What is a war criminal?

Two incidents yesterday led me to wonder what, or, rather, who, constitutes a war criminal.

The first incident was finding out that ex-CIA Director and war profiteer R.J. Woolsey is to be the featured guest for Business Bermuda’s AGM on February 22nd; I wrote about this/him in my previous post.

The second incident was the conviction of a US Marine, in a US Martial Court, for the killing of 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005. His sentence? Demotion from Staff Sergeant to Private. No jail time, not even the paltry three-months that were initially recommended. Not even a fine, or compensation to relatives of the victims. Just a mere demotion for being convicted of mass-murder.

One cannot but help think that had the dead been American women and children, not Iraqis, and the defendant an Iraqi (or today’s bogeymen, Iranian), he would instead have been convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death or life-imprisonment.

So, what, or who, is a war criminal?

It seems that the definition depends on who you are.

An American, with significant economic and political power, who advocates war, helps fabricate false intelligence to facilitate such a war, and who owns a company – and shares in others – which directly profited from the resulting war, and today advocates a new war (this time with Iran) with which he again stands to profit from, and who engages in hate-speech (stating that ‘most mosques’[and] ‘Muslim organisations [in the USA] are fronts for violent jihadists…’) is not a war criminal.

Instead Mr. Woolsey is a patriot and astute businessman. At least within the sphere of the American Empire. Most other people would no doubt consider such a person a war criminal, or at least guilty of committing crimes against peace, let alone being a war profiteer.

A soldier who massacres, or otherwise participates in the massacring of unarmed civilians is not a war criminal, at least within the sphere of the American Empire. Instead he is merely guilty of ‘dereliction of duty’.

The agents that torture and deprive prisoners of their rights, both under the Geneva conventions and the universal declaration of human rights, are not war criminals within the American Empire. They are merely ‘doing their job’ or simply guilty of ‘improper conduct’.

Such is the hypocrisy of the imperialists. But these are just the most glaring incidents. And Bermuda has played a role in these crimes too.

Bermuda & War Crimes

In the run up – and duration, even today – to the illegal and imperialist wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the smaller, more informal covert wars of the ongoing War on Terror (from Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, Libya, the Philippines and Indonesia), various elements of the US war machine passed through Bermuda. These were naval vessels and military planes. Additionally, smaller planes used in the transport of ‘detainees’ to Guantanamo Bay, stopped in Bermuda. These planes and ships were refueled by Bermudian workers.

And so Bermudians themselves served to actively facilitate war crimes. As such, are our own people then guilty of war crimes, and does the blame fall on the blue-collar workers or higher officials of State?

Additionally, during the Iraq war, and still today, Bermuda has allowed various companies engaged in war crimes to operate/be registered in Bermuda. Perhaps the most distasteful of such companies have been the ‘private military companies’ (PMCs) – mercenaries to you and me. The most infamous of these was Blackwater Group of companies, which was registered as having Bermudian registration. This company has since changed its name, likely due to the negative press surrounding its activities, and is now known as ‘Academi’ – taken from Platonic philosophy, with the idea of it producing Plato’s ‘guardians’. As with many companies it has various sub-companies, of which its global consulting arm is known today as Greystone Limited. Bermuda has the dubious honour of being home to one of this company’s three offices.

Do the workers in the offices of such companies in Hamilton constitute war criminals? Do the Bermudian civil servants and politicians who have facilitated these companies on our shores constitute war criminals?

It is hard to oppose the machine that is the US military-industrial complex and general empire. Its tentacles are everywhere, and constantly engaged in a propaganda war to deflect, obstruct and confuse. It is easy to resign oneself in the face of the challenge. What can we, in little Bermuda, do to help end these war crimes?

Perhaps not much.

But for a start we can oppose Mr. Woolsey’s guest appearance at Business Bermuda’s AGM on February 22nd, be it through demonstration or written protests to Business Bermuda.

Our workers can also refuse to refuel or supply military vessels that enter our ports. We can even declare our waters and airspace military-free zones.

And we can pressure our politicians to ensure that no companies engaged in war crimes and mercenary activities are based – even in name – in Bermuda.

In itself the above won’t stop the coming war with Iran, or other future illegal imperialist wars. But at least we will have done a little to wash the blood of our hands and not get them any bloodier in the future.

War criminal to speak in Bermuda?

Reading the RG Online today I see in the Business section that Business Bermuda has arranged for a Mr. James Woolsey to speak at their AGM on February 22nd. Normally this wouldn’t be a big deal; on the face of it Mr. Woolsey has of late made his name evangelising about ‘green capitalism’, and with the recent focus on this theme (even Premier Cox has been extolling its virtues as one of the new industries for Bermuda, along with aquaculture, space, and Islamic finance).

However, Mr. Woolsey is also a former CIA director and has been involved in a series of crimes against humanity throughout his career, principally in his CIA role in aiding and abetting US orchestrated state terrorism. Most recently he figured prominently in the neoconservative think tank ‘Project for the New American Century’ which heavily influenced US policy under President George W. Bush. He was also a strong advocate for the Iraq war, being one of the first – in the hours immediately after 9/11 – to accuse Iraq of being involved in that atrocity and call for war against Iraq. He later allegedly went on to profit from the war itself and it’s subsequent occupation, being heavily involved with the now disgraced Ahmed Chalabi. Today he is one of the leading hawks calling for war with Iran.

I do not have the time right now to here lay out the full case against Mr. Woolsey, I have only been able here to provide an outline. I hope that readers will spend some time doing their own research on this individual and come to their own conclusions about his role as a war criminal.

To me, he played an active role in facilitating the illegal war and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and continues to spew forth hate speech regarding Arabs and Islam (he once famously, I believe, described all US Muslim organisations as fronts of miltant Jihadists, for example), as enough to regard him as a war criminal.

He is being brought here no doubt to speak on Green issues. The local Greens, such as Greenrock, should carefully investigate his background and work out their position on him.

For those who were active in the resistance to the Iraq war, notably the Bermuda-4-Peace movement, I would hope that they have sufficient time (about a month) to both investigate this person and organise accordingly.

I myself will seek to provide more detailed information on him shortly.

Ideally I would like to see a campaign directed against Business Bermuda for bringing this war criminal here, as well as an attempt to arrest him for his crimes.

Some initial links concerning Mr. Woolsey:

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Woolsey_James

http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=256

On his war profiteering:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/11/usa.iraq?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0501/S00107.htm

There’s a whole load of YouTube videos regarding him too:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+woolsey&oq=james+wools&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3715l7163l0l8528l11l10l0l2l2l0l255l1588l1.2.5l8l0

NB – While Business Bermuda does not advertise an email address on their website (should anyone wish to register their opposition to their support for this war criminal), they are advertising an essay competition for the event. The topic of the essay is ‘Bermuda – Physically Small but Globally Significant’. While the competition is for 13-19 year olds, perhaps readers may wish to register their protest through this way? After all, Bermuda arresting a war criminal surely would be globally significant. Perhaps our schoolchildren can be encouraged to research this war criminal and write on it also? All essays are to be emailed to ypackwood@businessbermuda.org.

Cyborg Revolutions

About a year ago, with the beginnings of the ‘Arab Spring’ and, especially with the Western intervention in Libya, I made a couple of posts regarding these. With a year passing, it is only natural to reflect on those initial posts and the development of the Arab Spring since.

I think what we’ve seen is the complete hijacking of an initially organic (that is, generally spontaneous action arising from the various conditions in the countries involved, albeit seeking inspiration from each other) movements by various class and imperialist interests. Hence my use of the word ‘cyborg’ to define these ‘revolutions’.

The Arab Spring was not confined to just Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. The success of the Tunisian movement inspired similar uprisings throughout the Arab world, including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon and Mauritania. It also helped inspire movements throughout Europe, Russia, the Anglo world (coalescing around the ‘Occupy’ movement) and, most recently, Nigeria. No doubt it also inspired similar activities elsewhere, likely elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, of which I am not aware of.

In this – the emergence of protest movements throughout the world – I think we see the organic wave of revolution, as revolutionary ripples spread out from epicenters, mingle with local conditions and inspire movements; which themselves then send out new ripples. For various reasons these movements had varied impact in their individual countries. Some countries were generally insulated from these ripples through either already providing escape valves for discontent (liberal democracy), heading them off with concessions (Morocco and Algeria for example), censorship or misrepresentation of the movements (Bahrain and Saudi for example) or various legalistic approaches combined with mild repression (USA and the UK for example).

Despite this organic spread of the movements, this has been, in my opinion, hijacked. Various class powers, interests and imperialist powers seized on these movements for their own geopolitical and economic reasons. The Libyan case is perhaps the most obvious here, where the imperialist powers now proudly discuss how they actively facilitated, organised, armed and trained, as well as actively participated on the ground, the anti-Gaddafi forces. Syria seems to be following a similar course today.

Where it has been in the interests of the imperialist powers to see change – or when they realised that change was coming regardless, as in Egypt – they have intervened to amplify the call for change, to facilitate this change, or otherwise manage the change so as to either reduce their losses or snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, as we see now in Egypt (where the Western puppet regime of Mubarak was allowed to fall, but Western interests have now been both protected and potentially expanded). They have done this for both geopolitical reasons (Libya, albeit less a threat than previously, still posed problems, and Syria is problematic both in terms of Israel-Palestine and Iran) and economic interests (Libya’s oil, the various extensive State services in Egypt, Libya and Syria which the West are eager to ‘help’ privatise). Often both factors have played a role.

And where the success of these movements threatened imperialist interests, the West has either turned a blind eye to these movements brutal repression, or took an active role in their crushing. The bloody suppression of movements in Iraq, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have thus gone on with either direct or indirect support from the West.

I wonder if the hypocrisy of the West has ever been so obvious, and yet so obscured through the control of international media.

What does this mean for the future of these ‘revolutions’, and what lessons can the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist movements learn from this?

Why be a revolutionary? – Who or What is a revolutionary?

My previous two posts on this first fundamental question addressed the question of praxis and the philosophical underpinnings of the revolutionary. This post goes back to both of those issues in seeking to answer the question of who can or is a revolutionary?

To a degree this question is already answered in my previous posts. The revolutionary is someone who is fundamentally opposed to the status quo AND who is involved in revolutionary praxis – the unity of theoretical and practical action to oppose the status quo and realise a fundamentally new system.

The above still holds. However, there is always the risk that people mistake being revolutionary with certain stereotypical caricatures of what it is to be a revolutionary. Some people mistake being a revolutionary and legitimate praxis as playing revolutionary guerilla and wearing Che t-shirts. I risk here getting into a ‘prolier than thou’ situation, a favourite past-time of some on the self-styled revolutionary left. Nonetheless, I think it is a risk worth taking as part of this evaluation of what it is to be a revolutionary.

Formal Revolutionaries?

People come to becoming a revolutionary through various paths. Some people are initially attracted to it out of a desire for attention, out of no other reason than a sense of rebellion, or an attraction to a romantic imagery of what it is to be a revolutionary.

Those who come to the self-description of being a revolutionary by these means are often the ones who play revolutionary through various versions of ‘dress-up’ (Che berets, military surplus store clothing, various ‘revolutionary’ parephanalia, etc.) and are often the most militant in their positions, often calling for the most extreme strategies and tactics, even if they are often the ones with the least experience in actual conflict situations.

These ‘revolutionaries’ are often only transitory revolutionaries. They often come to adopt a revolutionary position in their youth and quickly move on to other positions. For the majority, in my experience, this revolutionary stage is short-lived and they generally adopt a more centrist, reformist status quo position, if not a general apathy towards politics. Some adopt relatively extreme free-market positions. A minority move to extreme positions of various authoritarian/corporatist/fascistic forms. Similarly, a minority move from this superficial revolutionary position to a more genuine revolutionary position.

These superficial revolutionaries have their place in the revolutionary mileu. They provide useful ‘boots on the ground’ at key moments, and their extremism can often promote some valuable and key theoretical debates. And even though many move to a reformist position later in life, these former revolutionaries provide potentially crucial future support in a revolutionary moment. And as previously noted, some do continue to become genuine revolutionaries.

Formal Genuine Revolutionaries

I will keep this category rather brief. Essentially the formal genuine revolutionaries are those that have displayed a long-term commitment to revolutionary praxis. They have often consciously developed their theoretical and philosophical understanding of their position and critique of the status quo.

In practice they often take the lead in counter-acting capitalist hegemony, in the sense of leading both the ideological defence of the revolutionary position and developing the revolutionary critique of the status quo. In action they often take the lead in co-ordinating and advocating revolutionary strategy and tactics, from party organisation and activities to potential armed actions or more prosaic consciousness raising and mass organisation.

Informal Genuine Revolutionaries

In addition to the ‘formal genuine revolutionaries’ there are what I call here ‘informal’ genuine revolutionaries. These revolutionaries may not even realise that they are revolutionaries. They are not revolutionaries in the classical sense of formal theoreticians, party activists or guerrilla leaders. However, in one way or another, they have come to the position that the system is both contrary to their philosophical underpinnings and cannot be reformed. They may not even necessarily be conscious of coming to this position, but they realise it in practice – in their reaction to events and thoughts on certain matters.

These revolutionaries develop revolutionary strategy and tactics organically, that is, almost spontaneously, without assistance or inspiration from the formal revolutionaries, and merely as a direct outflow of their (conscious or unconscious) fundamental opposition to the status quo and in relation to their daily lives.

These informal revolutionaries are found in every sphere of human life. They exist and can develop in any sphere, any occupation. They can be teachers, scientists, shop-floor workers, construction workers, service workers, musicians, writers, clerks, etc. They can be blue collar or white collar workers, even cultural workers (in the sense of artists). They can even be members of the ruling class who come to positions, from various paths, that are fundamentally revolutionary.

In Conclusion

The essence of a revolutionary then is a fundamental opposition to the status quo and a long-term commitment to revolutionary praxis.

This definition needs some clarification though, as it could be argued that various extreme right-wing ideologies could be equally fundamentally opposed to the status quo and committed to overthrowing this status quo.

I think then that the term ‘revolutionary’ needs to be qualified then, in that the revolutionary must also have the commitment of opposing any and all forms of exploitation, and that this opposition to exploitation must form a fundamental aspect of the revolutionary’s opposition to the status quo and commitment to revolutionary praxis.

Anyone can be a revolutionary. They do not need to know revolutionary theory. They do not need to be active in the traditional revolutionary activities of party organisation or insurrection. Revolutionary praxis can – and I believe, must – be developed in both formal and informal spheres (not just in demonstrations, party action or insurrection, but also in the workplace and in everyday life).

All that a revolutionary needs is the triad of opposition to exploitation, a belief that exploitation is inherent to the existing system (and as such cannot be reformed out of the system) and a commitment to developing a new system.

Formal revolutionary theory and action have their place in this, and can certainly help inform the revolutionary of the best approach they can or should take, as well as help them with their critique of the status quo. But it is a mistake to believe that formal revolutionaries or praxis are the only genuine revolutionaries or praxis.

Why be a revolutionary? – Philosophical Underpinnings

Ultimately, to be a revolutionary means to be fundamentally opposed to the status quo. By being fundamentally opposed one is of the belief that the ‘system’ – and this feeds into the second fundamental question of what one is opposing, and, in brief, refers in this question to the combined economic-political-ideological complex – one is of the conviction that this status quo cannot be merely ‘reformed’ but must be fundamentally replaced.

To reach this perspective one must be convinced that the status quo is contradictory to ones philosophical concept of, ultimately, the meaning of life. This is, obviously, a tricky and complex subject and I am only able to briefly touch on it here, and am going to restrict its subject matter somewhat.

For the purposes of this post and general theme of the fundamental questions, I am restricting its focus to the issue of one feeling that the status quo system is contrary to ones personal belief of what the system should be. And so, one needs to ask what the system should be, at least in relation to how the contradiction between what one believes the system should be and what the system is.

I am not a student of philosophy, at least in the formal sense. I have had the luxury to read some formal philosophical texts, and, through interactions with others more learned than myself, am somewhat acquainted with certain formal philosophical terms.

What I will try and do below though is start of with my own starting point and then note how I’ve since incorporated various formal philosophical teachings into my understanding. As noted in the previous post, on praxis, my personal philosophical positions have evolved, and continue to evolve, through my own personal experience of praxis.

My Starting Points

In a ‘spin-off’ series of posts that I expect to write resulting from this particular endeavor in reflecting on the Three Fundamental Questions, I will provide a more detailed, almost auto-biographical, account of my own development. Here I can only provide a mere sketch of my fundamental philosophical opposition to the status quo.

I believe that the ultimate purpose of the socio-economic system should be to help the individual realise their full potential, both intellectually and physically. From that point I believe that the capitalist mode of production, and its related political and ideological aspects, fundamentally prevent the realisation of that goal. While under capitalism a minority of individuals may indeed be able to realise their potential more than others, I fundamentally believe that the system does this by preventing the vast majority of individuals from realising their potential, actively prevents and retards their individual development, and that realising ones own potential cannot be achieved through retarding others personal development.

I think my initial philosophical positions stem from the Ancient idea of ‘a sound mind in a sound body’ combined with the essentially Judeo-Christian emphasis on the equality of all humanity, along with the – what I came to see as essentially a myth – the idea that our system is essentially meritocratic – hard work is rewarded.

As I increasingly came to realise, the system itself is fundamentally exploitative, in both economic (the exploitation of labour) and other realms (exploitation of nature). The system is inherently unequal, partly as a result of inherited inequalities (from fuedalism, colonialism, slavery, etc.), and due to the very nature of its economic dynamo.

I think this is inherent to the system. Thus my fundamental opposition to it. I don’t think that the system can be reformed, be made more ‘human’.

That is the fundamental difference between the reformist and the revolutionary. The reformist believes the system can be reformed, the revolutionary believes it cannot and needs fundamentally changed. The revolutionary does not oppose attempts to reform, but does not believe that these reforms alone can succeed.

Formal Philosophical Borrowings…

I originally came to those above initial positions through a combination of Christian teachings, literature (particularly Dickens, Orwell and Huxley) and an interest in what we generally call ‘the Classics’ – Ancient Greece, Rome, Persia, Judea and Mesopotamia. It was only later, through a reading of certain formal philosophical texts, and interaction with other religious and philosophical perspectives, as well as a commitment to Marxist studies, that I was able to build on my initial realisation of the contradiction between capitalist myth (equality, realisation of individual potential, and reward of hard work) and capitalist reality.

I don’t think I’ve really changed from my initial realisation – and thus revolutionary opposition – of the contradiction between capitalist myth and reality. At best I’ve found some formal philosophical terms to bolster my positions, as well as gone from an initially reformist to a revolutionary perspective.

By ‘formal philosophical texts’ I mean those works by what the general public consider as being written by ‘philosophers’. By this I refer to such texts as Aristotle, Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Nietsche, Hegel, etc. As stressed, I am by no means a formal student of philosophy, in that I have never properly studied philosophy; I just happen to have read a few formal philosophical texts and had various philosophical discussions with others.

Of these, the most influential to me have been those of Aristotle, Epicurus and, of course, Marx. Indirectly I have also been influenced by the works of Sartre, Camus and Foucalt. I say indirectly because I don’t think I have ever read any of their works, but have interacted with them by proxy, through those who have read them, or by second-hand accounts of their philosophies.

From Aristotle I was particularly influenced by his writings on ‘eudomonia’, which I understand as ‘the good life’. This was, as I understand it, central to Aristotle’s philosophy, in that he sought to evaluate all things on the basis of how they should serve to realise the good life. Key aspects from this is his discussion on ethics and politics, as well as his distinction between ‘oekonomie’ and ‘krematistiks’. Oekonomie referred to how resources should be used to realise the individual (and by extension, the collective) full potential – eudomonia. Krematistiks instead was the use of resources for the sole purpose of creating wealth. It is from the word oekonomie that our word ‘economy’ (and thus economics) derives, although what we understand as ‘economics’ within the capitalist system is actually krematistiks (this word itself does exist in English as ‘chrematistics’), the use of resources solely for profit.

This was later informed by my readings of Epikuros’ works, notably his conception of eudomonia, in the sense of ataraxia (freedom from fear) and aponia (freedom from pain), and his views relating to God/s and self-determination.

Marx provided me with an economic, political and ideological critique of the status quo and, in my reading of Marx, is a synthesis of Aristolean, Epicurean, Christian and Hegelian philosophy applied to the present. This is, essentially, a fundamental aspect of my philosophy and it would take far too much to discuss in this post alone. It suffuses and informs all my writing.

From Sartre and Camus, especially Camus. I understand that Camus developed the argument that existence itself is generally meaningless, but that we can make our own meaning for it – and one must either do this or surrender ones individual essence and instead just withdraw from active interaction (in the sense of making meaning or influencing existence) with existence. I stress though that I have never personally reviewed the works of Sartre or Camus.

Other key elements in my philosophical opposition to the status quo come from my understandings of Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and the psychoanalyst work of Erich Fromm.

Conclusion

Ultimately, ones being as a revolutionary stems from a fundamental conviction that the status quo is contrary to ones perception of what the ‘good life’ – eudomonia – that is, the objective of life, should be, ALONG with the conviction that the system in question cannot be reformed but must be fundamentally replaced.

Obviously I am not the most articulate, but I hope the above at least helps inform and serve as an initial attempt to answer the first fundamental question of why be a revolutionary. I hope to next address the related question of ‘who’ is (or ‘what counts as’) a revolutionary.

Why be a revolutionary? – Praxis

This is the first fundamental question alluded to in my previous post, ‘Three Fundamental Questions‘. In itself it is actually a bundle of questions, such as ‘what is a revolutionary’, ‘what is one being a revolutionary against’ and so forth. In many ways one cannot answer this/these questions without also addressing the other two fundamental questions (what is the problem and what is the solution), which deal more with what the revolutionary is opposed to and the strategies and tactics used to realise the revolution. So, dealing with this question, and its related issues, cannot really be addressed separately, although it can be useful to attempt this provided one keeps in mind its relationship with the other two fundamental questions.

This question, as noted, leads to a number of issues, and it is inherently complex. For the sake of ease of reading I don’t think I can fully address it in one piece. Even though I am necessarily summarising – only providing an outline – I will break this discussion into at least two, a discussion of praxis and a discussion of philosophical underpinnings (which lead one to becoming a revolutionary). The two posts should be read together.

Also included as a related issue to this question is how does one become a revolutionary. I will only touch on this particular aspect here, but will provide my own personal account in a later post.

Praxis

Ultimately to be a revolutionary means to be be fundamentally opposed to the status quo, as well as being committed to both critiquing the status quo (and in the process understanding it) AND being actively involved in actions to both oppose the status quo and work towards developing a fundamentally new socio-economic system. That is, there must be a unity of both theory and action; in Marxist terminology this union is known as ‘praxis’.

Although it is possible to be purely theoretical or purely active, and often one is lives these two in separate moments. And the one informs and influences the other. Ones theoretical positions informs what actions one takes, and the experience one has in these actions feed back into ones theoretical positions. I don’t think it is possible to really work out which one comes first, as in the chicken and egg question. Sometimes ones lived experiences (action) leads to reflection and the beginning of theoretical understanding, and sometimes ones theoretical understanding leads to action, and so on. This unity of the two, as two separate moments of a single reality, and the interaction between the two, could be called dialectical, which is used here to express the unity and interaction of the two.

There is always the risk of becoming one-sided in ones personal development. Some people become overly theoretical – armchair revolutionaries; while others become overly active – which ultimately means becoming reactive (as in the sense of knee-jerk reactions) and leading to a number of possible strategic and tactical errors. As noted above, at times one is more theoretical than active, and this somewhat relates to what the Italian Marxist referred to as the ‘war of position’ and the ‘war of manoeouvre’. In the war of position the role of the revolutionary can be seen as more theoretical, in the war of manoeuvre the role of the revolutionary is more one of action. There is always the tension between these two, and the revolutionary must constantly evaluate their actual praxis in order to prevent such an imbalance.

Of course, the nature of praxis available to the revolutionary is determined by the revolutionary’s understanding of the problem and the strategies and tactics best applied to the particular nature. The revolutionary praxis is thus relative; it changes depending on the circumstances the revolutionary is confronted. The revolutionary praxis under an exceptional state, as in a military or fascist dictatorship (for example) will be of an entirely different nature to that under (for example) liberal democracy, as in the Western parliamentary context; this also is influenced by an understanding of imperialist relations (is the revolutionary in an imperialist or colonial situation, as in the relation between the USA and, say, Guatemala). As such one sees that the definition of the revolutionary, in terms of an understanding of praxis, is very much determined by the other two fundamental questions that the revolutionary must confront.

The next question to be covered under this question is that of ones philosphical groundings, in as much as these inform, greatly, why one is fundamentally opposed to the status quo.

Three Fundamental Questions

I believe that there are three fundamental questions that a ‘revolutionary’ must seek to answer, and to periodically return to. Each of these three questions themselves lead to a cascade of additional issues growing organically from them. Nonetheless, every ‘revolutionary’ needs to at least develop (consciously or unconsciously) their general positions on these fundamental questions.

These are:

(1) Why be a ‘revolutionary’?

(2) What is the ‘problem’ – what is one being a revolutionary against?

(3) What is to be done? This means, how does one realise the revolution; how does one ‘solve’ the problem and realise the ideal which led one to becoming a revolutionary in the first place?

As noted above, the revolutionary must constantly return to these three fundamental questions. The nature of the problem itself is in a constant state of evolution, as is the revolutionary’s perspective and understanding of the problem, and knowledge of how to go about resolving the problem. The understanding of the revolutionary ideal that motivates the revolutionary can also change over time. And ones understanding of the nature of the problem greatly informs what strategies and tactics should be employed by the revolutionary; the nature of the problem can change in reaction to these, and new strategies and tactics need to be developed as a result.

Over the next couple of posts I hope to give my answers to these fundamental questions and address at least the initial issues and additional questions that stem from these.

Taking Stock

I apologise for the lack of posting. As some readers may know I recently left Bermuda to return to Scotland, after being on island for the last seven months. In that time I had hoped to secure permanent employment, but, quite frankly, the job market, especially in my field area, is not all that great at this moment at time. As such, I have returned to Scotland and resumed academic studies, having been offered a terrific opportunity of a fully-funded doctoral studies in urban studies. I am honoured to have been offered this opportunity, and look forward to the challenges that it will involve.

As part of the relocation to Scotland I have had limited computer and internet access, but I hope to make arrangements for a computer this week, and should be able to post more frequently afterwards.

In the time since my last post though I have had the opportunity to engage in a little introspection. I personally find such moments productive, an opportunity to take stock of where one is and what one has done, and, from there, look towards where one may be going, which is partly in ones own control.

One of the subjects I have been considering over this time concerns what it means to be a ‘revolutionary’. One of the original intentions of this blog was to introduce revolutionary theory, based on my readings of Marxism, in a Bermudian context. I haven’t always (at all really) done much in the way of realising such a goal. For the most part this blog has been devoted mostly to reflective and reactive commentary on local Bermudian politics, and occasionally some international matters.

I hope that, with the ‘job security’ of the next three years, I’ll be able to redress this lack of theoretical discussion here. I don’t claim to be a ‘theoretician’ by any means. I will, however, just simply do my best to explain my own thoughts on what I personally see as key theoretical questions and how my positions on these relate to the ‘practical’ actions or positions I have taken over time, and how I came to develop (and continue to evolve) these ‘theoretical’ positions. I welcome any feedback that these may cause; otherwise I am happy to just commit my thoughts to writing for the benefits that this alone provides to ones own thinking.

On Race – Personal & Structural

As a political/social commentator on Bermudian issues, I don’t think I can help but have an articulated position on the issue of race. Race remains one of the fundamental aspects of Bermudian society, let alone politics. There are few issues which are as controversial or fundamental in understanding Bermudian politics and society. I find though that there are some clear misunderstandings (and resulting miscommunications) that arise in such discussions, and, as such, I am going to do my best to outline my own perceptions and understandings of the racial dynamics in Bermuda. I hope to rewrite this post itself as a header which will be easily referred to by all readers of this blog for the sake of clarity in future discussions on the race issue.

I think it is important to stress here that I am hardly an ‘expert’ on the race issue. It is not a topic I have studied in depth or claim any particular expertise in. I have only thought on the topic in as much as it has been necessary to develop an understanding of Bermudian dynamics, and I fully expect that some of my terminologies or perceptions may be questioned by those more dedicated to studying race, in particular students of sociology or African studies. The terms are my own and represent my best attempts to articulate my thoughts on the issues.

Racism – Personal or Structural

This is perhaps the key to many of the misunderstandings and miscommunications that haunt discussions of race and racism in Bermuda. It is thus key to discuss the differences between these two different forms of racism.

In short, ‘personal racism’ is where an individual is discrimated against by others solely on the basis of their perceived race. This can take many particular forms, but also has two key general forms, that of overt and covert.

Overt Personal Racism is the form that is almost universally accepted as racism. This is when one race actively dehumanises another race by way of racial slurs (“niggers” etc.), racial stereotyping (Blacks are emotional/stupid/violent/loud, etc.) or denial of service (“Whites only”, etc.). Covert Personal Racism is less obvious (thus the use of the word ‘covert’, indicating hidden) and involves much of the same, but the racist is often aware of the social unacceptability of these views, or is not even aware of their racism (I don’t go to Black areas because I don’t feel safe; I don’t like their smell; Blacks don’t seem to vote on policy; White flight from previously ‘White’ spaces, be they sports (football/cricket) neighbourhoods (not as prevalent here?) or social spaces (various restaurants/clubs)).

All in all I think there are very few people in Bermuda who I would call racist in terms of overt personal racism. There may be a handful, particularly in the very old generations, but they are effectively irrelevant. I do think there are quite a few who I would classify as racist in the covert personal racism sense.

Structural Racism however involves socio-economic inequalities between racial groups, as well as, arguably, social trends (such as the often discussed issue of Whites voting as a monolithic racial bloc). Like personal racism this can take both overt and covert forms.

Overt Structural Racism involves the active use of State or other Institutional power (i.e. bank loans/mortgages) to either prevent the accumulation of wealth or power by one race to the benefit of another – both slavery and segregation fall under this term. Covert Structural Racism involves there being no active State or Institutional power doing the above, but the inequalities which were created by previous Overt Structural Racism are not addressed and are thus both maintained or entrenched through a combination of inertia and inattention.

Segregation (overt structural racism) ended here in the 1970s. However, no action was taken by the Government or various institutions to actively dismantle the legacies of this system, in terms of socio-economic inequalities. This remains the case today; our society remains racist in the sense of covert structural racism.

It is rather cumbersome in discussions to use the various formulae noted above, and in general it is hoped that people are aware, by the context of the discussion in question, which form of racism is being discussed. This ‘hope’ seems rather delirous in practice though, and it is the ambiguity of using the blanket term ‘racism’ that seems to lead to any number of misunderstandings. While there is added complexity to the issue in that there are many who would dispute the existence of either covert personal or structural racism as valid, I feel it is important to at least have that discussion.

In my experience the biggest confusion in Bermudian discourse on race issues is the confusion between overt racism (both personal and structural) and covert structural racism (the issue of covert personal racism is largely ignored).

For the most part, those various ‘anti-racist’ activists or speakers in Bermuda (this covers a large number of people, from public figures like Rolfe Commissiong and Dr. Eva Hodgson, to lesser personalities such as myself), when articulating their anti-racism are expressing their critique and frustration with ongoing covert structural racism.

Most of the resulting controversies from such articulations comes from what appears to be overwhelmingly Whites (but increasingly also younger generations of middle-class Blacks) who think of racism only in the sense of overt personal and structural racism. The argument amongst these groups generally goes that segregation ended over forty years ago plus variations of ‘I have Black friends’, as well as various exhortations of ‘I don’t know anyone who is racist (in the personal sense) but I would criticise anyone who is…’. In this way thise groups claim to be anti-racist themselves, and criticise the others (complaining of covert structural racism) of instead being the racists and inciting racial division.

In one sense these people are, genuinely, anti-racist, but only in the overt sense. In as much as they dismiss (or don’t understand) covert structural racism, and thus join in the criticism or work of dismantling covert structural racism, they are, however racist. They are racist because they are either not aware of (and thus working to end) covert structural racism, or they benefit from the status quo and fear the consequences of dismantling covert structural racism. As such they either passively or actively support covert structural racism.

There then comes the question of how does one actively dismantle covert structural racism, and whether the use of what may be criticised as overt structural racism (in terms of affirmative action or reparations, in various forms) can be justified as a means to that end (hence the calls of reverse racism). This is an issue I’ll attempt to address in a separate post though. To cover it in this post also would make this abnormally long, and the issue itself is complicated. For this post alone I will just say that a precursor (and ongoing aspect of actions) to tackle covert structural racism is the need to first understand what it is and to get a critical number of citizens in society to acknowledge it’s existence.

I welcome feedback on the above with the hope of further clarifying these issues.

The Year Ahead

There is a tendency for people at this time of year to engage in looking back at the past year and looking forward to the coming one. Individuals do this, reflecting on their challenges and successes over the year and trying to predict what the future may hold and what they hope to acheive over the next twelve months. Similarly, institutions do this, including political parties and companies, and the media also engage in reviews and predictions of news events. I’m not interested here in reviewing what has happened, but I will offer my thoughts of what to expect in the coming months. Obviously predictions are little more than best guesses, and most are invariably wrong – so don’t be surprised if all my guesses are far off!

Internationally

I don’t think we’re out of the economic crisis yet. I’m pretty sure the Eurozone will go into a double-dip recession (if it hasn’t already!), and that the stability or growth in North America will be more illusory than real, being largely based on credit-fuelled mirages of prosperity (ironically a fundamental cause of the crisis in the first place), and that bubble of credit may very well burst at any time (although, with it being a US Presidential year I imagine the Presidency will do it’s utmost to maintain the bubble). The world is, in my opinion, in the midst of the transfer of power from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with the recovery of Japan, ongoing growth in Malaysia/Indonesia and, primarily, China, being the main engines of growth next year, as well as the general centre of capitalist power. America will continue, of course, but I do think we are seeing the decline of empire there, albeit one with still immense power, especially military. I don’t think China is quite going to eclipse the Americans, but they are catching up and at least making for a more multi-polar world than the superpower domination of the US that we have seen since the collapse of the Soviets in the late 1980s.

I am fairly confident that there will be a new Gazan war, as well as some degree of ongoing confrontation with Iran, if not all out war. This will have some profound effects on the direction the ‘Arab Spring’ will develop. Israeli aggression towards the Palestinans could easily focus Egypt on the problem, diverting the revolutionary movement there and even leading to active intervention, which itself will have profound implications for the region and global geopolitics. Confrontation with Iran could very easily be exploited to undermine further reform movements in the Gulf region, as seen in the ongoing repression of Shia majorities in Bahrain and the (oil-rich) east of Saudi Arabia (where demonstrators are depicted as an Iranian Fifth Coloumn and attacked accordingly). The fall-out from both a war with Iran, both in the initial confrontation and resulting death, destruction and interruption of oil supplies, and post-war (if Iran loses, who controls their oil?). More important, or of interest to me, is the situation of the Kurdish peoples of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. This ethnic group has long fought for the establishment of a formal state, Kurdistan, and have been persecuted accordingly by the four formal States in question. The Iraqi Kurds now have some autonomy and will form the nucleus of any new Kurdish State or movement towards it. With increasing friction between Shia and Sunni in Iraq, they may very well seek to set out on their own. With the crisis in Syria, the Kurds there could also take advantage of the chaos there to restart their independence movements. And the ongoing (and increased) oppression of Kurds in Turkey could prove to be the proverbial spark to lit the Kurdish fire.

Elsewhere, I expect famine and chaos in the African Sahel, with the economic crisis and regime change in Libya having profound impact there, both in the loss of remittances (which may have averted the famine) and the flood of weapons and forces and leaders previously sheltered by Gaddafi initiating conflicts throughout the region. Somalia continues to be problematic and, with the Kenyans now joining the Ethiopians in Somali fighting, risks spreading war throughout the horn of Africa. The instability in Yemen is likely to further exacerbate the situation in the Horn of Africa, and with Egyptian concerns about the security of waterflows in the Nile (affected by activities in Kenya, namely agriculture and deforestation, also in Tanzania and new developments in South Sudan), as well as the ongoing low-level conflict between Sudan and South Sudan, make the entire north-east of Africa a risky area for conflict next year. Southern Africa too could see some changes depending on internal battles in the ANC on the direction of their national democratic revolution since the fall of Apartheid, instability in Swaziland and the potential retirment or death of Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, despite expected natural disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, especially the ongoing misery of Haiti) the key focus of my attention will be elections in Mexico and Venezuala, and the ongoing reforms in Cuba. At the moment though I’m thinking Latin America will have a relatively quiet year. I expect in Europe a series of extremist attacks, of both left-wing (anarchists particularly) and right-wing (racist, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant) varieties, with a particular rise in the support of the right there. While I can see some counter-culture, leftist, movements arising there I expect them to be eclipsed by the right. In America however, the Occupy movement has the potential to develop into something akin to the protest movements of the 1960s, although I fear they have lost their steam and will be subsumed by the upcoming Presidential elections.

Domestically

I am not optimistic about the next year for Bermuda. Perhaps it is the rain this afternoon, or my experience of looking for work here for the last six months. In general though I think, economically, next year will be bad. I expect if not more unemployment then at least a deepening of the situation for the already unemployed as they run out of savings and their support network continues to tighten belts. I expect a series of repossessions and mortgage defaults, and general despair amongst these individuals, including the new working poor. I don’t see any reduction in the gang violence, and with the cuts to social services I wouldn’t be surprised if this even has a knock on effect in this area, at least in the indirect and long-term sense.

Politically, despite the reversals of PLP policies by Premier Cox, and her the increasingly pro-business direction of the PLP (as seen by recent Senate appointments and candidate announcements), I think that PLP support will continue to decline. The swing voters who were key to the 1998 and all subsequent elections, I feel are increasingly finding the OBA attractive. I don’t think this is so much due to the personalities or policies of the OBA, or even the merger of the BDA with the majority UBP to make the OBA. If anything I think had the UBP continued they would be benefitting as much as the OBA today is. People are tired of perceived or real abuses of power under the PLP, and the PLP is also being blamed (rightly or wrongly) for the economic problems Bermuda is facing. As such the OBA is benefitting in truth from three factors. One, the middle-class swing voters, noted above, are willing to switch their vote to the OBA. Two, a large segment of the youth vote has known no other Government than the PLP and as such are willing to express their frustrations by voting OBA. Third, a number of the core supporters of the PLP are dissatisfied with the failure of the PLP to really make any substantial changes to the structural injustices of Bermudian society, and with the influx of previously opposed persons and policies into the forefront of Party thought and publicity, are likely to either stay at home or spoil their ballots.

While the PLP may still win the next election, as things stand today I think the OBA has a very strong chance of winning the next election. This would not be the end of the world, and as much as the PLP may dislike it, it may actually allow the PLP to engage in a period of introspection and put the Party back on it’s original platform of being a party of social justice. As the current policies of the OBA and the PLP are not really all that different, I’m not really expecting there to be that much of a policy-change, although I would expect the OBA to advocate more privatisation of the public sphere than the PLP.

To be clear, I am not endorsing the OBA here. Far from it. I am just giving my observation of the current situation. The PLP may still recover, but it has an uphill battle at the moment. It needs to really provide a clear direction of its vision for the country today, as well as hope the economy can rebound in time for this to translate into PLP votes (from the swing voters). They will also look to exploit any OBA mis-steps, and to more clearly differentiate their policies from the OBAs.

The potential increase in Islamic Finance arising from the new Governments in North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt), which are likely to be dominated by moderate Islamic parties (who have already won the parliamentary elections in Morocco and Tunisia in the last few months, both of whom have advocated Islamic Finance in their platforms) could boost Bermuda, especially as the Premier Cox has been actively pushing this option as an element of a more diverse economic platform for Bermuda, and this could serve to boost the PLP’s chances in the coming months.