Yearly Archives: 2020

Statements

A Declaration Concerning the Rejection of Belgrade-Pristina Agreement

Leave a comment

As activists and citizens of Serbia we have a duty and an obligation to distance ourselves from the agreement made between Belgrade and Pristina, directed by Washington, and also to inform the representatives of those nations and states whose interests go against this agreement.

Primarily we refer to interests of Serbia itself, whose economic sovereignty is further undermined and submitted to United States capital, secondarily to PR China and the Russian Federation, whose commercial cooperation with Serbia is limited, and of course to Palestine, whose occupation is pronounced legal, which deprives Serbia of the possibility to invoke the Resolution 1244 and the international law to condemn the violent secession of a part of its territory.

In accordance with the above:

  • We do not accept the imposition of cooperation with U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) and EXIM
  • We do not accept the imposition of a full-time presence of IDFC in Belgrade
  • We do not accept the imposition of cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other U.S. government entities for the purpose of sharing Gazivode Lake
  • We do not accept the imposition of “diversification” of our energy supplies (directed by Western mongers)
  • We do not accept the imposition of a U.S. 5G infrastructure
  • We do not accept the imposition of integration into the U.S. screening and information systems
  • We do not accept the imposition of restitution of unclaimed property of heirless Holocaust victims
  • We do not accept the imposition of designation of Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organization
  • We do not accept the imposition of a moratorium of de-recognition of Kosovo independence campaign
  • We do not accept the imposition of moving the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia to Jerusalem

We reject this agreement in its entirety and we invite all damaged parties to react relentlessly and sanction the politicians who convey the interests of U.S. capital at the expense of their own people and all fraternal peoples.

To Embassies of the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Palestine, Lebanon and Belarus.1

 

RNP-F

 

  1. In addition, we do not accept the Serbian Government joining the EU Declaration on Belarus.  ↩

Statements

Déclaration concernant le rejet de l’accord Belgrade – Pristina

Leave a comment

En tant qu’activistes et citoyens de la Serbie, nous ressentons le devoir et l’obligation de nous distancier de l’accord rédigé par Washington entre Belgrade et Pristina, ainsi que d’informer les représentants de ces peuples et pays dont les intérêts ont été bafoués avec cet accord.

Tout d’abord, nous entendons par là les intérêts de la Serbie elle-même, dont la souveraineté économique est encore plus profondément sapée et subordonnée au capital américain, puis la République populaire de Chine et la Fédération de Russie, auxquels on a restreint la coopération commerciale avec la Serbie. Et bien sûr la Palestine, dont l’occupation a été déclarée légale, ce qui prive la Serbie en même temps de la possibilité d’invoquer la Résolution 12-44 et le droit international pour condamner la sécession violente d’une partie de son territoire.

Conformément à ce qui précède :

  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une coopération avec la US International Financial Development Corporation (IDFC) et EXIM
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de l’ouverture d’un bureau permanent IDFC à Belgrade
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une coopération avec l’Agence américaine de l’énergie et d’autres organes du gouvernement des États-Unis afin de diviser le lac Gazivoda
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une « diversification » de l’approvisionnement énergétique (selon les diktats des vendeurs occidentaux)
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de la construction d’une infrastructure américaine pour le réseau Internet 5G
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une intégration dans les systèmes de sécurité américains
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de restitution sur les biens des victimes de l’Holocauste qui n’ont pas d’héritiers
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de qualifier le Hezbollah d’organisation “terroriste”
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’un moratoire sur la campagne pour retirer la reconnaissance de l’indépendance du Kosovo
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de la réinstallation de l’ambassade de la République de Serbie à Jérusalem

Nous rejetons cet accord dans son intégralité et appelons toutes les parties lésées à adopter une réaction vive et à sanctionner les politiciens qui poursuivent les intérêts du capital américain au détriment des intérêts de leurs propres peuples et de leurs frères.

Aux ambassades de la République populaire de Chine, de la Fédération de Russie, du Liban, de la Palestine et de la Biélorussie1.

 

RNP-F

 

  1. en complément, nous n’acceptons pas l’adhésion du gouvernement de la Serbie à la déclaration de l’UE sur la Biélorussie  ↩

World

DPRK and Zimbabwe: A History of a Defiant Friendship

1 Comment

At the time of the struggle for national liberation of Zimbabwe during the 1970s, rival liberation movements – African Peoples Union (ZAPU) and African National Union of Zimbabwe (ZANU) – received military aid from socialist countries. ZAPU, which mainly focused on mobilizing the proletariat in the cities, was supported by the USSR. On the other hand, ZANU, whose membership was mainly comprised of peasants, received considerable support from China. However, the general secretary of ZANU, Robert Mugabe, rejected the Chinese political line on USSR as an “imperialist power”, and continued to ask Moscow for support, as well as other socialist sources.1

Moscow stubbornly denied to reconsider its support and accept ZANU as the legitimate leader of the independence movement, even when it became clear that ZANU guerillas dealt considerable damage to colonial forces, but accepted temporary coalitions between the two organizations within a unified Patriotic Front. ZANU managed to garner support from Yugoslavia (which previously also supported ZAPU), and as a result, Robert Mugabe was invited to the Ministry Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade in 1978.2

Even though he was a hardline Marxist, Mugabe sought support from many sources and avoided being dependent on any superpower. As a result, first contacts between Zimbabwe and the DPRK were established. President Kim Il Sung considered aid to the movements and socialist-oriented states in Africa his obligation, and Mugabe was impressed by the political autonomy of the DPRK within the socialist camp. In a report of British Ministry of Foreign Affairs it is outlined that Mugabe considered the North Koreans truly non-aligned, as the Yugoslavs. The report also has a statement that outlines that, although the analysts don’t agree completely with Mugabe’s assessment, they admit that they (North Koreans) are truly are their own masters.3

Starting in 1976, ZANU members were trained in the military camps within the DPRK where they were taught how to handle explosives.4  Rodong Sinmun, the paper of the Workers’ Party of Korea, voiced for the first time its support for the struggle of the people of Zimbabwe and called for the “destruction of the racist regime”. Afterwards, Mugabe visited Pyongyang for the first time in 1978, where he sought more military support, which was granted in full.5

At home, Patriotic Front rarely acted in a coordinated fashion. ZANU was stationed in Mozambique, from where it had planned and executed guerilla attacks on the army of, then, Rhodesia. On the other hand, military bases of ZAPU were in Zambia, where they were trained by Soviet military advisors. Even with technological advantage and an abundance of weaponry, ZAPU failed to mark greater success in praxis, because a conventional strategy and heavy armament weren’t effective in the rainforest. For example, the conventional military operation “Zero Hour” was cancelled after the Rhodesian Airforce dealt heavy losses to ZAPU.6 In a report from 1983, CIA admits that ZANU were the ones who were involved in the war, while ZAPU “sat through it in Zambia”.7

In time, the Patriotic Front forced the government of Ian Smith to compromise, which led to a series of meetings in Britain and the “Lancaster Agreement”. Mugabe proved to be a tough negotiator, while ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo sought to present himself as a “moderate option”, thanks to which the Rhodesian white minority would retain many political and economic privileges. A peace agreement was signed and a new constitution was adopted. The Patriotic Bloc has pledged to protect the right to own land of white colonists, and that the redistribution of land will not be carried out by force, but by buyout on a “voluntary” basis. The first democratic elections were held in 1980: ZANU won 63% of the vote, or 57 of the 80 seats in parliament allocated to African parties, ZAPU won 20 seats, and the same number was reserved for the white minority.8 Real conflicts between the two rival movements were yet to follow.

After coming to power, Mugabe established diplomatic relations with socialist countries, including the USSR, which was trying to compensate for the previous lack of support for ZANU. However, Zimbabwe and the DPRK have started a special relationship. On his second visit to Pyongyang in 1980, Mugabe attended the Sixth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea as a guest of honor.9 Mugabe thanked Kim Il Sung and the people of Korea for their selfless help during the fight against colonialism, saying that “the Workers’ Party of Korea experienced the struggle of the people of Zimbabwe as its own.”10

During that visit, he got the impression that the model of the DPRK was an appropriate model for the development of Third World countries. At the Congress, Kim Il Sung presented Juche variant of socialism, as a way to achieve self-sustainability in the countries of the Global South. On his return to Harare, Mugabe opened the first Juche Study Center in Africa, at the University of Zimbabwe.11 South African journalist and historian R. W. Johnson claims that Juche philosophy was central to Mugabe’s politics even after Kim Il Sung’s death in 1994, and that the only book in the president’s office was “Juche! Kim Il Sung’s speeches and writings.”12

Mugabe was particularly impressed with DPRK’s land reform, which he emphasized at a press conference in 1980, saying: “After the withdrawal of the Japanese, the DPRK faced the need to redistribute the land. But it did much more than that. Despite a population of seventeen million and a territory that is more than 85% mountainous, it has produced a surplus of food on an arable land of 250 million hectares. Zimbabwe has a lot to learn from the DPRK.”13 The DPRK offered to buy surplus tobacco produced in Zimbabwe in an attempt to strengthen the economy of the new African state.14

At the same time, the ZANU Women’s League copied the Korean model of improving the social position of women. The Women’s League pamphlet states: “As a liberation movement with a socialist agenda, we are particularly interested in the role and position of women in socialist countries, so that we can compare and evaluate our progress or lack of progress.” Kim II Sung advocates the rejection of backward customs and habits from the old society, the intensification of women’s education and the raising of their political awareness and knowledge.”15

The two countries also signed a military agreement that caught everyone’s eye. Under the agreement, North Korea has pledged to supply Zimbabwe with weapons and ammunition worth $18 million, as well as a hundred military instructors and advisers, free of charge.16 The British and Americans asked Mugabe to refuse the offer, but Mugabe rejected such a possibility and emphasized the important support of the DPRK during the fight against colonialism, as well as the lasting friendship and the role of both countries in the Non-Aligned Movement.17 In a conversation with British diplomats, the Chinese ambassador in Harare explained that the Koreans do not consult Beijing on their policy and “keep their cards closed.”18

Armored vehicles, tanks and AK-47 rifles were brought from DPRK, as well as a hundred instructors in charge of training the famous Fifth Brigade, made up exclusively of ZANLA fighters (armed wing of ZANU). Subsequently, these instructors and the Fifth Brigade trained and supported Mozambican units in the fight against the invasion of the South African racist regime and the guerrillas they formed in Mozambique (RENAMO).19 At the same time, terrorist attacks by the South African regime in Zimbabwe were on the rise. After the bombing of rebel groups loyal to the former regime and South Africans on the military base “Thornhill”, doubts about the role of ZAPU were born.

ZANU had the opportunity to rule independently, but Mugabe insisted on the division of power and the gradual unification of the two movements into one party. The leader of ZAPU, then Minister of Police, did not accept the proposal to unite ZAPU and ZANU, and still kept under control about 12,000 armed members of ZAPU. Tensions between the two groups intensified when a larger quantity of weapons and money was found in the companies owned by ZAPU, after which Nkomo was accused of planning a coup. According to the CIA, Mugabe no longer had to worry about Soviet support for ZAPU, because Moscow perceived them as “a spent force”.20

Mugabe then expelled Nkomo from the cabinet, which resulted in an armed conflict that ended only in 1987, with the complete defeat of ZAPU. The Fifth Brigade was the most deserving for suppressing the ZAPU uprising, which carried out the brutal military action “Gukurahundi” (“early rain that washes the chaff from the last harvest, before the spring rains”) in the province of Matabele.21 During this action, in 1985, Mugabe was hosted for the third time in Pyongyang, where he expressed gratitude at a press conference for continued military and political support and named the DPRK “the champion and leader of the struggle for economic independence and South-South cooperation.”22 Two years later, Mugabe goes on his fourth visit to Pyongyang, where he again expresses gratitude for all kinds of help and promises eternal friendship. That promise he intended to keep.

The Korean construction company “Mansudae Overseas Studios” won contracts for projects in Zimbabwe without competition. Without giving it the least of a thought, Mugabe rejected the offer of East Germany for the construction of a modern intelligence agency in Zimbabwe and on his own initiative called on the DPRK to take on that task. The DPRK accepted the offer and sent staff to Harare to set up Zimbabwe’s security and intelligence agencies.23 Many countries in the Global South were forced to sever ties with the DPRK during the 1990s, due to pressure from the West. Mugabe, of course, ignored those pressures and further development of economic relations between the two countries continued. Zimbabwe is even introducing a model of mass games from the DPRK into its official education system.

When uranium deposits were discovered in Zimbabwe in the 1990s, following the example of the DPRK and Iran, Mugabe announced the development of a nuclear program and the transformation of Zimbabwe into Africa’s first nuclear power. In practice, however, this was not easily feasible, as Zimbabwe did not own a nuclear power plant. At that time, there was an intention to procure the reactor from Argentina, but that plan mysteriously withered away.24 Finally, uranium exploitation began in 2005, and the question arises as to whether the DPRK has been given access to these deposits. The DPRK conducted their first nuclear test a year later.25

However, in 2009, Zimbabwe officially gave the DPRK access to uranium deposits under the “Weapons for Uranium” agreement, and on that occasion received a DPRK delegation in Harare. The agreement was a defiant violation of the sanctions to which both countries were subjected. To the criticism of the Western media, a senior ZANU official responded: “The DPRK has been our ally since the day of the liberation struggle against the rule of the white minority, so we do not understand why the media are now behaving as if this agreement is a revelation.”26 UN launched an investigation against Zimbabwe and Namibia for violating sanctions against trade with the DPRK in 2016.27

Robert Mugabe was overthrown in a coup on November 14, 2017.28

 

Author: RNP-F
Translator: Luka Nićiforović

 

  1. Somerville, Keith. 1984. “The U.S.S.R. and Southern Africa since 1976.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 22, no. 1: 73-108.  ↩

  2. Onslow, C. S. S. (2010). The Cold War and southern Africa, 1976–1990. The Cambridge History of the Cold War  ↩

  3. H.L Davies, British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Zimbabwe/North Korea,” August 13, 1981, Reference FCO 106/464, Folder title: North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe, 1981. UK National Archives  ↩

  4. Wessels, Hannes. 2010. P. K. van der Byl: African Statesman. Johannesburg, South Africa: 30° South Publishers.  ↩

  5. Schwartz, Richard. 2001. Coming to Terms: Zimbabwe in the International Arena. New York: I.B Tauris.  ↩

  6. Mutanda, D. (n.d.). The Rhodesian Air Force in Zimbabwes war of liberation, 1966-1980. Jefferson (N. C.): McFarland.  ↩

  7. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84S00552R000200030002-4.pdf  ↩

  8. Blair, David (2002). Degrees in Violence: Robert Mugabe and the Struggle for Power in Zimbabwe. London and New York: Continuum.  ↩

  9. Choi, Lyong and Il-young Jeong. 2017. “North Korea and Zimbabwe, 1978–1982: From the Strategic Alliance to the Symbolic Comradeship Between Kim Il Sung and Robert Mugabe.” Cold War History 17, no. 4: 329-349.  ↩

  10. Schwartz, Richard. 2001. Coming to Terms: Zimbabwe in the International Arena. New York: I.B Tauris  ↩

  11. Ibid.  ↩

  12. Johnson, R.W. 2007. “Birds of a Feather.” Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2007. Accessed November 29, 2017. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118651948756990787.  ↩

  13. N.W Browne, British High Commission in Salisbury, “Zimbabwe/North Korea,” October 21, 1980. Reference FCO 36/2764, Folder title: Korean Involvement in the Rhodesian Problem, 1980, UK National Archives.  ↩

  14. NE Sheinwald, British High Commission in Salisbury, “South Korea/Zimbabwe,” July 23, 1980. Reference FCO 36/2764, Folder title: Korean Involvement in the Rhodesian Problem, 1980, UK National Archives.  ↩

  15. “Liberation Through Participation: Women in the Zimbabwean Revolution,” Writings and Documents from ZANU and the ZANU Women’s League (New York: National Campaign in Solidarity with ZANU Women’s League, 1980), http://freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/DOC52_scans/52.Liberationthroughparticipation.zanu.pdf.  ↩

  16. The Country Study Series by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, “North Korea’s Relations with the Third World,” A Country Study: North Korea (June 1993), http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9642.html.  ↩

  17. Carrington, British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe,” August 20, 1981, Reference FCO 106/464, Folder title: North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe, 1981. UK National Archives.  ↩

  18. British High Commission in Salisbury, “Discussion with Mr. Sun Guotong, First Secretary, Chinese Embassy,” Date Unknown. Reference FCO 106/464, Folder title: North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe, 1981. UK National Archives.  ↩

  19. Bermudez, Joseph S. 1990. Terrorism: The North Korean Connection. New York: Taylor & Francis.  ↩

  20. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84S00552R000200030002-4.pdf  ↩

  21. Mashingaidze, Terence (31 October 2005). “The 1987 Zimbabwe National Unity Accord and its Aftermath” (PDF).  ↩

  22. “Mugabe Speaks at Banquet,” Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), August 28, 1985  ↩

  23. Chaigneau, P. and R. Sola. 1986. “North Korea as an African Power: A Threat to French Interests.” University of Pretoria Institute for Strategic Studies (December).  ↩

  24. Meldrum, A. (2005, November 21). Mugabe hails uranium find and vows to pursue nuclear power. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/21/zimbabwe.andrewmeldrum  ↩

  25. Burns, Robert; Gearan, Anne (October 13, 2006). “U.S.: Test Points to N. Korea Nuke Blast”. The Washington Post.  ↩

  26. Zimbabwe in ‘arms for uranium’ pact with North Korea. (2013, September 19). Retrieved from https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zimsit_zimbabwe-in-arms-for-uranium-pact-with-north-korea/  ↩

  27. Clark, C. (2017, November 15). North Korea & The Zimbabwe Coup. Retrieved from https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/north-korea-the-zimbabwe-coup/  ↩

  28. Zimbabwe Coup. (2018, June 6). Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/zimbabwe-coup  ↩

Statements

Explaining the anti-quarantine protests to the Spanish media

Leave a comment

We were asked a number of questions related to the protests taking place in Serbia’s capital, by the Spanish paper 14milimetros.

Do you think Vucic’s announcement to impose a new quarantine over the weekend has finally made people explode in anger? The protests are not simply against quarantine, they are much more complex.

It is more complex. The protests are the finale of years of protests by various opposition groups, frustrated by the inability to mobilize the numerically superior classes, or, more precisely, by the inability to export their policies outside their own class. Apart from left and right liberals – since Trump came to power in the USA – another current of that class has been strengthening in our country – the radical (or, at the insistence of the media: “Alt”) right, whose tactics of breaking class barriers consist in spreading conspiracy theories, related to racial and migrant issues, as well as anti-Chinese propaganda in support of American diplomacy. Independent and separate protests of these currents would end in fiasco, and the parliamentary fight did not bear fruit, so it was clear that a silent unification was imminent.

When Vučić announced quarantine this week, members of these options took to the streets again. This, of course, does not mean that there is no widespread popular discontent. On the contrary, we are witnessing a health crisis for which the government is directly responsible because it abruptly abolished protection measures in May, in order to hold parliamentary elections. In addition to using the spring quarantine for the perfidious election campaign, the government also falsified the data on the numbers of infected and dead in order to “return to normal state” before the elections. This led to a near collapse of health care, which logically requires a return to quarantine after the elections have passed.

However, the opposition failed to score on all this, because, in accordance with its ideologies, it advocated the free flow of labor and capital, and often accused the government of stifling civil liberties and damaging the economy with a state of emergency and quarantine. Of course, the further to the right, the crazier, so some even insinuated that the virus does not exist. So, they did not advocate the tightening of health measures and full protection of the working people, the closure of factories, etc., but quite the opposite, which made the complete abolition of measures by the authorities easier. Why is it so? Because the upper classes around the world understand that the greatest burden of the pandemic is borne by poor citizens, while they are relatively protected, have the possibility of comfortable self-isolation, access to better health services, etc. Therefore, they favor their “civil liberties” over the health of the working people.

So, the motives and demands of the demonstrators were and are contrary to the interests of the working people and, as before, addressed the aspirations of the middle and upper classes. The ideological dissensions within that bloc are now giving way to class interest and, consequently, class unity.

Have you taken part in the mobilizations? There has been talk of the presence of multiple groups, from liberals and different groups on the left or even the extreme right and anti-vaccines. The protests, while peaceful, appear to lead to violence caused by a few and plenty of violence by the police. What do you think about it?

It started with the gathering of left-liberal sympathizers from the NDMBG, but the response was not significant. Then the extreme right-wingers and their sympathizers joined, which significantly increased the mass. Then they were spontaneously approached by many other citizens, who cannot be claimed to be members of one of those two options, but are certainly under the influence of those dominant ideologies, and very likely the electorate of the opposition. There are no significant anti-vaccination organizations in Serbia, and these people are mostly members of various political parties, most often the extreme right.

We, of course, did not participate. We are communists. This means that we propagate and conduct politics in the interest of the proletarian classes, not their executioners. Their “freedoms” and “rights” mean nothing to us, because we don’t even own them. We are forced to work and support the entire society despite the pandemic, and we are exposing ourselves to further health risks, so that they can take holidays to Greece and go out on the weekends. In civilized countries (a phrase often used by liberals to refer to the colonialist West) such as China, the state would take care of ceasing production, compensating workers, stimulating small private individuals, and providing effective health care. In a neo-colony like Serbia, we are faced with the eugenic policies of the government and the opposition.

However, not only do our interests not coincide with the interests of that class, but it is impossible for a communist to demonstrate together with the fascists. If we did that, we would lose any right to stand up for their victims, and we would bear the responsibility for spreading and strengthening fascism.

It is true that there were also radical leftists at the protests, but these are the idealist lines with which we have nothing in common. Their significance was certainly negligible. The radical left in Serbia consists of 5-6 organizations with fifteen members each, without greater representation among the masses. It is not difficult for us to admit that we are part of such a marginal group. As in all post-socialist societies, the left is being built from the ashes. This process is mainly characterized by re-branding and invoking those socialist traditions that the colonialist West sees as less “authoritarian”, “non-totalitarian” or harmless. On the contrary, it is our task to make socialism dangerous again.

These lines will copy the patterns from the colonialist metropoles, and at these protests the pattern was the same as during last year’s events in France. If you remember the famous Yellow Vests – the same lines that supported them, support these protests in Serbia. Even then, among the demands of the Yellow Vests were those to stop further migrations from the Middle East and Africa, as well as an increase in the salaries for French imperialist soldiers. Of course, those lines then decided to ignore both racism and pro-imperialism, for the sake of the progressive social demands of the movement. The support of the French left to Yellow vests is easy to explain by the parasitic character of French society, but how to explain the support of Serbian leftists to such a movement? It’s not hard, really. The key is in the class character of the left, which leads to identification with French workers and small private individuals, rather than with the victims of French imperialism and migrants.

Therefore, it can be said that these leftists were quite at home at this week’s protests, regardless of the right-wing character of the protests. Except here we have a different problem. Although they ignore the anti-migrant sentiments, statements and chants of the demonstrators, what buries them even deeper are the iconography and songs of the collaborators with fascism from the Second World War, ubiquitous among the demonstrators. And that damn technology, which records and memorizes everything today.

And, then, what’s left for them to do is spread false narratives about a kind of “neutrality” of the protest, about a “spontaneous gathering of the broad masses” and an open space for competition over the takeover of the protest between the right and the left. In fact, they are selling us the middle class as the “people”, and the interest of that class as the people’s interest. Communists cannot be deceived. We don’t wander in the dark, feeling the wall to find the light switch. We do not call on people to vote for Tsipras or Sanders, and then pretend to be dumb when the former introduces austerity measures and the latter votes for imperialist aggression. We do not call on the people to support the aggression on Libya, Syria, FR Yugoslavia, and then not to take responsibility for the colonial enslavement of those peoples. It is our job to interpret reality correctly and build credibility as an option worth turning to for explanations.

During the recent parliamentary elections, turnout was very low, especially in Belgrade. Do you think that the mobilizations are simply something characteristic of the capital or is it even bigger?

In neo-colonial economies like Serbia, there are obstacles to the accumulation of capital, and they can be simply reduced to three: 1. the limits of the growth of the accumulation fund; 2. transfer of surplus value from the colonies to the metropoles; and 3. irrational use of surplus value. The first two are untouchable and are not questioned by civil and right-wing options. There remains, therefore, a third. Simply put, all political battles are fought over the right to gnaw the colonialist bone. Whoever comes to power acquires the right to collect those crumbs from the colonial table. As awareness – or rather “intuition” – of this grows, voter turnout declines.

And the protests are not specific to a particular region.

If the mobilizations grow and extend, do you think there is a possibility that they will be hijacked by interests that are foreign and superior to the protesters?

Of course, that option always exists. All of the more significant groups at the protest are already being funded from outside: left and right liberals, and the radical right.

What role do you think the EU can take? At times we have seen it critical of Vucic, but most of the time the organization’s stance is passive and even favorable for him to remain in power. Donald Tusk (President of the European People’s Party) openly supported Vucic before the elections. Some sectors in the EU seem to fear the coming to power of an openly Eurosceptic and anti-NATO leader, do you see that as possible or is it unreal?

No. Such a possibility does not exist in the near future. There are organizations in Serbia that are nominally anti-EU/NATO (paradoxically, they are not anti-imperialist), but they are insignificant. These are the so-called “Sovereignists” – that is, followers of the protectionist currents of imperialism – and the extreme right. Both are financially and media-dependent on Western centers of power, so even their views on Kosovo are subject to change in line with Washington directorates.

Most Serbian citizens understand that EU membership brings significant benefits, which can be simply and vulgarly reduced to exercising the right (albeit unequal) to share the super-profits that the EU collects through the mechanisms of structural imperialism, and thus a higher standard of living. The only thing that could cause a change in that mood, and partly in the state policy, is a different historical course of world politics, that is, a faster economic and military rise of the East.

Vučić has nothing to fear when it comes to internal support. By the way, so far he has played a rather comical game (characteristic of populists), and that is to copy and incorporate the target groups of the opposition. In his address to the public the other day, he took a clear counter-stance for the first time. He called them “fascists”, “conspiracy theorists” and publicly stated that he did not want to attack migrants (which makes up a good part of the opposition policies). He thus showed self-confidence and understanding that the people of Serbia mostly do not support racists, as well as that he appreciates the nurturing of the socialist heritage. Bull’s eye.

Of course, there is always the possibility of taking him down by external pressures, if he decides to play too much independence. The EU has over 70% of investments in Serbia. Let them withdraw 20% and we’d be starving. So, we don’t see any wide room for maneuver.

What do you think of the possible agreement with Kosovo on mutual recognition? Kosovo is one of the big problems that has weighed for years on Serbian politics.

Kosovo is Serbia. NATO will leave Serbia, one way or another, someday. We do not have the military power to achieve that, and diplomacy at this stage requires finding a way for the resistance to remain active, but not suicidal. Therefore, in order for the people to recognize compromises (which are necessary in politics) as favorable, care must be taken to leave room for future generations to achieve greater diplomatic and other victories under possibly more favorable conditions. Roughly, as in occupied Northern Ireland.

In a few lines, what path do you think Serbia should take to solve its problems? It doesn’t look like it will end just with Vucic abandoning power.

At the macro level, most of our problems stem from the neo-colonial position imposed on us. So decolonization is now the primary goal. But even if we were to achieve that, it wouldn’t mean solving our problems. If, in the imaginary scenario for now, the socialist option came to power, we would encounter only a number of other problems, such as the organization of national production under transnational capitalism, a partial or complete delinking with the global economy, military, diplomatic and financial pressures, etc. At the micro level, our problems can be reduced to building forces capable of solving problems at the macro level.

 

Analysis

Marxism: Science and Conspiracy Theories

Leave a comment

During the pandemic of COVID-19, science has played an exceptionally important role in the public discourse. On the one hand, we have seen numerous policies and measures being imposed or carried out based on the idea that they had been approved by scientists and experts. Science and expertise became a way of avoiding all debate and portraying all opposition to the measures at hand as mistaken, harmful, irrational and backward. On the other hand, there has been a resurgence of various conspiracy theories offering “real” explanations for what was going on often linking the pandemic with the issues of vaccination, immigration, 5G technologies, digital surveillance, etc. Proponents of these conspiracy theories usually reject the official scientific rationale behind the policies and measures being undertaken looking for a “correct” conspiratorial account that explains the official one.  In that sense, a polarization of public discourse has been created whereby the word of Science and Expertise became the unquestioned truth and ultimate justification for any policy for one portion of the population while for another segment of the population, the scientific rationale behind a given measure became nothing but a façade for a pernicious underlying plan of the elite. It should be noted that it has become extremely difficult to steer some kind of middle course where one does not automatically accept the official line without immediately invoking elaborate, unproven conspiracy theories, which often fail the test of plausibility.

In such a situation, the question of what the Marxist attitude towards these matters should be becomes highly pertinent as Marxism embraced the scientific, fact-based worldview while being highly distrustful of the establishment and the elites of any kind due to the fact that elites belong to the opposing side of the class conflict defending the interests of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. The goal of this essay will be to provide an answer to this question and outline the political implications of this polarization on the issue of science. It will be argued that Marxism must not abandon its intellectual roots in science and rationality but the adherence to these principles does not entail the automatic adoption of all policies, measures, positions and explanations that have the aura of science and expertise around them. On the other hand, the Marxist stance towards conspiracy theories is not to rule out any kind of conspiratorial account a priori, but to insist on clear thinking and standards of intellectual clarity and argumentation, which most conspiracy theories that are present in the public discourse fail to meet. Moreover, in general, conspiracy theories usually involve moralistic accounts where a particular individual (e.g. Bill Gates, George Soros, etc.) is portrayed as villain who is out to harm ordinary people, who are portrayed as honest, decent and moral. These morality tales are also often inflected with various rightwing assumptions revolving around religion, race, ethnicity, etc. In contrast to such narrative account, Marxism privileges structural analysis, which means that policies, measures and proposals are evaluated from the standpoint of their socio-economic and political effects. As a result, Marxist analyses do not look for villains and heroes. Instead, they are focused on issues of profit, capital accumulation, ideological hegemony, etc.

Marxism also enables us to analyze the political and ideological effects of polarization created by the opposition between uncritical obedience to the professed view of experts and the automatic rejection of science in favor of conspiratorial thinking. Such a polarization works directly in the interests of the bourgeoisie because blind adherence to the views of experts enables the bourgeoisie to justify any policy by attaching a label of ‘expert opinion’ to it. Any opposition to the supposed view of experts is smeared as conspiracy theory and effectively dismissed in that way. The existence of conspiracy theories represents an impotent challenge to the bourgeois rule because these theories do not focus on the nature of the capitalist system as they are concerned primarily with individuals and ethnic, racial and religious groups but they almost never address the issue of class.

The idea that the opinions of scientists and experts should not be automatically accepted is probably the most contentious part of the argument presented here, which is why a large portion of this essay will be devoted to demonstrating that this is, in fact, a correct position to take both based on Marxist theory and based on the historical record.

Science and Conspiracy Theories

Marxism is, of course, a secular doctrine coming out of the modern Enlightenment tradition of political theorizing, and as such it upholds the scientific worldview. The Marxist view of science is positive because the development of science leads to the improvement in the technological capacities (the means of production) making them capable of producing more material wealth, which is a precondition for overcoming scarcity. Moreover, science and rationality are the only tools that lead to the demystification of ideological constructs that justify bourgeois rule. At the same time, this abstract property of science cannot be fully realized in a class society because the bourgeoisie control the material resources that are necessary for scientific and technological development. In this way, the bourgeoisie steers scientific development towards its own class interests and away from the interests of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie also recognizes the ideological power of science and attempts to use it as an ideological tool. These obstacles in the way of scientific development cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the capitalist mode of production. The remainder of the article will provide concrete illustrations and evidence for these theoretical claims.

Let us start with the theoretical or ideological side of the issue. The discipline known as sociology of science rests on the commonsense assumption that scientific knowledge is produced by actual people working inside scientific institutions that are embedded into state and corporate structures. As Bruno Latour points out, the scientific community, as any other community of people, operates according to its own internal logic where questions of power, status and prestige compete with other principles such as rational inquiry, production of knowledge, public interest and ordinary morality[1]. This nexus of factors ensures that the knowledge that comes out of scientific institutions is not always completely objective and value neutral.

It is important to notice the difference between the conspiratorial account, which treats science as a hostage of evil individuals, and the Marxian structuralist position, which treats scientific knowledge as a product of a particular set of social institutions (universities, labs, institutes, etc.). The conspiratorial logic holds that scientific knowledge is almost always false and distorted in the interests of whoever is the villain of the conspiracy theory at hand. On the other hand, the structuralist account holds that scientific knowledge is the best approximation to truth that is currently available but that it can also contain distortions, which stem from it being the product of social institutions embedded into state and corporate structures. The fact that state and corporate institutions impact the scientific institutions suggests that these distortions in scientific knowledge will occasionally appear will favor political and ideological interests of the bourgeoisie and disfavor the results, findings and theories that challenge the bourgeois rule.

Evolutionary theory is a good example of how ideological and political concerns tend to suppress the actual scientific theorizing in favor of a simplistic view that is in line with bourgeois ideology. Edward Wilson, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard, created the discipline of sociobiology as an approach to social science derived from Darwinian evolution. According to Wilson, socioeconomic inequalities that exist in the modern society and have existed in virtually all human societies are rooted in evolutionary biology. In biology, organisms that are best adapted to their environment are able to transfer the greatest number of copies of their genes to the next generation equipping their offspring with higher chances of survival. As a result, desirable traits accumulate in the population leading the gradual improvement of the species. In human societies, competitive behavior and the pursuit of self-interest, which are central to capitalism, are, thus, explained as natural occurrences stemming from the biology of the human species.

In response to Wilson’s book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, a group of prominent evolutionary biologists lead by Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin wrote a scathing critique in the form of an open letter published in the New York Review of Books. In that letter, they accused Wilson of distorting the science behind evolution and rehashing the same myths about evolution that had been advanced in support of rightwing politics for decades by Herbert Spencer, a rightwing sociologist, and Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel Prize winning biologist and the member of the Nazi Party[2]. According to Gould, Lewontin and others, the view of natural selection embraced by Wilson is not in accordance with what the facts of evolution show, but it is in accordance with the capitalist ideology. Namely, evolution does not proceed in a gradual and linear fashion the way Wilson and others describe it. Such a view implies that evolution is always moving towards one, predetermined goal with those organisms that survive always being somehow more ‘worthy’ because they are closer to the predetermined evolutionary ideal.

What happens instead is that evolution proceeds not in a steady linear manner but in series of abrupt surges or saltations (from Latin ‘saltus’) with long periods of stasis or equilibrium in between them. The evidence for this view of evolution is overwhelming. Firstly, as Gould points out, the fossil record that exists on earth is far too restricted to support the gradualist view of evolution. According to him, a gradual transition between any two species would take millions of years and hundreds of millions of individual specimen meaning that the fossil record should show plenty of ‘links’ between species[3]. However, in reality, cases when paleontologists uncover a fossil that might represent a ‘missing link’ between two species are extremely rare and represent a cause celebre in the scientific community. If the gradualist view of evolution were true, the fossil record should contain just as many ‘missing links’ as there are fossils of known species. The fossil record itself should be a continuum.

Of course, a widely known account of the evolution of mammals makes it clear that the gradualist approach to evolution cannot work. Namely, biologists agree that the evolution of mammals from small creatures the size of rats or rabbits to humans or whales is the result of a gigantic contingency and by no means a predetermined outcome. The fact that an asteroid had hit the Earth (or some other factor that disturbed the climate pattern on the planet) was responsible for wiping out dinosaurs which had dominated the planet previously. The sudden disappearance of dinosaurs and a change of climate provided mammals with an evolutionary advantage which enabled them to become far more widespread and diverse. This means that traits that might have hindered the spread of mammals before this catastrophic event turned out to be an advantage in a completely new environment.

It is important to stress that the sketch of the theory of evolution that is taught in schools still echoes the main tenets of the classical Darwinian gradualist approach which has clear ideological baggage and does not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny. Those students who develop an interest in biology and choose to study it in greater detail later find out about newer theories, but the practical outcome is that the vast majority of students leave high school with a caricatural understanding of evolution with clear ideological implications.

The aura of science has often been used to develop and strengthen pure ideological constructions. In economics, for instance, views and theories that challenge the hypothesis of so-called efficient market hypothesis are routinely disregarded as non-scientific and ideologically biased despite the fact that the efficient market hypothesis is obviously biased in favor of the prevailing capitalist ideology. It is no wonder, then, that intellectual gurus of this ideological abuse of economics have resorted to other pseudo-scientific pursuits designed to legitimate the existing order. Ludwig von Mises, one the of the most prominent figures in the so-called Austrian School of economics alongside Friedrich Hayek, subscribed to the ‘science’ of racialism, according to which differences in the abilities of and behaviors among different races stem from biological facts. He wrote,

“It may be admitted that the races differ in talent and character and that there is no hope of ever seeing those differences resolved. Still, free trade theory shows that even the more capable races derive an advantage from associating with the less capable and that social co-operation brings them the advantage of higher productivity in the total labour process”[4]

What he is arguing in this passage is that there are more and less capable races, but that free trade might be beneficial for everyone especially the more capable ones. Therefore, in one passage written by this economic genius we find a fusion of racialism and free market economics brought to what reads like a reduction ad absurdum of both. This should not come as a surprise, however, because this is the author, who praised the European fascist movements in the late 1920s, which he saw as a necessary defense against socialism:

“It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error”[5]

From the standpoint of mainstream economics, these ideological slippages are obviously not signals of some kind of ideological bias in Mises economic thought, and references to his work can be found in most economic textbooks and a prominent economic think-tank with branches in various parts of the world carries his name with pride.

The list of these obvious examples of ideological and political misuse and abuse of science is too long to summarize here, but I should mention at least some. The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in Negro Male was a protracted experiment that went on for almost four decades in the Macon County, Alabama, This study, which was conducted by the United States Public Health Service, included 600 African American men, around 400 of whom had contracted syphilis, and it consisted of withholding treatment from these 400 men and observing how the disease develops in them until they finally succumb to the terrible complications associated with these illness.[6] Another example of brutal politicization and abuse of science is the infamous MK Ultra Project run by the CIA. Around 80 educational and medical institutions throughout the United States participated in this project whose focus was to develop what is now known as ‘advanced interrogation techniques’ but actually translates as effective forms of torture and extraction of information. The experiments conducted as part of this project included hypnosis, electroshocks, sexual and verbal abuse, electroshocks and many other forms of torture[7][8].

These historical examples prove that science has, in fact, been misused and abused to forward the interests of the ruling classes in the past, which means that such things may happen in the future warranting a dose of skepticism about ‘expert’ opinion and policy advice.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, it is important to realize that all of them are not always wrong by definition but the way they operate also serves the interests of the bourgeoisie because they challenge skepticism and resistance towards the official narratives into politically impotent moralizing and the promotion of various rightwing positions. Therefore, the reminder of this article will be dedicated to showing that conspiracy theories can sometimes be true, but in the majority of cases, they actually deflect criticism from the capitalist system as a whole to specific individuals or groups, thus ultimately upholding the ruling ideology by guarding against more potent forms of criticism and promoting individualist, nationalist and racist worldviews.

Some conspiratorial accounts of certain historical events have actually been proven correct. One of the best-known examples of this is the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident. In August 1964, the US government reported that there had been two naval confrontations between the US military and North Vietnam. In one of these incidents, a US destroyer ship exchanged fire with three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The US destroyer was only slightly damaged while all three of the Vietnamese boats were damaged and four Vietnamese sailors were killed. Two days after this incident, the US government stated that there was another similar confrontation. These incidents were later used as pretext for the escalation of the Vietnam War and a massive surge in American troops being deployed to Vietnam. However, the Pentagon Papers combined with the admission of the then-US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara revealed that the second incident never happened. Therefore, the escalation of the Vietnam War was based on false pretense. Similarly, in 2003, the US invaded Iraq based on the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but no evidence of these weapons has ever been acquired even after the US invaded Iraq, and no convincing evidence has been provided to support the idea that the US intelligence had any reason to believe that such weapons existed in Iraq prior to the invasion. Both of these events represent proven conspiracies to present false information to the public in order to carry out a secret agenda.

While there are many other examples of proven conspiracies, the vast majority of conspiracy theories that are being circulated cannot even be proven or disproven as it is hard to see what kind of evidence could be used to demonstrate the truth or falsity of these theories. Moreover, many of them are not plausible to begin with. However, such theories have very significant ideological functions. First, these theories suspend reason and evidence as the most important criteria in debate making it impossible to either prove or disprove other people’s arguments. Essentially, they license everyone to believe what they want resulting in the collapse of shared knowledge and meaning, which is essential for any kind of political action and organizing.

Secondly, these often incoherent ‘theories’ provide a facile smear that can be used to dismiss any critique of the establishment. At this point, conspiracy theories have replaced all coherent critiques of capitalism and bourgeois rule in the public discourse. While it is possible to see every conspiratorial hack even in the mainstream media, intellectuals, activists and politicians who express a genuine critique of the cultural, scientific, political and economic establishment are allowed no room in the public discourse. As a result, the critique of the establishment has become associated with buffoons and charlatans of various kinds making it easy for the defenders of the establishment to slap the label “conspiracy theorist” on everyone who dares to voice the criticism of the official positions on various crucial issues.

Thirdly, conspiracy theories are usually based on the intellectual tools of the bourgeoisie, and for that reason, most of them are perfectly compatible with the ruling ideology. For instance one conspiracy theory holds that Bill Gates orchestrated the response to the COVID-19 pandemic through World Health Organization in order to profit on the sales of vaccines, once they are discovered, and the migration of large parts of the economy into the digital world. The implication of this theory is that one individual is powerful enough to carry out such a massively complicated plan while keeping it a secret. The rest of the world population are portrayed as powerless pawns whose lives are completely in the hands of these all-powerful individuals. Such theories also offer simplistic solutions, which is that all the problems we are facing would disappear if we were to somehow get rid of these immoral and lawless individuals or groups. Finally, the evil motivations of the main villains of conspiracy theories are explained either as individual quirks or demonic inclinations as in the case of Bill Gates or they are attributed to the person’s ethnicity as in the case of conspiracy theories about George Soros, which usually make reference to his Jewish background.

A Marxist approach militates against the fetishization of science and conspiratorial thinking at the same time. While it is essential to realize that science does not operate in a vacuum free of the constraints of the surrounding capitalist society, the solution is not to abandon science and rationality and sink into conspiratorial moralizing. Instead, the shortcomings and failures of science (e.g. medications that do not work or have bad side-effects) should be explained as resulting from capitalist pressures on science such as the profits of pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, the critique of the elites cannot be left to conspiracy theorists nor should any critique of the establishment be labeled as a conspiracy theory. For example, the fact that pharmaceutical companies and tech companies will make tremendous profits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic should not be neglected. It is uncontroversial that Eric Yuan, the owner of the company that has produced the Zoom platform, which is used for online meetings, classes and conferences, has seen his net worth increase by 100%, from around $4 billion to $8 billion in the last three months[9]. However, reference to such facts should not be accompanied by insinuations that he is somehow responsible for the pandemic nor should it focus on Yuan as an individual. Instead, this fact should be pointed out as an example of the irrationality and instability of the capitalist system, which enables companies (and individuals) to make enormous profits while millions of people are suffering from disease and poverty.

Predrag Kovačević

References

Horrock, Nicholas M. (4 Aug 1977). “80 Institutions Used in C.I.A. Mind Studies: Admiral Turner Tells Senators of Behavior Control Research Bars Drug Testing Now”. New York Times.

Otterman, Michael (2007). American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond. Melbourne University Publishing.

 

[1][1] https://books.google.rs/books?id=sC4bk4DZXTQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Science+in+Action:+How+to+Follow+Scientists+and+Engineers+through+Society&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDgtr7u6XpAhUiBhAIHbg_BhgQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Science%20in%20Action%3A%20How%20to%20Follow%20Scientists%20and%20Engineers%20through%20Society&f=false

[2] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/11/13/against-sociobiology/

[3]https://books.google.rs/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3ULyAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA239&dq=Punctuated+equilibria:+an+alternative+to+phyletic+gradualism&ots=j_h7zYmCtg&sig=wHX4YxIrOVDzhfE3H6gu-7pQ7PE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Punctuated%20equilibria%3A%20an%20alternative%20to%20phyletic%20gradualism&f=false

[4] https://books.google.rs/books?id=K-mRDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT291&dq=It+may+be+admitted+that+the+races+differ+in+talent+and+character+and+that+there+is+no+hope+of+ever+seeing+those+differences+resolved.+Still,+free+trade+theory+shows+that+even+the+more+capable+races+derive+an+advantage+from+associating+with+the+less+capable+and+that+social+co-operation+brings+them+the+advantage+of+higher+productivity+in+the+total+labour+process&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_-_tvaXpAhXMlosKHfvZB1IQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=It%20may%20be%20admitted%20that%20the%20races%20differ%20in%20talent%20and%20character%20and%20that%20there%20is%20no%20hope%20of%20ever%20seeing%20those%20differences%20resolved.%20Still%2C%20free%20trade%20theory%20shows%20that%20even%20the%20more%20capable%20races%20derive%20an%20advantage%20from%20associating%20with%20the%20less%20capable%20and%20that%20social%20co-operation%20brings%20them%20the%20advantage%20of%20higher%20productivity%20in%20the%20total%20labour%20process&f=false

[5] https://books.google.rs/books?id=TMkSpFYc_SEC&pg=PA51&dq=%E2%80%9CIt+cannot+be+denied+that+Fascism+and+similar+movements+aiming+at+the+establishment+of+dictatorships+are+full+of+the+best+intentions+and+that+their+intervention+has,+for+the+moment,+saved+European+civilization.+The+merit+that+Fascism+has+thereby+won+for+itself+will+live+on+eternally+in+history.+But+though+its+policy+has+brought+salvation+for+the+moment,+it+is+not+of+the+kind+which+could+promise+continued+success.+Fascism+was+an+emergency+makeshift.+To+view+it+as+something+more+would+be+a+fatal+error%E2%80%9D&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZvO39vaXpAhUKx4sKHW3-DHcQ6AEIODAC#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CIt%20cannot%20be%20denied%20that%20Fascism%20and%20similar%20movements%20aiming%20at%20the%20establishment%20of%20dictatorships%20are%20full%20of%20the%20best%20intentions%20and%20that%20their%20intervention%20has%2C%20for%20the%20moment%2C%20saved%20European%20civilization.%20The%20merit%20that%20Fascism%20has%20thereby%20won%20for%20itself%20will%20live%20on%20eternally%20in%20history.%20But%20though%20its%20policy%20has%20brought%20salvation%20for%20the%20moment%2C%20it%20is%20not%20of%20the%20kind%20which%20could%20promise%20continued%20success.%20Fascism%20was%20an%20emergency%20makeshift.%20To%20view%20it%20as%20something%20more%20would%20be%20a%20fatal%20error%E2%80%9D&f=false

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/12/us/families-emerge-as-silent-victims-of-tuskegee-syphilis-experiment.html?searchResultPosition=1

[7] https://books.google.rs/books?id=wiVqrgS68NoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=American+Torture:+From+the+Cold+War+to+Abu+Ghraib+and+Beyond&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4ttfivqXpAhWOl4sKHXr9A1kQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/04/archives/80-institutions-used-in-cia-mind-studies-admiral-turner-tells.html

[9] https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-zoom-billionaire-eric-yuan-career-net-worth-life

 

Featured, World

Republican SINN FEIN: “Continuity not Compromise”

Leave a comment

We are reproducing the interview with Diarmuid Mac Dubhghlais of Republican Sinn Fein originally published in Serbo-Croatian language on Princip.Info. Enjoy!

The audience in Balkans is not familiar with details of Irish politics beyond what mainstream media serves them, which in reality means that little to no news from Ireland reach us. Could you briefly introduce Republican Sinn Fein and tell us how is it different from other organisations that split from the original Sinn Fein that claim historical continuity?

While it is generally accepted that Republican Sinn Féin (RSF) split from Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF), this is not quite true. In 1986 the annual conference discussed the acceptance of one of the two partitionist assemblies (governments) in Ireland that owed their existence to British laws. The majority voted in favour of acceptance, leading to a number of members leaving. Technically those who walked out retained the existing constitution and thus are the continuation of the Sin Féin formed in 1905. It was a mistake to adopt a different name but such is history.

As for the difference between RSF and others who did split from PSF; the simplest explanation is that they too accepted the partitionist assemblies in Ireland, some of the newer groups to split from PSF accepted the legitimacy of Stormont assembly in the Occupied Six Counties and thus the overall legitimacy of the rule of Westminster.

A question from history: relation to the issue of Michael Collins, what is the correct road for RSF, a treaty with the British or not?

Short answer- NOT. Britain has no place in Ireland, they have tried every tactic in our land except one; – WITHDRAWAL. While the war/peace levels have ebbed and flowed over the generations one has remained, there will always be some resistance to the occupation of our land. M Collins used the analogy of his deal being “a stepping-stone” to unity. 100 years on and 3 more splits from the attitude of driving out the occupation all these parties have watered down their attitude towards the British interference in Ireland, all have used that same “stepping-stone” line, yet we are no further down the line towards unity.

What are the political objectives of Republican Sinn Fein and what is its strategy to achieve them?

The obvious first objecting is to remove all British interference in Irish affairs and re-establish the Republic. Then we must work towards regaining our sovereignty, much of this has been ceded to the EU in treaty after treaty. The people of Ireland rejected both the Niece and Lisbon treaties but the establishment parties told the people they made wrong decisions and made them retake the vote, with the implication that we would re-do the voting until the correct decision is made.

RSF want a 4 province Federal Ireland, and have had policies promoting (see Éire Nua program ). This we feel is best suited Ireland where we have hugely differing requirements for different areas, ie West of Ireland ( Connaught )having a majority of small farmers, North of Ireland (9 county Ulster) having a high population of Protestants etc

We understand that bourgeois elections are far from being an objective measure of political strength, so we wanted to ask you how do you compare the strength of RSF in comparison to other political formations beyond the parliamentary representation?

RSF are not a huge group, but have a steady and dedicated membership, over the years members have left to become involved in other newer organisations, but it is fair to say that RSF have firm written policies that deal with many aspects of life in Ireland. While some of the newer parties are in my opinion more popular today, like those who initially split from PSF, their membership tends to dwindle after a relatively short time and they do not have policies other than a demand for unity, with no idea what form a United Ireland should take ie; – Federal, Neo-Liberal, Anti-Imperialist etc.

Ireland witnessed a surprising victory of Sinn Fein in Ireland. What is the relation of RSF with the (Provisional) Sinn Fein?

There is no great relationship between both, the split of ’86 is still fresh enough in the memories of many, Also the fact that PSF administer the Occupied Six Counties for Westminster means they are (to us), puppets at best and collaborators at worst. They project themselves as Republicans yet call for recognition of Westminster superiority in politics, call for recognition of colonial paramilitary police at a legitimate police in Occupied Ireland and call on the people to inform on those who still oppose the occupation by physical means.

The victory which surprised even Sinn Fein. Does it mean that the right-wing neoliberal policies pushed the people of Ireland to demand a more radical break with the unrestrained capitalist policies? Do you think Sinn Fein would be able to keep its promises?

While for many in the wider world a vote for more leftist policies and parties may seem of little consequences, for Ireland it was and is somewhat significant. For generation the control of church and neo liberal politicians has kept 2 parties in power for 100 years. This past election more younger people made conscious decision as to who they would vote, This was a direct result of the unrepresentative policies inflicted on the people for the past decade in particular, no social housing, underinvestment in schools and hospitals and an increase in retirement ages for older our generation while at the same time generous and early pensions for politicians, an ability for politicians and those of better means to access first class private health alongside being able to afford private housing or rent.

For generations people voted the way their parents did or not at all, so it is good to see a higher number of youth (20-35) get out and vote, the majority of whom voted for parties professing to be left. I feel IF PSF can form a coalition with other parties they will try bring in some progressive left policies. They have written legislation for returning the age of retirement down by 2 years, and everyone knows there has to be a program of house building. This feeling is however tempered by the knowledge that in Occupied Ireland they have stood over an increase in retirement age and an increase in some regressive taxes. Also for those who may know the administration in Occupied Ireland did not sit for almost 3 years, yet the PSF assembly members (along with all others) continues to draw their wages, which at best is not good socialist politics.

In case Sinn Fein does not manage to keep up with the promises, could a further radicalisation of the society be expected? For example, among the youth which seems to be carrying all the weight of the neolibral burden. Does it also mean that RSF could gain from that situation?

A good question and if it was asked 2 years ago I would have said NO. But the politicization of a huge swath of our youth will mean that things will change, whether at a slow pace or in a radical manner is really unknown. A mass movement in the past few years against water tax and a home tax surprised the establishment and PSF, on both these new taxes PSF were on the wrong side and had to do a complete turnaround. RSF are an abstentionist party, until such time as the Republic has been re-established, this does somewhat stifle our growth. Alongside this the oppression from the state, through their political police makes it hard to grow, but if the youth become more radical there is the chance of better growth but equally a growth in other left parties. Also an awareness that a United Ireland would be a more prosperous Ireland will dawn on the politically aware citizens and a growth in the calls for Unity and disengagement of British Imperialism.

When talking about Ireland, the media talks about the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as two separate entities without mentioning the context of British colonisation. The language being a way to legitimise particular political contexts, what is for you the correct way to refer to those two entities?

As you will have seen from earlier answers the correct term for “northern Ireland” is Occupied Six Counties” or “Occupied Ireland”. If it is correct to call all lands of Zionist Israel Occupied Palestine then the same has to be true for the area occupied by the British.

For the area known at The Republic, we use the “Twenty-Six County State” or the “Freestate”. Historically the Republic was founded under arms is 1916 and consisted of all 32 counties, it was also confirmed with the only All-Ireland election of 1918. What was established in 1922 by M Collins was called The Freestate consisting of only 26 counties.

There was a recent survey which claims that only 22% of Irish citizens in the occupied 6 counties desire independence. Does it reflect the reality? Does a British standard of living play a role in how the citizens of the occupied 6 counties percieve Irish unity?

I have not heard of this particular survey, but any survey result depends on the complexity or simplicity of the question put and the demographic asked. What I do know is that over the past 2 years the results of such surveys have consistently resulted in a majority favouring. Unity/Independence. Many surveys have also done to gauge the impact unity would have on the finances of a United Ireland over the existing 2 states; again these consistently concluded that a United Ireland would be financially better off to the tune of Billions.

For the second part of your question, my belief is that all those within the UK will be financially worse off after Brexit is finalized, people in Occupied Ireland will obviously see a financial benefit of unity irrespective of their present allegiance.

In regards to Balkans, how does RSF evaluate the situation around the imperialist-imposed independence of Kosovo?

This is something I have only briefly looked at, I suppose the propaganda of my early adulthood had be believing the age-old tactic of Imperialists, that warring tribes within Yugoslavia could not work together and areas wanted independence etc. The arbitrary recognition of an independent Kosovo stands in stark contrast with that of Catalonia. It is clear that a politically weakened Serbia was the desire or USA, UK and others within the EU. To date it is still difficult to find hard facts from independent media outlets, I would be very interested in a full analysis of the situation from on-the-ground activists.

And about Rojava?

The fighting of the Rojava is well documented in all media here, which is strange in many ways, normally we see hear little of groups seeking a homeland considering our past/present. Traditionally Irish Republicans have called for a homeland for the Kurds, we have stood in solidarity with their political prisoners. Today, it is clear that the Rojava are again being used as a tool by Imperialists, the USA has established airbases in areas controlled by Rojava and at the same time facilitated Turkeys annexation of areas of Syria. It is clear this is a continuation of the proxy war against Syria and its people.

Finally, what is your favourite football club?

Football? American football? British/European football? Rugby football? Australian football or Gaelic Football?

I can assume it is the football of Liverpool + Manchester United. This is SOCCER J and I have no interest in it. Over-payed soft men who fall and roll round crying if a strong wind from a challenge blows them. I recommend you look at; Hurling or Gaelic Football for a real man’s game 😉