---

________________________________

ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN
News * Analysis * Research * Action
________________________________

- AFIB No. 365,  July 31, 2002 -

FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL! FREE LEONARD PELTIER!
FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS & PRISONERS OF WAR!
END THE OCCUPATION - ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE!

* * *
____________________________________________________________________

Right/Left Polarization:
THE BALLOT BOX AND THE STREET
____________________________________________________________________

CANADIAN DIMENSION
2B-91 Albert Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3B 1G5
- Volume 36, No. 4, July/August 2002 -
by James Petras
http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v36/v36_4jp.htm

The first-round presidential elections in France, where the combined vote
for the extreme right totaled 20 per cent, is cited as an indication of the
turn to the ultra-Right. Contrary to this mainstream view, a more powerful
argument can be made that the major advance and impetus for the far Right
is found in the election and rule of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney regime. The
European ultra-Right's program merely seeks to imitate the U.S.
Administration.

There is no general shift to the Right. What there is, however, is a
sharpening polarization between the Right and the Left, with the former
expressing itself at the ballot box and the latter in the streets. This
polarization reflects diverse and complex situations and takes a variety of
forms and expressions. The very conception of a right-left polarization
needs to be clarified given the political confusion that surrounds what is
"left" and "right."

Right and Left: Today

Journalists and mainstream pundits today are creating confusion. They
correctly tag French political leader Le Pen as "far right" for his racist,
xenophobic rhetoric. Yet, the Bush administration that engaged in wars
(Afghanistan, Colombia), coups (Venezuela) and plans for future wars (Iraq)
is mistakenly referred to as a "conservative," instead of "far-right,"
regime. What is more, mainstream pundits label England's Tony Blair,
France's Jospin and the previous Clinton Administration "centre-left," even
though they slashed welfare programs and promoted financial speculation,
overseas conquests in the Balkans and, in the case of Jospin, privatized
more public-sector enterprises than any conservative predecessors. Clearly
the most appropriate label is "conservative" or "center-right."

This confusion is symptomatic. The real reason for the strengthening of the
far right is the militarist and imperialist policies emanating from
Washington. The Bush Administration's support of the extreme rightist
Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon, and the massacre of Afghans, Palestinians
and, proximately, Iraqis reinforces and legitimates the far-right-wing
"anti-Arab," "anti-Muslim," "anti-immigrant" posture. Moreover,
Washington's embrace of unilateralism and its domestic chauvinistic
campaign fueled by the anti-terrorism rhetoric makes a perfect fit with the
position adopted by Le Pen, Haider and the rest of the European ultra-
Right.

The record of the Bush Administration on war and Muslims is far more
right-wing than the rhetoric of Le Pen and Haider, and certainly far
exceeds the policies of conventional European rightists such as Berlusconi
and Aznar. Le Pen talks of protecting French industries from
"globalization"; Bush has instituted a vast array of barriers. Le Pen
threatens mostly Arab immigrants; Bush has jailed and harassed hundreds of
thousands of Arab immigrants and supplied strategic arms, diplomatic
support and economic aid to Israel, which is displacing Palestinians.

Moreover, the electoral support of Bush and his ascent to power is very
much in line with, or actually is worse than, Le Pen's approach. Bush
received only 24 per cent of the electorate votes (49 percent of the 50
percent who voted) a minority of the popular vote, and resorted to illegal
procedures in Florida to gain power. Le Pen and the ultra-Right secured
approximately 18 per cent and have not resorted to illegal methods to grab
power. Indeed, Le Pen's vote in the second round of the presidential
elections in 2002 only replicated his vote seven years earlier.

The main area of difference is in Le Pen's use of anti-semitic rhetoric,
which Bush eschews. In practice, on the issue of war, economy, politics,
empire, Arab immigrants and international treaties, which are used to
define Le Pen as an ultra-rightist, Bush is a much more forceful, direct
and consequential practitioner. If, as most commentators, politicians and
media pundits correctly believe, Le Pen represents the ultra-Right, then
the Bush Administration represents the ultra-ultra-Right.

The significance of the "ascent of the ultra-Right" is not based on
majoritarian electoral support but in the policies that are instituted once
they are in power. Once in power, the ultra-right-wing minority Bush
Administration seized on war and the mass manipulation of the terror scare
to define the political agenda worldwide and to secure a domestic majority.
Equally significant, conventional right-wing regimes like Chirac, Aznar and
Berlusconi, and former centre-leftists turned conservative like Blair,
Jospin, Schroeder, et al., collaborated with the ultra-right war policies
of Washington or offered feeble and inconsequential opposition. Only when
U.S. protectionist measures on steel infringed on European and Japanese
business interests did they respond with threats of sanctions. If the
"right turn" has advanced furthest and taken its most extreme expression in
the U.S., it is nonetheless the case that a similar rightward shift has
gained momentum in European electoral politics. If we ignore the
traditional "centre-left" and "centre-right" labels of the past, we can see
that the actual policies of the European regimes in the past decades
describe an almost unrelenting anti-labour, pro-big business strategy and
practice. No European country, whether governed by ex-Social Democrats,
Christian Democrats, Conservatives or other traditional party has increased
social welfare for the working class. On the contrary, all regimes have
weakened legislation protecting jobs, workers' security and trade-union
rights; social, health and education benefits have been slashed in varying
degrees. It is true, however, that the shift to the right varies in speed
and scope and depending upon each country's particularities, especially the
strength of the mass movements and trade unions.

The convergence of all the major European political parties on the
neoliberal-military agenda means that there is an almost total political
vacuum on the electoral Left -- no party represents those adversely
affected by neoliberal policies, military expansionism and subsidies to big
business and banks. The European multi-party system has been converted into
the U.S. one-party-two-factions system.

The Right Turn: The March through the Institutions

The electoral successes of the ultra-right-wing political parties in France
(Le Pen) and Austria (Haider) is directly related to the right-wing shift
of the former "centre-left" coalitions. The supposed "centre-left" regimes
have favored reducing state expenditures, threatening the social security
system, affecting the elderly; reducing trade barriers; undermining
small-scale farmers; selective immigration, while introducing "labour
flexibility" (lowering the cost and increasing the ease of firing older
workers); emphasizing police measures instead of job expansion to fight
youth crime. The result of the right turn is that significant sectors of
the populace feel cheated and abandoned by the traditional left- and
right-wing parties.

The blurring of differences has had a dual effect of pushing the right
closer to the far-Right on issues of police repression (law and order),
immigration (greater restrictions) and increased public identification with
big business. In this context, the ultra-Right's xenophobic and chauvinist
appeals are legitimated by the Right, while its protectionist and liberal
policies appeal to small-business people, farmers and shopkeepers
threatened by the liberal policies of the former centre-left. The
ultra-Right draws electoral support from "passive opposition" to the
politics of the neoliberal parties. Their base of support is from older
people fearful of rising crime -- derived from social decay and resulting
from neoliberal policies -- among unemployed youth (particularly young
immigrants). They also draw support from small businesses and farmers
threatened by competition from imports and big business. The ultras also
appeal to veterans of colonial wars, Christian traditionalists and long-
standing ideological supporters of fascist or quasi-fascist sects or
movements. The most potent appeal, however, is to "nationalist sentiment"
-- affirmation of national sovereignty against the undemocratic
big-business-controlled EU, against U.S. cultural influence and greater
independence from U.S. political domination. The ultra-Right is hostile to
the trade unions on both ideological ground ("they are run by Communists")
and economic grounds (they hinder productivity.) They appeal to the workers
to join in "protecting their jobs from foreigners" -- rather than from the
multinationals who fire them. Finally, the ultra Right echoes the
anti-terrorist line to reinforce its strong police-state appeal, combining
it with its anti-immigrant and anti-leftist policies to attract
conventional rightists.

The Left Turn: The Streets Are Ours

If today the old electoral divisions between the centre-Left and -Right
have become irrelevant, the left-right divisions are more relevant than
ever if we take as our protagonists the growing left mass movements and the
electoral-institutional forces of the Right. Today the significant and
dynamic force of the genuine Left is found in the streets; it finds
expression in massive mobilizations and not in the electoral process.

The mass demonstrations in Seattle, London, Genoa, Melbourne, Barcelona and
Quebec have been more effective in politicizing and activating a new
generation of youth than all the "Left" and "centre-Left" electoral
campaigns combined. The demonstrations by the anti-globalization, anti-
capital platforms have been more effective in calling attention to the
injustices of the New Imperial Order and the international financial
organizations (IMF, World Bank, IDF, etc.) than any and all Congressional
critics. In Latin America, these demonstrations have reached tens of
millions of people and led to the proliferation of a vast network of
supporters, organizers and international coordinating groups. Regional
movements against the Latin American Free Trade Agreement (ALCA) have grown
in scope and intensity.

The public debates on the foreign debt, privatization and neoliberalism in
the mass international forums are far more effective in creating
international solidarity with the poor and exploited in the Third World
than the deafening silence in the halls of the U.S. Congress and the lonely
critics in the European Parliaments. The extra-parliamentary mobilizations
against the IMF, the multinationals and the WTO have put them on the
defensive: every place they hold their meetings they are surrounded by
hundreds of thousands of activists, protected by barbed wire and thousands
of police accompanied by helicopters and armoured vehicles.

The class polarization pits youth, workers, farmers, salaried employees and
professionals against the financial and industrial ruling classes. As the
former social-democratic and Communist parties move to the centre-right and
embrace the right-wing neoliberal agenda, the extra-parliamentary movements
occupy the space on the Left, and proceed to engage the far-Right, and the
neo-liberal policies of the new and old Right.

The electoral arena has been by-passed because of the heavy institutional
blockage -- the mainstream parties' monopoly of the mass media, the
constraints embedded in voting procedures -- and because elected
legislative bodies are impotent in the face of the centralization of power
in executive institutions, central banks and other non-elected
institutions. Corruption, co-optation and impotence of elected
representative institutions have forced workers, peasants, the unemployed,
dissidents and left opposition to turn to extra-parliamentary forms of
struggle -- which have proven to be more effective in raising issues and
securing change.

Europe and the U.S.: Polarization?

The "ultra-imperialism" of the ultra-Right in power has created a certain
limited polarization between the EU and the U.S. Up to now, on all major
issues, Europe has capitulated to Washington after expressing doubts,
reservations and even criticism. Nevertheless, given the growing power of
the anti-capitalist movements in Europe and the militancy of the French,
Italian, and to a lesser degree, German trade unions, the European Right
cannot embrace the U.S. agenda without prejudicing their own multinationals
and provoking mass opposition. The key to deepening the polarization
between Europe and the U.S. depends on the extra-parliamentary movements,
not the capitalist calculus of the right-wing regimes.

The socio-political movements have grown in direct relationship to the
right turn of the former social-democratic parties. The British Labor Party
is the party of the City of London. It is the party that opposes lowering
British working hours and raising wages to the level of the rest of Europe.
The Socialist Jospin and his Green and Communist satellite partners,
privatized more public firms than the conventional right-wing parties.

Aznar, the Spanish ruler, has backed Bush's far-right, worldwide military
agenda, followed Washington in supporting the failed military coup in
Venezuela, and is in the forefront in supporting the IMF's efforts to
impose new draconian measures upon the Argentine working class, in order to
rescue Spanish banking, petroleum and telecommunications monopolies. In
line with Bush and Blair, Aznar has severely curtailed democratic freedoms
through a series of anti-terrorist measures, which have led to the
outlawing of dissident parties and restricted peaceful civil protests.
During the march against the EU summit meeting in Barcelona (March, 2002)
Aznar mobilized over 20,000 police and members of the armed forces,
helicopters and warships, to intimidate protestors. The move failed, as
more than 400,000 demonstrators filled the streets.

In Italy, Germany and France, electoral politics moves to the Right, and
the social movements occupy a privileged place as the major opposition. In
France, in the first round, Jospin's coalition was soundly defeated,
abstention surged to nearly 30 per cent and the ultra-rightist Le Pen
secured nearly 20 per cent of the vote. In the runoff however, nearly a
million street demonstrators mobilized against the fascist Right and
diminished his support. In Italy over 2 million workers demonstrated
against Berlusconi's anti-labour legislation in the biggest protest since
the end of the Second World War, successfully blocking the legislation,
something the electoral centre-Left and Left were totally incapable of
doing. As the pressure from U.S. imperialism intensifies and popular
discontent from below increases, the European ruling class alternates
between criticizing the U.S. and capitulating and backing U.S. policy.

European socio-political movements have forced European governments to
accept the Kyoto Agreements, to criticize Sharon's massacre of the
Palestinians, to support the International Tribunal on Crimes Against
Humanity, the international anti-biological and chemical warfare agreement
and the ABM treaty on missiles, in opposition to Washington's unilateral
rejection. On the other hand, the European ruling class has backed the U.S.
military offensive, beginning with the war in Afghanistan. The EU supports
the IMF-U.S. position on Argentina and Europe and has followed the U.S.
trade policy of protectionism at home and liberalization abroad.

The latter has led to a series of major trade disputes, as the rival
imperialisms compete for global markets. U.S. tariffs on steel from the EU
and subsidies for U.S. exporters have provoked retaliation from Europe. The
U.S.-proposed Free Trade Area in Latin America is an attempt to monopolize
markets at the expense of Europe. The U.S. unilateral decisions on the
environment are designed to lower U.S. industrial costs to improve its
competitive position. U.S. military interventions and the accompanying
atrocities require Washington to reject any international judicial
authority. The dynamic of the current drive for U.S. world supremacy does
not include wealth and market sharing with its European imperial partners.

The Defining Political Reality

The worldwide polarization is between the far Right and Right holding state
power and the Left located in the streets and in the mass socio-political
movements. This is the defining political reality of the early 21st century.

The power of the Right/ultra-Right is found in their control of state
power, including the means of repression and the basic economic
institutions. These power bases provide continuity of action and control
over the mass media.

The power of the Left is found in its capacity for mass mobilization and
its occasional capacity to oust political leaders, paralyze economic
activity and confront summit meetings of the imperial powers.

The weakness of the ultra-Right/Right is found in their structural
position, as the root cause of world pillage, exploitation and ecological
destruction -- which adversely affects several billion people while
benefitting a small minority.

The weakness of the Left is the lack of continuity of its action and its
lack of a clear strategy for taking state power. Powerful as opposition,
the Left movements lack the Right's vocation for state power and rulership.

As time progresses the intensity of the conflicts inherent in the
polarization deepens. The ultra-Right in Washington intervenes militarily
throughout the world, pressing its clients to impose draconian cuts in
social programs, and increases in military action. Military coups, the
consolidation of military dictatorship in Pakistan and Sharon's genocide in
the Palestinian territories became the norm. On the Left, the mass
movements take to the streets, the entire Palestinian people resist, the
Colombian guerrillas strike back, the anti-capital demonstrations in Europe
grow in size and scope. The electoral Left is marginalized, the former
centre-Left joins the Right.

The Right takes power via its monopoly of the electoral process and then
rules in the interests of big business. The Left mobilizes via its
international and national networks, Internet and its articulation of
popular grievances -- ignored by the nominally "elected bodies." We are in
a period of wars, rising authoritarian right-wing rule, deepening social
polarization and increasingly effective extra-parliamentary action. This is
a period of permanent wars, coups and empire building without end. These
"forced circumstances" are the driving forces for the resurgence of mass
mobilizations throughout Latin America. The political outcome of this
polarization is not predetermined: it depends on the political intervention
of one or the other protagonists.

Four Scenarios of the Future

Scenario one: The polarization and confrontations are resolved by a return
to social democracy. The extra-parliamentary Left grows and threatens the
rule of capital but lacks a vocation for power. The ruling class, out of
fear of losing power, wealth and property, negotiates with the "lesser
evil," a revived centre-Left, a social pact, sharing the wealth.

Scenario two: The polarization results in a victory for the Right and
far-Right, opening the door to a U.S. world empire based on repressive
Third World regimes and U.S.-style one-party rule in Europe.

Scenario three: Left mobilizations and movements, combined with
inter-imperial conflicts, trade wars and economic crises, culminate in the
Left taking state power and initiating the socialization of the means of
production.

Scenario four: Continued, unresolved polarization without any definitive
resolution. U.S. empire is not sustainable because of economic cost and
weakness of client regimes, the socio-political movements oppose dictators
and client regimes but are unable to take power. The European Union is
driven by unresolved class and immigrant conflicts.

Faced with these possible scenarios. What is to be done? What can be done
to make scenario three a reality?

The first and foremost concern is for the extra-parliamentary Left to break
decisively with all ties to the electoral Left and to concentrate on
expanding its mass base beyond its original constituencies and to develop a
strategy for state power. This requires a total rupture with both
sectarian-Left and "spontaneity" ideologues who fragment movements and/or
turn the powerful movements into pressure groups.

Second, the extra-parliamentary Left must develop continuity of action,
involving direct intervention in the day-to-day struggles of neighbourhood,
trade-union and rural workers' struggles. The mass mobilization at
international events must become subordinated to the building of continuous
organizations that lead to national class movements.

Third, the extra-parliamentary movements must confront the fact that their
main adversary is U.S. and European imperialism and not some vague notion
of globalization or empire. Ideological clarity is essential in the
formulation of an alternative program. The possibility of a revival of a
centre-Left electoral force is highly unlikely given the turn to the right.

Furthermore, even under mass pressure it is not likely that the capitalist
class will accept a return to a welfare state. Almost surely it will
embrace ultra-Right solutions. Even in the eventuality that a viable
centre-Left reappears, it will hardly be a stable formation given the
polarized political scene today. A definitive victory for the
Right/ultra-Right would in most regions take place without a significant
mass base. Even a military dictatorship resulting from a U.S.-orchestrated
coup would face the problem of ruling without economic resources (its
reason for being would be to restore foreign debt payments, etc.) and
without even the tacit acquiescence of the workforce.

The Left must mobilize to prevent the ultra-Right from coming to power,
while not compromising with the Right in any of its forms. Only political
independence, the build-up of social power from below and a vocation for
state power will resolve the current polarization in a historically
progressive direction.

Left and Right: Latin America

In Latin America, the rise to power of the ultra-Right in Washington and
its accommodation by Europe has deepened and radicalized the left-right
polarization. Here, the Right and the far Right include almost all the
regimes that support U.S. wars and interventions, that accept the Latin
American Free Trade Area, and that follow the prescriptions of
Euro-American financial institutions like the IMF. In reality, that
includes all regimes except Cuba and Venezuela. In Latin America the
electoral Left -- namely the centre-Left, has moved to the centre-Right and
beyond -- or is a minor force.

Meanwhile, the major expression of the real existing Left is found in the
major movements and organized popular uprisings, such as have toppled two
presidents in Ecuador, four presidents in Argentina and the president of
Bolivia. The Left has many different expressions, demands and forms of
action. But there is a common thread. It relies on mass street
mobilizations -- direct action -- and it rejects U.S. imperialism (Plan
Colombia, ALCA, etc.), debt payments, structural-adjustment policies and
other IMF prescriptions. In most cases, it supports agrarian reform, the
nationalization of the banks, vastly increasing the economic role of the
state via public investments in social services, protection and promotion
of the domestic market, new direct forms of popular representation and
greater social equality via progressive tax legislation, expropriation of
monopolies and confiscation of illegal fortunes.

There are many signs of the move to the extreme Right in Latin America and
of the contestation of this by the extra-parliamentary forces of the Left.
Let us examine this in terms of the developments in a number of key
countries.

Mexico

In Mexico, the Fox regime has broken with all previous foreign-policy
practices and openly embraced U.S. interventionist positions, proposed Plan
Pueblo-Panama turning the Mexican economy into a huge maquiladora (assembly
plant economy), provoked a near break in relations with Cuba, and, through
its foreign minister Jorge Castaneda, abandoned any pretext of an
independent foreign policy. In domestic policy it promotes the gradual
privatization of the lucrative petroleum industry and a tax on staple items
of popular consumption. As the Fox regime moves farther to the right, the
level of popular opposition has increased. Massive May Day marches
throughout Mexico, involving the major and minor trade unions, peasant and
Indian organizations, repudiated Fox's hostility toward Cuba and craven
servility to the Bush Administration. The congressional opposition of the
centre-Left (PRD) and Right (PRI) criticize Fox and try to modify his
policies. However, the defeat of Fox's agenda will have to come from the
mass of Mexicans outside of the halls of Congress -- the May Day
demonstrators in the streets.

Venezuela

The far-Right in Washington found expression in the far-Right in Venezuela.
This was clearly evident in the April, 2002 failed coup. Coup head and
business leader Carmona's first measures were totally in line with
Washington's agenda: the cut-off of petroleum to Cuba, the rejection of
OPEC oil quotas, the embrace of Bush's foreign policy, the dissolution of
all elected institutions -- almost all with Chavez majorities. The coming
to power of the ultra-Right in Venezuela took the form of a puppet
authoritarian regime, exclusively and totally at the beck and call of
Washington, prepared to massively purge all public institutions of any
representatives of the Bolivarian movement (supporters of Chavez's
presidency).

The opposition to the coup did not initially come from elected
representatives, Congress or the armed forces. It came from the hundreds of
thousands of poor, organized and unorganized, who took to the streets of
Caracas and in other major cities to restore Chavez to power. This show of
popular power encouraged "loyalist" military groups to reject the coup, and
subsequently caused vacillating generals to side with the "loyalist"
military. Even some original military coup supporters engaged in some
political acrobatics -- seeing the coup was doomed, they joined the
democratic restoration, all the better to impose their terms with a
reinstated Chavez presidency.

The complexity of Venezuelan polarization, where Chavez, representing a
hybrid of nationalist foreign policy and neoliberal domestic policy,
confronts a domestic bourgeoisie and corrupt union bosses totally
subordinated to Washington, is superimposed upon a real class polarization.
Long-standing privileges, racism, corruption and pillage by the upper class
confronts a mass of angry poor and downwardly mobile lower middle class,
suffering from 60 per cent unemployment and underemployment and where over
80 per cent live in poverty.

Chavez has not organized and met the basic demands of the mass of poor who
support him. He has, however, politicized and given form to their hostility
against the rich and powerful, inculcated racial pride in being of African
ancestry, and affirmed Venezuela's national identity via his independent
foreign policy. Popular participation and independence infuriates
Washington and the local ruling classes, and encourages them to prepare the
terrain for "Coup Two."

Colombia

Colombia is the third example of the upsurge of the ultra-Right in
electoral politics. Presidential candidate Uribe, the likely winner, is the
voice of Washington: total war against the popular insurgency. Meantime,
the Bush Administration is preparing a new, additional, multi-year,
multi-million-dollar military-aid program specifically directed against the
peasant-based guerrillas. In Colombia the Washington-backed Pastrana regime
broke peace negotiations and launched a failed military assault against the
guerrillas, resulting in an escalation of the conflict and heightened
military-paramilitary killings of civilian non-combatants.

Plan Colombia, Clinton's initial military-aid package to stem the advance
of the popular insurgency in Colombia, has been extended by the Bush
Administration in the form of Plan Andina, the militarization of Ecuador
and Peru; new military bases in San Salvador, Manta (Ecuador) and in
north-central Peru, and direct involvement of U.S. military officials,
special forces and contracted mercenaries.

U.S. militarization of Colombian politics has fomented a polarization of
civil-war proportions between the oligarchy and military and the guerrillas
and peasantry. Politics is completely outside the realm of congressional
politics: it is the military high command versus the extra-parliamentary
popular insurgency.

Argentina

Argentinean politics highlights extreme social and political polarizaton:
between a non-elected (President Duhalde was not elected by the voters)
"electoral regime" and the vast majority of the electorate whose main
slogan is "Que se vayan todos" ("All politicians should go"). The popular
uprising of December 19 to 20, 2001 was a spontaneous outpouring of anger,
hostility and rejection of the political class,the major parties,
provincial, municipal and congressional leaders and particularly the
president, who fled the Casa Rosada (Presidential Palace) via helicopter to
avoid the hundreds of thousands of former middle-class and unemployed
demonstrators.

The social polarization could not be starker: the banks -- mostly foreign
owned -- backed by the government confiscated all the savings of the middle
class, over $45 billion, while between $30 and $40 billion belonging to the
elite fled the country, just prior to the seizure of bank accounts. This
socio-political polarization is expressed by the emergence of parallel
political institutions: neighbourhood "popular assemblies," which include
the impoverished middle class, pensioners and public employees, as well as
workers, unemployed and others. The popular assemblies reflect the growing
politicization and participation of the Argentine majority, and are
counterposed to the formal institutions, which have totally lost their
legitimacy and representativeness.

The distance separating the great majority of Argentineans from the
political elites and the ruling classes has widened and deepened as never
before in the history of the republic. On one side, a ruling class made up
of foreign bankers, local financiers and powerful "economic groups," which
has over $150 billion deposited overseas and has confiscated the total
savings of every Argentine; and on the other a great mass of Argentines
without savings, 30 per cent without jobs, 50 per cent below the poverty
line, pensioners unable to survive on delayed and devalued pensions of $50
per month (and falling), and hundreds of thousands of public employees in
the provinces (health workers, teachers, civil servants, municipal workers,
etc.) who have not been paid for months (and when they are paid, they
receive a "provincial currency" only redeemable in the province).

In this context of mass impoverishment and a five-year depression (industry
declined by 20 per cent in 2001-02) the IMF, World Bank and the Bush
Administration, backed by the European Union, demand more budget cuts,
elimination of provincial deficits and currencies, and more firings as a
conditions for new loans. Given the degree of social polarization and the
isolation of the regime, compliance with Washington's demands is impossible
without a regime of force -- either an outright military dictatorship or a
presidential regime willing to seize dictatorial power.

The Bush Administration and the IMF are openly demanding a president with
the "will" to implement economic policies that will reduce the great
majority of Argentines to destitution in order to meet foreign-debt
obligations and relieve foreign banks of their financial obligations to
Argentine depositors. In this context, where the choice is
collective/national survival or imperialist-induced
destitution/disintegration, the popular majority is fragmented by leftist
internecine conflicts and dispersion of protests. The socio-political
polarizations have net yet led to a unified organized leadership capable of
challenging for state power. Nor does the coup-oriented Right have the
minimum social basis to sustain a coup.

Confrontation between Dictatorship and Revolution

The "street" and not the ballot box is the road toward creating authentic
forms of democratic representation against the corrupt, impotent and
complicit official political institutions. Only the mass social movements
have been successful in overthrowing presidents complicit with imperial
institutions in impoverishing the population and pillaging the economy. The
list of presidents ousted by the mass movements is long and growing: four
presidents in one month in Argentina, two presidents in Ecuador, one in
Venezuela, Brazil and Bolivia. The social power of the mass movements has
settled over 300,000 landless families on farms in Brazil, defended the
livelihood of thousands of coca farmers in Bolivia and Colombia --defeated
a U.S.-orchestrated coup and restored democracy in Venezuela.

There is a striking contrast between the power, integrity and effectiveness
of the mass leftist movements and the impotence, opportunism and
marginality of the left electoral parties. Right-wing extremism in the U.S.
and Europe has weakened the centre-left electoral options, undermined its
bases among the trade unions and the former middle class and set the stage
for a classical confrontation between dictatorial reaction and revolution.

Right and Left: Asia and the Rest of the World

The move to the far Right in the U.S. has encouraged and promoted the
extreme Right throughout Asia and the rest of the world. There are
innumerable examples, from the U.S. backing of Israel's invasion and
destruction of the Palestinian territories, to Washington's ally General
Musharraf's consolidation of his military dictatorship in Pakistan, to the
closer ties with the anti-Muslim, Hindu-extremist free-market BJP regime in
India.

In central Asia, the rulers of the former Soviet republics open the doors
to U.S. military bases -- in effect becoming subordinate clients of the
U.S. empire. In India, the BJP regime, aligned with Washington's
anti-terrorist campaign, is allied with Hindu fascists in Gujarat who
organized anti-Muslim pogroms killing and maiming thousands and displacing
over 150,000. In Pakistan, General Musharraf has allowed U.S. special
forces to intervene and attack tribal communities, while organizing a
fraudulent referendum to extend his rule (he won 98 per cent of the
vote-all reported without irony or criticism by the Western imperial
press). In the Philippines, the Macapagal-Arroyo regime has violated all
constitutional restraints and allowed the U.S. to re-establish military
bases and to directly involve senior U.S. military officials in military
operations against Muslim separatists.

The move to the far Right in central Asia/Pakistan, India and the
Philippines (as measured by the increased recolonization of territory,
imperial military penetration and harsh repression of minorities and
dissidents) is directly linked to the rise of the ultra-Right to power in
the U.S. and their mutual interests in consolidating local power in the
service of imperial domination.

James Petras is a frequent contributor to Canadian Dimension. He is the
author of 36 books. The latest one, co-written with Henry Veltmyer,
Globalization Unmasked, is the winner of the 2002 Kenny Prize.

Copyright © 2002 Canadian Dimension

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, material
appearing in Antifa Info-Bulletin is distributed without charge or profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for research and educational purposes. For more info see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Submissions are welcome. **

* * *

ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN (AFIB)
750 La Playa # 730
San Francisco, California 94121
To subscribe: afib-subscribe@igc.topica.com
To unsubscribe: afib-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
Inquiries write: tburghardt@igc.org
AFIB archive --> http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/ats-l/

Order our new book, Police State America: U.S. Military 'Civil Disturbance'
Planning

Distributed by Kersplebedeb Distribution. To order a copy, send $12
U.S./$18/Canada plus postage. E-mail: info@Kersplebedeb.com for postage
details.
Kersplebedeb, CP 63560, CCCP Van Horne, Montreal QC, Canada H3W 3H8

++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++ 

__________________________________________________

TacticalMedia mailing list
Archivio TM List http://squat.net/tmc/maillist.html
TacticalMedia@squat.net
https://squat.net/mailman/listinfo/tacticalmedia
__________________________________________________

---