchy. Production would be based on need, not profit. I say that with full confidence that the recent nationalisations taken on by the capitalist states of Britain and the US demonstrates the redundancy of private ownership and shows the bright alternative of a new advanced economic system.

Isn't it great that in the last moment of truth, the happy, bold and bright entrepeneurs of Wall Street and the City of London must transform into sad beggars, cup in hand, to ask the state for social security? Only that these poor beggars are in fact millionaires and they demand money with menaces. What remains of any semblence of normality when a Republican administration led by a fanatical free-marketeer nationalises major US investment banks? And it all came tumbling down...

to be continued...

On Barack Obama-A Marxist Analysis.

We have all heard Obama talking about change. Yes, its a little vague, but you let yourself hope. After the Democratic convention, you are a little euphoric....but at the same time, something gnaws at you, something seems strange indeed.

But then you think: a Black man, after so many years, standing as a candidate for president. That's got to mean change, doesn't it? And everywhere at the convention, there was Obama's slogan: "change you can believe in".

Its time to take a break and ponder on the content of this promised change. Its time listen to Barack Obama's acceptance speech in depth, and take a sober look of where he says he'll lead you.

Obama showed his toughness." That was the unanimous verdict from the commentators on Obama’s acceptance speech. Obama said that "as commander-in-chief I will never hesitate to defend this nation," and even more to the point aggressively went after John McCain for not having the "temperament and judgment to be the next commander-in-chief."

Now let’s be clear on John McCain. McCain’s "great accomplishment" was to fly a jet high over the rice fields of Vietnam and drop terribly destructive and horrific bombs on farmers and children, over and over again, with no twinge of conscience. No one knows how many people McCain personally killed in Vietnam, but the death toll of the totally unprovoked American invasion of that country is generally acknowledged to top two million people. Contrary to the endless professions of "respect" for John McCain by Obama and the rest of the Democrats, this guy is nothing more than a contemptible war criminal. Today McCain insists on being even more brutal and aggressive in Iraq.

This is who Obama professes deep respect for—but implies is not "tough enough."

Is that the change you want? To shift troops out of Iraq...and into Afghanistan—as Obama has called for? Afghanistan, where just last week the government charged U.S. troops with having killed 90 civilians, including 60 children, in a raid. Further along in his acceptance speech, Obama issued a call to "protect Israel and deter Iran"—and then taunted McCain for "just...talking tough in Washington" instead, we can only presume, of taking more "action." Obama’s selection of the long-time Israel backer Joe Biden for vice president was also designed, in part, to make clear his credentials on that. Is that the change the world needs—an Israel unleashed by the U.S. to be even more aggressive and bloodthirsty in the Middle East?

As part of this whole theme, Obama hammered again and again on patriotism, on the so-called "American promise," and on how the U.S. is the "last, best hope" for people the world over who want freedom, peace, and a better future. In reality, from Guatemala to Iraq to Angola and beyond, those phrases translate as "watch out, we’re about to get bombed and slaughtered." This "last best hope" exploits the labor and sucks the resources out of the entire planet. This "last best hope" has initiated and presided over military coups, proxy wars, and direct invasions in scores of countries around the globe in just the past 60 years, since World War 2, that have taken a toll well into the millions. This "last best hope" is the ONLY nation ever to use nuclear bombs, and has several times since threatened to plunge the world into nuclear warfare to protect what it deems to be its interests. This "last best hope" is not just a nation with high ideals which somehow has gone astray into an unfortunate imperialist "policy"; it is an imperialist system, driven to expand or die. And the only real "American promise" is that "all options are on the table" when it comes to raining down destruction on anyone who gets in its way.

But don’t take my word for it. Go google Pat Buchanan’s response to Obama’s speech on YouTube. Pat Buchanan, you may remember, wrote speeches for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. He’s an open white supremacist and a viciously anti-immigrant reactionary who writes books sounding the alarm about how America is not white enough, and not Christian enough, and thus in danger of losing the social cohesion it needs to protect its empire. And there on MSNBC was Pat Buchanan himself, gushing about how this is the greatest convention speech he ever heard, how this was "not at all a liberal speech," and pointing in particular to this passage as the capstone:

"I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America—they have served the United States of America."

Ask yourself why someone like Pat Buchanan is gushing like that. This is the rhetoric that leads people to fight and kill for imperialism. Is this the change that you believe in?

During the primary campaign, Obama gave a speech about racism in America, and referred to the country’s "shameful past." In fact, Obama soft-pedaled the actual history and current-day oppression of Black people in that speech, covering over the depth of the roots of white supremacy and posing a false and actually deadly solution to it. But what was most striking about Obama’s acceptance speech was how little he said about this foundational division in American society...and how vicious was the content of what he did say.

Even the video about Obama’s life that played before the speech seemed to leave out Black people. His speech itself detailed many of the problems facing ordinary people of all nationalities in America—the lack of decent health care, the terrible state of education for most children, the seriously bad problems in housing and jobs, and so on. But Obama did not see fit to mention, even once, the ways in which racial discrimination makes all these problems much worse for Black people. Nor did he mention, even once, the particular forms of oppression "reserved" for Black people, and other minority nationalities. He didn’t mention the ways in which the criminal justice system warehouses young Black men in jail...the ways in which Black, and other oppressed nationality, men—and women—are routinely harassed and often brutalized and yes killed by the police...and the ways in which these same youth are demonized in the culture.

He said, in fact, two things about this most fundamental question of America. The first was this:

"Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents; that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need."

Does Obama really think that turning off the television will bring back the steel mills to the inner city, the loss of which he actually mentioned earlier in his speech? Does Obama really believe that parents getting up early to make their kids do their homework will make any difference in a system that is designed to fail—when these schools have been de-funded and left to rot and turned into virtual prisons?

It is a lie most cruel to blame the people themselves for failing to make it in a system that was designed to keep them down. But Barack Obama, as did his wife Michelle in her speech earlier in the week, did exactly this. Yes, he (and she) talked about extending helping hands. But this was very secondary to their continued hammering on the theme that in America, if you work hard, and if your family maintains traditional roles, "you can make it." The subtext—and sometimes it is made explicit, usually by others—is that "if the Obamas made it, well, so can every other Black person, if they would just work harder. And if they don’t, they have only themselves to blame."

Determination decides who makes it out of the ghetto—now there is a tired old cliché, at its worst, on every level. This is like looking at millions of people being put through a meatgrinder and instead of focusing on the fact that the great majority are chewed to pieces, concentrating instead on the few who slip through in one piece and then on top of it all, using this to say that "the meatgrinder works"!

That the so-called American dream rested on the dispossession and near-extermination of Native American Indians and the enslavement of Africans, and then the further extension of that system and those values around the continent, and then into the world through imperialist wars. That these roots ran deep into the foundation of this country, and that a few reforms were not going to touch the conditions of the masses of Black people, or the basic overall character of this society. That people would have to break out of the confines of bourgeois politics if they were going to get anywhere. That the ways in which Black people sometimes vented their anger and despair against each other, including the toll that took (and still takes) within the family, had more to do with the grinding stresses of white supremacy combined with relations and values inculcated by this system than with any individual’s failings. That radical fundamental change would be needed to actually achieve real freedom—and that in the course of fighting for that revolutionary change, and only in the course of fighting for that kind of change, people could transform their outlooks and rid themselves of the many different forms of the dog-eat-dog mentality and morality that capitalism generates and reinforces and then feeds on.

If you’re for Obama, and reading my article, you very likely agree with at least large parts of what I just said above about this society and the historic oppression of Black people, and their present-day situation in this system. But Obama is saying something diametrically opposed to what you understand and believe, and it was sharply concentrated in his speech. Read it again, with unclouded eyes. He is putting the blame for the ongoing oppression faced by the masses of Black people on the masses themselves. He is telling people who want to end this injustice that the only way forward is to essentially stop fighting this oppression in its own right, and to put their trust in American patriotism. And he is in effect telling those who are indifferent to this oppression, or even feel that they benefit from it and even "partake of it," that they need not bother their conscience with it.

Ask yourself again—is that the change we need? Do you want a society where a Black president is used to tell people who are righteously angry over the outrages which again and again are visited on Black people to put aside the "anger and discord," to turn off the TV, and to work harder?

Is that the change that you believe in? Because that is the change you are in danger of getting.

And that leaves you with a decision to make. If you look honestly at why you got drawn to Obama in the first place...and look just as honestly at the real message and implications of his speech...you will see that your own principles and ideals are being betrayed. This has been done subtly and gradually, but it has reached a certain undeniable stage. If you pour your energies, talents and hopes into this campaign, you will be effectively working against the best of your own beliefs.

This may be hard to take, but it is not—and cannot be taken as—a cause for despair, or an excuse to become inactive, or worst of all an occasion for a shrug of the shoulders and a giving in to the "realism" of a system in which it is always the values of justice and emancipation that are said to be unrealistic and where you capitulate to the "realism" of monsters. There is a battle to be waged against the very outrages that drew you to Obama in the first place, but which can never be ended by Obama and, indeed, will only be replicated by him.