Dove sono i pacifinti?

[Scapigliato" (POL)]

1. Va beh questo lo poteva scrivere anche un agente della CIA e o di Israele sono due must del neo.colonialismo americano. Kabila il maoista, il regime di Khartum che-è-cattivo.mentre-quello-saudita-è-buono

1. Chi dice che Kabila sia maoista? Si fa solo una battuta sulla sua forma fisica. A tuo dire questi sono governi positivi? Mah... E chi lo dice che se una cosa non la dica strumentalmente la CIA o Israele non possa essere effettivamente vera (o simile a verità) e sostenuta in modo non strumetnale da altri? Dove hai letto che gl iautori o la Solidarietà Internazionale Libertaria ritengano che il regime saudita sia “buono”?

1. E' una cazzata. Il tasso procapite di esportazione dei cinesi è tra i più bassi tra i paesi industrializzati anche rispetto al PIL solo il 3% mentre la germania il 4%, l'Argentina l'11%, Singapore il 33%. La Cina ha il record mondiale dei luoghi comuni.Questa è una analisi fatta di luoghi comuni. In gran parte il boom della Cina si è basato sul mercato interno, infatti è riuscita a togliere dalla povertà il 70% della popolazione.

1. In termini assoluti le esportazioni della Repubblica Popolare Cinese ormai superano, ad esempio, gli Stati Uniti. Ciò non può che incidere significativamente sulla propria economia (anche a fronte di importazioni estremamente minori).

1. Spero cge sia un errore di traduzione . La cina ha oggi una tanti lavoratori come OCSE-USA-India messi asieme.

1. Nel senso che, specie nelle campagne, i diritti e la situazione economica è peggiorata. Molti lavoratori anziché prendere la pensione, addirittura pagano per poter smettere di lavorare, dovendo risarcire la eprdita che arrecano all'impresa andando in pensione.

1. Però sono normaili e come dice il Washington Post sono spesso sostenuti dal Partito e dal sindacato.

1. E come fanno ad essere normali se sono illegali? Chi mi assicura che poi non vegano impiegati come scusa per arrestare chi vi partecipa?

1. Facciamo dei nomi. Quali dissidenti sono stati uccisi?

1. Ad esempio quelli tibetani o uiguri. Minaccia alla sicurezza nazionale (dentro cui può rientrare di tutto) e separatismo sono due fattispecie per cui è prevista la pena di morte. Vorrei vedere inoltre come funzionino le carceri cinesi, e quante morti “naturali” vi avvengano.

1. Cosa sarebbero i proprietari di casa? Della ricchezza urbana?Cosa vuol dire? In realta l'indice Gini è nella media mondiale. C'è però una particolarità: la Cina è un continente. Confrontiamo i redditi del primo 20% di cittadini svedesi con il 20% dei più poveri tra i cittadini moldavi, altro che 0.45. D'altra parte i tibetani che sono storicamente i più arretrati della Cina fino al 1959 avevano ancora la schiavità e il Dali Lama si rifiutava di introdurre la ruota perchè voleva che i suoi schiavi non battessero la fiacca. E tu lo difendi!!! Per forse di cose lo sviluppo cinese è partito dalla costa perchè era più facile per gli investitori mettre aziende in quanto lì c'era mano d'opera specializzata e porti per le esportazioni, infrastrutture e via dicendo. Solo megli ultimi tre anni le zone tradizionalemnte più arretrate hanno superato la costa est nello sviluppo economico. L'anno scorso la prima regione è stat la mongolia con uno sviluppo del 175, secondo lo Xijnkjang e terzo il Tibet con il 14%.

1. Semplice, vuol dire che vi sono forti disuguaglianze sociali (magari come Svezia e Moldavia da te citate, che però non sono un solo Stato, ma due Stati diversi). Qua mi sembra pioi di sentire Veltroni... basta cioè che si parli di crescita. E se Turkeshtan e Tibet sono cresciuti? A chi è andata la ricchezza prodotta? Alla popolazione tibetana o alle oligarchie cinesi e industriali internazionali? Cosa dire poi delle foreste dsitrutte e trasformate in deserti?

1. Fino a scendere a 50 mila l'anno scorso. ogni cosa che avviene in Cina sembra una rivoluzione, In realtà si tratta di manifestazioni pacifiche in gra parte nelle campagne contro gli espropri della terra, per i quali è previsto un indennizzo che però viene ritenuto troppo basso per cui si va a contrattare,

1. A Varsavia regna la pace.

[Red Shadow]

Va bon: gli anrchici sudafricani..ok Passiamo ai rivoluzionari del fare nepalesi:

Nepal’s revolutionaries stand with China
By David Hoskins
Published Apr 3, 2008 9:25 PM

While China gears up to host the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, U.S. imperialism and its allies have embarked on a concerted campaign to undermine China’s global image and its ability to peacefully host the Olympics.

As workers sit in front of their television sets and watch the nightly news they are faced with an Orwellian contradiction between the images that appear before their eyes and the commentary of the newscasters reporting on the story. The images clearly show rioters, many in monks’ robes, attacking motorcyclists and taxi drivers, while shops are being burned to the ground.

The image of a peaceful Tibetan liberation movement led by a benevolent spiritual leader—the Dalai Lama—has been seared into the consciousness of many of the world’s workers, particularly young workers and students. It is a carefully crafted image

It is also a lie. The image has helped spearhead a multimillion dollar industry that markets “Free Tibet” T-shirts and paraphernalia and selling Dalai’s books extolling his versions of “peace” and world “harmony.”

The feudal reality of Tibet was very different. Workers World’s Gary Wilson wrote a detailed history of Tibet:

“In the 1940s, Tibet was a feudal theocracy with a dual papacy—the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. By all accounts, the Dalai Lama was considered supreme in political matters.” (“It was no Shangri-la: Hollywood hides Tibet’s true history,” WW, Dec. 4, 1997)

“The vast majority of the people of Tibet were serfs. A small part of the population, about 5 percent, was slaves to the nobility.

“Women were considered inferior to men,” Wilson reports.

Capital punishment and the whip were common forms of punishment, according to Gorkar Mebon, the mayor of Lhasa in the 1950s.

“After the overthrow of Tibetan feudalism, in 1959 the serfs opened an exhibition of the torture instruments used against them,” Wilson says.

The Chinese Communist Party led a revolutionary struggle to help Tibetans liberate themselves from this barbaric feudal serfdom. Dalai and his allies have never forgiven the Chinese government for liberating the Tibetans.

Nepal’s revolutionaries stand in solidarity with China

The revolutionary movement in neighboring Nepal, led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has waged a heroic struggle since 1996 against a brutal feudal monarchy similar to that of pre-revolutionary Tibet. The similarity of their struggles has given the CPN(M) a hands-on perspective of the lies, violations of sovereignty and violence that imperialism is willing to perpetuate against liberation movements.

With this in mind, the CPN(M) issued a statement of unequivocal support for China in the face of U.S.-sponsored violence in that country. The statement “strongly condemns the incident that put at risk the freedom and sovereignty of the Chinese people.”

The U.S. and its imperialist allies support a false “liberation” struggle in Tibet against the Chinese government while opposing an authentic revolutionary movement in Nepal against the remnants of an autocratic feudal monarchy.

In neither instance does imperialism genuinely care about democracy, freedom or human rights. In both instances the goal is to undermine China’s independence and influence in the region and to ensure that the revolutionary momentum in Nepal does not spread to India, Bangladesh or Bhutan so that private property and capitalist profits will be protected against the legitimate interests of the oppressed peoples.
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

[Scapigliato" (POL)]

Va bon: gli anrchici sudafricani..ok Passiamo ai rivoluzionari del fare nepalesi:

Ho provato simpatia per il Pcn(m). Davvero non mi aspettavo questa dichiarazione, che è diversa da quella di molti altri maoisti, vedi lo stesso PMLI.

[Red Shadow]

Sul ruolo anti-americano dei cinesi in Africa:

frica & American Imperialism
by max blunt at 04:23PM (CEST) on April 3, 2008 | Permanent Link | Cosmos
The severe limitations of US imperialism’s

policy toward Africa is revealed

in its one-sided policy toward Zimbabwe

China has stepped into the vacuum

in Zimbabwe created by sanctions imposed by

US imperialism and its sidekick in London

The severe limitations of US imperialism’s policy toward Africa is revealed in its one-sided policy toward Zimbabwe.

China has stepped into the vacuum in Zimbabwe created by sanctions imposed by US imperialism and its sidekick in London.

Chinese entities have emerged as the dominant force in Zimbabwe’s economy, which still retains a decent infrastructure of roads and an educated populace.

Zimbabwe’s neighbors – notably South Africa and Namibia – still await a reckoning of their own as to how to confront the detritus of the bad old days of European settler colonialism.

Intriguingly, as recently as 1998 China ranked only 11th in Harare’s roll call of importers – an indicator of how quickly change has occurred.

Yet today informed estimates suggest that there are at least 15 sizeable Zimbabwe-China business deals, mostly involving state enterprises.

Zimbabwe’s wealth of resources – which includes gold, platinum, coal, nickel, diamonds, and the like – guarantees the continuing interest of US imperialism and its allies.

A long history of British betrayals in Zimbabwe

Nobody should believe America's of Britain's cynical claims to care about democracy or human rights in Africa or anywhere else.

The history of Western intervention in Zimbabwe has been a history of brutal and bloody imperialism.

In the 1890s British imperialist adventurer Cecil Rhodes annexed Zimbabwe by force. The country was named Rhodesia and incorporated into the British Empire. White settlers took all the best land.

Resistance

In the 1960s, to head off the anti-imperialist resistance sweeping across Africa, white settlers unilaterally declared “independence” from Britain.

The mainstream African opposition looked to British Labour prime minister Harold Wilson for assistance – but the British did nothing.

The white regime fought a savage colonial war in which 30,000 Africans died. By the mid-1970s there were 40,000 rebels fighting – and the whites were forced to negotiate.

As the former colonial power, the British oversaw independence negotiations in 1979. It made sure the interests of white settlers and big business were put above those of black peasants and workers.

Around 4,000 white settlers owned 70 percent of the best land. None were called to account for their crimes. None forfeited any land. None had to pay a penny in compensation.

Landslide

Rebel leader Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party won a landslide victory in Zimbabwe’s first free elections in 1980.

Despite the compromises, the new government massively improved ordinary peoples’ lives. Infant mortality was halved and primary school enrolment doubled.

But his government inherited an economy that had been deliberately wrecked by the departing white regime. The new government was left with debts of nearly $700 million.

In the early 1990s Zimbabwe accepted a World Bank “structural adjustment programme”. Living standards for ordinary Zimbabweans plummeted, yet Mugabe was praised by the West for championing neoliberal policies that benefited the rich.

Mass strikes in late 1997 and the beginning of 1998 involved a million workers. Townships exploded in urban uprisings.

It was to head off this resistance that Mugabe switched back to “anti-imperialism” and remembered the plight of landless war veterans.

The Crisis of US Imperialism in Africa
This article is excerpted from Gerald Horne’s forthcoming book on the crisis of US imperialism titled Blows Against the Empire: US Imperialism in Crisis (International Publishers).

“Look East My son. Look East.” Those were the sage words of Kenyan journalist, Wanjohi Kabukuru, as he assayed the results of his President’s visit to Beijing, in just the latest journey from the continent – Africa – most ravaged by the savagery of imperialism and, ironically, where the crisis of US imperialism has become most evident.

Of late there has been a growing hysteria in Washington that China is stealing a march on US imperialism, providing an alternative which means that Africa is not bound to bend the knee when their leaders cross the Atlantic.

Kenyans were not wracked with anxiety with this prospect when President Mwai Kibaki arrived in China in 2005.

Instead, they were happy that he came home with multi-million dollar loans and grants for improvements of Nairobi’s power distribution system. Kibaki also signed a contract with the Chinese technological giant, Huawei Technologies Company, to provide wireless telecoms to all government district offices and link them with the central government in Nairobi.

Kenyans are not the only Africans who are pleased with China’s peaceful rise for this Asian nation’s trade with the continent as a whole has jumped dramatically, reaching approximately $35 billion in 2005 after growth rates of 50 percent in 2003 and 59 percent in 2004.

Chinese entities have invested heavily in copper and cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including building roads.

It is helping Ethiopia build the continent’s biggest dam; it has helped Nigeria launch a communications satellite and introduced a new anti-malarial drug in Uganda.

China’s economic engagement with Africa is breathtaking and may be the beginning of the end of a destructive cycle for the beset continent inaugurated by the unlamented Slave Trade, which developed Europe and North America as it undeveloped Africa.

Now, Africa is beginning to recover as US imperialism enters an era of profound crisis.

In the Spring of 2007, for example, Beijing pledged to provide about $20 billion in infrastructure and trade financing to Africa during the next three years, eclipsing many of the continent’s big donors in a single pledge.

North Atlantic powers had pledged about $7 billion via multi-lateral agencies, according to Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank. Grants and soft loans from these donors to Africa from Europe, the US and Japan still exceed China’s, though they come with conditions attached and often fail to materialize when these are not met.

The new day for a New Africa was on display in Beijing in the late Fall of 2006. For it was then that all African nations were invited to a two-day summit – even the five nations that recognize Taiwan and not Beijing as “China” were invited to send representatives.

Beijing’s policy towards the Congo is also revealing. For the past decade millions have perished in this sprawling central African nation, the site for this planet’s most destructive humanitarian catastrophe since the end of World War II.

Though elections have taken place that added needed legitimacy to the administration of President Joseph Kabila, the North Atlantic powers have been lethargic in assisting Congo.

Thus, there was alarm on the part of these powers when Beijing announced in September 2007 that it planned to lend Congo a hefty $5 billion to modernize its decrepit infrastructure, including roads and railways, 31 hospitals, 145 health centers and two universities.

And part of the loan will go into Congo’s mining sector, a treasure trove that also includes gold and diamonds.

Instead of happiness at the prospect that a besieged Congo was receiving desperately needed assistance, a churlish International Monetary Fund basically instructed this sovereign state to reject funds from China.

Unfortunately, as the African American activist professor, Clarence Lusane, pointed out, arms dealers from the US armed both sides in this fratricidal Congolese conflict.

Ultimately the forces backing Kabila – backed by Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe – were able to defeat his opponents backed by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, who were favored by influential forces in Washington.

The result? As Wamba Dia Wamba, the Congolese intellectual and political leader, noted in the Spring of 2001:

“In less than three years, about 2 million have died. There aren’t any good health services, in the war zone, particularly. Soldiers have been using violence on women, so you have quite a few who are victims of HIV...

"[T]he conditions of life are very bad and the conditions of reproduction, in terms of food, also are not good. In fact a study has said that as m such as one sixth of the population has problems finding access to food.”

The fearsome Ebola, monkey pox, vaginal fistula and other diseases and maladies of biblical proportion have taken hold.

Though the competition is stiff, Congo – an early and persistent victim of both the Slave Trade and brutal colonialism – probably has suffered more in recent years than any other nation on this planet and the gross interference of global imperialism has played no small role in this process.

This is a point well worth pondering – particularly when one answers a call on a mobile phone. For tantalum, the refined extract of Columbite – or coltan for short – is a critical element in mobile phones.

And the Congo supplies a significant percentage of the world’s supply, produced by miners toiling in horrifying, even startling, conditions.

The severe limitations of US imperialism’s policy toward Africa is also revealed in its one-sided policy toward Zimbabwe.

China has stepped into the vacuum in Zimbabwe created by sanctions imposed by US imperialism and its sidekick in London.

Chinese entities have emerged as the dominant force in Zimbabwe’s economy, which still retains a decent infrastructure of roads and an educated populace.

Zimbabwe’s neighbors – notably South Africa and Namibia – still await a reckoning of their own as to how to confront the detritus of the bad old days of European settler colonialism.

Intriguingly, as recently as 1998 China ranked only 11th in Harare’s roll call of importers – an indicator of how quickly change has occurred.

Yet today informed estimates suggest that there are at least 15 sizeable Zimbabwe-China business deals, mostly involving state enterprises.

Zimbabwe’s wealth of resources – which includes gold, platinum, coal, nickel, diamonds, and the like – guarantees the continuing interest of US imperialism and its allies.

These resources – particularly petroleum – also guarantees that Africa as a whole will be of interest to US imperialism. By 2005 this continent provided more oil to the US than the Middle East.

Three of the top 10 suppliers to the US by 2005 were Nigeria, Algeria and Angola.

Yet, here again the crisis of US imperialism is no better revealed for hands were wringing throughout Washington when in January 2006 China’s state-run oil firm announced it would pay $2.3 billion for a 45 percent stake in a bountiful Nigerian oilfield and then in May of that year President Hu Jintao made a triumphal visit to West Africa.

Because of its lengthy history of anti-African racism and brutal exploitation of the continent – not to mention its hostility to the idea of a state sector at the commanding heights of the economy, which will be Africa’s savior – US imperialism is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to competing with China.

Angola has overtaken Saudi Arabia as China’s premier supplier of crude oil and is Luanda’s second largest consumer of oil – behind the US.

In March 2006 a new consortium Sonangol-Sinopec International, was unveiled, an enterprise jointly controlled by the state-owned oil company of Angola and China’s Sinopec.

Chinese companies have been at the forefront of Angola’s reconstruction bonanza.

A new airport is being built at Viana, just outside the capital, Luanda, one-third financed by the government, the rest by Chinese interests.

Emerging from the rubble of the Cold War is a formidable China, now rebuilding in a $300 million deal the war-damaged Benguela railway, which stretches from the Democratic Republic to the coast.

Chinese loans have allowed Angola to forego funding from the International Monetary Fund – yet another blow to the pretensions of US imperialism.

Oil has fueled US imperialism, but the question Washington must face now is that world oilfields are only just meeting demand and are being drained faster than new production can be brought on line.

And this is occurring as China presents an ever more stiff challenge to the hegemony of US imperialism.

This provides African nations with a more than viable alternative and makes them less prone to docilely accept the routine bullying of Washington.

The relative decline of US imperialism – the locomotive of world imperialism – may be so significant that it will be unable to arrest the rising of Africa in league with China.

US imperialism and British neo-colonialism, who owe their present elevated status to the plunder of Africa, should be in the forefront of aiding the rise of this continent.

Instead, they abdicate their responsibility in favor of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and therefore create a huge opening for China to ride to the rescue.

Of course, given the importance of African oil, it would be a mistake to assume that US imperialism has ruled out the possibility of military intervention in Africa itself – though one could easily imagine that the presence in their ranks of African Americans may give Washington pause.

http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_arc...3/3616088.html

[Eyes Only (POL)]

I pacifisti sono un movimento contro la guerra. E in tibet non c'è nessuna guerra. Solo una repressione violenta. Che tecnicamente non è una guerra, ma in pratica non c'è molta differenza. Per questo non sono mai stato molto d'accordo coi pacifisti. Ma tecnicamente non c'è alcuna guerra contro la quale manifestare. Così come i pacifisti non fanno manifestazioni, che so, per la questione Israele-Palestina.