Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Jason Unruhe

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Dedicated to the fans of the Maoist Rebel News and anyone who self-publishes because the bourgeoisie media doesn't feel what you say has any value.

Maoist Rebel

Selected Works Of The Maoist Rebel

MRN Publishing

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

MRN Publishing 2011 All Rights Reserved www.YouTube.com/MaoistRebelNews2

Maoist Rebel

Contents
Introduction................................................................................7 On the Cultural Revolution........................................................9 Mao's Famine Debunked..........................................................28 Socialism: Utopian and Scientific............................................36 Outsourcing Blame: A History of Right Wing Thought..........49 From Russia with Hate: An Analysis.......................................63 Congresswoman Shot by Right Wing Hate.............................67 On The Egyptian Revolution...................................................73 The Mises Cuban-ism of the Federal Reserve.....................76 Guns Don't Kill People, Private Property Kills People...........79 Native Americans Should Reject Capitalism...........................82 How Michael Jordan Didn't Disprove Marx............................84 Socialist Equality Party Has Serious Flaws.............................86 What TIME THINKS Women Want Now..............................89 Why Canada Doesn't Need the Monarchy...............................91 Reservation Soldiers: Propaganda for Aboriginal Youth........93 Deadliest Warrior Propaganda.................................................95 Why Newspapers Go Out of Business.....................................97 Reply to Idiot Blogger about Dragon Ball Z and Communism.............................................................................98 Bamboo Capitalism: A Lesson Learned................................105 The Saiyan Race: Victims of Class Struggle.........................109 Charity as a Means of Inaction..............................................115 On the Royal Wedding...........................................................119 The Myth of the Self-Made Man...........................................121 Alex Jones and the New World Order...................................125

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel A New Labour Union Movement..........................................128 NDP Revealed to be a Fraud..................................................136 Killing US Troops in a Chinese Game...................................138 Was Bernie Madoff really a bad guy?...................................140 The Theology of Oprah..........................................................143 Pawn Stars anti-Soviet Propaganda.......................................146 The Daily Show on Canadian Oil1..........................................48 Tea Bag Dialectic...................................................................150 Eco-Capitalism: Another 3rd Way Trap.............................152 Movie Review: Super 8..........................................................156 Movie Review: Green Lantern...............................................158 US-Pakistani Relations..........................................................163 Supreme Court Serves Wal-Mart- Capitalism in Reality......166 Vietnam and China Chill Out!...............................................168 Wisconsin: Slavery Returns...................................................170 Re- Michael Moore on the First Episode of the New Countdown with Keith Olbermann...............................172

Maoist Rebel

Introduction
First I thank you for spending your hard earned money on this book. If you've purchased this you're probably one of my subscribers, which means you are probably of a lower economic demographic. So a single dollar from you means quite a lot more than it does from a rich man. (Appropriately this debunks marginal utility based on tautology because a single dollar is worth more to a poor man than a rich one.) Contained in this book are some of the thoughts and ideas that I have had over the last 3 years doing the news from the Marxist perspective. This whole process of building the Maoist Rebel News has given me the opportunity to expand my personal understanding of Marxism to a degree I previously did not think was possible. Hopefully along the way I have helped others increase their knowledge as well. Far too often we take the easiest explanation of a subject or position, making the learning process faster at the cost of the true necessary depth. We must never fall into this trap and must strive to absorb as much as much knowledge as we can. I've also included some of my best essays that expand upon ideas or challenge those people already have. These are the works I am the most proud of. Those which stand out right away in my mind are Outsourcing Blame: a History of Right Wing Thought, and my great work On the Cultural Revolution. I hope you enjoy the works found in this book. I've spent a great deal of energy writing them and putting myself into them. I hope they give you not only the gift of new ideas, but also allow you see more into the man that is the Maoist Rebel. The Maoist Rebel

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Marxist Analysis

Maoist Rebel

On the Cultural Revolution

This video will be on the Cultural Revolution, focusing on the cultural changes itself. Since the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward happened simultaneously I do flow into it sometimes. However this video will focus primarily on the social relations between people. Fair warning in advance this video is long. The purpose is to go into detail about the many aspects of the social transformation that occurred. Introduction The Cultural Revolution was a moment in history that has never been repeated to this day. A moment when people who just a decade or two before were 80% illiterate, were now conducting the most expansive discussion on society and its aspects ever. This was a tremendous moment for the proletariat and indeed the entire world as everyone in a society was actively engaged in the radical re-formation of society and culture. It was very obvious that if you want to truly revolutionize a society, to really change things that you need to change the culture as well. A new type of society requires a new political and social consciousness as well. Old ideas will reproduce the old ways, new ideas create new ways. Its very basic and is perfectly understandable to a kid in Grade 8. The right wing, the pro-market propagandists all cried that this attempt was social manipulation; "social engineering" is the usual Glenn Beck-style trigger word that gets people believing in conspiracies. This is ridiculous anyway, the society in which we live now does nothing but socially engineer, promote propaganda and try its best to program us. Turn on what kids are watching, MTV, what do you see? Do you see a culture of people sharing and working together? No, you see the opposite quite obviously. You see people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian who are famous for literally no
9

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel reason, do nothing to earn money at all. They serve no useful function whatsoever but the market has decided these people are worth millions. Individuals like rappers are promoted like crazy; mass amounts of wealth without really having done much of anything. Promoting those who contribute nothing while ignoring those of whom society could not exist without. Glamorizations of sex, an extravagant life-style are tens of thousands of times more common than a simple message of stay in school. It's not just MTV, although pop culture is the majority of it. In the adult world we're filled with stories and selfcongratulations of the wealthy elite who do little to nothing at all. Mindless glorification of excessive unnecessary wealth while ignoring the virtue of actual hard work. (An idea that used to be popular.) Mindless materialism is forced upon us from all angles, from authority worship like CSI and Law and Order to Hannah Montana, songs like "This is the Good Life" and many other horribly unrealistic glorifications of wealth. Hannah Montana alone was nothing more than materialist propaganda for little girls. Life is perfect when you're famous, rich and attractive. If you don't have these things than life is bad and is not worthwhile. It doesn't get any better when you get older; the propaganda just gets more sophisticated. Like being fed the fraudulent idea that everyone and anyone can get rich if you just work hard. The idea that everyone can be rich is such a fraud its staggering that anyone could believe it. This could not be further from the truth in the case of the Cultural Revolution in China. People from all other the country arrived in Beijing to discuss the new society they were about to build. This was not an act of engineering, but an act of mass participation. This concept is hard for the right-wing mentality to comprehend, this isn't co-erosion, its co-operation. People came from all over the countryside to the universities and collages to debate with party cadres and the intellectuals as to how this new society will take form. I've never been to a university here, but I'm pretty sure they tell you how things are and what you are going to learn. I wouldn't want to see how

10

Maoist Rebel they would react if students started telling the administration how they should run the place. The whole goal of the Cultural Revolution was to create this new society, a society on socialist principles. This goal can only be achieved by ending inequality in political power, as well as access to economic and intellectual resources. This principal is unique to socialism, communism and anarchism. This principal exists in no other ideology, not even the most liberal of liberal minds. Liberals seek only to place theoretical limits on class differences, not abolish them. Liberals have no desire to change society, because they seek no meaningful change. Although some will say, "yes we can". The idea is to promote a culture of goodness, fairness and equality. These are all the things we already recognize are good things, the just thing to do. But this society shuns all of those things repeating ad naseum that they are bad and will lead to tyranny. The whole premise is that bad is good and good is bad. It is a straight denial of human nature capitalism indoctrinates people with. Human beings can be good and bad, so they just always go with the worst and call themselves "objective". In reality human beings are good and bad, that would be a real objective stance. Instead they just rely on denial as a justification for their harmful, anti-social and prejudiced behaviour. "Oh people can be bad so let's just play to that." How obvious can you get that you are being "socially engineered"? The General Occurrence While socialism in a country like China must be understood as a form of class rule of the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, and as a mode of production in which planned production for social needs replaces production for private profit, it is not a static social system. What defines socialism most clearly is the road on which it is travelling. Is society expanding or restricting economic, social and political inequalities to the greatest degree possible? Is it promoting
11

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel mass participation and debate, or political passivity, in factories, farms, schools and governmental institutions? Is it promoting internationalism and leading mass campaigns to support revolution in other countries? Is it combating me first capitalist ideology with struggle for the collective interest? Is it challenging national oppression and male supremacy? And of critical importance, what political line is the working class political leadership in the communist party and state organs pursuing? In 1966 over a million students were in Beijing at any given time. These students were there to openly criticize the reactionary and authoritarian teachers and education systems. The complaint was that the teachers were creating experts with no political consciousness. The result of this student rebellion was rightist and revisionist administrators and teachers were paraded through the streets with dunce caps and were made subject to public criticism at meetings and all-night struggle sessions. When did this ever happen here? Where in the Western world was it ever okay to disobey teachers who were teaching students something they thought was wrong and corrected them in such a way? Never, but during the Cultural Revolution the students decided what they would be learning. They democratized the education system and the students organized it. Red Guard organizations changed the old imperial names of streets and stores and searched homes, temples and churches for evidence of counter-revolutionary activities, hoarding wealth, and the practice of feudal customs. This was not mindless violence that was portrayed in the Western press, but a political movement to uproot the old ideas and customs of the exploiting classes. However, there were excesses, including serious physical attacks on people in relatively privileged positions, which Mao and others in the party leadership recognized and sought to correct. At the same time, in Shanghai, Chinas industrial centre, a powerful political force was stirring. The Workers General Headquarters (WGH) under the leadership of a young textile
12

Maoist Rebel worker, Wang Hongwen, had built up strength in hundreds of factories criticizing revisionist management practices that stifled the initiative of the workers. In the course of several days in January 1967 known as the January Storm, these rebel workers seized power from Shanghais party apparatus. The mass struggle rally at which the Shanghai party committee was brought down was the first to be shown live on television. In a desperate ploy to hold onto power, which was repeated throughout the Cultural Revolution, revisionist party leaders organized conservative factions among the workers to defend their positions and privileges. They also stirred up a wave of economism, which attempted to sabotage the rebellion by granting tens of thousands of workers big wage increases and years of back pay. Tell me when the last time a group of working class people rebelled against an unjust government policy or action in the US, or Canada, or England? Any attempt to do so is met only with violence by the state. Just ask Daniel Shays of the Shays Rebellion what happens when you question the government and its unethical practise. On a more important note, if Mao was such a dictator, then why did he allow this to happen? Surely a dictator would object to the entire party apparatus in a city being over thrown being. It was nothing of the sort, Mao hailed them as having a true revolutionary spirit. They were confronted with an unjust and harmful government policy and they destroyed it. Mao's Path-Breaking Class Struggle Ideas One of the theoretical breakthroughs of Maoist theory is that class struggle continues after the revolution in a socialist state. The Soviets placed little or no emphasis on this. Mao however recognized this as a problem in the USSR and sought to prevent this from happening in China. He saw that the Communist party in Russia was itself the new ruling class. Stalin claimed that with the nationalization of industry and collectivization of agricultureno exploiting classes existed in the Soviet Union. This statement was completely untrue as was
13

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel revealed later on. In fairness to Stalin it was a common belief among the early 20th century socialists that private property was what the capitalist class anchored themselves to. If private property didn't exist, then therefore they couldn't exist. Mao pointed this out in "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People": "In China, although in the main socialist transformation has been completed with respect to the system of ownership there are still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador classes, there is still a bourgeoisie, and the remolding of the petty bourgeoisie has only just started. The class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological fields between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is still not really settled." This was a breakthrough idea in its time, this gave rise to the recognition that it was contradictions in the system itself that created new bourgeois elements, which can coalesce into a new bourgeoisie. Previously it was believe the main threat to socialism was external, imperialist aggression and whatnot. Internal threats were treachery or imperialist subversion. No one had recognized that contradictions within the system itself could created NEW bourgeoisie, not just sustain the old ones. One of the mistakes I felt the Soviet Union and Stalin, and perhaps Lenin made was assuming (if only subconsciously) that socialism is the victory. Its an idea that is perpetuated by many on the left to this very day. Socialism is not the victory of the working class, it is the beginning of the working classes' offensive toward the victory of communism.
14

Maoist Rebel Since socialism is the transitional phase from capitalism to communism, this is where the internal contradictions and sabotages by capitalist roaders will take place. During this time all inequalities must be combated to the farthest possible extent. Obviously some inequalities cannot be done away with immediately, however some can. Many of these inequalities have a very poisonous effect on socialism and make contradictions within the system worse. These inequalities are inherited from the old system, pay differentials between skilled and unskilled work and between mental and manual work, such things as the differences between the economic, educational, and cultural opportunities available in the city and in the countryside. As long as these inequalities exist they are a danger to the socialist order and the communist goal. It is unknown how long there would be a struggle period in abolishing these inequalities. It depends largely on the society itself, its level of political consciousness and even the depths of those inequalities. The main one in my (and many other's opinion) is the division between mental and manual labour. This is a process don't get me wrong, this is not a simple fix, its a long process of political and cultural struggle for an unknown amount time. The main power in any society is not only being able to speak, but to be heard. In capitalism you may be able to have a great deal of free speech, but it essentially means nothing as you are ignored. In the factories and production facilities, this free speech took form in the mass airings. the entire staff was called together and if you had something to say, you said it where everyone heard it. No one could pull the whole he-saidshe-said trickery. This is how ideas for improving production and methods of work were discussed, in the open in front of anyone. Here is a good example of what I am talking about: This new system of management was being used in the Anshen Iron and Steel Works. In the 1960s the facilities
15

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel production of rolled steel was beginning to fail. By 1971 the leading cadre claimed that output could only be increased through an influx of state funds, this meant their renovation for a newer facility were put on hold. When this difficulty came to a head, the relevant revolutionary committee came forward and criticized the leaders in management for not listening to the workers. The revolutionary committee instituted the three-in-one teams who worked closely with the shop floor workers to solve the difficult technological problems of modernizing the mill. The result of listening to those in physical production was rebuilding the facility using only its own funds, (no state assistance) and doubling output. This method production. was called grasp revolution, promote

Bottom level decision making and bottom level criticism makes a revolution. You cannot claim to be a democracy when people have no power. The essence of class is the essence of fascism. Always one class of people are considered 'the controllers' and others the controlled. This is the very essence of classes. Revolutionary Communal Production The Great Leap Forward in 1958 was an ambitious plan to increase industrial and agricultural production. It undertook radical social transformations and led to new levels of socialist consciousness. In one year, 750,000 collective farms were merged into 24,000 peoples communes, each of which was composed of dozens of villages and on average 5,000 households. The communes were not just economic units but new social organizations that combined political, educational, cultural and military functions. This fundamentally changed the nature of human relations inside China. It helped eliminate the idea of the "me first" exploitative childish ideology. As everyone worked together
16

Maoist Rebel everyone had an increase in living standards, everyone had better lives because they co-operated instead of competing. The scale of the communes made it possible to mobilize large numbers of peasants to work on big irrigation, flood control and land reclamation projects. Rural industrialization leapt forward, with commune-operated shops manufacturing and repairing agricultural implements, small chemical plants producing fertilizer, and the establishment of local cropprocessing industries. Tens of millions of women joined the labour force outside their homes for the first time; childcare centres were set up on the communes. The communes funded new primary schools and a network of middle schools and colleges that combined work and study. One of the advantages of the communes was its ability to avoid one of the mistakes that the Soviets made in their development. Many communes had cement factories in them. The Soviet Union had centralized them in the cities and as a result had to wait until a highway system was developed before it could actually be shipped out to the countryside where it was needed the most. The Chinese Communists learned from this mistake and avoided it by creating cement factories in the communes. The industries that emerged from the communes were worker owned and operated. This was a rejection of the Soviet oneman management system. Each worker had input into the operation of the facility. Obviously these workers had no experience in operating such facilities, they lacked the administrative skills. In order to teach these skills to the workers (who before the revolution were illiterate), a system of spare-time schools and colleges attached to factories was established. In some plants, 60 to 70 percent of the workforce was enrolled in these schools. Workers were given some time off work everyday or every week to learn these new skills. With the rejection of the Soviet one-man management system, a new system was put in its place, the "2-1-3" system:

17

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel 1. two participations (participation of cadres in labour and workers in management) 2. one reform (reform of unneeded regulations) and, 3. triple combinations (of skilled workers, technicians and administrators to solve production problems). It was during this time when peasant farmers and workers began questioning the people in charge of production. When factory leaders did not listen to the input of the workers they were removed and replaced by people who would listen. This problem was solved by having everyone participate in decision making, and by having managers perform daily work functions like everyone else on a rotating schedule. This enforced an idea of equality, these managers had no power over the workers, they were workers themselves. If they started acting or believing any different they were removed by the same people they worked with. Workers did not respond to a boss, because the boss didn't exist. Health Care and Barefoot Doctors Before the Cultural Revolution basically all health care services where next to non-existent in the countryside. The result of this was hundreds of millions of peasants left without even a basic rudimentary medical care. No schools were anywhere near the countryside, this made it very difficult to get any advanced medical knowledge to the villages. Possibly the greatest innovation of the Cultural Revolution was the invention of the system of barefoot doctors. The goal of this system was to reduce the gap in medical services between the cities and the countryside. Five years later there were more than a million of these paramedics working in the rural areas. Many of them were educated youth that were sent down to the villages. Often this system of sending doctors to where there were none is criticized as "forcing" people to practise medicine by right wing propagandists. Of course providing these medical
18

Maoist Rebel services was a part of the training, it was their residential placement, the same as medical schools as here, except it was in the countryside where it could do the most good. This opinion by the right wing shows their utter hypocritical nature. They're completely incapable to seeing that they are doing almost the same thing. Its common for the right wing to try to make a policy look bad if someone else does it, but not when they do it. It becomes clear that they are just out to attack Communism and not to actually make a point. They show what kind of people they really are, incapable of making an analysis of a society and just close their minds off proving their ignorance towards everything. What they deliberately over look is the fact that these people wanted to go into the countryside to give health care to those who didn't have it. This is the same mentality of Cuban doctors who go to the poorest in the world and give their services for free. They live in the poorest conditions and make receive little money because they believe in what they are doing. Its no wonder the right wing can't understand why people would do this. Being altruistic is a hard concept for them to grasp. If there is no material incentive, it can't exist. There were originally 28 of these specialist paramedics that were trained in Shanghai. While serving people in the countryside, their tasks were diseases prevention first, and to combine mental and manual labour. Mao put it simply, calluses on hands, mud on feet, medicine kit on shoulder, poor and lower-middle peasants in mind. One of the first things the Barefoot Doctors did was to train several people in the village disease-prevention sot hat they could begin building their own health care staff. While that was being done the barefoot doctor would spend a third to half their time in agricultural work alongside these same peasants. This created a medical corps that had a very strong tie to the masses. The tasks of these new doctors went far beyond the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. They administered vaccinations, demonstrated the correct use of pesticides, introduced new

19

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel sanitation methods, and taught mothers about nutrition and child care. Many of these village medical teams included midwives that assisted in child birth. This alone massively attributed to the decrease in infant mortality and the deaths of mothers during child birth. During this same time there were what were called Red Medical Teams. These were the urban and industrial version of the barefoot doctors. Volunteers from the workplace would take a basic course in medical services. They would also have follow up teachings where they learned more advanced medical techniques and procedures. Their main goal was to serve the medial needs of their fellow workers. Here in the West in some larger unionized factories, (extremely rare cases) they have have a Registered Nurse on staff receiving a wage, but this system was much more effective as it provided much more medical personnel and no extra cost. The training of doctors and medical staff at urban hospitals also went through major changes during the Cultural Revolution. In medical schools, the program of study was shortened from six years to three years, followed by an internship of one and a half years. The curriculum was revised to place more emphasis on preventative medicine. Most graduates were generalists, not specialists. They would spend a good part of their lives in the countryside as part of mobile teams, or they resettled there. In 1981, years after Mao's death, the Deng Xiopeng regime abandoned the barefoot doctor program and instead had doctors set up private practises, making medical treatment well beyond the means of most villagers. After the collectives were dissolved in 1983, health care insurance disappeared in the countryside. It was this loss of universal health care in 1983 that lead to the mass actions at Tienanmen Square. The Liberation of Women

20

Maoist Rebel The Cultural Revolution was a tremendous time for the advancement of women. At no other time in history did women make so many gains from an event. No other society has ever made the gains in equality for women that revolutionary China has. Unfortunately almost all of them have been reversed in the restoration of capitalism. Before the revolution China ran on the Confucian doctrine which was extremely abusive towards women. With the exception of a few wealthy families, women were denied an education. Women were basically the property of any man in her family who was considered to be in control. With women not being allowed to work or own property, this made them physically dependent on men for their survival. Feudal China engaged in all manner of female exploitation. Forced marriages of young girls was common and so was wife beating. Frequently a landlord simply raped any peasant women he wished, he had the supposed right to do so. I don't think I have to mention the absolute horrors of foot binding. In 1950 women were encouraged to speak up and talk about the bitter experiences they suffered at the hands of landlords. It was during this time the land reform campaign offered tens of millions of women the ownership of their own land. The centuries of being forced to depend on a husband or father were put to an end. It was also at this time that prostitution was eliminated in a very short amount of time. When women were given the choice of owning land or being a prostitute, they chose to own land. All of this challenged the idea that women were inferior. Also in 1950, the Marriage Act was pass giving a great deal of power and freedom to women. Women were now allowed to divorce their husbands if they chose to do so. It was made illegal to conduct domestic abuse, pay dowries and made it illegal to arrange marriages. These laws were some of the hardest as there was still a great deal of patriarchy present.

21

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel The institution of marriage was subjected to new scrutiny. In Hopeh a province-wide campaign was launched by the Womans Federation to carry out work in three areas: (1) the promotion of free-choice marriage, late marriage, the abolition of bride prices and traditional marriage rituals symbolizing the sale of women; (2) the promotion of equal pay for equal work for women, include a major effort to redefine equal work as work of comparable value rather than the same work, since much work in rural China is sex-typed; and (3) the establishment of year-round nurseries and kindergartens, along with agitation for the idea the men should share in household chores. The "industrialization of women" was one of the major changes that took place during the Great Leap Forward. This was combined with the Cultural Revolution to completely alter the gender roles that existed within production. It was during the Great Leap Forward that millions of women left the home and joined the labour force. Possibly the most advanced policy for women that was pursued in Cultural Revolution was the abolishment of domestic slavery. This broke the double shift that women face here in our society today. By that I mean working a job and then going home and doing all the domestic work that was required. This is difficult today, I imagine how difficult this must have been in a peasant woman's life. It was this domestic life that created the greatest barrier to full participation in political and social life. The invention of government child care for women while they worked made this possible. In some factories and other work places they had nurseries for children two moths to four years old. These nurseries sometimes ran 24-hours a day providing a safe environment for children while both parents engaged in production and political
22

Maoist Rebel life regardless of what hours they worked. An American visitor was told that children learned to care for each other, love and help each other through stories, pictures and play. The other program that helped end domestic slavery was the introduction of communal kitchens. 24 hours a day these special kitchens run democratically by the people of the commune supplying meals to anyone who required them. Anytime day or night a person could come to these kitchens and receive a meal. This effectively ended the need for women to cook for their families; which is often the most time consuming chore a housewife performs (especially before the microwave and instant this and that meals). A birth control campaign distributed free or low-cost contraceptive devices and advocated later marriages and smaller familiestwo children was the ideal. This was aimed not only at limiting the growth of Chinas population, but freeing up women to participate in political life. The Most Radical of Ideas Now I'd like to talk about some of the more radical ideas that some communes decided to try. It is important to note that individual communes had a great deal of autonomy in deciding what new ideas to try in social relations. Some had ideas that were way too advanced for the society. Particularly in the countryside, some social transformations jumped ahead of the level of development and political consciousness at that time. This led to Party leaders seeing communist society as achievable within the following decade or two in opposition to the original 100 year plan. All of this was later criticized as a communist wind. One radical alteration to society was Womans clothing. Womans clothing was functional, not designed to differentiate or attract. It was considered unimportant for a woman or a man to wear an clothing for fashion. This was not banned, it was just considered pointless because it served no revolutionary or practical purpose. The idea of expressing oneself through clothing was considered infantile. Why pointlessly wear
23

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel clothes to make statement when you can actively participate in the operation of society? An urban woman that an American visitor met in 1971 wore dark pants, a white blouse and a simple button-up-the-front jacketall loose fitting. An American newspaper editor who visited China in 1972 made a revealing comment: In twenty three days in China, I didnt see a single grown woman in a skirt. And a bosom line is almost as hard to find. In fact that's I personally believe that expressing one's identity through clothing is prevalent in our society, because we can't exercise any real power. Another benefit of this lack of interest in fashion and revealing clothing was that people, particularly women, were not judged on appearance. People were judged on their ideas and judged based on what good they could contribute not how they looked. While I'm on the subject of physical appearance, I'd like to talk about a little known experiment that at least one commune tried. They conducted experiments in androgyny. In a few pictures you can see male and female Red Guards all standing together and you can't distinguish gender most of the time. This was a really radical experiment in moving beyond even the idea of gender. This was an experiment in the ultimate form of not judging people based on their appearance. We don't know how these experiments turned out, so we can't do any analysis of the results. But this is one example of some of the truly radical ideas that were attempted. One experiment, I don't know how many communes tried it, was moving past the idea of family. The idea was to not have traditional nuclear families. For example, children would be considered the responsibility of everyone in the commune. This was a really radical idea that again we have no idea how it turned out or what we could learn from it. Debunking Right Wing Lies Finally I want to take a few minutes to deal with many of the common lies and misconceptions about the Cultural
24

Maoist Rebel Revolution. Some of these you may already be familiar with and others will be new. I would also like to address some of the outright lies that are perpetuated by the bourgeois media and chanted like a mantra by the right wing. Often it is repeated that the Cultural Revolution was antiintellectual and is proven so by the supposed persecution of academics. Of course there is some truth to this, often reactionary intellectuals who were hell-bent on destroying all the gains made by the revolution were persecuted by the people. Many intellectuals and other relatively privileged groups were persecuted. Though it is questionable whether being deprived of their normal life style or leaving a comfortable city job to work on a commune qualifies as suffering. Did Saddam Hussein suffer when he was thrown from power (by the same people who put him there)? But in evaluating these accounts, it is worth remembering that history gets written by the victors. Many of the accounts of persecution and torture of intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution are as useful and reliable as seeing the pro-slavery movie, Birth of a Nation, as a guide to the history of the Civil War and Black Reconstruction in the U.S. Another central criticism was the violence that was unleashed by Red Guards. It is important to note that during the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward there were many different Red Guards groups claiming to be following the path of Maoism. The fact is many of these groups were at war with each other. If a group of Democrats gets into a violent confrontation with a group of Republicans at a protest, would that count as state oppression? Besides these criticisms are coming from the greatest repressive force in history, the US government and the right wing ideology. This was the instructions for handling political struggle from 16 Point Decision:

25

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel The method to be used in debates is to present the facts, reason things out, and persuade through reasoning. Any method of forcing a minority holding different views to submit is impermissible. The minority should be protected, because sometimes the truth is with the minority. Even if the minority is wrong, they should still be allowed to argue their case and reserve their views. Some groups who represented different factions outright ignored these directives and used violence as first resort. One leader Jiang Qing was famous for her saying, Attack by Reason, Defend by Force. The violence she perpetrated with this mentality Mao called all around civil war. Another important period is routinely ignored in many accounts of the Cultural Revolution. While focusing on the alleged atrocities of the Cultural Revolution, they ignore the fact that Deng Xiaopings coup in 1976 unleashed nationwide arrests and executions of revolutionaries in the CCP and the masses who awakened to political life during the Cultural Revolution and fought to keep China on the socialist road. Most of this violence was perpetrated by right wing reactionary factions, another fact that is conveniently ignored. My personally most annoying lie is that Mao built a cult of personality around himself, despite his numerous speeches denouncing doing so. They simply see people with pictures of him and just believe whatever they are told about it. Of course they fail to notice the hypocrisy of having the president's picture in every classroom. To the Chinese people, Mao led the Communist Party of China in over two decades of revolutionary warfare to destroy the power of the landlords and the capitalists who had sold out China to the imperialist powers. He led the struggle to build socialism in China, which radically transformed the lives of 1/4 of humanity, and then called for a Cultural Revolution to keep China on the socialist road. All of this produced deep feelings of respect and even reverence among the Chinese people. ***
26

Maoist Rebel

Well that just about covers it for the Cultural Revolution. If you've managed to watch this far into the video I applaud your dedication to listening to what I have to say. Hopefully this will give you more information on the subject and you will have increased your own cultural knowledge by having watched it. Thank you.

27

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Mao's Famine Debunked

Okay I'm doing my single most requested video of all time. Dealing with the absolute lie that is Mao killed tens of millions with a famine. This subject has come up again with the public statements by Frank Diktter and Jasper Becker where he claims "researched archives" and determined X amount of people were killed by Mao's famine. It is also coming up because of the new book Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Great Famine. It doesn't really take a whole lot of research to see on the surface what is so blatantly obvious about these so-called works. First I will tackle the subject of promoting the idea of Mao being a mass murderer. There's a culture of claiming Mao deliberately killed X amount of people. I say X amount of people because it just keeps changing every time a new "study" is done on it. Did people die during this time from a lack of food? Yes of course people did. But it is always portrayed in anti-Maoist media (no surprise) that it was intentional. Famines are not intentional, no one actually tries to cause these things anywhere. To actually say it was done on purpose shows blatantly they are portraying it as genocide and not a famine. So off the bat we already know they are lying and trying to portray it as something it is not. Besides, if the pro-capitalist mouth pieces that make this claim were so honest and fair, they would no doubt acknowledge the deliberate act of the British killing 30 million people in India with an intentional famine and 10 million in the Bengal Famine of 1943. They would judge themselves by the same standard right? Then there are the deaths of 120 million in India from the development of capitalism alone from 1947 to the 1990s. And the Irish potato famine the killed 1.7 million with actually deliberate actions by British landlords to make it worse by

28

Maoist Rebel demanding the potatoes not feed starving people and go to England instead. One of the promoters of this famine line is Nicholas Kristof who wrote: Based on a decade of meticulous interviews and archival research, this magnificent biography methodically demolishes every pillar of Maos claim to sympathy or legitimacy. The problem is that Nicholas Kristof is a proven liar. He along with Sheryl Wudunn wrote a book claiming that capitalism has created equality for women in China. Even coining the phrase "women hold up half the sky". But this is a complete fabrication, it was the Cultural Revolution that gave women rights, acknowledged them as human beings, allowed them to ask for divorces, be able to have ownership of their children and so forth. The phrase, "women hold up half the sky", existed in China for a long time, but it was Mao who popularised it. We already know the anti-Mao propagandists are complete liars and proven so. Now I will deal with the context of the whole incident. Context is left out of all anti-Communist propaganda. *** First, the changes to the system brought about in the communism revolution were not only positive, but necessary for the continued existence of China. As they anti-Mao propagandists faithfully always leave out, there was a endless, historic sequence of famines and natural disasters that had tortured Chinese people under feudalism. These constant famines ended with the revolution. The revolution gave one the greatest increases in life expectancy ion history. This took place between 1950 and 1980. Second, four people were running China. Two groups, rightists and Maoists. Chairman Mao as the leader of country and the Communist Party were with Lin Bao. Deng Xiaopeng and Liu
29

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Shaoqi composed the right wing faction of the government. This is not at all like the propaganda line where Mao ran everything, its physically impossible to do. It is important to note is that both sides wanted to collectivize; the rightists wanted it because it would improve production of food. Maoists wanted it because it would help forward the masses' social consciousnesses towards a socialist/communist world. The mistake was putting such a task in the hands of capitalist roaders like Deng Xiaopeng and Liu Shaoqi. So even from the beginning right wingers, pro-capitalists were in charge of the food program, but of course the communist gets the blame. Now what caused the actual failure of the food program in the Great Leap Forward is a mix of things. People refusing to cooperate, a great deal of people lying about how much grain was actually produced (to make themselves look better), a ton of weather disturbances and human error. As usual human error is the only one any one writing about the subject ever mentions. When it all happened it was national news in China despite the lie that it was covered up. Deng Xiaopeng and Liu Shaoqi adamantly declared that it was 70% natural disaster and 30% human error. Mao and Lin Bao on the other hand said it was 70% human error and 30% natural disaster. Lin Bao himself said it was from not following a correct Maoist line. In reality, the Maoists, including Mao himself were the most critical of the entire event. There were huge heated and angry debates that took place over the failure of the food program. this was all over the country factions were divided between the Maoists and the procapitalists. Red Guard factions loyal to the pro-capitalists were attacking Red Guard factions loyal to Mao and vice versa. In response as a political power play, Liu Shaoqi used this disaster to rally people against Mao and force him out as the leader of the country. Mao actually lost power over the Chinese government and was kicked out. This is another important fact that is never repeated when speaking about the Great Leap Forward. Its always stated that Mao was an absolute dictator

30

Maoist Rebel and had supreme power over everything. Before Mao was pushed out he managed to get Peng Pwai purged from the government and Lin Bao as leader of the military. Now in 1962 to 1966, Liu Shaoqi is the leader of the country but Mao is the leader of the Communist Party. It was at this time that Mao instituted the "Bombard the Headquarters" criticism movement that placed criticism on the people who were actually in charge of the disaster. After many up risings in the country Liu Shaoqi led the military in and threw the procapitalists out of power and re-installed the Maoist cadres. *** Now about the actual deaths that occurred:

31

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Upon first glance, if we just go down the population column, we may think we see 15 million dead in 1960 and 1961. Maoist Internationalist Movement warns that if comrades had no other data or knowledge of the Great Leap, then that might
32

Maoist Rebel be a good conclusionand show some integrity not to secondguess it. However, in this case, the Deng Xiaoping regime gave us the birth rate and death rate data too, so now we have to ask whether those 15 million missing in 1960 and 1961 might be missing simply because there were not enough births to keep up with the deaths. Based on everything both the bourgeois media and communists said, the Great Leap was a period of great tumult and political dedication in which we have every reason to believe births declined. It turns out that 1960 is the only year that Dengs data shows a loss of population caused by deaths exceeding births. That loss is 3 million people, not 15 or 30 million as Banister, Diktter or Becker later came up with. In 1960 the natural loss of population was 4.57 per 1000. Multiply that out by about 650 million and we get about 3 million more deaths than births. With a mistake of a mere 10 million people missing, there would be no natural growth rate data to report indicating a loss of life in the Great Leap even in the Deng Xiaoping data because most of the original famine story depended on a story of projected births, and now, ignoring internal migration, something we will talk about in the next section. If we look at the data for 1950 above, we see that it is almost too perfect, in the sense that it implies zero net emigration or immigration into China. So then the question arises whether the statisticians correctly counted immigration and emigration or whether they in some cases inferred deaths when there were none. Do the local officials really go check to see that someone is buried or do they fill in with inferences when there is a break down administratively? However, readers may be surprised to know that we agree with Banister, that if these Deng Xiaoping figures were correct, there is great merit to using the 1957 death rate and figuring out how many deaths then occurred from combined natural disasters and policy disasters. If there were no emigration out of China, then we would need to explain the deaths of 15 million people over these years after 1957just as Banister says in her lower end estimate of the dead, the one we find most reasonable given what she knows. If 10 million are from the breakdown in the statistical agency, then given that Liu Shaoqi
33

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel admitted that 30% were from the natural disasters, Mao would be left with almost 0 blame. On the other hand, we could also ask how likely it was that 15 million deaths spread out over four years would be something that any other alternative leader could have avoided and if they avoided some deaths, would some of their policies have created even more deaths in other categories? MIM would say so, particularly of the Liu Shaoqi line in health care and agriculture. *** In conclusion I'd like to say that the whole claim of a famine is massively blown out of proportion. It uses missing context, deliberately twisted numbers and outright lies. Besides, the most deliberately ignored fact regarding the Great Leap Forward was the fact that it was attempted again from 1968 to 1971. And that time it went off perfectly and accomplished everything it was supposed to do. This is why China is a superpower today. This second attempt was called the "Flying Leap Forward", it was done entirely under a Maoist principal. So Mao was actually right, and it may not have happened if they had followed a Maoist line. This is scholarly work defending a position with real life examples and real sources. This is quite different than some loser on YouTube repeating verbatim some article from The Guardian acting like they know something. They know nothing because they've done no work on the subject. They just stand there babbling like cultist repeating what a Guardian article said pretending they know how the world works. Sources (look actual real sources!): http://chinastudygroup.net/2009/10/was-mao-really-amonster/#fn-2997-1

34

Maoist Rebel http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/research/health_improvement_ under_mao_and_its_implications_for_contemporary_aging_in _china/ http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200201/0201a001.htm http://llco.org/archives/8455 "The Battle for China's Past" by Mobo Gao (A very good resource, this guy was actually there during the revolution and the Great Leap Forward) Felix Greene, A Curtain of Ignorance (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965), p. 158. Judith Banister, Chinas Changing Population (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), p. 304.

35

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

The purpose of this video is to give a straight forward and plain English explanation of the essay "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Frederick Engels. This is an essay largely misunderstood document by people who never read it. Immediately people assume Engels was saying that socialism is utopian and scientific. Thereby supposedly discrediting him (and by extension Marx) in social theory. No Marxist ever claimed their world view was utopian, only market fundamentalists do that. In actuality the document explains the difference between socialism that is utopian and socialism that is scientific. There are several views of socialism that were discussed in the Communist Manifesto, utopian and scientific included. The point of this document was to explain why scientific socialism is the better choice and why utopian socialism is wrong. With that said, what I am giving is only a rough guide to what is written in the document. This will hopefully give you a basic cover of what the document is about. After watching this video I suggest you read the document for yourself so that you may receive the full context and the full knowledge that is contained in the work. Again, this is only a brief overview and not a substitute for actually reading and understanding the document. It is only intended to give you a jump start in reading it. I. The Development of Utopian Socialism Modern socialism (of 1880) is the result of two elements: the class antagonisms of society (capitalist and worker), and the chaos that is commodity production. The theoretical form of modern socialism comes from updating the theoretical work of French philosophers of the 18th century. As this socialism was new it had to flow with the already accepted intellectual thoughts on it, even though it came from economic reality.
36

Maoist Rebel The theorists who began the socialist thought were true extreme radicals. They were not influenced by any prevailing ideologies. These men nitpicked every single detail, nothing was allowed to exist in their ideology unless it had been examined extensively. When they created their ideology everything was to be based on absolute reason. This was the radical break in social thought. Nothing from the pre-existing societies was preserved, no traditional ideas existed, none of the prejudices. The new idea of socialism was based entirely on eternal right and truth, based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man. Unfortunately this idealized version of society was nothing more than the building of bourgeoisie society. The equality got reduced to bourgeoisie property. This ownership of property became the inalienable right of man, This was the creation of the Rousseau Social Contract. Otherwise known as the democratic bourgeoisie republic. The antagonisms of feudal society gave birth to the creation of the new society. The bourgeoisie rose up and declared themselves the representatives of everyone. The capitalists realized that they need power over the workers as the feudal class needed power over peasants. The difference is, the new ruling class of capitalists could claim to represent everyone, the landlords never even bothered to try. There were theoretical ideas that came about as a result of various class uprisings in the 16th and 17th centuries. But these were utopian, just pictures of the perfect way of life and society. They were unattainable goals with no theory of how to reach them. From this came 3 great Utopian Socialists: - Saint-Simon: He united the middle-class and proletarian to a degree.

37

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel - Fourier and Owen: in the most developed capitalist countries they made proposals for removing classes based on French materialism. Not one of them represented the proletariat. They claimed to wanted to liberate everyone, but their philosophies represented only the elite. They acted in the name of reason and justice, but were far from the French philosophers they claimed to be inspired by. These three men only created the basis of the unjust irrational bourgeoisie system we have now. The French philosophers, the forerunners of the Revolution did all they could to live by reason, to promote a rational government and society. However this "reason" was just an idealized version of the 18th century citizen that turned into how the bourgeoisie see themselves. This new "rationality" only seemed rational when it was compared tot he previous feudal society. The new society was built upon "Rousseau's Social Contract" which was unable to hold onto bourgeoisie power. Thus the bourgeoisie had to resort to the "reign of Terror" and Napoleonic despotism in order to hold onto it. The new society of reason did not eliminate class divisions and create a more powerful one. It only altered the existing class relations. it created a "Freedom of property" that created the illusion that anyone can own property. (Legally anyone could.) Thus it transferred power from the landlord class to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois rule changed social relations as well. Instead of a knight removing a portion of crops from a peasant, a person was handed a cash payment for labour. the "fraternity" of the new society became trade and competition. oppression was replaced by corruption, from the sword to gold as a social lever. Prostitution also increased astronomically. The difficulty lied in the new social relations of production. The drive for socialism was based on the social relations
38

Maoist Rebel feudalism. At this time capitalism was building. But the completeness of capitalism hadn't shown itself yet. Meaning the class relations and how they were going to the take shape in capitalism hadnt formed yet. The new form of exchange altered the relations between people economically and did not fit into the view of utopian socialism at that time. Crude undeveloped conditions of capitalism and undeveloped class relations led to underdeveloped ideas about socialism. Not all the conditions of capitalism had revealed themselves because capitalism was still under development. So the great thinkers of socialism at the time attempted to guess what they were going to be and base their theories on those guesses. A series of ideas of what socialism was were created because no one analyzed the full material reality of (what was) modern life. All these models were based on very abstract ideas not based on the real material conditions. The more the philosophers worked on a model of socialism that was not based on real conditions, the more it drifted into fantasies about socialist life. they were completely utopian because they were completely abstract ideas not created from an analysis of real conditions. Obviously this is the fatal flaw in utopian ideas. Saint-Simon had a great deal to do with the French Revolution. This revolution was one of the "3rd Estate" (the people). It was the working people over the idle rich people. But the victory of the people ended up being a victory of the bourgeoisie. The properties of the Royalty and the Church got put up for sale, mostly by fraud through military contracts. (My how things have changed!) It was the rule of these swindlers that almost destroyed France. This near ruin gave Napoleon the pretext for his coup d'etat. Eventually people began to recognize that the French Revolution was a class war of three classes. A dynamic class war of nobility vs. bourgeois vs. the proletariat. It was also at this time that people first began to get the idea that economics dominates political institutions, they were not totally on top of

39

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel this idea, but the breakthrough was just beginning to be understood. II. Dialectics At this time and a little after the French philosophy in the 18th century, the new German philosophy dialectics appeared. The (then) modern formation of the dialectic was a continuation of dialectics from the past Greek philosophers. However then new thinkers of it had stuck it with a metaphysical mode of reasoning which gave it a very inflexible character. This however did not stop 18th century French philosophers from making their works on dialectics. When we think about Nature in general, the history of mankind and our own intellectual activity, it all seems as though it is mess of random occurrences and relationships that affect other relationships. Everything changes, things come into being and then pass away. As Engels said: "We see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections, rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected." This just shows the overall picture, the whole scheme of things at once and does not allow us to see details that make up the picture. Because it does not allow us to see all the details, we can't get the entire picture. In a metaphysical view all "things and their mental reflexes" are isolated things that are analyzed singularly and apart from each other. They see something once, define it and place it back into the picture with no more thought given to it. "For
40

Maoist Rebel him, a thing either exists or does not exist;a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in rigid antithesis, one another." This was all well and good back in the day. It seemed like it was based common sense and therefore it was completely logical. However it has its limits, barriers of understanding that it cannot overcome because of its inability to investigate. Because of this metaphysics becomes one sided, restricted, abstract and hopelessly lost in contradiction because it cannot make out the connection between things. it ignores the beginning of things and the end of things, it ignores their motion. This is the fundamental logic of capitalism. But more rigidly held by market fundamentalists, the Mises people. This is how they see the world, they take a supply and demand curve blog post and arrogantly demand that it is reality. They see labour as being nothing more than another commodity in that same supply and demand. Because of this they fail to see that labour is not like any other commodity, labour is human beings, human beings in motion that don't act like chess pieces. Which goes a long way to explaining why their society and economic structure doesn't work, never has worked and never will work. With an inability to see how forces interact with each other, or how people interact with each other, the only possible explanation of which must be the government. Its always someone else's fault for their lack of understanding. Metaphysics says a person is alive or not. In reality it is not that simple. No one knows when a fetus becomes a human being, or even when a collection of cells becomes a foetus. Because the creation of a human being is a process not an instantaneous event. Death is no different, a what point exactly a person is dead is not known. An organized being is both itself and is not itself. We consume food and water adding matter to our bodies. Then we expel waste removing matter from it. During this time cells die off and new ones are created in a gigantic complicated process that

41

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel is human life. "Every organized being is always itself, and yet something other than itself." An other aspect that formal logic (metaphysics) can't come to terms with is the unit of opposites. Metaphysics say opposites are in conflict and they work against each other. However simple scientific analysis shows us that this is not (necessarily) the case. You have to have a positive and a negative for a magnet to work. You can't have life without death. You can't die unless you have lived, and you can't live if there is only death. The opposites work with each other not against each other. This also applies to cause and effect. A "cause" happens that creates and effect. That is simple and straight forward that even kindergarteners can understand. However formal logic stops here, where dialectics continues on. These "effects" that just took place then become the "causes" that create other "effects". The universe and everything in it is one big entanglement of causes and effects. Metaphysics only sees one cause and effect moment and not their effects on the whole of the other causes and effects. Only dialectics understand these things, not metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics understand processes that include the unity of opposites and the fact that things come into being and then leave. Metaphysics is a completely rigid system that cannot understand these things. In fact only dialectics can explain evolution. Darwin laid down that evolution is a process that takes time to develop. However there appears to be jumps in evolution from one stage to another. At what point does homo-erectus become homosapien? When is the official change made? Evolution is a process that takes place under the immediate surface of physical appearance, the next stage seemingly appearing out of nowhere all of a sudden. Okay, a common Creationist attack against Evolutionists is the "holes argument". Take any two juxtaposed points on the evolutionary chart and there is a space between those two points. Creationists will always say "there is a gap there, you don't know what

42

Maoist Rebel happened". In time a new fossil is found that fills that space giving an explanation. Then, the Creationists will say "you haven't explained anything, now there are two holes on each side of the new fossil." In other words, using metaphysics, you can never satisfy the "holes argument". As dialectics understands it is not an instantaneous change but a process that takes place under the surface. This new German philosophy finally built up into its modern form, the Hegelian system. As Engels said: "In this system - and herein is its great merit - for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process - i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgement seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself." This system also had its problems, its problem was in the immaterial. Hegel was an "Idealist", to him the thoughts in his brain were not more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes. To him they were external ideas that existed before ideas did. He sees ideas as something external to the human mind. This mode of thinking is similar to that of religion. It all lies on on big contradiction: The Hegelian system says that human history is a process of evolution, which means that there cannot be an absolute truth. But at the same time claims to be the very essence of absolute truth.

43

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel "A system of natural and historical knowledge, embracing everything, and final for all time, is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning." This perception of fundamental contradiction by necessity led back to materialism. But it did not lead back to the 18th century metaphysical materialism. The old materialism saw human history as "a crude heap of irrationality and violence". Modern materialism saw sees it as an evolution of humanity that leads towards an explanation of it. This means modern materialism is dialectic, it takes in natural science (which has its own history in time). It takes into account celestial bodies, like organic life, under favourable conditions, are created and then destroyed. It understands these things, because materialism and the dialectic work in a synergistic manner. This new conception of Nature (as a process not cycles) could only come about through information discovered by research. Social theory is no different in this regard. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie became the main event in history in proportion to the development of modern industry and the political supremacy of the bourgeoisie. With the dialectic we were able to see that all of history, except in the primitive stages, was a history of class struggles. The classes that go to war in any given time are the product of the modes of production and exchange. When this happened, socialism went from being the idea of some genius, to being the necessary result of a battle between two historically developed classes - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Socialism was not longer idealistic, it's goal was no longer to create a perfect system. It was materialistic, "to examine the historico-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict".
44

Maoist Rebel The early idealistic socialism could criticize the prevalent mode of capitalist production and its consequences, but it could not understand them and thus could not defeat them or understand how they developed. What this dialectical analysis discovered was the great contradiction in capitalist society that explained not only exploitation, but its eventual downfall... surplus-value (in previous times, unpaid labour). "These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value, we owe to Marx. With these discoveries, Socialism became a science. The next thing was to work out all its details and relations." III. Historical Materialism "The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes..." From this point of view we can see that revolutions are caused by not created by ideas in people's heads, but by necessary changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are not found in philosophy, but in the economics of any given time. The bourgeois created the mode of capitalist production. This destroyed the feudal system of production because it was incompatible with a system of free competition. This allowed an explosion in the development in the production of machinery for production. But now machinery has developed to its limits within capitalism just as it had in feudalism. This limitation is a conflict between mode of production and the productive forces. This is not a made up conflict, it exists independent of people's opinion. Socialism is the necessary reordering of society to unlock more productive forces. Before capitalist production society was a collection of small producers working for themselves. Private property was
45

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel "instruments of labour of single individuals, adapted for the use of one worker...". This meant production was scattered among many small individual producers. This scattering of production had its limits, it could not develop further as it did in capitalism. This happened because capitalism concentrated production. "In the fourth section of capital Marx explained in detail how since the 15th century this has been historically worked out through three phases of simple co-operation, manufacture, and modern industry. But the bourgeoisie, as shown there, could not transform these puny means of production into mighty productive forces without transforming them, at the same time, from means of production of the individual into social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men." Because now commodities were the product of social production, no one person could say they made it. This is the contradiction of capitalism, wealth is generated by a collective of people but owned by an individual. This has given rise to all the social antagonisms of today. It has reduced the productive power of a single individual into an exchangeable part of capitalist production. So much for capitalist claim of reaping the benefits of their hard work! The need is to recognize the social nature of modern productive forces. To recognize that the mode of production that is capitalism has determined the social relations. The solution is to have society directly take control of production and have it fit the desired social relations, not the other way around. Active social forces seem like that they impose themselves blindly and destructively only if we do not understand them. But once we understand them we can subject them to our own will to achieve objectives. This understanding goes against capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Which is why they fight like
46

Maoist Rebel hell to make sure these ideas stay out of the mainstream media and educational institutions. As capitalism develops it turns more and more people into proletarians. These proletarians become an exploited majority who turn into a force for revolution. The revolution in turn takes the means of production and makes them property of the state, eliminating of position as proletariat. The state has always been the representative of the elite in society: in ancient times, the State of slaveowning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal landlords; in our own times, the bourgeoisie. When there is no subjugated class or anarchy in production (meaning it is organized, not market driven), the state is no longer necessary. "The state is not 'abolished'. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific inefficiency, and also of the demands of the socalled anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand." Conclusion The document was written to show how socialism was developed from a utopian idea of a society wanted, to a true understanding of HOW societies worked, thus enabling us to understand HOW a socialist society can be created. The dialectic is a correct form of logic, but it has its limitations because it is not grounded in materialism. Historical materialism gave the world an understanding of why societies were they way they were. Marx combined historical

47

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel materialism with the dialectic into "dialectical materialism" to create the communist philosophy. Dialectical materialism allows us to understand the material conditions of all societies and how those conditions work with and against each other. This was the genius of Karl Marx.

48

Maoist Rebel

Outsourcing Blame: A History of Right Wing Thought

The Need of the Right Wing to Blame outside Forces Socially If there is ever one characteristic that truly defines the mindset of the capitalist/right-winger, it is this one. Because this group possesses such an intense need to promote themselves as a superior form of life over that of the regular person, they are seemingly in capable of performing any kind of self analysis. Because of their own sense of self-superiority, they are incapable of admitting they themselves can make a mistake or create a system of operation with contradiction. With such a profound intellect beyond that of the common masses, they could not have possibly erred, and thus any failure or crisis must rest in the hands of some evil invading influence. This means no internal analysis or self-criticism is required. The history of written and practised right-wing though is rife with examples of outside invading evils that ruin or harm the glory of right-wing belief. Adolf Hitler possibly the most prolific right winger in history whos image still haunts political thought to this day. The Frer is the prime example of the right wing outsourcing of blame for internal problems and failings. In the beginnings of Adolf Hitlers political life he made it clear what was the cause of all of Germanys problems, the Jews of course. All throughout Hitlers reign of terror he constantly blamed the Hebrew existence for all of the Germanys problems, but importantly, the state in which it was in when he became the leader of it. Irrelevant here is the cause/causes of World War One, nor is it important what brought about its conclusion. Here we are only interested in its effects on Germany in the social and economic spheres. At the end of World War One Germany was forced at gun point to sign a document of surrender. In this document were numerous conditions of surrender. Many of these conditions
49

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel were quite harmful to both the economy and nation dignity of Germany. The post-war recovery of Germany was nearly impossible. This document signing (along with the actual defeat of Germany in the war) were the catalyzing series of events that which set Hitler on his path to become the future leader of the nation. This event was an irresolvable paradox in Hitlers mind. His belief that the German people were superior was unchallengeable, yet Germany lost the war. This could not be the case given the superior nature of German blood. Unable to resolve this paradox, (i.e. admit that the German people made a mistake or was not as strong as he thought), he came to the conclusion that there must have been some kind of force alien to the German people that would cause this failure or weakness. Enter the Jewish question... The psychological motivation for Hitlers hatred of the Jews has been a long standing debate spanning almost seven decades. The actual cause of Hitlers hatred towards the Jewish people is not important here. What is important is that we accept that these motivations (whatever they were), were irrational. This irrational hatred had a direct influence on his assumptions about Germanys loss in World War One and the post-war period. For whatever reason (because Ive never been able to figure it out) Hitler thought that some kind of Jewish influence must have caused Germanys leaders to sign such ridiculous terms of surrender. Whether it was Jews working inside the German government or a conspiracy of Jewish bankers working in their own interest (monetary or racial) more than national pride. Of course to him they had no national pride because they were not a part of it and believed themselves above it. The idea of national pride coming from its leaders over their own interest (Jewish or not) was ridiculous. No leader after the industrial revolution actually cares about national dignity. The examples of this are numerous, but they are not important here and distract from the point. These leaders are only interested in retaining their position and power. They also wish only to serve the interests of the economic elite who fund their
50

Maoist Rebel campaigns, who really control the country. Nationalism to them is merely a campaign position and a rallying cry for war. They have no interest in their countrymen, only so far as they can be used for their own interest. Hitler utterly failed to understand this. The internal contradiction here was competing interests. Since Hitler did not understand that, he assumed Jewish banker interest had interfered with national pride. This would not be the last time Hitler blamed social and class conflict on the Jewish people. Later on, Hitlers only true opposition was communists in Germany. And like a crutch, Hitler leaned on his anti-Semitism to rally people to his cause. Communism rose in Germany for the same reason it did everywhere else. Communism is and always has been an expression of class warfare. So long as there has been a capitalist class, there has been a proletariat. This struggle between a ruling rich and exploited poor expressed itself in class warfare. To Hitler, there were no classes, only Germans and non-Germans. To him the communists and their struggle against capitalist domination and fascism was another outside influence corrupting the perfect infallible German people. The communists were therefore a poisonous influence destroying Germany. All that was needed was for Hitler to discover that Marx was at one time Jewish. (Ill note here that Marx denounced his Jewish roots and became an atheist. A fact White Supremacists and Nazis deliberately overlook). From here on out Hitler blamed all contradictions and problems within Germany on the Jews. Nothing could possibly be wrong with the system, politicians couldnt possibly corrupt and self-serving, not could there possibly be class conflict because everyone was German and the same race. Therefore in his mind there must have been some foreign content causing all the problems in his perfect world and perfect people. All Hitler did was project his own prejudices on the society and system he didnt understand.

51

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel * * *

A modern day example of right wingers engaging in persecution in lieu of introspection would be the illegal Mexican immigration issue. This issue is one of the oldest issues facing the people of the United States. For as long as there has been immigration there has been hysteria over Mexicans entering the country. Of course this influx of people has had more to do with the right wing policies put out by the US government than with any decisions made by Mexican society. US economic domination of Mexico has existed for more than fifty years. The single most intense form of this domination is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The effects of this agreement on the working and poor class in all three nations (US, Mexico and Canada) are too numerous to list here, we will focus only on the effects that pertain to this particular issue. One of the most damaging aspects of the free trade agreement was the flood of cheap agricultural products into Mexico. Of course these agricultural products were actually cheaper than Mexican farmers could produce. This undercutting in cost drove millions of Mexican farmers bankrupt. These farmers gave up farming and went into the cities looking for work, the Maquiladora sector. The problem was (and still is) that there is not enough work. Underemployment in Mexican cities is astronomically high. This lack of jobs caused the poverty rate in Mexico to rise from 35% to 65% to 75%. The BAFTA agreement more than doubled the poverty in Mexico despite its claim that it would lower it. The economic ruling elites in the United States were the ones who pushed and lobbied for this agreement to be signed. These results of the agreement were anticipated because they would serve the interests of both Mexican and American businesses. The minimum wage laws are ignored and the people responsible for enforcing them (the government) are working with these same businesses.

52

Maoist Rebel

These harmful policies were created by the wealthy elite in America and propped up by elites in Mexico. The end result of this outright conspiracy against the working and poor in Mexico was a flood of illegal immigrants into the United States. The response to the immigration issue by the right wing media and particularly the right wing masses has been astoundingly ignorant. Theyve blamed Mexicans for coming across the border into the United States. These people blaming the Mexicans for wanting a better life have completely ignored their own hand in the creation of the situation. The right-wing supporters supported the right wing policies that created the situation. But at no point will they criticize themselves for creating this situation. The only conclusion they can come to is that Mexicans are conspiring to take their jobs. Interesting to note is the return of the nationalism versus economic conflict from the Nazi example. Many right wing working class people and some right wing media are outraged at companies who hire illegal Mexican labour. They call them all kinds of nasty things including traitors to the country. These right wingers lambast the companies for not hiring Americans, spouting national interest. Of course with all right wingers they are unable (or unwilling) to see the economic interest behind the hiring of illegal immigrant Mexican labour. Its no secret how much cheaper Mexican labour is than the labour of a US citizen. The bosses of the places who hire them have nothing but their own profit motive in mind. Obtaining cheaper and cheaper forms of labour is the oldest component in capitalism. So of course the American companies are going to hire Mexicans, theyre more cost-efficient. The working class right winger just like Hitler could not understand class conflict, because their system is pure and infallible (as they believe) it had to be some outside influence causing problems internally. Mexicans are to the American right wing what Jews were to the Nazis.

53

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel A failure to see the internal contradictions (based on the belief of superiority) leads to a xenophobic witch hunt which manifests itself in the ugliness that is racism. Put simply, the refusal to conduct an internal analysis inevitably lays the blame on things external. The Need of the Right Wing to Blame outside Forces Economically The history of the right wing blame game of outside forces is a history of economics just as much as is social. In fact the lack of introspection is less obvious in the field of economic, which makes the existence of it all the more devious. While it is debatable which of these cases of deliberate ignorance has caused the most harm, I feel it must be economics given the history of economic influence over social policy. Often social policy is engineered toward economic policy. Almost always this is done to justify it. The lack of capitalist introspection is caused by one important factor: maintaining profits. Capitalism is well known for its cold blooded and quite frankly inhuman drive for profit. Over the centuries this murderous motive has manifested itself in many ways: exploiting children as slave labour in Saipan and other 3rd world countries, Joseph McCarthy sentencing union activist to death claiming they were Soviet spies, murdering three million in Iraq and Afghanistan for corporate profits, etc. Not to mention the cause of the African Holocaust, the slave trade. As previously stated, all these things were done to increase or protect profits. This unwilling to do introspection is all to avoid acknowledgment of the internal contradictions that make up the system. Capitalism always has and always will lead to crisis. Constant crisis is acceptable to capitalists because it maintains their profit and their power in society. What they fear is a participatory democracy, and that would mean democratization of the economy and removing the power the capitalists hold over us, the masses, the real citizens of the world. This constant

54

Maoist Rebel crisis is what keeps us in line. But exactly what crisiss are we speaking of. This is how capitalists themselves define crisis/recession. This is taken directly from Economics for Dummies: Macroeconomists biggest task is to try to prevent or at least shorten recessions, those periods of time during which the economys output of goods and services declines. - Pg 97, paragraph 1 Now this is honest, this description of what causes a recession is actual truth. (Incidentally, its about the only truth in the book.) The book continues: ...recessions begin with what economists call shocks unexpected bad events like terrorist attacks, natural disasters, the introduction of bad government policy, or sudden spikes in the cost of important resources like oil. - Pg 97, paragraph 2 In other words, it is someone elses fault, is what is being said here. A common theme for right wingers. Another externalization of an internal conflict. Here the book is not specific on what causes demand for goods and services to fall. In fact it says almost nothing. It uses a bunch of complicated graphs and uses words like aggregate demand, increasing inventories cause output to fall and PE = A + c(1-t)Y. These are just fancy ways of showing we made too many things and no ones buying them. It is made to be difficult on purpose so as to discourage you from trying to understand it. The truth of the matter is like this: Capitalism is a system of contradiction. It always has and always will be. (This includes the Tea bagger version of capitalism.) The only person to have
55

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel ever exposed so clearly the contradictions of capitalism was Karl Marx. His work Das Kapital analysed capitalism in a way no one has been able to trump. Every capitalist or bourgeois economist (as we Marxists call them) has only ever praised the system and explained how it (theoretically should) work, and not criticize its internal contradictions. This is why capitalists are always scratching their heads and forming inquiries to investigate what caused a particular recession. And weve seen from the capitalists own words, it is someone elses fault. Here is how Marx explained why, The economys output of goods and services declines. C + V + S

This formula shows the production of all wealth in society. It is the manufacturing of commodities alone creates all wealth in society. Bankers and traders create no value whatsoever. They merely steal value from workers and capitalists. This will be explained later for simplicitys sake. C represents constant capital, meaning all materials, equipment, electricity costs and mortgage on a factory. We call this constant capital because we know their productive capacity. A machine will always create so many pieces per hour, or 6 tons of steel will always be 6 tons available for production. V represents variable capital, meaning the money spent on employees wages. This includes wages, bonuses, supervisors or anything else that would contribute to the pay workers receive. S represents surplus-value, the amount of value the capitalist extracts from his workers. In capitalism this is called profit. These three components make up the cost of production. No capitalist will deny this formula, they have their own version of it, and it contains different terminology, but it equates to the same thing. Now let us add numerical values to our cost of production equation:
56

Maoist Rebel

C5

V5

S5

For simplicitys sake we will assign a value of 5 to each of the variables in the equation. Normally this equation would be brutally one sided in favour of surplus-value when it comes to corporations. In any case, the total value of all these variables is 15. Meaning the total cost of production is 15 dollars. This is where the problem begins. Because all wealth is created through production, all workers wages and the bosses wealth comes from production. If the cost of all the commodities is 15 dollars, how are the workers supposed to purchase this value when they are only paid 5 dollars? And this is assuming all workers in all fields will spend all of their wages on commodities. Of course you would be correct in saying that the boss also contributes to consumption, however a fair amount of his surplus-value is reinvested back into production. As you can see it is not actually possible for the total value generated by production to be purchased. This leads to what Marx called overproduction. This over production causes an overstock that is not sold. If product cannot be sold, a profit cannot be realized. So of course the economys output of goods and services declines, too much product was created. This internal contradiction is acknowledged by bourgeois (capitalist) economists, they just use a bunch of fancy words and formulas to make it look different. Of course capitalist economists know about this self-defeating aspect of capitalism. They also know this leads to crisis. These economists are not stupid; they dont have some insane utopian version of capitalism like Tea baggers. One of the economists who came up with a temporary solution was John Maynard Keynes. He came up with the idea of having the government control part of the social demand. They do this through government spending, infrastructure and endless military spending. This doesnt solve the problem; it merely taxes workers wages and capitalists surplus-value. This creates no new value and
57

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel does not keep things balanced. It just held off recession for a while. Recession returned, but it was Milton Freedman who came up with neo-liberal globalization. Recession has returned recently, but for different reasons. This internal contradiction is hardly a terrorist attack, natural disaster, a bad government policy or a sudden spike in the cost of important natural resources like oil. And this is the most common cause of recession. (I will now backtrack to explain why only commodity production creates value and not bankers and retail type businesses. Banks only make a profit by lending money. Their profit is interest which is extracted from the capitalists surplus-value. It also comes from the workers wages when the loan is a purchase made on a credit card. Retail stores create no value because all they do is add to the cost of an item in order to remain in business. This money they bring in comes out of the workers wages and the capitalists surplus-value. All nonvalue producing industries operate in a similar way to these two industries.) * * *

There is a more recent example of a contradiction that exists within capitalism. It is speculative trade, and it caused the current global economic recession. To explain how speculative trade caused the current crisis, I will first have to explain what fictitious value is. When a bank or any other financial institution creates a loan, they are essentially giving out money ahead of production. (Ahead of the creation of value). A capitalist will go to a financial institution and ask for a loan. The capitalist is signing a contract that states he will use the credit he is given to create value in the future through production. Which means the value doesnt actually exist; it is fictitious because it has not yet been created. In fact, if the business fails, then the value is never created. It is a loss because the value is fictitious.

58

Maoist Rebel

This fictitious value also exists among the working class as well in the form of consumer credit. When you and I make a purchase on a credit card we are being given money ahead of the creation of value. That value to be created is our wages. This fictional credit also has disastrous effects if too many of these fictional values are not created. Now that I have explained fictitious value, I can now explain how speculative trade nearly brought economic life to an end. There is another type of credit out there mostly held by the working class, a mortgage. The type of mortgage we are interested in is the sub-prime mortgage. A sub-prime mortgage is simply a mortgage where the interest rate is lower than the standard set by the Federal Reserve. But why would a mortgage company give a mortgage under prime? Banks and financial institutions make money by collecting interest on loans. Therefore the more loans a bank makes the more profit they can realize. However, if a persons income is too low, they have a good chance of defaulting on that loan. One way to temporarily overcome this problem is to lower the interest rate. However this carries with it a danger, the Federal Reserve sets the prime rate at its lowest point that is safe. Banks ignored this warning so they could realize more profits. The problem is that too many high risk mortgages were given out and they defaulted. It created a housing bubble and it collapsed. Once again, the drive to put out high risk loans was not the work of a natural disaster or bad government policy. In fact this would not have happened if banks had followed government policy. Listening to the Federal Reserve would actually have prevented this crisis. This is what the Federal Reserve is there for. The drive for profit at a risk is an internal contradiction of capitalism. * * *

59

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel There is another form of fictitious value that is even more harmful, speculative trade. To explain this speculative trade I have to explain another form of fictitious value, stock and shares. When a business wants money to start up, they have the option of putting out stock. Theyll print up a bunch of papers and call them stock certificates. The certificates will be assigned a value and then be sold in public. When you purchase these stocks you are loaning this business money. You loan them money return for a share in future profits. Essentially as a stock holder you will be receiving a portion of future surplus-value. So what is wrong with this? Why is this a bad thing? When you buy a stock and loan that money, you are giving money ahead of the creation of value. You are giving money on the promise that value will be created in the future. The difference between stock and a mortgage is that this fictional value (because value has not been created yet) can be sold to another person for a profit. Now this is the danger, because this value is fictional and promises to create value in the future, the value of the stock can grow wildly out of control. When a lot of people want a certain stockist value in trade can massively exceed the promised future value. If people think a stock will be really profitable, theyll pay a lot of money to get it. What they are doing is paying a lot of money for a value that doesnt actually exist. These companies can and do often do fail making the stocks worthless. When this happens in large numbers the stock market can crash. This is exactly what happened in the 90s with the .com bubble. A whole ton of people started up internet companies thinking this was going to be the wave of the future. Stock traders agreed and though those stocks were going to be great future values. Because everybody wanted them, by the law of supply and demand their value in trade rose quite high. Of course as we found out, almost all the companies failed and all that money was lost. A huge bubble of promised value was created, but that promised value was never generated so the bubble popped. Sub-prime mortgages created the same thing, a huge
60

Maoist Rebel promise of value in the future (from collecting interest) that was never realized. Stocks are placing a cost on a value that doesnt exist. I dont know how much more obvious a contradiction this could be. This could be the largest contradiction in all of capitalism. No one can blame the Federal Reserve for this one; it has no say over stocks or the stock market. Nor, can you blame global warming or Osama bin Laden for this contradiction. Conclusion As we have seen, a major characteristic of the right wing and capitalists is a denial of personal responsibility. It seems as though no matter what obstacle appears or what mistake is made, or internal conflict breaks out, it is always the fault of an outside force. This is kind of mentality displays an extraordinary amount of narcissism. A mentality like this is very dangerous, just look at what happened to Nazi Germany in World War Two. The Nazi belief in their own superiority and infallibility lead to their own down fall. Throughout the history of human social change we have seen that it is always the right wing that blocks advancements in human rights. It was slave owners and large land owners, businessmen, who opposed the emancipation of African slaves. It was the right wing who opposed equal treatment in civil rights that cried society would collapse if women were granted equal rights. During these struggles it was the progressive left who aided them. Hopefully one day we can eliminate this hateful ideology from our collective consciousness. Those right wingers in the economic field have done no better. The refusal to address the internal contradictions has caused tremendous harm around the world. The American economic elite starved to death 12 million Americans during the Great Depression, a fact conveniently forgotten. Right wing economics that dominated England starved 80 million people to death in India and Bengal.

61

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel According to the World Health Organization and the UN, during the 90s, over a hundred million people died of preventable diseases. While all this happened, pharmaceutical companies refused to provide drugs at cost to the third world. A hundred million people did not have to die. When the social right wing and the economic right wing get together, unimaginable things happen. When social prejudice and economic self-interest combine, things like the African slave trade happen. The loss of 150 million lives all for sake of personal profit. Unfortunately, the real numbers of those killed by capitalism will never be known. This denial of personal responsibility and refusal to perform any kind of introspection is common to all right wingers and capitalists. The stateless capitalists, Tea baggers are not immune from this ignorance. The stateless capitalists also practise this denial; the only difference is what invading external force they blame. To the Tea bagger the Federal Reserve is to blame for all the woes of capitalism. To them capitalism is as Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations, and the industrial revolution changed nothing. It must be the Federal Reserve (a body created by capitalists) because capitalism is flawless. If the complaint be environmental destruction or inequality or human rights abuses, then denial will suffice. Thats not capitalism! they so adamantly scream. Because capitalism can do no wrong. The only thing we can do as a race of human beings is try to eliminate such hateful, exploitative, murderous ideology from our collective consciousness. Things must change, and they must change now.

62

Maoist Rebel

From Russia with Hate: An Analysis

The documentary "From Russia with Hate" is about the rise of the Neo-Nazi movement in Russia after the end of the Soviet Union. In the movie it documents the anger these Neo-Nazis have towards the influx of foreign workers into the country. They believe that these immigrants are the cause of the country's problems, both socially and economically. With the decline of living standards and opportunity, these people have blamed the immigrants. In response these individuals conduct physical attacks on immigrants. Usually several young men attacking a single person in a display of their cowardice. The Nazis themselves say that they are inspired by the teachings of Adolf Hitler. To me this is the single most vexing aspect of the entire phenomena. Seriously? Hitler? The guys who ravaged Russia during World War II and flattened it because he loved your "whiteness"? These people are a product of their environment. They are living with no opportunities, a weak economy and seemingly no idea why this is so. So in their confusion as to why things are the way they are, they lash out at the only thing different than them. In their minds, if things changed to something different, then logically it must be the thing that is different that caused it. I find this very strange coming from a people who were not educated in anti-capitalism as most of them are under 30 years old. Their ignorance is explained by the fact that these young men were mostly born after the Soviet Union ended. The arguments that these Russians make are all capitalist mode of production driven problems. For example: "These people are taking our jobs. If I can hire this immigrant for 1$, then why should I hire a Russian for $10?"

63

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel This is a problem purely caused by capitalism. Businessmen always seek the maximum rate of exploitation by driving wages down as low as they can. What is it these Russian Nazis expect? For a capitalist to choose a Russian worker and pay a great deal more for labour simply because they are the same race? Are they seriously expecting a profit driven person to take an altruistic stance that goes against his personal monetary interests? The thought of it is simply laughable. The reason these Neo-Nazis have so much power is because they have allies in the government. One such person in the Duma (or Russian parliament) is Nicolai Kory-yon-novitch, an outspoken ultra right wing politician. The idiocy behind this man is astounding. In his office he has a picture that contains his head photoshoped onto Stalin's body. He claims that Russians are slaves in their own country. When asked about the violence directed toward immigrants he merely says: "Since the government can't deal with the problem of the immigration process, people begin to showing initiative, which can result in various forms of violence." When asked if he personally advocates this kind of violence, he simply answers: "It's justified because the government is not taking action. I spoke about this here in Duma. If the government is not going to deal systemically with what's happening in Russia, then our society will be on the edge of civil war." Near the end of the video, the man doing the documentary, Christof Putzel, was taken several hours outside of Moscow to a neo-Nazi training camp. He had been invited by the leader of the Russian National Socialist movement. While he was there he witnessed the actual training that was given to young men in order to fight and bully immigrants.

64

Maoist Rebel Large obstacle courses were made out of wood and other material found in the woods where the camp was. To be honest it looked like a low budget basic infantry training ground. They even go as far as to set much of the obstacles on fire. In the typical training scene where you see a soldier crawling in the prone position under barbed wire, these men instead choose to set the wire on fire. I was instantly reminded of the old footage of men jumping through flaming hoops in what were falsely claimed to be Al-Qaeda training videos. While there Putzel was introduced to a man named "du-sock" which means hatchet in Russian. The man claims to be behind many of the videos that can be found of Neo-Nazis attacking ethnic minorities. He himself advocates the use of violence and encourages everyone to do the same. "Du-sock" admits these videos are propaganda, and admits they are intended to provoke violence. His goal is for people in other countries to see these videos and then choose not to move to Russia. As he shows the videos to Putzel, one cannot help but notice the psychotic glee in his eyes watching an immigrant getting beaten. The documentary ends with Putzel telling us that studies suggest almost half of the world's neo-Nazis live in Russia, as many as fifty to seventy thousand. And that this racially motivated violence will be a problem in Russia for many years to come. Speaking as a Canadian, the same situation with immigration began here about twenty years ago. Just so you know society didn't collapse. Oh and Shari a law never took over the country. In fact all our problems stem from economic policies that have nothing to do with immigrants, only the profit motive. Sure, the same thing happened here with businesses using immigrants as cheap labour. But please keep some things in mind, immigrants didn't send jobs overseas and immigrants didn't make employers pay less. (If they were really paying that much less, than would they still have sent jobs overseas?)

65

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel And finally, immigrants didn't underfund the healthcare system. A bunch of profit motive worshipping sociopaths did. So stop blaming immigrants for the crimes your own precious capitalist system creates.

66

Maoist Rebel

Congresswoman Shot by Right Wing Hate

As the world is aware by now a Democratic congresswoman by the name Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson Arizona. Right now she is in intensive care and is able to respond in a very limited way through what is reported to be hand movements. During this same attack at least six innocent people were killed. Pima county Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has announced that there have been six people killed in the shooting. Among the victims were chief federal judge John Roll, a congressional aide to Giffords, Giffords' director of community outreach Gabe Zimmerman and a 9-year-old girl. Dupnik said that at least 12 people had been wounded in the shooting. The shooting only came to an end when two men tackled the shooter and held him down. Giffords was struck in the head by a bullet point-blank range as she attended a public event at a Safeway supermarket in which she was meeting with her constituents. The man the police have in custody as the shooter is Jared Loughner, 22, whom the police have described as mentally unstable, and possibly acting with an accomplice. Police are currently searching for an older man who was seen speaking with the suspected shooter earlier in the day. US President Barack Obama spoke in a press conference in Washington about the shooting calling it an "unspeakable tragedy". Janet Napolitano, homeland security secretary, issued a statement on the shooting, saying: "I am deeply saddened by reports that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll and others were attacked ... There is no place in our society or discourse for such senseless and unconscionable acts of violence."

67

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Right Wing Hate Mongering Spicer said that Giffords, a Democrat, was seen by Republicans as one to beat in the recent US midterm elections and was heavily criticized by 2008 vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The former Alaskan governor depicted Giffords in a cross hair among others indicating that those people needed to be eliminated. The imagery and context that was used by Sara Plain clearly indicates that she was calling for their assassination. I would also like to remind Miss. Palin that advocating the murder of a politician is an act of terrorism under your beloved Patriot Act. And it is also called treason, a crime for which you can be executed for. It is a shame the media and more importantly, law enforcement, will not be calling for Palin to be arrested and charged with terrorism, or incitement to violence as many in the right wing media like Glenn Beck should. This congresswoman has been murdered by the same increasing terrorist attacks that have been coming out of the right wing. Most notable for the conspiracy theories and hate mongering on the network is Glenn Beck who has been responsible for right wing terrorism before. Byron Williams came to California with hopes of killing employees of the ACLU and the relatively unknown Tides Foundation. He was pulled over by California Police and had a shoot out, injuring two officers. Eric Bohert at The Huffington Post believes that Glen Beck may have had something to do with it. If not for Beck, its doubtful that Williams would have ever heard of The Tides Foundation, let alone hate them enough to try and kill them. Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by thugs and bullies and involved in the nasty of the

68

Maoist Rebel nastiest, like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a mass organization to seize power. Beck has mentioned the Tides Foundation 30 times on his Fox News Show, accusing them of being anti-capitalist, far left radicals and indoctrinating children. There are no records of any other talk show mentioning the Tides Foundation. There are others... Richard Poplawski got in argument with his mother and she called the cops. When the cops arrived Poplawski was waiting for them with a bulletproof vest and shot five police officers with an AK-47, wounding two and killing three, including an African American. Poplawskis shooting of police officers seemingly had no motive until police looked into his background. Poplawski was a white supremacist who frequently posted on the Neo-Nazi, extremely Pro-Ron Paul site Stormfront and Alex Jones New World Order conspiracy theory site, Infowars. Poplawski would post videos of Glenn Beck with Ron Paul talking about FEMA Concentration Camps onto Stormfront. In the video, Paul would speculate that while there was no evidence of FEMA concentration camps, he still believed they might come in the future. And there were more... John Patrick Bedell was a Ron Paul style libertarian, who was a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an institute credited as being the driving force for Ron Pauls political and economic philosophies, which was founded and run by Ron Pauls former chief of staff and long time friend and companion, Lew Rockwell. Bedell would post on the Ludwig von Mises site about how government was criminal. Rockwell refers to the Pentagon as the Pentagram (evil satanic symbol) and subscribes to the John Birch society New World Order conspiracy theory. Bedell himself was a conspiracy theorist, who believed that 9/11 was set up by the government. We can see how the combination of conspiracy theories and anti-government

69

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel sentiment led to Bedell taking out his anger on what his hero, Lew Rockwell called the pentagram. And finally... Charles Dyer is a man who never committed a violent act against the government but proudly proclaimed himself a domestic terrorist. Dyer was instead arrested on a domestic charge for allegedly raping a 7-year-old girl. While Dyer may or may not be guilty of that charge, he was definitely guilty of possessing a grenade launcher stolen from an army base. Police also found residue that led them to believe that he had been storing explosives. Dyer was a member of the Oathkeepers, are a paramilitary organization comprised of former and current military and law enforcement members. The SPLC has said the Oathkeepers are concerned about a coming dictatorship, concentration camps and a general New World Order. The Oathkeepers are headed by Stewart Rhodes, a former Ron Paul staffer. They have received support from Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and conspiracy theorist radio host, Alex Jones. The incidences of right wing terrorism are increasing all the time. This is but a small sample of the violent hateful nature of the right wing and what it has in store for the world. These are people who claim that selfishness and greed are the only way society and economics will function. With these acts have have been given but a small glimpse of the kind of world they want to live in. Frankly, I am one who certainly wishes never to live in such a world. It is quite clear that the media is trying to cover up the terrorist nature of the right wing. If these attacks had been committed by a Muslim, or a black man, or even a leftist, they would not doubt be referred to as acts of terrorism. However, since they were committed by a white right wing man, they are referred to a so-called "lone wolf" incidents. The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding. Politicians like Ron Paul and media types like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck are as guilty of drumming up paranoia and anger at the American government as Islamic clerics who refer to
70

Maoist Rebel America as the great Satan only to see their followers turn to terrorism. Fox News, CPAC, and the Tea Party movement must all be held accountable for the conspiracy theories and anti-government hatred and paranoia that leads people directly into violence. Sheriff Dupnik pointed to the caustic political rhetoric that has consumed the country as he denounced the shooting. "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," the sheriff said. Law enforcement officials said members of Congress reported 42 cases of threats or violence in the first three months of 2010, nearly three times the 15 cases reported during the same period a year earlier. Nearly all dealt with the health care bill, and Giffords was among the targets. The Socialist Analysis By acknowledging the right wing links to the shooter I am in now way denying any possibility of mental illness on the part of Loughner. There is no doubt that someone acting alone in such a manner would commit these horrible violent acts without at least a modicum psychosis. Children are not murdered by a single stranger with a political purpose. Obviously Loughner should be examined by a psychologist before he stands trial. There is a lesson to be learned here about the availability of mental health services in the United States. One could very well argue that the much lower rates of killing sprees in other industrialized nations could be affected by the availability of professional mental health help. Had some sort of program or service been available to Loughner, this whole tragedy might not have happened. In the very least some incidences would be avoided and those affected could lead better lives. Unfortunately health care in the United States is not intended to serve the needs of human life. It is intended to serve the profit
71

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel making of a few elite individuals. The lack of health care to those who need it is a proven sign that the market does not work in providing for human need. This problem and many others like it can only be solved, or at least lessened by establishment of a socialist health care system.

72

Maoist Rebel

On the Egyptian Revolution

The situation in Egypt seems to escalate every single day. As military vehicles patrol through the street, and the people of Egypt push back to defend their rights, there's much to think about. The working class is clearly striking against the ruling elite with unprecedented force. Hardly has it ever been so obvious that a movement is class-based. The government has used all means of repression available to them. The internet has been shut down to the degree that even President Hosani Mubarak's office cannot get online. A curfew has been enforced on the city, although this tactic has hardly been effective. The president has even gotten together counterprotesters to occupy bridges and throw Molotovs at the people's. Thus far all of these tactics have failed. The people of Egypt have simply had enough, they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. The military can't suppress this expression of freedom; and there is no way that puppet of US interests, Mubarak, can survive this expression of freedom. In the midst of spreading revolution throughout the Arab world we must keep in mind the forces of reaction are always working against the people. The propagandists in the US and elsewhere are already twisting the truth for the benefit of the elite. US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have already called for non-violence as a means of protecting their interest in the country. They've even gone so far as to deny Mubarak is a dictator. On the other side of the spectrum is fear mongering insanity of Glenn Beck and his propaganda broadcasters at Fox News. According to the nut job himself, apparently this spontaneous expression of mass freedom is the work of Islamic fundamentalists. The reason for the mass uprisings is the work of the international Islamic conspiracy who is out to impose Shari'a Law on the Western world. Hardly anything is more predictable.

73

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel This propaganda from the right and the phoney left of the Democrats is all in defence of the ruling elite and their interests. A typical line is the pointing to collapsed stocks in US oil companies with fear mongering over the government possibly seizing land. According to them the spectre of communism haunts the Arab world! However one must never forget the Suez Canal, it has almost as much importance as the South China Sea when it comes to trade. But possibly most important of all is the political stability of US interests. Egypt has long been a reliable client state in the region from which the US can extend influence in the region. They are also a key ally to keep under control when it comes to the situation between Israel and Palestine. The occupation of Israel will lose all support from neighbouring states if this continues. The US may lose all power in the region. The greatness of this revolution is its genuine proletarian roots. This revolution is not brought about by a US owned media outlet and backed by American tax payer dollars dollars like the phony "Green Revolution" that took hold of Iran. The probusiness interest in Iran also gave all their support and funding to the substance-less movement. The "paper tiger" of so-called mass movements. US imperialism does not have its hands in this revolution. This spontaneous outburst of class warfare has business interests worried. Even the Egyptian stock market has been offline because of the internet shut down. The language of the Obama administration is very telling. Originally they called for the protesters to stop, painting them as trouble makers. They backed Mubarak saying he wasn't a dictator, but however called for social changes in the country. Now they are speechless at the events unfolding preferring to call for peace instead of change. Their faith in Mubarak is shattered as a puppet, for he has failed to maintain control for their interests. I have faith that this revolution has a definite class character to it. Even the New York Times has noticed how the gap between the rich and the poor have has increased tremendously. It also

74

Maoist Rebel noticed how people have become angry at and protested the privatization of state enterprises, many of them vital to the functioning of society. An important thing to remember is that this will get worse before it gets better. Five people have already been killed with almost a thousand injured, and it is also certain to get worse. As much as people may say how horrible this violence is, we mush remember as Mao said, "Revolution is not a dinner party." By necessity these situations are violent. If violence is the only means by which freedom can be achieved, than the blood is on the hands of the tyrants. Freedom is like life, it cannot be controlled. All we can do is sit back and watch events unfold. What we can also do is let the people of Egypt know that they have our moral support and that we wish them the freedom they deserve as human beings. The Egyptian Revolution should serve as a beacon of hope to all those in the world who have had enough of this oppression! Revolution can and should happen.

75

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

The Mises Cubanism of the Federal Reserve

All to often the supporters of stateless capitalism, the Ron Paul so-called revolutionaries, always claim with such certainty that a central bank is socialism. "That's not capitalism" they all yell triumphantly as they declare victory over reality. Their position is of course is that capitalism doesn't have a central bank and the concept of such is so anti-capitalist it causes one pause to chuckle, smile and just a quickly shake their head and walk away. Of course we must always keep in mind that anything that does not jive with their tremendously abstract conception of capitalism, by definition, simply cannot be capitalism. Everything works out in real life just as it does on paper does it not? One would think that they would realize this. After all it is they who say communism supposedly can't work because its good on paper but not in practise. So I;'m sure on some level they must be familiar with the concept. Perhaps it is my error then to assume that they would hold themselves up to the same standard. Their criticisms of the Federal Reserve, the central bank, are simple to the point and easily absorbed by someone who doesn't understand economics at all. It goes as follows, its all governments fault. All problems can be found in the government, no matter the source of a problem or any other contributing factors. It is quite juvenile to merely stamp one's feet on the ground and claim everything is the governments fault. As I recall this was the same criticism I was given of Anarchists by my teacher in high school who taught introduction to business. The premiss is as follows, the central bank prints the money and gives it out to the banks. The banks then take that money and increase the supply of money through loans. This causes inflation because its impossible to control the amount of money because each bank just makes their own. The banks have to expand the money supply through the creation of loans,

76

Maoist Rebel because if they didn't, they wouldn't make any money. So by the nature of capitalism itself, the banks are forced to do this. For some reason which I have not been able to fathom, the followers of the Mises Institute seem to think that this is all the evil governments fault. Clearly the Federal Reserve has not coerced the privately owned banks to expanding the money supply this way. All they do is hand the money out for free. It is in the mind of the Mises follower that it is the central bank's fault that the money supply is expanded through loans, in what is called the fractional reserve baking system. The Mises followers, like many people from the whole spectrum of economic thought, don't like the fractional reserve banking system. However, the Mises followers are determined to blame the Federal Reserve for the actions of the private banks. The Federal Reserve doesn't expand the money supply, the banks do that. No one would argue against that point. So why are they so adamant about hating the central bank? Their argument simply makes no sense, fractional reserve is not fault of the central bank. There are countries that have a central bank where this does not happen. Cuba for example has the Central Bank of Cuba. While the Cubans have their central bank, they have no fractional reserve banking system. The banks in Cuba don't inflate the supply of currency by making interest bearing loans. How is this possible? The Mises followers are so adamant that it is the evil central bank that causes inflation. What's the difference? Both economies have central banks so surely they would both be afflicted by the fractional reserve banking system. The difference is in economic ideology. You see the Cubans are socialists, and contrary to capitalist propaganda, they rather like it that way. One has to look no further than a few WikiLeaks releases too see this is so. The Cubans don't believe that money exists to justify a childish belief that they are better than other people. They believe that money exists in two of the five forms that Marx described: money as a measure of value and money as a means of exchange.

77

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel The banks in Cuba don't expand the money supply through interest bearing loans. They only give money out when it is ordered. A state enterprise will put forth its budget at the beginning of fiscal year detailing exactly what it plans to do with all the funds it is requesting for operations. The state economic planning board then reviews the plan and judges if it is sound. If it is found to be so, the funds are released to the state enterprise. Instead of their being interest charged, all profits from the enterprise are deposited into the Central Bank. You see, it is privately held banks that inflate the money supply beyond whatever limit exists. When placed in a socialist economy where interest is not part of a loan, this expansion of the money supply does not take place. The whole Mises position on the central bank is quite ironic really. They claim that a central bank is socialist and that is why the money supply is expanded through the fractional reserve banking system. However when a central bank is placed in operation in an actual socialist economy, it does the opposite, it doesn't expand the money supply. In a socialist country the central bank does what they claim will happen in a capitalist country, and it does in a capitalist country what the claim will happen in a socialist country. It is high time they reanalyze their position on the central bank.

78

Maoist Rebel

Guns Don't Kill People, Private Property Kills People

We're all familiar with the phrase, "guns kill people". Nothing could be further from the truth, I don't believe that it is the existence of guns that cause gun related violence and deaths. This is a liberal fallacy predicated on fear much in the same way that some defences of the 2nd Amendment use fear. Having guns does not mean that people will go around using guns to kill people. Many countries around the world have a plentiful supply of guns yet they do not have a serious rate of gun related homicides. This is most particularly true in Western Europe and Japan. So what is the difference between the Europe/Japan and the rest of the West? What social or legal aspects are different between the United States and the rest of the First World? This has been debated for a very long time from both sides of the argument. The conservative NRA stance from Charlton Hesston to the "Bowling for Columbine" liberal stance from people like Michael Moore. As a Marxist, we Marxists don't live in this limited paradigm of the liberal/conservative scale. What is our position as Marxists? We don't live in the controlled realm of debate these two sides face. We have an entirely different social theory. Therefore aspects of the society we live in can be viewed differently. How do we as Marxists view the problem of gun violence? First we should ask the fundamental question? What is our social philosophy, what is our social goal? Well, it is the abolition of private property. What we need to do is figure out how this perception of gun control relates to our social theory. If we seek to understand our unique position on gun control then we must see it from our social theory. We begin by investigating the causes of gun violence. What is the reason in each individual case? Well, the majority of gun related crimes here where I live is gang related. Of course the term "gang related" is a misleading term. It has certain

79

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel connotations to it, mainly racial ones. "Gang related" in the media and government is a term used to refer to young black males. But what exactly does "gang violence" really mean? This is viewed differently depending on the perspective it is looked at. The right wing sees it in a social Darwinist racist aspect, while liberals see it as a result of systemic poverty. In actuality, the liberals have a partially correct view. Sure lack of economic opportunities will certainly lead to desperation; it does not necessarily lead to internal violence. Internal victimization is not the manifestation of people who are simply desperate. Often in the Third World like Honduras or the Philippines this desperation manifests itself in the form of peasant communes, or labour movements or political action as well as violence. The reality is (despite how one may feel about it) is that gang violence is organized crime. It is called organized crime when white people do it, but its called "gang violence" when black people do it. Essentially they are both the same thing, they just have different social stigmas placed against them. Gangs are destroying America and need to be stopped, often by harassing and performing fascist actions on black people. Organized crime on the other hand has a very classy mystique around it, it has a much more refined and sophisticated air to it. Gang violence is the poor man's organized crime, but "organized crime" Mafia style is for the white elite. Remember how the Mafia was able to infiltrate government and corporate posts while gangs remained on poverty street level. Despite the ruling class established promotions of difference, what does "gangs" and organized crime have in common? Both very much are capitalism. They are just considered "informal economies", but they are subjected to all the same forces "formal economies" are. It raises prices for buyers when supplies run short. Its predicated on the profit motive. Competition runs very deeply in the whole sphere of organized crime. They even have organizations that exist in multiple nations shipping goods the same way as any transnational

80

Maoist Rebel corporation. The only difference is that one capitalism is sanctioned by the government and the other is not. Both capitalisms require one important thing... private property. With that private property go all the resulting antagonisms. A gang is no different than a corporation. A gang, like a corporation, have an illegitimate claim to property. A gang "owns" a street corner where only they can push drugs, or merchandise if you will. A gang will defend its territory, its property just as a corporation would own. The only difference is instead of having thugs on the street, a corporation has the publicly funded police and privately funded security personnel. Even the military used for invading uncooperative nations in trade. The majority of gun deaths and gun related violence is gang related, it is the gang's assumption that it owns the streets in order to exploit it for profit. It is a sense of entitlement to use public property in an effort to generate revenue. No different than how a corporation feels entitled to use the labour of workers to generate revenue. That labour is also public property. The productive power of the public belongs to the public. Once the abolishment of private property and the abolishment of currency have taken place, we will have almost no gun violence.

81

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Native Americans Should Reject Capitalism

There is no one worse off in North America than Native Americans/First Nations people. The history of oppression and assimilation are well documented, and at least in Canada the government has apologized for it. Efforts have been made to undo the damage done. However these efforts were largely ineffective given the continuing unemployment, poor living conditions and lack of basic health care in the case of the US. Due to the failure of respective governments to take care of the economic problems endemic to aboriginal societies, most have turned to Casino gambling. (Of course we're supposed to say "gaming" because "gambling" has a negative connotation to it.) However these Casinos will not end these problems. Casinos only perpetuate capitalism and continue all the negative effects it has had on Native Americans from the beginning. The short history of tribes using casino money to improve their lives is also well documented. The supposed benefit is the ability to use profits to increase living standards and education. So the collection of money from casinos is a good thing right? In 1993, the tiny and impoverished Tigua tribe opened up the Speaking Rock Casino on the east side of El Paso, Texas. Interestingly, the rest of El Paso was built on land that had been taken from the Tigua, which is one reason why they became so tiny and impoverished. Now everything was going well. That is, until Texas Governor George W. Bush entered the picture. One of the pieces of his platform for re-election in 1998 was opposition to casino gambling generally, and the Speaking Rock Casino specifically. When Bush won, he sent Attorney John Cornyn, who later became a U.S. senator, to go after the Tigua's casino. Now when Cornyn filed suit in 1999, he had more than Bush on his side. He also had the benefit of a state wide PR,

82

Maoist Rebel lobbying, and grassroots campaign organized by Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition. Reed wasn't fighting the Tigua merely of the goodness of his heart. He was given 4.2 million dollars. The money came from the Louisiana Coushatta, who operated a tribal casino along the Texas boarder and wanted to shut down competition in neighbouring states. The end result of this is one tribe trying to destroy the profits of another tribe. In other words one capitalist enterprise competing with another. So in their competition, they destroy each others living standards. This is what capitalism does to every group of people in the world. No capitalist country has escaped this. This idea of destroying each others living stands to see who can get the most is incompatible with the most basic teachings and spiritual beliefs of Native Americans. The entire concept of capitalism is directly opposed to everything The Creator wanted for humankind. It is directly opposed to every good thing Native Americans represent. Native Americans, First Nations, aboriginal peoples are one of the few people in this world who get it. The heart and soul of what made Native American people great is being destroyed by capitalism. Marx himself acknowledged that the original way of life, (which he referred to as tribal communism) was the right way. All communism is now, is that same system made modern with our present-day material life and productive forces. Go with socialism, you already know it.

83

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

How Michael Jordan Didn't Disprove Marx

I was just surfing around the internet the other day and came across this article from a UK online right-wing rag "New Statesmen". I've left a link in the description. Apparently its writer Robert Winder thinks that Michael Jordan disproves Marx's Labour Theory of Value. I know, I know, it sounds pretty stupid. Although he does lay down a pretty good argument... If you have no idea what the Labour Theory of Value is. This is exactly how he puts it: "...Michael Jordan was paid more money for endorsing Nike shoes than the company's 30,000-strong workforce of cobblers in far-off Indonesia. It seemed, on the face of it, exotically indecent - a really dismal unfairness.... But who was being unfair to whom, exactly?... the value of the shoes clearly did not reside in the industrious care that went into their manufacture. No one wore Nike trainers because they admired the artistry of those quick-fingered Indonesian stitchers. If anything, Jordan's fee was an understatement of his value to the company.... thanks to him that those busy Indonesians were employed at all." Basically he's saying that because Michael Jordan is famous and tells people to buy Nike shoes, he's added value to them. How ridiculous is that? Michael Jordan added nothing to the value of the shoes. The materials contained in the shoes, the labour that goes into the shoes and the usefulness of the shoes are what give it value. Michael Jordan did nothing to add any value whatsoever. If anything, he merely made the shoes more expensive by adding his "indecent" (to use Robert Winder's own words) pay check to it. But this Robert Winder thinks the Indonesian sweatshop workers added no value at all, what an asshole. Robert Winder says that if Michael Jordan hadn't endorsed the shoes, the Indonesian worker's would not be working at all.

84

Maoist Rebel Apparently this so-called writer thinks that without Michael Jordan people wouldn't be buying shoes. Hell, he thinks people wouldn't even be buying Nike shoes. Newsflash Robert Winder, people still need shoes even if Michael Jordan doesn't whore himself to Nike. And Nike would still be selling shoes if Michael Jordan had never existed, because Michael Jordan had nothing to do with the creation of Nike. Take it from me, I don't like Michael Jordan and I still buy shoes. This is the single worst attempt at disproving Marx I have ever seen. This is absolute fail. Robert Winder, quit your day job and go do something else. If this is the best you can do at disproving Marx... You fail at being a writer.

85

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Socialist Equality Party Has Serious Flaws

Written by RedNickD and the Maoist Rebel One of the larger socialist parties out there is the Socialist Equality Party. But before you go thinking this is a great sounding name, it's just another Trotskyist organization. However there are some serious flaws with this organization that must be taken to task. Writing about the anti-war rally on March 20th, 2010 in Washington, DC the Socialist Equality Party said: "As for the speakers, one had the strange feeling that you could have heard the exact same speeches at the rallies held two years ago when George W. Bush was still president. One had to wonder if Obamas name was censored from their remarks. However, it is more likely that the silence on Obama was self-imposed..." (Protest group covers for Obama and the Democrats, March 24, 2010) These speakers and groups included Cindy Sheehan, representatives of Black is Back, InfoWars, and many others. People from other groups, including those that spoke, had their marching contingents chant anti-Obama messages such as "Hey Obama, we say no, the occupation has got to go!" It seems that the WSWS is just lying in order to make itself look like the only legitimate anti-war group around. Furthermore, speaking out against the US government and its corporate masters as a whole is a lot better than simply speaking out against Obama (who is only a temporary representative of the elites). The SEP Statement of Principles says, as Trotskyists often do, said this: The Fourth International, with which the SEP is aligned, emerged out of the implacable struggle waged by Marxist
86

Maoist Rebel internationalists, led by Leon Trotsky, against... the betrayal of the program of world socialist revolution by the dictatorial regime headed by Stalin and his henchmen. We all know that Stalin didn't do as much as he should to bring forth the international revolution, but he didn't outright betray internationalism. It was Stalin who eventually sent economic aid to the Chinese after their revolution. It was Stalin who aided the revolution in North Korea (which one could say has taken a turn for the worst). It was Stalin who, during the WWII era, backed guerrillas in Latin America (according to author Jon Lee Anderson). As a matter of fact, it was Stalin who paved the way for the establishment of socialism in Eastern Europe after WWII. Besides all Trotsky even managed to do was mess around with other people's wives. The SEP Statement of Principles also stands against identity politics, which it claims to be counter-revolutionary. In many ways identity politics can be reactionary, but it seems they have forgotten for oppressed nations the struggle for national liberation becomes inseparably bound up with the class struggle. Here are some quotes to back this up. emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism. -V. I. Lenin, "The Discussion on SelfDetermination Summed Up" Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland [the oppressed nation] -Karl Marx, "Ireland and the Irish Question" Often the Socialist Equality Party is more interested in bashing Stalin than criticizing capitalism. Every time present day China is mentioned, they refer to it as "Stalinist". Everything that
87

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel China is doing that is violating human rights, they claim is "Stalinism". This claim is an outright lie. China ceased to be a communist nation around 1987 with a return to a market based economy. The SEP is taking the crimes of capitalism and placing them on Stalin. The Socialist Equality Party would rather make another Marxist look bad than actually point out the crimes of the system they claim to be against. This makes them completely reactionary and damaging to the Marxist tradition. While at one of the ISSE events, RedNickD learned that the SEP is against "protest politics" and doesn't take part in activism because of this. No really, this is actually what the ISSE members said. RedNickD searched the WSWS and SEP web pages, but hasn't yet found one clear definition of "protest politics." It remains unclear to me whether these people see protesting as a useful tool to gain support and grow in number, or if they actually plan on replacing protests with ISSE study groups. Many claims have been made against SEP leader David North. Among them are claims that Mr. North is a CEO of a publishing company affiliated with the WSWS. This would not only explain North's anti-union politics, but it would also explain why a supposedly "socialist" website like WSWS has a copyright seal and claim at the bottom of its page. As a matter of fact, even dedicated Trotskyists who dislike North hold to the claim that North is a member of the bourgeoisie. Finally, one thing that is truly disturbing about the politics of the SEP: is their support of Roman Polanski. The SEP claims that the move to have Polanski extradited to the US in order to face trial for raping a 13 year old girl is imperialism. This is disgusting on their part, the support for a child rapist made into an international political issue. Like I said, the Socialist Equality Party has some serious flaws.

88

Maoist Rebel

What TIME THINKS Women Want Now

This month Time magazine has released an article they are calling "What Women Want Now: The State of the American Woman". The article states that the ancient question has a new twist: in the fall of the Great Recession, what unites men and women matters more than what divides them, as old gender battles fade away. By the end of 2009 economists believe, women could make up more than half the workforce for the first time in history. They attribute this largely to the downturn in the economy. Economists are saying that the loss of manufacturing jobs to the Third World has hit men the hardest because those jobs are the ones typically more often held by men. However as manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas, nursing, retail and customer service jobs are on the rise. The supposed bonus being that these are typically women's jobs. Because of this more and more women are become the primary bread winner in households, almost 40%. Because of this women are supposed to have more buying power and their choices have never been harder. I hope the author of this article Nancy Gibbs is trying to say that markets have created gender equality. However, knowing ruling class media outlets I'm pretty sure she is. So exactly what has Nancy Gibbs and Time Magazine said here? That because one section of the working class has had a dramatic loss of jobs that it means "equality" has been created for the other? When men earn less that does not mean women are earning more nor having more power. Women are still being paid the same as these jobs typically held by men are leaving the country. This is not a move toward equality, its move toward mass unemployment and poverty. Poll after poll finds women even more anxious than men about their family's financial security. While most workers have seen their wages stall or drop, women's earnings fell 2% in 2008, twice as much as men's. Women are 32% more likely than men

89

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel to have subprime mortgages, leaving them more vulnerable in the housing crisis. Equality? Don't make me laugh; according to the Bureau of Labour Statistic women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to making 58 cents on the dollar back in 1972. Nancy Gibbs tells us in her article that the election had four female power players, Hillary Clinton, Sara Palin, Tina Fey and Katie Couric. She says the change is that they were power players and not supporting characters. While much good can be said for Tina Fey and Katie Couric, not much good can be said for Hillary Clinton, or nothing good can be said about Sara Palin. Sure, Hillary was a power woman who did lead. As much as a conniving, Republican in Democrats clothing she was, at least she was respectable as a woman leader. Sara Palin on the other hand could potentially send women's rights back quite a ways. Sara Palin's stance on women's issues could easily have come from an edition of PlayBoy magazine thirty years ago. I'm not a woman, and even I'm offended by what Sara Palin has done to women. Take as a whole I think this magazine article may be trying to point out that women have come a long way and are close to men in society. However I'm going to have to use my common sense and disagree. I hope God that women don't read this article and think it is a true reflection of the reality we live today. By the way Time Magazine, I did notice that the charts and graphics were done in pink instead of the usual red. I see what you did there.

90

Maoist Rebel

Why Canada Doesn't Need the Monarchy

On November 23rd, Maclean's Magazine published an article by Andrew Coyne detailing why Canada still needs the British monarchy. If you remember some of my past videos, you'll remember my distaste for this particular magazine. Which I'm sure causes them unending self-consciousness. They've continued this trend as I hoped they would. Andrew Coyne has decided to set out and set forth a series of arguments that make the case for stating that we as Canadians still need the English monarchy. Some of his points or arguments (or however one wishes to see them) are downright condescending and childish. A prime example is his statement that only mid-level CBC journalists speak ill of the monarchy and advocate it's abolishment from Canada. If this so be the case then I shall think more of mid-level CBC journalists. If Mr. Coyne truly believes that only little journalists want rid of the monarchy, then maybe he should climb down from his pedestal and talk to Canadians. Maybe he should even check out the Republic of Canada movement. Later he states (I hope in jest): "...isn't democracy getting a little long in the tooth as well? How long has it been, 2,000 years?" I love to correct you Mr. Coyne. The Greeks did not create democracy; they created a system of elitists chose other elitists to people how to live their lives while they owned slaves. It was the French who gave us democracy, perhaps you should tone down your elitism. "...the position of the queen is already embedded in the Constitution, irrevocably-or the next thing to it, given the requirement of provincial unanimity."

91

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel I hate to break it you, but we as a Canadian society can do without the Monarchy attached to our "rights and freedoms" so much as they exist. It would be quite easy to write a Constitution without the Crown. "The Queen's powers being constitutional and circumscribed, not arbitrary and absolute, serves further as a reminder of the hard-fought victory of parliamentary democracy, a struggle won not, in the main, by violent revolution but by gradual reform." Are you a fascist or merely ignorant as mid-level CBC journalists? The Queen has an extraordinary in this country. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that the GovernorGeneral is the head of the Canadian state. Or perhaps you are unaware that the Governor-General is the Queens representative here. You know the Queen still has the power abolish the government, call elections, choose the Prime Minister and declare martial law, right? These powers are written in Canadian law and are hardly constitutional and circumscribed. I am beginning to wonder if perhaps you are not so much sitting upon a pedestal as simply have your head up your ass. The Queen has a dictator's power over our nation, a power made legitimate by every politician, police officer and military serviceman who swears allegiance to her in their oath of office or service. Oh and one more thing, we were not granted freedom by the Crown. We wanted it, and The Crown accepted that they could not hold on to us because the British Empire had already fallen. At the end of this seemingly pro-fascist article he says: "To do away with the crown to replace it with a republic, would require nothing less than a revolution." For once Mr. Coyne I agree with you.

92

Maoist Rebel

Reservation Soldiers: Propaganda for Aboriginal Youth

Maoist Rebel News fans I was watching television on Remembrance Day. I was just flipping through channels when I got to APTN. For those of you who don't know, that's Canada's Aboriginal People's Television Network. The title of the show caught my eye. The show was called Reservation Soldiers. So being Remembrance Day I decided to give it a view. I watched it for about three seconds before I started to get sick to my stomach. The show was all about this program the Canadian military has for encouraging First Nation's youth into military service called "Strong Eagle". By giving it an aboriginal sounding name I assume its supposed to make aboriginal youth feel at home. The trying to convince aboriginal youth by appearing like them went on. The program has this aboriginal recruiter talking to First Nation's you trying to convince them that joining the military is a good thing. This guy really came off as an apple. (For those of you who don't know, an apple means red on the outside and white on the inside). It was very obvious from listening to him that he was there trying to build a rapport with the youth by telling them that it was okay because he's red too. One point he made went as follows: "I know what you're thinking. First white people came and forced us on to reservations, then they forced us into residential schools. Now they want to take us away from our land and our culture some more. That's not true." That very much is true. He is trying to say that that by joining the military you won't lose your culture or your identity as a First Nations person. That is complete bullshit. The military will give you an identity and a culture. Being in the military changes everything, the military has its own culture. That much
93

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel is so blatantly obvious. Think residential schools were bad at taking away who you are? The military will do it better than a residential school ever could. The main selling point made by this whore of a recruiter is that a military career is the only way to escape the poverty of reservation life. He talks about how there are no opportunities on the reservation, then turns around talks about what the military "can do for them". It comes as no surprise that the recruiter blatantly ignores the fact that the government (the one asking them to join the military), is the same one creating the poverty conditions. Nothing like fighting to protect the system that is repressing you. It comes as no surprise that the recruiter never talks about morality of the war they are going to get sent into. It comes as no surprise that the recruiter never talks about the social or personal implications of subjugating yourself to government authority. In the end, Reservation Soldiers was nothing more than a propaganda film. It was nothing more than a blatant attempt to turn the poverty created by the government and capitalism into a breeding ground for soldiers to kill other people in poverty around the world. For the benefit of capitalism. This speaks volumes about the kind of people who make this film. The people behind the choice of programming at APTN, should be disgusted with themselves. And they should recognize what a traitor to their own people they are by broadcasting this filth.

94

Maoist Rebel

Deadliest Warrior Propaganda

The television program Deadliest Warrior is a show broadcast on SpikeTV. The show is about the greatest warriors of history and pitting them against each other in order to see who will reign supreme. The format of the show is simple; take the weapons and tactics of two legendary warriors and program them into a computer. The computer then runs one thousand battle simulations. The warrior who defeats his opponent the most times in declared the winner. The entertainment value in the show (which there is a lot of) is in the collection of combat data. Each warrior has two experts in their combat abilities and weapons. They take turns demonstrating them on pieces of wood and life-like ballistics dummies that include major organs. Each team takes turns demonstrating long range weapons, mid-range weapons and close combat weapons. Plus each team is permitted to include on speciality weapon. The shear entertainment value of the show is punctuated by the conclusion of the simulations; which is shown as an action movie scene where the warriors face off. Another interesting aspect of the show is the sometimes unexpected results of the contest. I myself was surprised to see an Apache warrior defeat a Gladiator. As well as an 18th century Pirate defeat a 15th century French knight. There was one scene in the show that somewhat angered me and caused me to shake my head. The part in the Pirate versus French knight episode where the program blatantly whitewashed Christian history. "There was good and there was evil; God was good, anybody else who didn't believe in God was evil. They knew God was on their side. And they carried that with them into battle."

95

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Kind of obvious isn't it? Deliberately re-writing history to make it look as though atheists were the enemy. What knights really saw as evil was anyone who was not Christian. Atheism was not the enemy at the time; Atheism was virtually nonexistent at that point. The only thing I wonder is if he said that because the man speaking truly believed it; or if they made him say that so as not to get angry letters from Christians. Or perhaps... Was Spike TV pandering to them? Now in the end it really doesn't matter why SpikeTV broadcast that the way they did. My concern is with the re-writing of history. Often history is whitewashed so as not to offend its modern day followers. I just don't appreciate being lied to about history. It's propaganda.

96

Maoist Rebel

Why Newspapers Go Out of Business

Comrades, the other day a friend asked me why newspapers were folding (lol). Off the top of my head I couldn't answer him, so I decided to research it. The publishers say it's because people are choosing instead to get their news online or from other free services... like the Maoist Rebel News! Which is rated number one in customer satisfaction and truth. So is the internet to blame for poor paper sales? No, that's just a bunch of pro-market garbage. In Europe, Japan and places like that, newspapers get most of their income from their subscribers. Second to that source of income are their advertisers. However in Canada and the US its the other way around. The advertisers are the main source of revenue. Personally, to Marxists this is an automatic red flag. A newspaper is already admitting that what an advertiser wants is more important than what a subscriber wants. Of course being Marxists we already know this how pretty much everything works. Newspapers are always searching for a bottom line just like any other business. And in order to keep up a larger and larger profit margin, they have to cut back on labour power. A newspaper can no more control the price of ink and paper than a manufacturer control the cost of steel and tools. This means the paper has to raise the rate of exploitation (making a single writer do more work) or cut a section all together. The less coverage you have the less content you have. The less there is to actually read, the less people are going to read it. The less people read it, the lower your advertising revenue is going to be. With no revenue, you go bankrupt. By telling your subscribers that advertising revenue is more important than the content in their paper or their value as a customer, you are telling them they are meaningless. You are basically telling them that you don't care what they want to hear. You only care about what your sponsors what to hear.

97

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Reply to Idiot Blogger about Dragon Ball Z and Communism

http://thedaoofdragonball.com/blog/dragon-world/5communist-socialist-elements-dragon-ball/ MaoistRebelNews fans, as you know I am a fan of the Dragon Ball Z series and I am also a communist. Now it is rare that these two things would intertwine at any point in life. But it has, and I am going to take issue with it. I am going to have to correct another right wing persecution-complex suffering psycho who thinks everything in the world is a communist conspiracy because they are unable to do 10 minutes of rational thinking or investigation. This video is about correcting a blogger who wrote an article claiming that the Dragon Ball series has 5 Communist/Socialist elements to it. And in true right wing fashion they claim Hitler is a socialist and not a right winger like he actually is. So I am going to tear this ignorant right wing blogger to pieces with the knowledge and skill only a Marxist has. Now let's being... 1. Red Ribbon Army = The Red Army "We find the Red Army in Dragon Ball in the form of the Red Ribbon Army, a spoof like representation of a unified military threat. Most of the Red Ribbon Army and all of its leaders are Foreigners, i.e. Westerners (or talking bipedal animals). They represent the stereotypical socialist or communist army trouncing across the country and taking whatever they want with their military might." Alright convincing argument, they both contain the word "red" so therefore they must be the same thing. The blog literally
98

Maoist Rebel gives absolutely no other indication or evidence why the Red Ribbon army equals the Red Armies of both the Soviet Union and China, none whatsoever. This is a very typical argument given by the right wing. They use it to somehow "prove" that the Khmer Rouge was communist, when they were nothing of the sort. Apparently to this blogger anything containing the word "red" must be something communist. I wonder how he feels about the US Army's communist infantry division "The Big Red One". Which coincidentally was a nickname I had at one time. Now my automatic reaction to this baseless accusation was this: Does a red ribbon have any significant meaning in Japanese culture? Well, it does actually; it has at least two different meanings. In Japan, a red ribbon can be used to indicate that these two people belong together. This is based on a superstition that soul-mates are connected to each other by an invisible red ribbon. It has a second meaning, a military meaning which is probably more likely given the whole military application of the term. A red ribbon is a medal given to Japanese soldiers who risked their lives to save the lives of other soldiers. In other words, it is the Japanese Medal of honour. This blogger was so clearly on an anti-Communist rant that he was unable to take .12 of a second to do a Google search for the Japanese meaning of a red ribbon as I did. I suggest you research things before you go around screaming conspiracy; Anime doesnt need its own Alex Jones. Oh and one more thing about the Red Army of China: Mao didn't make it, it existed before he was even a party member. Read a history book sometime. 2. Stars = Red Star of Communism "Stars are another communist symbol, and they are frequently seen in the Dragon Ball series because each of the
99

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel dragonballs contains stars. Red five-pointed stars in particular carry the most symbolism." I don't even know really where to being with the irrational thinking on this one. The Dragon Balls have a Communist element because it they have stars on them? Really? The only meaning a five pointed star could possibly have is Communist? Have you ever seen your own flag? It has fifty stars on them! The United States of America must be the single most Communist nation that has ever existed! It has 50 stars! Cuba and the Soviet Union only had one! China had five! So America is ten times more Communist than China used to be! Wait 5 stars x 10 + 200 x 2 + 55 = 555! The numerology conspiracy is true, China is God! Actually you could have made any number of occult references with the five pointed star. You could have claimed it was Pagan witch conspiracy, or a satanic conspiracy, there's no limit to the garbage you could come up with using five pointed star. Seriously buddy, you are really grasping at straws here trying to make Communism a conspiracy. However this is my favourite one: "The shape-shifting pig Oolong also wears a Red Star on his hat in the beginning of the series. He is a short and fat pig seen dressed in a green Chinese Communist style uniform similar to the one Mao Zedong would have worn. Its not known exactly why Toriyama decided to create him to look like a Chinese Communist soldier, but its possible that he was trying to take a jab at the CCP by dressing up a pig in their clothes and making him short, fat, obnoxious, loud and selfish. What do you guys think?" Well let me tell you what I think after having checked a few Anime message boards. Series creator Toriyama was calling

100

Maoist Rebel Mao a pig. He literally has said he didn't like Mao and was insulting him. I'm guessing the rest of your blog doesn't contain much research either. 3. Hitler = Socialism "The biggest and most frequently talked about reference to socialism in Dragon Ball is Hitler himself. Hitler is in Dragon Ball Z Movie 12, Fusion Reborn (Japanese title: The Rebirth of Fusion! Goku and Vegeta!) as a guest villain who comes back from the dead after a demon takes control of the underworld and the laws of life and death." Probably the single most insulting lie perpetuated by the right wing. Hitler was NOT a socialist as (seemingly only) Americans declare. Hitler was a complete proponent of right wing nationalist ideology. He hated anyone that didn't fit his perfect model of a human being. Communism is predicated on the idea that everyone is equal and deserving of the same respect, access to resources and opportunities. Hitler was the complete opposite! Buddy, you really need to crack a history book some time. You might come across this "social hiccup" (in Marxist terms) called World War Two. It was this little known event where Hitler declared war on the Soviet Union among other countries. If you ever read a history book instead of a manga you would read about how Hitler persecuted Communist in Germany; he called them terrorists and fabricated this whole huge threat to take away people's rights. Maybe some of this is sounding familiar to you? Hitler killed Communists in the concentration camps. How the hell is an ideology based on one group being superior and another based on everyone being equal the same ideology? "Did Akira Toriyama have ulterior motives? Unfortunately the definitive answer to the question is unknown."
101

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Did this blogger use any critical thought or research? Unfortunately the definitive answer to the question is no. 4. DBZ Logo Z = Swastika "The hooked cross ends of the Z in the logo are the ends that point both diagonally up and down, like the German hooked cross. A normal Z does not have these, and these two ends appear similar to a single hooked cross. Please remember that the Swastika was two hooked crosses placed on top of one another and inverted. I am not implying that the Z logo is a Swastika; rather I am saying that it resembles a single hooked cross. If you placed another Z on top of the original than it would resemble a stylized swastika, but this is never seen in the series and a presupposition like that should not be made." Again with the Nazi references! I've already dealt with this idiocy so its going to be much shorter. The "Z" in the Dragon Ball logo looks nothing like a Swastika at all. This is more crack pot conspiracy garbage. I'm guessing at this point you're running out of stuff to make up. Any intersecting lines look like a Swastika if you try. Bit of an education for you here, the Swastika was NOT a Nazi symbol. It was stolen from at least sixteen other religions and cultures.

102

Maoist Rebel

5. One World Government = Communism "The goal of communism is to unite the world in a communist controlled utopia, ruled by the people. The goal of socialism is state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved through restructuring existing capitalist or political systems. The government in Dragon Ball doesnt exactly fit the communist description, as it is ruled by a King, but the concept of a single united world government is still strong." Okay so basically you've already admitted that you are full of garbage in claiming that the Earth in Dragon Ball Z is ruled by a Communist/Socialist government. Quick lesson in Marxism here: Communism is a stateless system that has no form of currency. No government whatsoever. Quick lesson in Socialism: There is no king, things are democratically controlled. The world you couldn't seem to

103

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel find instead of Communism was monarchy. You would know that if you hadn't been brainwashed by Cold War propaganda. "In Dragon Ball the entire planet is ruled by the King of the Earth, a talking bipedal dog named King Furry (Japanese name: King Koku) who resides in the World Capital. There are several capitals, such as the Northern Capital, Central Capital, etc, similar to a Dynastic Chinese feudal organization system (Beijing, Nanjing, Xian, etc.)." Here the guy is just outright trying to paint the Dragon Ball Z world as feudal China. And therefore having made the connection to China, it must be communist. Here is some more history lessons for you. There were no kings in China, they were emperors. There were kings all across Europe, and a few in Asia, not China. Fun fact: Japan was ruled by a royal family, perhaps in making a monarchy in the JAPANESE anime, Toriyama was referring to the royal family who once ruled JAPAN. Clearly this blogger knows nothing about any political system and knows absolutely nothing about history at all. This is a question he left in the blog post: So far this is the best explanation I can produce and Im totally open to it being refuted with logical arguments to the contrary. If you have a rational alternative explanation, then please let me know. Oh, I will.

104

Maoist Rebel

Bamboo Capitalism: A Lesson Learned

As China continues to rise as a superpower, the US elite are becoming more and more concerned of its take over of the global market. The inevitability of the rise of China cannot be denied, nor can the downfall of the American empire. The quick recovery of the Chinese economy juxtaposed to the staggering US economy is only one such example. An article in the March 12 "The Economist" certainly lays bear this fear. However it seems to have changed its tone over the last few months. In the past the "journal of elite opinion" has subtly warned China that it would not take any encroachment of its power lying down. Sometimes it even alluded to veiled threats in order to make this point. The new direction taken by The Economist is perplexing. They've now taken to praising the Chinese economy, and offering advice to it. The tag line of the article is quote revealing: "China's success owes more to its entrepreneurs than its bureaucrats. Time to bring them out of the shadows." Of course it should come as no surprise that such a journal would praise the free market. But one needs to look at the subtext of such a statement. First in the article it gives mere lip service to "capitalism with Chinese characteristics", otherwise known as Keynesian economics and strict government control. The spending of state money to help the economy along because the free market can't actually do everything its claimed it can do. "Of course, the state's activity has been vast and important. It has been effective in eradicating physical and technological obstacles: physical, through the construction of roads, power plants and bridges; technical, by facilitating (through means fair an foul) the transfer of foreign intellectual property."

105

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel In fewer words, it means their government policy is great, capitalism in China wouldn't have been possible without it... Just like the Keynesian era of the United States. The article then goes on to describe how the Chinese economy has become a place where 70% of the "GDP produced by enterprises that are not majority-owned by the state at 70%". They endlessly tout the accomplishments of the "free market" while acknowledging that state regulation has made the economy stable and has prevented economic disasters from happening. The wording suggests that the successes are due to the "free market" not the regulation of it. However, it is not enough to just pretend China's strength is not due to its tight government regulation, they go a step even further and call the state a bully: "But this points to a third more worrying, characteristic of such businesses: their vulnerability. Chinese regulation of its private sector is often referred to as "one eye open, one eye shut". It is a wonderful flexible system, but without a consistent rule of law, companies are prey to the predilections of bureaucrats. A crackdown could come at any time. it is also hard for them to mature into more permanent structures." It almost makes one laugh to hear about the poor private corporations being bullied by the mean old state regulation. I'm not sure if I want to laugh or become enraged at this hypocritical crying. As private production cripples the world, kills roughly 10 million children a year and kills the planet, we're supposed to feel sorry for these million and billionaires. "Many entrepreneurs understandably fear such scrutiny: they hate sticking out, lest their operations become the focus of an investigation."

106

Maoist Rebel No doubt it is harmful for profits if the government gets wind of illegal practises like labour abuses. Some of these investigations have revealed the use of slave labour, even the use of mentally handicapped people as slaves as well. Not to mention the murder of union activists is rampant within China as well as environmental destruction. A common complaint we hear from capitalists all the time: "god damned human rights interfering with my profits". An interesting moment for me is when they come close to acknowledging the dialectical relationship between state intervention and the anarchy that is the market. Its like they almost have this epiphany: "...over time, the contradictions between anarchic opportunism and state direction, both vital to China's rise, will surely result in greater friction." In the end, the article finally articulates what its all about: the Keynesian economics, the state intervention must end in order for Chinese capitalism to take off gain true power in the world economy. They call for the "Chinese characteristics" to be removed from the capitalism. This all seems strange to me, I don't see the American elite, who are in direct competition with Chinese capitalism, being so altruistic and willing to help their competition. Especially when one takes into consideration what is at stake here: economic control of the world. It seems more likely to me that the US elites are trying to trick the Chinese elites into deregulating their market. Much like that kid we know from elementary school who tired to get people to fight each other. The strength of the Chinese capitalism is its state intervention. Remove this, deregulate the economy, and you get another global economic collapse. The Chinese have witnessed this and plan on avoiding it at all costs. The plan must be to fill the heads of the entrepreneurs with all these dreams of what an unregulated market can do. "Capitalism will take off and you'll all be rich if the state wasn't holding you back."
107

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel It seems more likely to me that the US powers are trying to get the Chinese economy to collapse. Not only would this save America's spot as the top power, but this collapse of the economy would also give a price break to US companies who use Chinese labour. Its hard to imagine Chinese labour getting any cheaper, but it could. This plan will fail, the Chinese are not stupid or prone to flattery. They know who their enemies are. They know their strength is not capitalism, but its Chinese characteristics. They already learned the lesson the US experienced with deregulation of the economy.

108

Maoist Rebel

The Saiyan Race: Victims of Class Struggle

When one looks at the history of the Saiyan people, one can see that their story is one of class struggle. Throughout the entire unfolding story of Dragon Ball Z, (as it relates to the Saiyans), we can see that they have experienced different forms of class oppression from different sources at different times in their history. Let us start at the beginning, originally the Saiyans were on equal grounds with Tuffels, their neighbours who lived on the same planet. These two peoples lived in relative peace for a while. This changed when the Tuffels developed and the Saiyans did not. It has not been explained exactly why this happened. Its author Akira Toriyama has thus far only said in the story line that the Saiyans were too brutal to become civilized (supposedly). Without any further explanation it may be a simple case of some kind of Social Darwinism. (I say maybe because there are aspects to the Saiyans that may counter this argument. Survival of the fittest, or what have you.) The gulf between these two peoples grew quite large as one developed and the other did not. The Tuffels are described as having a very advanced civilization, one that had developed beyond that which we enjoy here on Earth. From the images we see in the Anime, (Ive not seen the Manga), we see these beautiful tall white buildings that pierce the sky with many green and red lights placed on them. (Seemingly these lights are purely for waring approaching aircraft. I don't know if they have any other meaning.) The roads were coloured a kind of bright cream colour and there were plentiful flowers around public spaces. To be honest this depiction of an advanced civilization reminded me of the Venus Project; a lot of it with its Utopian views of a better society. Unfortunately there was no mention of the civilization's political or economic system. All that has been said is that they lived in peace, a statement that may give one pause to think when we see how advanced the Tuffel's military is. The Tuffels had tremendously advanced

109

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel weaponry, something not usually seen in so-called civilized societies. With this vision we can see a very possible Nazi influence depicted in this society. There are a few parallels between the Tuffel society and that of the vision of Adolf Hitler. Both had similar looking cities with the bright white look to it with sometimes overly large buildings that serve as eye pieces and sometimes a social point of pride to architectural accomplishment. A kind of self-congratulatory gift for their perceived or actual superior nature. Both societies prided themselves on the fact that they were so civilized. The Nazis over the lesser races around them in the world, similar in appearance is how the Tuffels saw themselves as surrounded by the violent and uncivilized Saiyans. The Saiyans were by contrast twice the size of the Tuffels. They had immense brute strength but almost nothing in the way scientific understanding. They were (and continued to be) violent uncontrollable creatures who enjoyed violence simply for violence's sake. The Saiyans lived in buildings made out of stone, primitive materials that had no electricity. I could not help but notice the similarities between the depiction of Saiyans by Tuffels and the imperial Japanese views of other races. The Japanese empire (like almost all empires) felt they had right (or duty) to rule other others because they were lesser, uncivilized creatures, often not even thought of as humans. (Its tempting to use the phrase Yellow Man's Burden due to its identical nature to European and American colonialism.) This self-perceived superiority was a very big part of Japanese culture up until their defeat in WW2. The difference in the case of the Tuffels and Saiyans is that the Tuffels seemingly had no interest in ruling the Saiyans. This may have been due to the fact that the Tuffels already had monopoly control over all the resources on the planet. They already had the technological, economic and military advantage so they never considered the Saiyans a threat due to their small numbers and primitive culture. Instead of seeing them as a race to be conquered and used like the Nazis, British and Japanese saw other races, they just simply ignored them.
110

Maoist Rebel Interestingly they never saw them as a people to be helped either. Often the White Man's Burden was carried out under the guise of helping the lesser races only to exploit them and control them. So its interesting to see the similarities to real life events and those that take place in the story of planet Vegeta. At some point the Saiyans attacked the Tuffels for a reason that (I think) has yet to be revealed. A hypothesis that I have is that the Saiyans witnessed the immense disparity between between the lives of Tuffels and themselves. No doubt they must have also noticed their lack of resources, no doubt caused their monopolization by the Tuffels. This disparity between the advanced easy superior lives of the Tuffels as compared to the brutally short and poor living conditions of the Saiyans must have caused one huge class antagonism. Again because of a lack of definite information, this is merely an educated guess based on the material conditions of both races on the planet. Eventually things came to a boiling point and the Saiyans attacked the Tuffels ruthlessly destroying every last Tuffel (except for the one that appear later in Dragon Ball GT named Baby) and their entire civilization. Again it is interesting here to see how the Japanese empire eventually fell at the hands of their enemies who were seen as inferior, and then suffered the event of the nuclear bombings. Once the Saiyans had eradicated the Tuffel race, the civilization the Tuffels had created was completely destroyed. The class antagonism between those who had a monopoly over resources, technology and living standards had been resolved. All the technology that had been destroyed as well. This meant that when the Saiyans wanted new enemies to fight they were unable to leave the planet. From the anime it appears the Saiyans tired to get into space, building a rocket, but apparently it didn't work. Seemingly this attempt to get into space was noticed by a race called the Arcozians. The Arcozians saw the Saiyans as a group of people they could make money off of. The Saiyans had no industry, no infrastructure and lived in desperate poverty. Seeing a chance to make money the Arcozians decided they could use the Saiyans as cheap labour. What the Arcozians do
111

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel is conquer valuable planets and sell them to whoever may be looking to purchase one. Of course here we begin to see the parallel between the Arcozians and the European Pilgrims who came to the New World. Both peoples came to their respective destinations and removed the populations there to use what was available for profit. Remember that the settlers began trade with England and other countries fairly quickly. The Arcozians like the Pilgrims saw an opportunity to exploit an indigenous population, a main stay of imperialism. Saiyan warriors are were very effective in this role. The natural destructive power and violent nature of the Saiyans made them ideal for combat. Since they had no regard for life, they without pity destroyed population after population. The Arcozians recognized too the benefits of using Saiyans in war. Saiyans required no weapons because of their ability to use their ki as a weapon. All they required was a little body armour and a one man craft in which to travel. This reduced their military expenditures; previously they had to arm and train thousands of soldiers in order to invade a planet. However with the Saiyans they were able to reduce costs and keep more profit. Here we can plainly see the capitalist mode of exploitation. The Saiyans were paid less than the value of the world they conquered, not receiving the full profit from their work. Here it is important to note the unfair trade that occurred between the indigenous population of the West and the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims gave these tiny trinkets that had little value in exchange for very expensive goods. The Pilgrims would give glass beads and mirrors in exchange for beaver pelts which were traded internationally for a good price. After having resolved the class conflict with the Tuffels, the Saiyans once again found themselves subjugated in another class based relationship. With no means of production of their own (ability and contacts in which to sell planets) they were forced to submit to the exploitation that is employment. However the class antagonism did not end there; with in influx of private profit, class divisions within the Saiyan society began to develop. Eventually a King emerged from the Saiyan society, this was of course King Vegeta whom the planet was
112

Maoist Rebel named after. As a result there began all kinds of different classes among the feudal order, royal families and the like. What's not known here is at what point the Saiyans stopped working for the Arcozians and began working for Frieza. Infact, we're not sure if Frieza isn't Arcozian. So without an exact knowledge of what happened, I've just assumed that the Saiyans just began working for Freiza and what is later revealed to be his family. Frieza never seemed to be a more loving businessman than the Arcozians were. In fact he seemed to be much worse, not only was the exploitation of the Saiyan race occurring, but he was also subjugating them and was often very abusive to the population. This subservient role however, was not to last. The abuse suffered by the Saiyans was not going to last forever, the King was already plotting against Frieza. The Saiyans have an unbreakable pride that would not allow them to remain the servants of anyone. Frieza was not a fool, he knew well that the Saiyans were plotting against them and he'd heard of a prophesy that an extremely powerful Saiyan was going to destroy him at some point. Frieza claimed he didn't believe in the prophesy but spent time and effort trying to prevent it from happening. The main leader of a group of Saiyan forces, Bardock (who turns out to be Goku's father) is sent with his best men to a planet to take it over, but instead falls into a trap and barely survives. In surviving he finds out about Frieza's plan to destroy the Saiyan race because of the prophesy. He returns to Vegeta in order to warn the population and the King. He plans an uprising with the King in order to free themselves from Frieza's grasp but eventually fails. In retaliation Frieza destroys planet Vegeta and the entire population (except Prince Vegeta the King's son, Nappa, Radditz and Goku). (This point in the story also displays a very sick side of Frieza in that he delights in raising Prince Vegeta in his own image after having destroyed his father and home world.) In the end the Saiyans actually lose the class war to Frieza with the Saiyan population destroyed. The remaining Saiyans are made permanent soldiers of Frieza and told nothing of how their planet was destroyed. Instead Frieza tells them that the
113

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel planet was destroyed by a group of meteors. Here we see a similar fate to that of the European and Chinese communism. As communism came to an end in both places, the ruling elites rewrote history. They invented all these fancy ideas about it just doesn't work with no explanation, inventing genocides that never happened and completely changing what caused certain events, like blaming starvation on Stalin when it was actually the free market that caused food shortages leading to people supporting collectivization in order to prevent further loss of life. So we see here a very clearly how Frieza and his entire organization is capitalist, causing all the same genocides, lies and distortions. There is much more I could do here, I could mention the class struggle between Goku and Prince Vegeta as the remaining survivors of their race. Goku was low class born but always remained more powerful than Vegeta who was born of royalty. This one antagonism remained through the entire series, Vegeta challenging his low born rival for supremacy, claiming he should be number one because of his royal birth. But that should be talked about in another video. I could also make an analysis about nature versus nurture, about how Goku had an entirely different personality than the rest of the Saiyan race because he was raised on Earth as opposed to planet Vegeta. Saiyans maintain that they are violent and destructive by nature, however this seems to be different with Goku because of his different upbringing. But this should be talked about in another video. In conclusion this is why the history of the Saiyan race is a history of class struggle.

114

Maoist Rebel

Charity as a Means of Inaction

It is a never ending battle capitalism wages against our ability and more generally our desire to change anything that it sees as profitable. All the time we are bombarded with images, words and film, propaganda essentially to push us towards inaction. By inaction I mean killing our desire to do anything, or our belief that we can do anything. Constantly they bombard us with the ideology of selfishness, get what you can for yourself. Everywhere you turn in the media or the education system itself there's something or other telling you to compete in order to survive, because logically there's no other choice right? However there are some things they cannot propagandize us away from. Horrors and inhumanities that even the most cynical opponents of radical change (or real change more specifically) cannot turn away from. There are events unfolding in our world that are so bad that we cannot simply look away from and return to our daily lives without thinking about them. It is these events or conditions of human life more precisely, that the ruling elite, the capitalist class, have the most difficulty getting us not to pay attention too. Think for a moment of war orphans, this brings images of little African children with missing limbs, or people (mostly children) digging through trash in the dumpsters on the street looking for food or something to sell. We also see a single parent, usually a mother, moulding some kind of food like a corn or wheat staple on some kind of plate usually made out of wood, desperately trying to make something to eat for her fatherless children. These are images that we cannot look away from, maybe we can change the channel and try and take our minds off it by watching orange faced buffoons behave like children on Jersey Shore or something like that. But really it doesn't work, we always know these children, these people, are suffering every single day. Many people before we are born and many after we die. These images cannot be removed or ignored because they offend our sense of morality and our common sense of human

115

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel connection too much. These are the effects of capitalism that the elite use charity as a placebo against real action. It doesn't require too much investigation to realize that all the horrors people suffer in the third world are a result of capitalism, or imperialism more generally. The lack of food because of disorganized individualist production, lack of education from a lack of schools because no one can pay money for them, a lack of medical care because no one can pay for them, the sparseness of population in Africa due to slavery etc.. In direct propaganda they will give us some free market excuse, say how trade is the only way out of these terrible conditions, while completely ignoring the fact you can't have a viable trade if you have nothing to trade. Or that an illiterate person starving to death doesn't even understand what market trade is, at least in a national sense. In indirect propaganda they will suggest (even openly) that the people suffering are unwilling to work, or that they are some how inferior through a kind of underhanded Social Darwinist expression. Maybe calling them stupid, they are a stupid people which is why they are always poor. This is generally the excuse given as to why somehow capitalism never brings up the third world, and in fact makes it worse. Usually these only work on people who are openly or not openly racist. That's the greatness of capitalism, you can always pass off racist beliefs as being objective. So being the clever fellows that the capitalist class are, they know you can never propagandize against every single inhumanity that they directly or indirectly cause. In these cases most of which are third world suffering, they need to use some kind of pressure release valve. They need some kind of placebo which can make those who are not monsters think that they are somehow contributing to the abolishment of such circumstances. They need this placebo so as not to let popular anger or sadness at these inhumanities be turned into popular resistance to capitalism itself. This is what charity in our really existing form is. It is a way of making us feel like we have done something, when in fact have not done anything productive.

116

Maoist Rebel We see a child suffering on television, and we are told that for the cost of a cup of coffee we can help change a child's life and make it better. Really what they are doing is offering us a simple easy way out of really getting involved in what is causing the problem. We tell ourselves, I give up a dollar a day, say I give up coffee and make a child's life better. In reality we have only affected one child's life in a very temporary way, and we still have that cup of coffee regardless. The only thing that has changed is that we now feel as though we have done something to change the situation over there when we most certainly have not. The rampant poverty that causes these horrible situations has not had even the smallest dent put into it. This then protects their interests in perpetuating the poverty all for the sake of collecting their profits. This concept of what I call bourgeois charity allows the capitalist class to take advantage of human nature and use it to protect their interests. Just about everyone in someway wants to do something about the suffering of children in the third world. However we ourselves are limited by the number of hours in the day in which to do something; we are also limited by the constraints put on us by the capitalist system. We can't simply just run off and help these people in whatever way we see fit. We have to survive day to day to, and that means showing up for work to be exploited as well. If we see that our inability to create change in such terrible conditions is hampered by the same thing that causes those conditions; then we'll come to the conclusion that the capitalist system has to go and make us become motivated to do so. This bourgeois charity allows us to feel as though we've done something, thus taking the pressure to do something real off of us and allow us to resume our sedentary consumerist life. Once donating money to causes or supporting a child in the third world; we no longer feel that desire to do something. In fact we feel quite happy with ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for making a contribution regardless of how ineffective in the overall scheme it is. The bourgeois are happy to let us do this, even promote it. They get us to take the action of placating ourselves and
117

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel dissuade us from meaningful radical action. It not only keeps in the capitalist line, but it also makes us pay for own sedative against our own action. The bourgeois have lost nothing, they didn't spend a cent and we get kept in line. On top of that, most of these charities are bourgeois owned and they make a profit off of our generosity! (Important here is to look up the difference between a non-profit organization and a not-forprofit organization.) This is also why free market fundamentalist ideology like the Mises Institute and other phony libertarian organizations think giving to charity is such a better idea than using economics to actually help people. It maintains the wealth of the elite and the capitalist system, while placating anyone among them who has a conscience and wants to do something. I am not advocating that people stop giving to charity. I am advocating that people think about why they are giving to charity and to see if they are being placated by this mostly phony form of action. I want people to see that radical action against the capitalist system is what is actually going to turn the tide of human misery around. Take Venezuela for example, it is no longer classified as a third world country. It is a developing country or second world nation now. This has only happened as a result of socialist policy and the leadership of Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has always been a capitalist country and things only got worse, no matter how much people in the first world donated to them. Only when they took radical action against the capitalist system did they see any improvement. I'm not saying give up charity, I'm saying commit to radical action and charity of you can. Radical action is the only way out of poverty.

118

Maoist Rebel

On the Royal Wedding

Actually I didn't want to do this video at all because I frankly don't give a "Menshevik" about the Royal Family. However enough you subscribers sent me personal messages asking me to address the Royal Wedding and what I personally think about the whole situation. I guess what you're asking for is a critique of the whole situation. So don't say I don't give you what you want. Okay long story short its the marriage of Prince William of Whales and Kate Middleton of the Shire, I guess. That's my way of pointing out the fact that Kate Middleton is of low birth. She's the first one to marry royalist so close to the throne in 350 years. So many in the media, mainly the media are talking about how Kate Middleton is the new modern face of the British monarchy. I guess because she's from a low birth that she's this symbol of how the monarchy is changing. Long gone must be the days of the monarchy being a Middle Ages elitist club. One thing that does kind of aggravate me is that people are going around saying that Middleton is the new Princess Diana. Kate Middleton may look as though she was born for a life of royalty, but she is no Princess Diana. Diana was active international situations, actually giving a a damn about the poor in places and other worthy causes. The class nature of the event was also pretty apparent. The masses, the low born, were not invited to the event. Criminals like those who run the most repressive Middle Eastern regimes were. Despite the people not being invited to the wedding, they are most certainly expected to pay for it through the use of tax money. Many planned to have protests against the monarchy that day but the reactionary police put a stop to them. Charlie Veitch was arrested because he was using a megaphone to protest. He was arrested for "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance". In other words he was arrested for conducting a peaceful protest.

119

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel People not entranced by the wedding were outraged by the cost of the entire event. An estimated 20 million and 80 million. Various fraudulent security threats we trolled out to justify the extreme cost by the Daily Mail: Irish and Islamic terrorist groups are considered serious threats to the occasion, while there are also fears over anarchist groups and hundreds of lone individuals with known mental health problems who have stalked members of the royal family. On the other side many were excited about the event. Zhang Ying, a Chinese university student said this: "We wanted to feel the atmosphere, how the British get excited... Middleton was born to be a queen". I find it almost laughable a Chinese person talking about how exciting the Royal Wedding is. They didn't think royal families were so great when the Emperor of China or his Buddhist counterpart the Dalai Lama were grinding their respective people's under their boots of oppression. I suppose there is a lesson here: if the royal families of China and Tibet had only had more pomp and glamour they too could be media darlings today... Well, at least the Dalai Lama is. The entire Royal Wedding was an attempt to boost the British public's spirits concerning its current social and economic situation. The wedding may be costing 20 million and 80 million, but the Conservative-led coalition government is saving $135bn in spending cuts to the needs o f the public. In the end, the Royal Wedding is a symbol of an outdated, irrelevant monarchy that needs to removed from the lives of the British public and their wallets.

120

Maoist Rebel

The Myth of the Self-Made Man

From the most simplest explanation to the most complex of arguments for capitalism, there runs one main argument that sustains the entire fallacy of personal incentive. That fallacy is the myth of the self-made man. This is supposedly the greatness of capitalism, that anyone can rise up above the stupid, worthless mud (to use Ayn Rand's own words), by their hard work driven by personal incentive. Without this they say, a society cannot function and will tumble in the evil that co-operation. They tout this as being the drive behind every invention ever dreamed up by any creator. Without this concept all people will sit around doing nothing all day long. These people who rise up from the masses like a phoenix from the ashes are self-made men, truly virtuous people who express this by working hard a building their own fortunes. In reality these so-called virtuous people are really the thieves of other people's labour. In reality capitalism is a society of one class living off another. You've seen the Texan-type farmer who goes on a Conservative ad and tells us about how he never got nothin' from nobody. He proudly and arrogantly proclaims that he got everything he has from his own hard work. This is a common propaganda ploy by the bourgeoisie to give this notion that anyone can achieve anything, if they don't than they just don't want it. Its all there for the taking, all you have to do is reach out and take it. If you don't get it than that means you lack the willingness to work hard or lack some kind of theoretical virtue in your selfishness. They present this system as though people have a choice. This is a fraud once you take a critical look at how things are. There are millions upon millions of people in the United States alone that are placed in a condition in which they are forced to work in order to survive rather than get the education they want, or engage in the entrepreneurial spirit, or experiment with their creativity. The idea that people can just do whatever they want under capitalism is completely laughable. This system forces people out of the threat of poverty to submit to slavery.
121

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Yea he's a self-made man just like he says. Of course this claim is not grounded in materialism. Its based off a very flimsy and deluded world outlook that obscures the source of his privilege. Let us take a few steps back so that we can see the whole picture that encompasses this self-made man. If we were to take a look at his shirt, what do yo think it would say? Made in Texas? Or made in Indonesia? Obviously it says Indonesia, where an 11 year old girl was forced into production making pennies an hour so she didn't starve to death. So obviously this self-made man didn't self-make his own shirts. Take a look at the machinery that he uses to work the land. Did he make that machinery? No, that machinery came from a factory in China where and armed guard stood over workers to make sure they did their job. He was paid next to nothing for his labour because he was desperate. The Texan-type farmer never mentions the Mexican migrant workers that he paid 20$ a day to work the land for him. He's too busy making angry right wing xenophobic remarks about how foreigners are taking over his country. What about the land itself that he owns? Was that his land that he discovered and then settled on, or was it land stolen from the native population that was killed off in order to get it? Self-made man indeed... Take the Apple genius Steve Jobs. He's virtuous and deserves all that he gets because he took the initiative to come up with innovative ideas. Of course none of his cheerleaders and fan boys ever bother to think about how in his early 20s Steve Jobs was able to sit around his garage and tinker with computers instead of going to work out of necessity. He was able to do so because of the labour of others. I'm reminded of the ancient Greek philosophers who thought themselves so superior to others because they sat around philosophizing. In reality they, as class of people, were only able to do this because a great multitude of slaves did all the work in the lives of the philosophers so that they wouldn't have to. They only had time to think about ideas because others in a lower class were forced out of necessity (or actual literal force) to do work for them. Where do the circuit boards come from for all the Apple products? They come from a place called Foxxconn. The world's largest manufacturer of circuit boards. The workers
122

Maoist Rebel there are forced to live in these single rooms with no air conditioning. They are forbidden by contract to have sexual relations while imprisoned there. The conditions are so horrible the company had to put nets around the dormitory in order to stop the constant suicides that occur. All this because again they were forced out of threat of poverty and starvation to sign these inhuman contracts. When faced with this reality in the production of Apple products Steve Jobs absolutely denied it. What little honest Chinese media there is cover this and it raised popular anger among the working class in China. But Steve jobs just denied it and assured his customers and investors that no such brutal inhuman exploitation was taking place. Of course, aside from being an exploiter, he's a liar as well. Self-made man indeed... Let us take some of the wealthiest people on Wall Street, those who earn money from investing in stock and bonds or what have you. These are the people you see running around the stock exchange floor shouting at other people to buy or sell. But along with them include those who sit behind a desk and give them orders on what to buy and what to sell. People who are supposedly so great have have so much ability that they can calculate who's stocks they should ban who's to sell and at what times. These guys are lauded as geniuses who've learned the game and should be rewarded for all their hard work, with all their skill they have. Never mind all the corruption, lying, bribe taking, insider trading that always goes into this type of business. Take the investors, people who stand around deciding where to put their money. Supposedly they're entitled to profits because they gave money to get everything. In reality, they gave nothing for the productive process. They put effort into nothing, they did not contribute to the labour process; hell, they didn't even come up with the idea that started the whole thing. They themselves are taking money form the original creator. Investors amass great amounts of wealth without actually having contributed any to the production process. They just threw money at something and that means they've earned something in return. The investor gets all this money for literally having done nothing. Self-made man indeed...

123

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Take the Founding Fathers as another example of self-made men. Almost all of the men who wrote the Decoration of Independence were slave owning businessmen. Men who earned their entire fortune off of the unpaid labour of countless slaves. What labour did they do to earn their fortune? What creative thinking did they employ to invent some new product or innovation that changed the world? Nothing, everything they had was owed to the exploitation of an entire race of people. These self-made men didn't even manage their businesses, they had managers and whip-crackers who did that for them. If they were so busy and worked so hard, where did they find the time to take four months off work to go to Philadelphia to write a Decoration of Independence? Self-made men indeed... From these examples we can clearly see that a self-made man never makes himself with his own labour. These men only make themselves at the expense of others. It always takes a collective effort to build anything up. It always takes the effort of many people to build up these fortunes. Yes, capitalism is a society of one class living off another. But we envision a different society, a society where the labour of everyone can benefit everyone, no just a handful of people who claim to be self-made. We strive for a world where anyone can have the opportunity to get an education so that as many innovative thinkers and workers may rise up among the population. We will achieve that by the collective benefit from work that is already done collectively.

124

Maoist Rebel

Alex Jones and the New World Order

For quite a while now people have been asking me what I think about Alex Jones and the whole New World Order deal. I've been putting it off for a long time because I don't care about Alex Jones or InfoWars. However, since I do keep getting asked about it, I'm going to go ahead and give my view of it. The belief in the New World Order conspiracy is not an unexpected reaction to everything that has been going on. Clearly anyone who looks around at the situation the world is in, they can see a stark contrast between the way the media, education system and official societal dogma says things are, and the way things really are. This is no secret, there's a huge contrast in what we are told and the way things are. When confronted with this contradiction a rational person is going to go looking for an explanation. Now when this break with the "official story" occurs, a person does not have an immediate understanding why it isn't true. So a person has to look around at the situation and compare that with any explanation they have come across. So this idea of a secret society conspiring against everyone in the world is not an unreasonable conclusion. Anyone can see that there is a group of people in the world, a wealthy powerful collection of people, who always make out no matter what; while the vast majority always lose. That's simple, observable empirical reality. There is not much in the way of denying this. Its not unreasonable because its true, there is an elite strata out to control the world. We call them the capitalist class. They're people who use a great deal of wealth and control over the world's resources to control governments and entire populations. However Alex Jones won't analyze capitalism, he's one of these people who blindly believes that capitalism is the only way/greatest thing ever and therefore can do no wrong. (Which is just like the Mises cultists and Ron Paul socalled revolutionaries.) So lacking any ability (or desire) to take a critical look at capitalism, he has to find some kind of great Other. There's nothing wrong with what he thinks, or the
125

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel economic system he believes in, so there must be some great Other invading this system or some kind of primal abstract "Great Evil". (Which also explains why often the Illuminati conspiracy theories involve Satanism.) The perception of this great Other usually takes the form of something they already know about, or already have a hatred for. The recognition of a conspiracy, when lacking a proper materialist analysis, causes the person's consciousness to resort to any already held prejudices as the cause of it. If a person is racist they'll see the New World Order as a Jewish conspiracy. If they are deeply religious they will blame Satanists. If they are very New Age hippie, they'll blame space reptiles. If they are prejudiced towards anti-capitalist ideas, they will blames socialism/communism and the like. All of this is caused by an inability or refusal to conduct a materialist analysis of the current system and ideology recognizing its contradictions. Okay, take the claim by capitalism that it ends poverty, poverty is eliminated by capitalism. Anyone who has any sense of reality no matter where in the world they live knows this does not happen. The United States has rampant poverty, the Third World is overflowing with poverty. And all of these places are capitalist, from the US to Afghanistan to Somalia. When poverty isn't eliminated, the various prejudices appear to explain it without a materialist analysis. A racist will say "its a Jewish conspiracy" or "Black people just don't want to work". If a person is deeply religious then God is punishing people. An anti-socialist will say "that's not capitalism". In truth, through a materialist analysis, we know there cannot be a rich without a poor. If one group has a majority of the money, the other section (or sections) will have little. It is literally impossible for poverty to be eliminated by capitalism. None of these anti-materialist explanations can actually understand this contradiction. A lack of materialist analysis always leads to blaming some great Other. Take Alex Jones' view of illegal Mexican immigration. He claims that corporations want the border between the US and Mexico destroyed so they can fulfill the grand notion of a
126

Maoist Rebel "North America Union". Of course this goes against a materialist analysis. Capitalism requires a pool of cheap labour in order to extract profit. This cheap pool of labour is Mexico and the system needs it to stay that way. If the boarder was removed, eventually living standards and wages would roughly equalize across the whole area in question. This would in turn hurt profits because producers need a cheap pool of labour to produce commodities, and a pool of labour that is not as poor in order to buy them. Thus the boarder has to remain. The poverty in Mexico caused by American companies drives people across the boarder into the US to escape it. Thus we have a contradiction in capitalism, which is a system of contradiction. But because Alex Jones has a typical American anti-socialist stance (created by decades of Cold War propaganda), will not analyze capitalism and automatically defaults to the "that's not capitalism stance". This lack of a material analysis of the system we live in and the ideology we live in will lead to all kinds of theories and conspires as to why things are not as we are told they are. Its a natural but incorrect reaction to a lack of understanding. So I really don't blame Alex Jones or the people who follow him thinking the way they do.

127

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

A New Labour Union Movement

It has been long known now that the union elites are in the hands of the bourgeoisie. In what is possibly an even greater tragedy, often these elites are bourgeois themselves as well. All too often those who run the unions feel as though they are a class onto themselves. This attitude is quite prevalent among the larger unions that operate here in the West. The United Autoworker's Union is the most obvious example of this. It was the union aristocracy who colluded with the owners to destroy the workers of the auto-industry. Without the cooperation of the UAW, it would have been near impossible to conduct the anti-union attacks of the Global Economic Recession. How to Combat the Union Bourgeoisie This clearly signals that there is a real need for a new labour movement. One that is free of the bourgeois, and one that is completely detached from the bourgeoisie. As I see it, it is absolutely necessary to completely replace the current personnel of the union aristocracy. The current mentality, the mindset of the union elites come out of bourgeois mindset. This mindset is created by using two components: 1) The bourgeois education system. Union personnel are trained to function in their jobs by an education system set up and controlled by the capitalist class. Its well known that to operate even in the mid and lower strata of a union you must have at least one special collage course. The higher up the union ladder you are, the more education in this system you need. This is another way of saying that the more power and influence you have, the more indoctrination you need. What we the working class must do is train ourselves and train each other outside the control of the bourgeois' control. We must collectively organize ourselves by using a combination of theory and practise.

128

Maoist Rebel This would only be a temporary solution until the working class seized the state and by proxy the education system. Once we have the education system, people will no longer want to perpetuate the current system. A democratization of education will take place that will remove the bourgeois propaganda and control mechanisms. Once seized, we can use our collective experience of organizing and teaching each other to set up a new method of education in this regard. This will save us the time and effort of inventing a new one on the spot, which could possibly end up being rushed. 2) Non-labour Union Personnel. This is just an important point as the first. The union elites are quite often trained without ever even having been a worker. This leads to a very dangerous anti-working class trend. These elites are made out to believe that they are better, a superior class, over the workers. The class system does not help the people whatsoever. All the ruling elite have managed to do is to infect one of our structures of resistance with their poisonous society. This is a sense of superiority that comes from having gone directly in post-secondary education in the labour relations field without having been a labourer. A non-labourer can never understand what it is like, or what it means to be a labourer. I witnessed this first hand while attending a program that helps people find work in the new economic recession. The program discussed all the various aspects of the job market and what not, but when it came to something as simple as temporary labour it was woefully uninformed. The program discussed the pros and cons of working for a temporary agency. They went through both office (mental labour) and warehouse (physical labour). As they discussed the cons they asked us about or personal experience working for temp agencies. Only myself and one other man had actually worked for one before. We told them what it was like. We told the whole room the shear disposable way in which we were treated by the agency and the actual place you worked for that day. You are treated like a
129

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel disposable commodity like a condom or tooth pick. Its insulting, degrading and quite frankly dehumanizing. To my astonishment the woman running to program outright denied that is how people are treated. I was angered at not only the fact she denied the class relation behind it, but the fact she called me and the other man a liar. Both of us were visibly angered by her assertion that we were not telling the truth, or that some how our experiences were not real. She denied it because she had no experience being a labourer, she was above that, she was a officer worker. Not a lower class labourer. That is why its important to select only actual labourers for even the top union positions. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution it was made policy to supervisors and managers (if they were used) come from the regular working people. They were given a free education in management and often had special schools built onto the factory to teach these skills. It was also policy to have the workers do both the manual and mental labour. This way there was no class division even within the factory itself. Each person was one part of the whole on the same level in order to combat the idea of superiority based on their work. This was a major step forward in the creation of new social relations within production. This what we need to do with the modern day unions. We need to democratize the the union power and purge its bourgeois aspects. Democratizing the union in decision making. If we know representative democracy has its serious flaws in capitalism, then why would be use it in the unions? We need to make decisions collectively, not collectively decide who will make decisions for us. We need to bring back the old power the unions had by stripping the bourgeois influence from it. We have to proletarianize the unions and the working class once again in order to push out the poison that is bourgeoisification and the rest of capitalism's characteristics.

130

Maoist Rebel The Origin of De-industrialization One key problem we face as a working class is one that neither Marx, Lenin or Mao were faced with. In fact, a problem they might have thought would never happen. We the proletariat face the reality that is de-industrialization. The phenomenon that is the evacuation of production to the Third World; and with it comes challenges the likes of which no proletariat has faced before. From a materialist standpoint the outsourcing of labour to the third world was inevitable. As capitalism sought greater and greater profit maximization, they had to find new ways to decrease the cost of production. In all previous forms of capitalism this took the form of technical innovation. Technology enabled each individual worker to be able to produce more, thus needing less workers. This increased the rate of exploitation of each worker while causing unemployment to rise. Of course this had other side effects too, it made labour become less and less skilled. A machine could now do the job of a skilled worker in less time while having a non-skilled worker operate the machine. This caused the worker to become de-skilled as that skill was no longer needed. A capitalist no longer needed to hire a skilled labourer at X amount an hour. He could now hire an unskilled labourer less than X amount an hour and produce even more, thus realizing more profit. This became the process of the mechanization of labour. The bourgeoisie found that there were immediate limits to the mechanization of labour. These limits may or may not be permanent depending on each situation, but there are limits. A few of these limits are: a machine still cannot tell when a fruit is right for picking, pack a box exactly right (Ive seen this myself), it can't problem solve, and most of all it still requires a worker to operate the machine. As I said some of these limitations will be over come in the future, but for now they are still a hindrance to the mechanization process. Meaning these tasks can't be made more cost efficient through mechanization. The problem that needed to be solved was simple, cheaper

131

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel labour was needed. Thus the idea of outsourcing labour was born. (Of course there are other economic factors for engaging in this practice but its simply Marxist theory so I won't bother going into right now for the sake brevity. Suffice to say that is was important to maintain the capitalist system. So it is not just an outright cold blooded act by capitalists, they needed to do it as well in order to keep their exploitative and unjust system in operation.) The reduction of income to workers did not go unchallenged. Unions stepped forward to oppose such treatment of workers. The capitalists could not exploit us as much because we had a way of fighting back against the exploitation and the increase of it. The capitalists and the unions were pushing back and forth in a struggle for the future. The capitalists could not defeat the unions because they need workers in order to operate. They couldn't just fire all the workers and replace them with machines. Often they couldn't replace those they could because the unions resisted with enough power. With the unions winning, they had to find a source of non-union labour. As we well know, they found it. The capitalists in the productive fields have always kept their eyes open for a way to obtain a cheaper means of producing commodities. So in an effort to continue to do so, they looked at other industries to see how they were keeping costs (mostly labour) low. In my opinion, this was first noticed in the produce section of production. Fruits (mainly) were so cheap in the First World because its production was in the Third World. Capitalists placed production in the Third World where production costs were low and the produce could be sold in the First World where they could sell it for more. Capitalists who produce physical commodities noticed this trend and began doing the same for all commodities over time. This became labour outsourcing and is a large part of neoliberal economics. (I am not saying this is happening only to manual labour jobs, it has happened to mental labour jobs as well. We're all familiar

132

Maoist Rebel with the telemarketer, customer service and tech support person we've talked to in India. So while it is not limited to manual labour, it is still manual labour outsourcing that is the main problem. I don't mean to belittle the work done by those office personnel. I'm just focusing on labour because its a larger issue with a greater economic impact as physical commodity production is the main source of value creation.) The outsourcing of jobs needed a legal cover in order to justify its actions. Fortunately for the capitalist class they own the state and the legal system in it. So right off the bat they have all the necessary tools to carry it out. There is however one thing they don't have, popular public support in favour of it. We still maintain some limited form of power in bourgeois society, that's why they take time and effort to lie to us. In order to outright harm the working class they needed to be able to justify such actions. They needed to give us the sugar to help the economic medicine go down. (Certainly not in the most delightful way.) At this point the propaganda machine began grinding its gears to pump out justifications for the harmful new policy. Interestingly they came at the public from all angles in order to convince, scare and motivate us into it. First they told us that it was all the greedy unions fault. The poor rich upper class couldn't make it in the market with all the unions stealing the money they so obviously generated with all their virtuous selfishness. Second, they told us that the worker's were going to cause the collapse of our economy if we didn't. I clearly remember seeing the news as NAFTA was coming in that we needed it to keep our economy from being destroyed. Basically the lower class was blamed for problems that never occurred (because NAFTA supposedly avoided them). It was a typical divide-andconquer strategy, scare the middle class into thinking that the lower class was going to kill us all so that we didn't unite against the upper class to defend our interests. Getting the right wing to hate workers, even if they are workers themselves, is ridiculously easy.

133

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Thirdly and most sickeningly, they made an impassioned plea for the poor people of Mexico. Taking our jobs and sending them to Mexico would help the poor Mexicans get out of poverty. As they shed crocodile tears for the underprivileged Third World, the liberals all felt their heart strings being pulled and jumped on the bandwagon to screw the lower class. They took the damage caused by capitalism and promised that capitalism would repair it. Of course we know this never happened, we know poverty actually doubled from 35% to between 65% and 75% according to the World Bank. So much for helping the poor, something capitalism is known for doing right? With justifications and propaganda abound, the capitalist class went about shipping our jobs to the Third World. The question we ask ourselves now is: in absence of a labour movement or unions to fight for our rights, how do we defend ourselves from this de-industrialization? Combating De-industrialization The question of how to combat de-industrialization can be complicated in any given situation. But I feel there is a general outline that is simple and effective. Of course we will have to wait and see if this outline is effective in practise. Practise is absolutely necessary for determining a correct policy. Mao Tse-tung said: The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality. Mao Tsetung, 1937

134

Maoist Rebel The first measure should be to seize the unions from bourgeois control. The method for doing this I have already mentioned above so it does not bear repeating. It is absolutely paramount that we take the union bureaucratic power away from the bourgeois so as to enable ourselves to make use of its organs and fiances (which are ours anyway). Second, we must not be intimidated by threats to move production overseas if we do not accept the insults the capitalists give us in the name of compromise. If our jobs, and therefore livelihoods are threatened, then we have every right to defend ourselves. Your income which is determined by the capitalist determines your living standard, what kind of home you can live in, where you can live, what food you can afford, how much post-secondary education you can give your children, what vehicle you can drive, what leisure time you can have and many more aspects of your life. If these are threatened by the capitalist you must defend yourself. If bargaining with management will not produce results, (i.e. protect our jobs), and the capitalist insists on moving production overseas, then we seize the means of production from them. Every worker should follow the example of Republic Windows and Doors1 and lock themselves inside the building and refuse to let any of the means of production leave the premises. If this action fails to force the capitalist to keep he jobs domestic, then a new demand should be made of him. The union and occupation force will demand that the business be turned over to the workers themselves and be run as a collective. The last resort will be to take the means of production away from the capitalist. What is there to lose really? The capitalist was already going to take the means of production away from you causing you to lose your means of subsistence. So you haven't lost anything by trying. You really don't have anything to lose but your chains.

135

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

NDP Revealed to be a Fraud

You remember that election in Canada we just had for federal parliament? That election where the NDP gained more seats that it ever has before? Where for the first time the NDP (the social-democrats) became the official opposition for the first time? Yea you remember that election. Well as it turns out the NDP never had the people's best interests in mind. (OMG EPIC LULZ LOL!!!) They have been caught bowing the ruling class interests at the expense of the working class. Jack Layton promised us all that Main Street not Bay Street stuff. You know, that protecting pensions, putting a moratorium of outsourcing jobs, ending all the austerity measures, ending the war in Afghanistan. Well he never intended to do any of it whatsoever, and now we have proof of that. In the May 5th edition of the Montreal La Presse, this is what it had to say: Last Monday, the NDP made contact with leaders of the financial world to reassure the markets. The NDP wanted to remind them that if the NDP formed the government, it would follow the example of provincial premiers like Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan or Gary Doer in Manitoba who had tabled balanced budgets. Here you are, proof that the social-democrats do not fight for the interests of the masses of Canadian people. They fight for the benefit of the elite, and defend the interests of American business in country. The NDP has been exposed as an absolute lie. I mean I always knew it was, it is after all a bourgeois parliamentarian party based in a system created and controlled by the bourgeois. But rarely have the NDP ever been so transparent about it. Now the NDP has an excuse for what happened. When contacted about the article the NDP press secretary Karl
136

Maoist Rebel Belanger claimed that it was all to protect the pension investments. A nice little fib to get the elites to relax so that they could get into power more easily. What I find most insulting about this is the fact that I am supposed to believe that. They actually think the Canadian public is supposed to be dumb enough to believe that those conversations with the richest businessmen and financial journalists was all just "playing the game". I am insulted that anyone would think I was foolish enough to believe such rubbish. However, this incident says more than it appears on the surface. Think about it for a moment, let's assume that Karl Belanger is telling the truth, that they were just placating the financial elite. Doesn't that indicate that you need the wealthy elite on your side if you're going to run for office? But why would you need the wealthy elite on your side when you're running for office? This is a democracy right? I think by now, no matter how right wing nationalist you are, you have to admit that this system is rigged in favour of the rich. Even a party that claims to be against the very thing this country is predicated on can't enter office without the consent of the financial aristocracy. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! Nothing but childish ear plugging denial could possibly allow someone to go on thinking this is a free country. Capitalism is democracy? Even the most fanatic pro-capitalist zealots couldn't be buying it anymore. But alas, as usual, this little glimmer of truth went completely ignored in the rest of the media. But then again we have a free press right?

137

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Killing US Troops in a Chinese Game

If you're up to date on news within the gaming world, you're no doubt aware of a new First Person Shooter developed in China where you can kill US troops. Ironically the game was developed from the same game engine as America's Army Online (a game I used to play). As a result of this development there has been some right wing and nationalist reaction. Of course this type of reaction is not to be unexpected. Many are questioning the morality of creating a game where one combats the US military. However I don't feel that this is a reasonable position to take. After all, there are plenty of US made (many of them Japanese made) where US soldiers kill non-Americans. There has been little, if any, outcry about these games. So if any reactionary actually has a problem with this game I'd be happy to remind them what they said about killing non-Amercians in a game: "Its not a big deal, its just a game." Besides, the idea of Chinese troops fighting American troops is not new ground. If you'll recall this was a major part of the game Command and Conquer Generals (bad ass game by the way). In that game some one could play as American, Chinese or nondescript Arab terrorist forces. When this game came out no one made a noise about Chinese troops fighting US troops. But then again Americans made the game, so its like the whole N-word issue where its okay for Black people to say it. The conservative reactionary view of the game is obvious and really doesn't need going into detail on. The liberal reactionary response does however require a more sophisticated analysis as they tend to be more elaborate. The usual making a criticism while appearing to be non-confrontational. It's called passive aggressive when people do it in real life. This is what MSNBC had to say regarding the game. "Objections don't appear to be focused on the game's existence. After all, the U.S. military is heavily invested in its own acclaimed military training and recruitment game,

138

Maoist Rebel Americas Army, but it features a generic enemy, so as not to offend anyone." - Ed Flanagan, MSNBC This statement by Ed Flanagan is blatantly false. I used to play that game quite a lot many years ago when it first came out. I can tell you from personal experience that while the game does not use countries names, there are clearly particular countries depicted. Not to mention the semi-obvious racist elements depicted with the physical characteristics appearance of the enemy troops. Sometimes these liberal passive aggressive view points are humorous. "Rather, the concern is that the game, which was ostensibly developed as a training tool for the PLA, makes American solders and equipment the enemy combatant and could lead young, impressionable trainees to believe that the United States is the enemy." - Ed Flanagan, MSNBC In this statement we can see the subtle liberal nationalism. By making this statement they are stating that the United States is the world's hero and great civilizer. Its also indirectly claiming that everyone knows this to be a fact, accusing China of indoctrinating its troops into hating America. Well in reality Chinese government and the US government are enemies as they have contrasting interests. Both super powers by the law of capitalist accumulation are going to compete for access to the world's natural resources and market access. Of course these contrasting interests would not exist if the use of resources were put towards human need in system of distribution based on that. In the end, its just a bad ass game that I'm going to download as soon as possible.
139

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Was Bernie Madoff really a bad guy?

"On the surface, Madoff's funds were supposed to be lowrisk investments. His largest fund reported steady returns, usually gaining a percentage point or two a month. The funds' stated strategy was to buy large cap stocks and supplement those investments with related stock-option strategies. The combined investments were supposed to generate stable returns and also cap losses. But sometime in 2005, according to the SEC suit, Madoff's investment-advisory business morphed into a Ponzi scheme, taking new money from investors to pay off existing clients who wanted to cash out.... Despite his gains, a growing number of investors began asking Madoff for their money back. In the first week of December, according to the SEC suit, Madoff told a senior executive that there had been requests from clients for $7 billion in redemptions. ... Madoff met with his two sons to tell them the advisory business was a fraud-"a giant Ponzi scheme," he reportedly told them-and was nearly bankrupt." Stephen Gandel, "Wall Street's latest downfall: Madoff charged with fraud," Time Magazine, December 12, 2008 What is important to note here is that his Ponzi scheme did not begin this way. It began as a regular investment strategy that turned into what is basically a pyramid scheme. What is also important to note is that no one seemed to notice that this had become one. Ponzi schemes are one of the oldest tricks in the book, yet it went undetected for so long. Immediately after the news of this scheme broke out, the damage control propaganda of capitalism went into action. The reporting around Bernie Madoff portrayed him as a "bad apple", one bad guy in a group of otherwise good hearted

140

Maoist Rebel investors. Its forgotten that he was also involved a number of charities that did whatever good a charity can ever do. This is not an unexpected reaction for two reasons. One, defending capitalism from any ideological alternative is a must. Two, it is important to defend capitalism ideologically so as to protect the market itself. Too many of these schemes getting revealed may shake investor confidence into not investigating for the immediate time. Remember, its less important if any course of action will work, than how the market will react to it. Now its important to remember that his long term investment scheme was eventually going to collapse. He must have known that on some level, all investors know that pyramid-type investments can't last. The question is why did he keep making the investment scheme bigger and bigger knowing that it was going to collapse eventually? What drove him to continually "expand the sphere of circulation"? He did because that is how capitalism works. Its a system that has to keep expanding, (or growing in the case of enterprises) or it will go into crisis. This is the problem, its hard to tell when a legitimate investment plan becomes an illegal scheme. When does a rational investment plan turn into "wild" speculation. The very nature of capitalism distorts the difference between the two. Capitalism is essentially a gamble, the reward is for those who have the "courage" and the "initiative" to take the risks. What is initially considered a rational safe risk can turn out to be an insane disaster if there is a shift in the market. At what point exactly is the risk considered to be too big or "too wild"? In real concrete material reality Madoff was responding to a situation in an investment plan as the logic of capitalism dictates. What he did was, take on more and more risk out of necessity for greater profits, this is nothing any other capitalist wouldn't do. At no point could he ever pay back the money that was invested, because it would have collapsed the investment. He just had to generate more profit in order to pay down those who wanted to leave and make those staying in the investment happy.

141

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Is this man really as pathological as the media made him out to be? Or is he simply the product of his environment. Was it nature as the capitalism sees it, people are naturally greedy; or was it his nurture as Marxists see it, a society that promotes greed produces greedy people. Was it nature or was it nurture? Answering this question answers the first one: Was Bernie Madoff really a bad guy?

142

Maoist Rebel

The Theology of Oprah

As you may or may not know The Oprah Winfrey Show ended Wednesday much to the chagrin of those who wanted to sell books. However, few people have taken the time to step back and really look at her religious movement. Oprah will be the first to tell you she's not a religious leader and did not start her own religion. However in her actions contradict her words. Her religion I must say, is a very unique one. One that definitely deserves analysis. Oprah has said that she recited James Weldon Johnson sermons for various churches as a child for churches all over Nashville. These sermons were uniquely African-America, they're done in the traditional southern black baptist style. With hands waving in the air, the uplifting music and the general emotional frenzy that accompanies it. These types of sermons came from the merging of two different religions. The southern Baptists style of Christianity is derived from the West African traditions of religious song and dance. This worship was uniquely driven from justice and/or a drive for justice depending on the time in which it was being conducted. It was a kind of consolation for the horrors of slavery. Through her television show however, she has manipulated this message of consolation into an exulting of suffering itself. She does this by parading out all the self-help so-called experts who treat suffering as something beneficial. This was put best by Dr. Illouz of the Hebrew University of Bethlehem: By making all experiences of suffering into occasions to improve oneself, Oprah ends up absurdly making suffering into a desirable experience... [Winfreys teachings suggest, strong women] can always transcend failure by the alchemy of their own will and of therapy, then people have only themselves to blame for their misery. - Dr. Illouz, Hebrew University of Bethlahem

143

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Such a mentality is very anti-materialist. To preempt your comments I'm well aware that religion in general is antimaterialist. What this does, like most religions, is abstract from the concrete material conditions face by the masses. Her message is, something bad has happened, you have the power to change it if you really want to. Unfortunately for religion, reality is rarely that simple. The problems faced by the masses are something you can just "wish" away. Mass unemployment is not something you can just have a lot of faith in over coming. It's a real concrete material condition people are facing, that can only be overcome by understanding the cause of it and working towards undoing that. Unemployment is a problem, but more specifically a symptom of a larger problem, a system that doesn't focus on human need. As one might expect there is also a very pro-capitalist mentality to this religious conception of Oprah's. Along with the subtle promotion of social-Darwinism through a denial of prevailing conditions, she also pushes an empty-headed worship of material luxuries. People are put on the show who have a hard life, unfair conditions or what have you, and she gives them free stuff. This wouldn't have such a destructive effect if it wasn't glamourized so much, but its made the focus of the event. The message is clear, unhappy, depressed, stressed out... just buy stuff! I am tempted to go into the fetishism of commodities that Marx wrote about. Oprah also promotes a hellfire and brimstone aspect to her religion as well. She is merciless in pulling out confessions of wrong doings from people. Guests are frequently forced to admit some of the worst things they have ever done. Which is sickening and sensationalizing considering Christian confession is supposed to be between an individual and God. Instead she makes them public for all to see and sensationalizes them for ratings. A good example is Governor McGreevey who stepped down from office admitting that he had an affair and came out of the closet. Oprah brought him on the show to discuss all the sordid details of his sexual encounters. Like any popular religion she has her collection of prophets or scholars or whatever you want to call them. They are a typical
144

Maoist Rebel New Age non-judgemental illogical types who don't make criticisms. The kind who desperately seek meaning in meaningless events. The illogical way of thinking promoted by these people is harmful to an intelligent forward thinking society. Some of these prophets are: "self-help author Louise Hay, who once said Holocaust victims may have been paying for sins in a previous life. She championed the medical intuitive Caroline Myss, who claims emotional distress causes cancer. She helped launch Rhonda Byrne, creator of the DVD and book The Secret, who teaches that just thinking about wealth can make you rich. She invited the psychic medium John Edward to help mourners in her audience talk to their dead relatives." - New York Times, "The Church of Oprah Winfrey and a Theology of Suffering" The cult of personality around Oprah and her religion is inherently very dangerous and posses almost as much of a threat as fundamentalist Christianity does. Its a semi-cult that passes its self off as a kind of New Age, non-judgmental, open philosophy that satisfies those who feel scorned by the mentality of mainstream religion. The important thing to note is that that religious tradition of going to church once a week to worship God has been replaced by a daily ritual of turning on a television show to follow a capitalist who essentially worships money... And now a word from our sponsors.

145

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Pawn Stars anti-Soviet Propaganda

There is a show on the History Channel called Pawn Stars. The show is about a family of men that owns a pawn shop in Las Vegas and all the interesting stuff that comes in looking to be sold. A very entertaining show that has a great deal of interesting historical relics. I was watching the show the other day and there was this clip in it where this woman was selling an antique printing press. She brings it in to see how much money she can get for it while the co-owner Rick talks a bit about the history of the printing press. "Believe it or not, things like this were banned in a lot of countries. As a matter of fact in Russia you could go to the Gulag for 20 years just for having one of these things. There was no freedom of the press." - Pawn Stars, Season 2 Episode 21 Off the Wagon Actually this statement is mostly false, there was very limited freedom of the press. There still exist copies of old political cartoons created in the 1920s criticizing the Soviet government. So this statement is not exactly true. Second you did not go to the Gulag for 20 years, you could only go for a maximum of 10 years. This is a blatant lie, but that's assuming he knows what he's talking about. Problem is people will just take this as truth and spread it. The reason why it was illegal was because people were engaged in underground printing making money off of it. The point of the revolution was to end that. See the Soviet Union was socialist, now that means all means of production are owned by the state. They were running an illegal business, they were operating a capitalist enterprise that was exploiting people. It was also law that you had to turn in means of

146

Maoist Rebel production to the state so that they could be used. That's why it was illegal. After that rick continued... "Even down South, there's parts of this country, where you printed things, even though there was freedom of the press in this country, they would go in your house and break your printing press to pieces." - Pawn Stars, Season 2 Episode 21 Off the Wagon Well Rick, that doesn't seem very free at all now does it?

147

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

The Daily Show on Canadian Oil

(Written for http://theredstar.spruz.com/) You might have seen that little bit The Daily Show did on America's dependence on Canadian oil last night. For those of you who did, you were treated to the usual smart ass antics of the cast mocking the Conservative position on foreign oil. No doubt intended thesis was that America didn't really have a cabal of "terrorist states" filled with anti-Americanism as their supplier of oil. While entertaining, it was also laugh out loud as they superimposed the usual xenophobic attitudes onto the stereotypical perception of Canadian culture. I (on a comedic level) did enjoy the segment for half of its intended purpose, comedy. The other half of the segment was handed subtlety in the usual liberal pro-bourgeoisie way. The subtext to the entire "comedy bit" was in fact the liberal defence of America's dependence on foreign oil. The segment began with images of violent antiAmerican imagery from the Middle East with words of warning about regimes that are out to get you. (This alone is a half truth, but a half truth presented as a whole.) Then the images of lily white peaceful Canada was juxtaposed right next to the "violent Islamic extremist". No doubt that this was intended to mock the right wing reaction to foreign oil, but there was something else it did. It had a slight "white-washing" effect, an apologist kind of effect. It holds Canada up as this polite, peaceful, non-aggressive nation as another source of foreign oil. The idea is that "see not all our foreign oil comes form bad people". (See our actions in Libya and try again Stewart.) The statement makes the case that a dependence on foreign oil is not so bad because there are some good people we get it from too. (No doubt that one could also push the free market angle by claiming American purchase of oil creates jobs in Canada as well). By doing so they make it seem okay to have this continued dependence on this foreign oil. Thus perpetuating the use of it, and the interests behind it.

148

Maoist Rebel The purchase of foreign oil is of course a game of power plays against all kinds of powers in the world. Each nation needs it, America needing the most, so it is in their interest to control as much of it as possible. This is in actuality an attack on the domestic oil exploration agenda. The economic need for purchasing oil form other countries is entirely bound up with the need for the cheapest labour possible. Even Canada is cheaper labour than any produced domestically. (Although one can argue that since the fall of the US dollar the Canadian dollar has more value and is costing more. A situation the US elite are working on remedy as soon as possible.) An aspect to the petroleum relationship (I assume) deliberately left out of the program was the US dominance of it. Canadians do indeed physically remove the oil from the Earth, but it is immediately shipped to US refineries to be processed into petroleum. Meaning, that while we here (in Canada) actually have the physical supply of the oil, we are entirely dependent on the US for its refinement. Meaning we are at the mercy of US oil refiners and by extension its oil industry. There is no doubt in my mind that this is by design. Decades of all the parties in Canada have supported this and have not challenged it. This will become worse under the Steven Harper Conservative dictatorship. Something many Canadians are not looking forward too. We Canadians don't have energy independence, and that's something we need to accept. A Chavez-stlye take over and redistribution of oil control is absolutely needed. The Daily Show segment leaves this part out, the side of foreign oil usually left out of the public debate on it. I could go on by talking about how the negative effects of oil were also overlooked in their bit, but I think you get the point now.

149

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Tea Bag Dialectic

The title may seem odd, but hear me out. A dialectical relationship is one based on a contradiction. A unity of opposites that drives both in existence. Like the relationship between capitalists and workers. Its a massive contradiction that perpetuates the class structure of our society. This is what I see when I look at the attitude of the Tea Baggers and whose who hold the similar belief that America is a socialist country. We see this big contradiction in their belief/ideology. What we see is that everything is socialism and nothing is socialism. Appropriately enough this in line with the dialectic. Something its both itself and not itself. Anything that is socialism can be claimed not to be. Anything that is not socialism can be claimed to be. Bank bailouts could not be anymore obviously anti-socialist, while the Mises version of what a central bank should to do actually is socialist. Another example of this is the contrasting views of what socialism is in the eyes of the followers of this movement. If you live in a poor state, socialism is all the rich people keeping the poor down. Its the evil socialist government of America serving the corporate elite. They scream in unison, "corporations are not capitalism!" Socialism becomes a tool of those who privately own the means of production. Its an attack on the privilege of the rich. If you live in rich state, socialism is poor people keeping the rich down. The complaint they make is that the working class is harming the wealthy, too many taxes are preventing the fairytale "trickle down economics" from functioning and helping all. Now socialism is attacking those who own the means of production as opposed to helping them. Mad scrabbles are made to defend the privilege of the rich. The most vile lies and distortions come out of Fox News decrying Marxist and/or Muslim influences killing the American dream. In this contradiction we see an overall manufactured perspective that is being developed despite the obvious insanity of it all: A defence of the privileged elite appearing as popular
150

Maoist Rebel defence of the working class. This is what the entire corporate manufactured Tea Bagger movement is all about. Defending the privilege and power of the rich while convincing it's working class followers that it is defending them. To many this might seem like a new thing, but really it is history repeating itself. The Founding Fathers themselves practised this idea as well. The Constitution spoke so passionately about freedom and liberty, while plainly to be seen it was intentionally written to protect the privileged. (For a good explanation of this check Michael Parenti on the Founding Fathers.) A great deal of effort was taken to appeal to the masses while doing its opposite. They spoke of freedom, but yet Native Americans, African slaves and women were not even counted as people. This Tea Bag dialectic is not something new, its something redone for a new age.

151

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

"Eco"-Capitalism: Another 3rd Way Trap

As the profit motive driven system that is capitalism drives the world closer to ecological destruction, more and more people are becoming aware of the approaching threat. Even those who previously denied the this threat are beginning to understand the seriousness of the situation. The propaganda pumped out by the ruling class and capitalist class is not working anymore. Only those who still hold tightly the 50's "God and country as infallible" mentality are still clinging to this lie against global warming. Despite the obviousness of the profit-motive's desire to suppress the reality of global warming, many people still refuse to acknowledge its "hidden hand" in it. Despite he very serious threat to all of humanity, many of capitalism's supporters refuse to acknowledge that the profit motive (as well as capitalism) is the very source of this threat. So it should not be seen as unusual that a kind of "third way" has appeared. There has always been a "third way" going as far back as Marx's time. Social-Democrats are the usual form it takes. However in this century it has taken the form of "Eco" capitalism. This Eco-capitalism is a retro idea given a new paint job, a healthy shade of green. As in the past, the apologists for capitalism (commonly liberals) have been "embarrassed" by its effects on the world. This time it goes beyond simply being "embarrassed" by its effects to being terrified by them. It is in these moments of "fear" that individuals often grasp more strongly to their beliefs. We've seen this with the 2008 global economic collapse. many have refused to accept that capitalism caused the event. And instead of criticizing their belief, they have become market fundamentalists. In times of crisis they have only gripped more firmly to their faith. Like a Christian who has lost their way only to become "born again". This new "Third Way" is still just an apology for capitalism. Like previous "Third Ways" it has found its political leaders and political parties. What was once the social-democrats is now the various Green Parties that can be found around the

152

Maoist Rebel world. Where the social-democrats have promised a reigning in and greater control of capitalism, the Greens have promised a reorientation of capitalism towards Eco-friendly ideas and beliefs. The Greens have given us this version of a capitalism where the productive forces can be used in a socially responsible manner. They claim they can effect a capitalist mobilization with the goal of sustaining human life on Earth ecologically. Along with this as an aside, theyll tackle homelessness and global poverty , maybe even economic inequality. This message speaks to a post-materialist crowd, better known as hippies. It gives a very holistic spiritual flavour to what is in reality an exploitative repressive ideology. In truth, the whole "Green mentality" is just another "spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down". An amusing aspect to this whole green-capitalism is its claim that it can attract capitalists with an altruistic incentive. This aspect was best put by Slavoj Zizek: "Capitalists should not just be machines for generating profits, since their lives can have a deeper meaning. Their preferred mottos have become social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to them to deploy their talents and amass great wealth, so it is their duty to give something back to society and to help ordinary people. Only this kind of caring approach makes business success worthwhile." - Slavoj Zizek, First as Tragedy, then as Farce I'm sure there is no need for me to explain why reaching out to capitalists with altruism is absolutely hilarious. Regardless of however the Greens think they will entice or even coerce the capitalists, they will achieve nothing. They will achieve nothing for one simple reason: Eco-capitalism is capitalism. Despite its well-meaning altruism the profit motive
153

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel doesn't change. The mistake here by the Greens is that they separate the ideological basis of capitalism (individualist greed) from the economic relations (the capitalist mode of production). What they then try to do is graft an altruistic, even spiritual ideology on those same economic relations. Such a surgical transplanting of ideologies as failure is not recognized by the Greens because they have not done a materialist analysis of capitalism. Marx clearly pointed out that social-relations spring from economic-relations. A greedy, exploitative people are a product of a greedy and exploitative system. (Its also a self-perpetuating mechanism, it creates greedy people while turning around to say "see people are naturally greedy".) To put it another way, the "greedy individualist" body will inevitably reject the "altruistic" organ. If you want to change the social-relations of the system, you have to change the economic-relations. Refusing to do so is an ideological position as opposed to a materialist analysis. Attempting to change things without a materialist analysis in a material way will lead only to disaster. In the material conditions we face, the capitalist class controls the means of production. Meaning they hold all power in society, financial (in the form of money), physically (in the form of police/military/judicial system) and ideologically, (propaganda through ownership of media). This power will keep them from achieving anything. It is also why reform does not work, and why only revolution brings victory. Suppose a Green Party won a majority in some country. There are only 2 ways the scenario would play out. 1. The party actually comes into power and genuinely tries to put through the reforms to capitalism they intend. The capitalist class fights back using the media to give the impression that everyone hates them and go the other parties to force them out. They would create all kinds of scandals and lies to basically bash them out of office and call new elections.

154

Maoist Rebel 2. The party actually comes into power and genuinely tries to put through the reforms to capitalism they intend. The capitalist class fights back and the party leadership gives up because they can't win. Immediately they sell out the voters and become just another group of tools. The Greens can never fight back because they do not control the means of production and the power that flows from them. Nor do they have the intention of ever doing so. In the concrete material reality the ecological crisis is caused by capitalism. No amount of reform can possibly effect this bringing it to an end, because it remains capitalism. Ecological destruction is a part of economic relations. The only solution is to change the economic relations in a way where the goal is not profit at all cost, but to the sustainment of human life. We achieve that by abolishing capitalism. This is not possible under Eco-capitalism because it is capitalism. Eco-capitalism in concrete material reality, is another "Third Way" trap that offers no viable solutions to the problems and dangers we face. No amount of spiritual or ideological reflavouring can change the fallacy of the "Third Way" position. Revolution is the only solution.

155

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Movie Review: Super 8

The basic rundown of the story is this: The movie begins with the main character dealing with the death of his mother. Later we learn who is responsible and the main character forgives him. Some kids are filming an amateur movie about zombies and witness a train crash. As a result of the crash an alien that has been abused by its Air Force captors is set free. They all try to keep their knowledge of the events secret because the Air Force is going around doing their "thing". The group of main characters eventually become trapped by the alien creature and instead of being killed by it, the main character empathizes with it sharing his abuse by the hands of another teaching the alien to forgive and stop killing. The alien then leaves to return home. Super 8 is above all a story of forgiveness and an introspection into our own human nature and then a celebration of our ability to forgive the big Other. This lesson is brought to us by the innocence of a child, thus reminding us that our ability to forgive may primarily lie in our most basic good hearted form. And reminds us that we do indeed need to rerun to our most innocent and good hearted mode of feeling. That of a child yet to be spoiled by full envelopment of human nature as we are programed to believe exists. This movie presents "identity" in a way that I do not believe has been since ET: The Extraterrestrial. A typical plot for the alien invasion scenario is that we discover ourselves as human beings. We begin to identity ourselves as human beings rather than our usual "identities", that being race, national citizenship, religion or even class. Allow me to put things a simpler way: Native Americans identify themselves as the indigenous population of North America (or Turtle Island if you will). Before colonization by Europeans there was no such identity. They each had identity as a member of a particular tribe. They see the other tribe as the big Other in the Hegelian sense. Now with the colonization, the Europeans became the Other because they were different than

156

Maoist Rebel all the tribes. Now with this new Other the Native American's have an identity as the indigenous because there are now nonindigenous. Usually in these movies we see the aliens as the Other and thus "discover" our identity as human beings in contrast to the aliens. In this movie, like ET, the opposite is presented to us. The main character Joe Lamb does not combat the alien but instead shares his sorrow of mistreatment by another to connect with the alien. By doing so he shares his ability to forgive those who have wronged him. He shares his humanity with the alien teaching it to forgive those in the Air Force who have harmed it. Instead of discovering our humanity to unite and defend ourselves, instead humanity is shared with the Other, and in doing so a commonality is discovered. The alien suffers and feels pain like we do. Thus it seeks to unravel the concept of the Other and to see it as "ourselves". This contrasts wonderfully with the subplot of the main characters making their own zombie movie. The Zombie has always been a symbol of the Other as well, like the alien. Except the Zombie is always a threat, irrational, violent, mindless monster that must simply be destroyed. That is the usual perception we are fed by society. The Muslims in the 3rd world are portrayed as ruthless killing animals that need to be controlled. This theme of the Other being something that is to be feared and controlled dates back as far as the colonization of America and the treatment of the indigenous. So I think intentionally or not, the movie tries to get us to rethink how we see ourselves in contrast to the Other; and that the Other may not be so "Otherly".

157

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Movie review: Green Lantern (Material v Ideological)

This movie quite surprised me, I was not expecting such a deep level of philosophical analysis possible. I had expected another typical super hero movie that didn't really have any substance beyond good guy/patriot wins over the evil/foreigner message. There's a few themes I'd like to go over in this movie. Primarily, I think most importantly the conflict that exists in this movie is that of ideological vs. material. Anti-Intellectualism Green Lantern like pretty much all super hero movies contains the usual anti-intellectualism. Its a very common theme for comic books and super hero movies to place a great fear or revulsion on those of great intelligence. The hero is rarely an intellectual. Take the archetype Superman, the strongest man in the world. His archenemy is Lex Luthor, a man who is rarely afforded any ability to physically fight. He uses the power of his intelligence that proves to be more dangerous than any of the physical combatants Superman ever faces. Green Lantern faces his enemy Hammond who is a xenobiologist, which is a scientist that could not be any more abstract. He literally embodies the understanding and the pursuit of the knowledge of the Other. He is the intellectual who is to be feared most. In the course of the movie he pretty much loses the ability to use his body and as a result his gains psychokinetic powers. Thus literally making his mind more powerful and deadly than his body could ever be. This demonetization of the intellect is a common theme throughout Western popular culture. In reality it manifests itself in a hatred for the greater educated. One need look no further than the fear mongering of Glen Beck and the Tea Party people making outlandish claims of University and Collage professors indoctrinating students with Marxism. Hilarious and idiotic when one considers the actual

158

Maoist Rebel indoctrination that takes place against ideas that challenge the status quo. Positive Human Nature vs. Negative Human Nature (Will vs Fear) Fear as addiction: The theme of the Green Lanterns is a combat of Will versus Fear. The Will of any Lantern is the source of their power, they're forbidden to feel any fear for it is a weakness. A weakness the main enemy Parallax exploits all too well. Superficially we can see here the struggle between strength and weakness in its most "male bravado" way. To show any fear is to admit weakness/cowardice, so one must insist upon refusing to admit that they have any fear. This refusal of admission leads to an inability to deal with the fact fear is felt, causing the deaths of several of the Lanterns. This fear is only defeated once one of the Lanterns (Ryan Reynolds) finally admits that his is afraid and is thus able to combat his fear. Fear is the problem that affects the entirety of the Green Lantern corp. In this do we not see the addiction to fear as it is denied? Fear like a chemical addiction is something kept in private until its effects upon our lives becomes too large to hide. This is what happens in the film, Green Lantern sees the problem, this all pervading fear is causing, thus he has to take the first step in conquering any problem/addiction. "Step 1 We admitted we were powerless over our addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable." Doesn't the scene where Ryan Reynolds calls out the Guardians of the Universe on being afraid not seem an awfully lot like an intervention? He very confrontationally accuses the Guardians of the Universe of being afraid themselves and calls on them to admit as such. In doing so he gets them to admit their weaknesses and allows them to more objectively view them. Good Nature vs. Bad Nature:
159

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel As the struggle between Fear and Will continues throughout the movie it becomes clear that we are dealing with not just some abstract super hero issue, we're dealing with human nature itself. We can see that the Lanterns have chosen Will as a weapon and not Fear. Is this not the same choice we face ideologically here in the real world as we confront the multitude of social problems and economic relations? It is in reality, like in the movie, much easier to give into fear (which symbolizes the negative in human nature) than it is to play to the good in people (symbolized by Will in the movie). Do we not see this same struggle in economics? Is not capitalism the product of fear? The fear that one may not have as much as another? The fear that we will have to give too much? Or fear being invaded something we are not familiar with, as with the perception of immigration? Isn't this fear much easier to live with than having Will? Isn't the struggle to hold onto Will scarier than simply just being fearful? Interestingly here there is a parallel we face with the problem of revisionism. As the Guardians of the Universe begin to realize the seriousness of the situation (in a bad time) they begin looking at fear as possibly weapon to be used against fear. They consider betraying their core belief in Will as a means of dealing with a problem they don't know how to solve with Will. Isn't this all too similar a temptation of revisionism? When faced with a situation that we don't know how to use Marxism to solve, isn't there a temptation to just us a pro-market reform to solve it? Isn't the revisionist action easier than to studiously work out the contradiction causing the problem? Revisionism, like Fear in Green Lantern, is an option that is made available to us. The Guardians of the Universe know that using fear is a slippery slope to the eventual downfall of the Green Lantern core, just as we know a single pro-market reform could cause untold devastation among the socialist economy. Are we not tested in our ability to resolve contradictions using the dialectic not similar to the way the Guardians of the Universe are tested in using Will to defeat Parallax?

160

Maoist Rebel

Ideological vs. Material Before the final battle between Green Lantern and Parallax, Green Lantern has to face Hector Hammond. In the battle between these two characters there is a clear philosophical struggle. Green Lantern uses objects created out of energy as weapons, non-material objects. Hammond uses real material physical objects that are around him as weapons. So here we can see a conflict not just between two powerful beings, but a conflict between ideology and materialism. This can certainly been seen as the struggle among the Left that we see today. One portion of it has a Utopian view, left liberalism, the Venus Project etc., those to propound a great world view with nothing at all as a blue print to affect that change. Their flaw is exactly that, their inability to give that blue print because they are too abstracted into the Utopian view they have. The real concrete material conditions that prevail are certainly (and rightfully so) criticized, but they do not give the tools for defeating or altering them. (Utopian socialism.) On the other side of this struggle we see the materialist view point, those of us who see a method of change that is grounded in the real material world. Anarchists and Communists alike see that things are the way they are because of series of conditions, many of them contradictory. The key to our beliefs is not in some abstract view that is supposed to "instantly appear" once the system is smashed. We see it as a series of concrete material conditions that have to be changed. Contradictions that must be resolved so that we may get to our view of a better world. A materialist view shows us not only the goal, but the path itself and gives us the tools in order to construct it. (Scientific socialism.) This is the problem we face today in the Left, and why it is so dysfunctional right now. Too many are pulled to Utopian views like a genteeler kinder capitalism like the various Green parties that exist, or a very left Democrat stance. In its most obscene form people are drawn to the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement, complete Utopian views with absolutely no

161

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel grounding materialism. Just one day all people will automatically become supporters of the Venus Project. (Especially funny here is how this is supposed to happen when the vast overwhelming majority have not even heard of it.)

162

Maoist Rebel

US-Pakistani Relations
Since the reported death of Osama bin Laden by a Navy Seal squad, relations between the US government and the Pakistani government have become more complex than they have been in the past. Pakistan has received many high ranking US officials in the last two weeks that certainly indicates that "something is up" between the two nations. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff; Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry. Even the media noted the cold atmosphere surrounding the visits: In contrast to the usual diplomatic pleasantries, however, Mrs Clinton and Admiral Mullen appeared awkward and unsmiling at a meeting in the presidential palace with President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and the chief of the Army, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. The purpose of these visits is obvious, they're attempting to decrease the tensions that are rising between Pakistan and US Imperialism. This tension almost exploded when the US struck at what is reported to be bin Laden. This raid on the supposed bin Laden compound shows a great deal of arrogance by the US. The entire operation was conducted without the permission or knowledge of the Pakistani government. Essentially Pakistani sovereignty was violated, this slight to their honour might have deeper consequences than they realize. Since then Pakistan has gone out of its way to undermine security cooperation with the U.S.:

163

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Those steps included leaking the name of the station chief of the Central Intelligence Agency here and asking the Pentagon to withdraw some of the military advisers who have worked with the countrys security forces for years. (The New York Times, 27 May) The support Pakistan has always given the US in the past is beginning to break down. Since Pakistan was founded in 1947 it depended on the UK and then the US to assert itself as separate from India. This relationship between the US and Pakistan increased when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The victory of the Taliban over the Soviets gave Pakistan more influence in the region as they helped train and support them. After the invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11, things have changed. The US still expected unwavering support from Pakistan in resistance to Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan. The US has even gone so far as to repeatedly blame Pakistan for its difficulty in defeating them, accusing Pakistan of helping them. This could be creating a difficult social situation for the people of Pakistan, particularly in the tribal regions and the boarder with Afghanistan. Previously Pakistan told people to back their Muslim brothers against the atheist Communists by invoking Islamic fundamentalists and everyone got behind it. Now Afghanistan is under threat from "Christian solders" with perceived "Zionist conspiracy elements". Many of those who answered or supported the call to support the Taliban are now being expected to fight them. Many could be confused by this sudden 180 and become angered at being asked to fight the Muslim brothers they so adamantly supported. It would seem very likely to them that there was some kind of conspiracy going on here. This kind of huge shift in policy (especially over Islamic unity) would have many think (and rightfully so) that the US was interfering in both countries. When the Pakistanis see this, they would certainly understand that the government was selling them out
164

Maoist Rebel to US interests. Given that, it is no wonder people have reacted to violently the the government in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is hated because, its has fostered hostility toward it by its own people. Take this grave mistrust of the government and add in the 700 plus US killings of Pakistani civilians by drone attacks, and you have the recipe for a possible outburst of social unrest. Not to mention any of the hostility of the current class relations as well. The landlord class, particularly in the tribal areas are extremely exploitative and brutal. This all creates great conditions for the Taliban to gain influence in Pakistan. A Taliban influence will only cause the US to conduct more killings in Pakistan.

165

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Supreme Court Serves Wal-Mart: Capitalism in Reality

The class action of women employees against Wal-Mart for discrimination has been shut down by the Supreme Court. 1.5 million women have been told that they must pursue individual actions against the retail giant. According to the Supreme Court, women cannot be discriminated against, only individuals can be. It appears that discrimination in America is over, according to the Supreme Court its not possible to discriminate against groups of people. According to the BBC: "The women, led by a group of named plaintiffs, sought back pay and punitive damages for the class of women, saying the company passed female employees over for promotion and paid them less." The Supreme Court judge Justice Antonin Scalia claims that the plaintiffs could not show a systemic prejudice against women despite the overwhelming evidence presented: "Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question 'why was I disfavoured.'" - (in)Justice Antonin Scalia This decision by the Supreme Court shows the continuing destruction of a major way corporations are held accountable for their criminal actions. It also signals a serious defeat of the legal peaceful means workers have in defending their rights. What this means in real terms is that in order to bring a class action lawsuit, employees have to demonstrate that a deliberate discrimination policy was explicitly adopted. Meaning that you literally need corporate paperwork ordering that the discrimination take place. Since we well know that these things
166

Maoist Rebel are made policy not in the explicit, but "unofficially" without paperwork, it is now almost impossible to bring a class action suit. The bigger impact of the case is clear: The ruling did not declare that the women were not discriminated against. It ruled that the women didn't have the right to sue. This action by female workers to defend themselves was essentially killed before it even went to court. The typical pro-corporate defence of these types of rulings is "the Supreme Court has signalled that it wants job bias disputes handled in the workplace". The ignorance of this is displayed in the fact that solving it in the work place doesn't work. This statement is a polite way of telling workers to just shut up and know their place. The Supreme court, hand-picked by Republicans to be antiworker, made a predictable decision. Now, more than ever before in recent history, is the time for a major resurgence of unions. The folks who say unions are somehow no longer necessary have been proven dead wrong. If the courts in the service of big business continue to attack and destroy the rights of workers... It may become necessary to use "other means" in which to defend their rights from the fascism that is capitalism.

167

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Vietnam and China Chill Out!

On my work "War: China vs Vietnam" Chinese and Vietnamese people have been attacking each other other viciously. Name calling, racism and all manner of hateful remarks have been flying from both sides in this, what is essentially, a conflict of capitalism. I want to tell you, the people of Vietnam and China to chill the hell out. There is absolutely no need for the hostilities. A few Vietnamese have accused me of being biased towards China because I'm a Maoist. That's not true I didn't take any side in the conflict because they are both wrong. One Vietnamese guy accused me of being Jewish, normally only white people ever accuse me of that. This whole situation is a fraud of nationalism, and that's all it is. Petty, arrogant nationalism. Both of your governments are pushing you against each other for the benefit of the elites. The Chinese ruling class is out for its own profit making, and the Vietnamese elites are out for their own profit making. None of this has to happen, these resources belong to the world and should be distributed as such. The only reason there is any conflict here is that each side is looking to use it for their own wealth. A wealth that the people of China and the people of Vietnam will never see. There won't be this ridiculous "trickle down" effect. Your ruling classes are using both of you as pawns for their gain. The working classes of Vietnam and China must stand up and tell their governments they do not want war in the South China Sea! The history of international solidarity between both nations is well known. Both were vociferous opponents of US imperialism in the 60s and 70s. You are both comrades that need to stop with the petty nationalism and return to your true path of international proletarianism. Don't listen to the US representatives speaking about the ownership of the South China Sea. Who are they to have a say anything on this manner? They're constantly trying to take it

168

Maoist Rebel for themselves whenever they can. They care nothing for you Vietnam, they are trying to use you against China. The Chinese elite are trying to use their own people against the Americans. This is madness. The South China Sea belongs to the people of South Asian region. The US has been conducting military exercises with Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. Why are they there? They have no business in this area. The interference is to protect their own profit motive interest. That's all this situation is about, elites making money and pushing the masses towards a war because of it. No more using comrades against comrades! Stand up and each of you tell your respective governments that you will not be used as a tool of war. Tell them that you are not jingoist puppets for the wealthy elite who exploit you. The profit motive is war! No war in the South China Sea! Power to the peoples of China and Vietnam! Strive for the socialist alternative!

169

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Wisconsin: Slavery Returns

Comrades we've all supported the worker uprisings in Wisconsin against the fascist attacks by the ruling class and its running dogs in the Republican government. We stood in amazement as even police officers resisted the budget cuts killing the living standards and rights of tens of thousands of workers. We were proud to stand by these people in spirit to support their struggle that we all face. Republican Governor Scott Walker responded to these demands for the protection of rights and living standards by killing the collective bargaining powers of state workers. The plan we assumed was to replace well-paid, benefit having union workers with privately controlled minimum wage workers with no benefits... We were wrong, the Republican's had something much worse planned. A return to slavery. Last week a new law went into effect that puts inmates doing landscaping, painting, and another basic maintenance around the county that was previously done by county workers. Before this law unions could sue to protect this work, but with the passing of Walkers new law, they are powerless. To make matters worse, private prisons where this program has been instituted have been receiving a new influx of prisoners thanks to new Republican laws. It appears the capitalist system has found away to create a supply of slave labour now that there is a demand for it. This is the enslavement of minorities as well. If 40% of US prisoners are Black and 20% Hispanic, than it is clear that this new law is forcing predominantly black minorities back into slavery. Bringing back slavery, only a Republican could come up with such an idea. The response to the crash of the global capitalist system has been to resort back to slavery. (Why not? Profit making from slavery made a lot of money for the Founding Fathers.) The removal of work from workers has been placed into the hands of virtual slaves... people forced to perform work on threat of

170

Maoist Rebel punishment. If a worker demands better treatment, they don't just get fired, they get solitary confinement. As global crisis of capitalism worsens, greater and greater fascist policies will need to be put in place to save the profit motive. What Vladimir Lenin said long ago rings just as true today: Fascism is capitalism in decay

171

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel

Re: Michael Moore on the First Episode of the New Countdown with Keith Olbermann
As many of you are aware Keith Olbermann has returned to anchoring the news in a new show on Current, an internet broadcasting company. As many of you are also aware Olbermann was released from his contract with MSNBC by Comcast once they took over the 24 hour news channel. No reason has been given yet as to why he was released from his contract, but many believe it is because Olbermann carries a progressive liberal message, while Comcast is a very large donater to the Republican Party. I like many people were happy to see that Olbermann return to broadcasting. Though he is not a Marxist, or even an anticapitalist, he is certainly one among the liberal establishment of personalities whom I can say I believe is genuine and honest in what he says. When I hear him speak, I believe he does want to change the world and make it a better place. It is unfortunate that he does not carry that desire all the way through and see that it is the capitalist system itself that causes the contradictions that prevent us from having that better world. He definitely has his own unique way of bringing his message to people, one that I confess had originally emulated and then altered until I found my own way of delivering a different message. So I was happy to watch the first edition of Countdown to see what kind of message he would bring now that he had left network television. I've suspected that he was restraining himself in someway just by the fact that he was on a corporate owned media outlet and had to "play the game". Now on Current, he is unfettered by the restrictions mainstream media places on opinion. It will be interesting to see what he will be saying now that he is uncensored. The first guest on Olbermann's first show was Michael Moore, author of several books and creator/director of several movies including Bowling for Columbine, Sicko and Capitalism: A Love Story. He is also a long time contributor to the show and
172

Maoist Rebel a friend of Olbermann. The topic on which they spoke of was the invasion of Libya and the American role in it. Quite frankly I was disappointed in what Michael Moore said, I was expecting Moore to be more anti-war and anti-imperialist. The first question Olbermann asked Moore was why President Obama used an executive order to become involved in Libya as opposed to going through Congress. Moore replied that it was easier that way, in doing so he avoided the red tape. I agree to an extent, sure it is easier, because if he had gone through Congress, the people would have had time to react and begin protesting such actions and questions would be asked. There is also the fact that not everyone in Congress would agree with beginning a new war. (Face reality, its a war not some kind of aid program to so-called rebels.) Interestingly Moore points out how according to the Constitution, Congress makes the decision about going to war or not. However he says that its "a little strange in this case" that Obama would do such a thing given that he is a Constitutional lawyer. He also said that if Obama's desire to "aid the rebels" was just, he'd be able to make a good case before Congress to get approval. We all know he probably wasn't going to get approval, that's why he never did it. Moore also correctly mentioned that in recent history Presidents have declared war without going to Congress for approval, and that he was of the opinion that Obama was going to do things differently. I think Moore genuinely believed that Obama was going to do things the way they are supposed to be done. I find that really naive coming from a man like him. We all know why Presidents don't go to Congress for approval, and we all knew that wasn't going to change, but it seems Moore did. Immediately after Moore criticized Congress for its lack of leadership and initiative. He said that the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be making laws but they are, and Congress is not stepping in to stop them. He spoke about how corporations are legally persons, and now corporations can buy politicians with the removal of restrictions on campaign donations. Essentially equating speech with money, money is now the new speech.
173

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel Again this has been going on for sometime now, corporations have always basically owned politicians and the entire political process. Again, it seems as though Michael Moore is being naive. I just don't understand how he doesn't see this as always being the way it was. Olbermann then asked Moore if he thought Senator John McCain was right in saying that America had a duty protect "people being slaughtered". Moore replied that you always do whether they were a group of people in country or just someone out on the street getting beaten. Of course they showed their liberal-esk imperialist leanings by not even asking whether not not people were being slaughtered. Neither one bothered to mention the fact that the French press had revealed that the French Government had been sending weapons to the so-called rebels before the French and NATO involvement was announced or hostilities began. Neither one bothered to discuss or even bring up that the so-called rebels were being funded and supported by the US. I think its very telling that they didn't mention/discuss this fact. This is one of those times when the liberal media is supporting imperialism while making it seem like their questioning it, when they're really not. Moore does make a good point when he calls out the leadership for NATO to admit they're trying to kill Gaddafi. Its really is a ridiculous farce to pretend as though killing him is not the goal. Almost every day a military installation he is suspected of being in is hit by bombs, or a home of his is being hit by bombs. Its actually quite transparent that killing Gaddafi is of greater priority than actually attacking Libyan troops commiting the so-called slaughters. Again Moore asks why isn't Obama just being honest and going to Congress and making the case for killing him. Well, there's a good reason of that as well, because its political assassination and that is a terrorist act according to the Patriot Act and international law. Its kind of frustrating that Moore doesn't seem to understand the fallacy of his own question: "Why is Obama not making the case for an illegal action?" Because its illegal to being with. You don't go to the police and make a case for murdering someone who isn't an immediate
174

Maoist Rebel threat to you. I don't believe that Moor doesn't understand that, I believe that he's in a way, looking the other way on this one. He's doing it either because: 1. He believes in removing Gaddafi, or 2. He covering for a Liberal President. It is interesting to note here how they are not questing the whether or not the invasion of Libya is justified or not, they're just operating under the assumption that it is. Ironically (or appropriately) enough, this is the same stance held by those in the Conservative Bush administration concerning the war on Iraq. They spent zero time discussing the morality of the plan to invade and instead just hammered home this idea of an immediate threat. There was no discussion of it, just fist pounding in support. The same is happening here in the liberal pro-imperialist way, it just has its own flavour to distinguish it from the Conservative pro-imperialism. Moore also correctly points out that there are several other people and regimes in the world which would also fall under the same description as the Gaddafi government. Moore questions why these other people/regimes have not been invaded as well. One, I would like to know the people and regimes Moore was referring to. Two, the answer as to why these other regimes/people are not invaded is obvious. Like NATO turning a blind eye to the Rwandan genocide, there's little if any resources to exploit. Libya being a large player in the energy sector, in the form of oil, is also not being mentioned by either Olbermann or Moore. Here is where Moore exposes his support for liberalimperialism: Olbermann then asked Moore a good question: is there a difference between Obama cherry picking reasons and legal support for going to war in Libya and how Bush cherry picked reasons and legal support for going to war in Iraq. Moore replied saying that he thinks Obama really cares about the people in Libya and wants to do the right thing. This is an outright laughable stance to claim the imperialists have. I mean after all the supply forces and operations began right in the oil producing region. Moore then also said that Bush knowingly lied (which he did) about the reasons and intelligence used in
175

Selected Works of the Maoist Rebel justifying the invasion of Iraq. However this time around its different, Moore said Obama may have "over-hyped a little the strength of Gaddafi's forces". Once again no thought whatsoever into whether or not these are actually rebels and not pawns of Western imperialist powers despite the solid evidence of it, (the weapons form France). This lack of discussion about such a very important point shows they (Moore and Olbermann) are deliberately keeping this information off the air. This is turning into another Iraq but they're trying to make it appear different this time because its a Democrat President in the White House, attempting to keep up the illusion that there is a difference between the two parties and that you really do have choice at the polls. What this interview on the first episode of the new Countdown shows us is that imperialism really is in the heart of the Liberal establishment, and that imperialism lives in the ruling class no matter how liberal or conservative they may appear. But its totally different this time.

176